Alachua County, Florida
Energy Conservation Strategies
i i DR
1.5 inch
l o go
C
M
A
Y
B
R
E
M
O
V
E
T
H
E
IC
P
T
U
R
E
RF
M
O
B
E
H
T
A
DG
IN
?
S
O
N
E
R
om
m
oAFT
W
asteand
October22,2008
EnergyI
m
plicatons
Report
-n
Contents
Key Terms
v
4 Waste and Energy Implications
1
4.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management ..............................................................................
4.1.1 Summary of Recommendations .........................................................................
4.1.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................
4.1.3 Management Options for Minimizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................
4.1.4 Recycling ...........................................................................................................
4.1.5 Commercial and Multifamily Recycling ............................................................. 14
4.2 Waste-to-Wealth............................................................................................................ 23
4.2.1 Recycling Market Development Zones (RMDZs) .............................................. 24
4.2.2 Potential Products for the RMDZ ...................................................................... 28
4.2.3 Re-use .............................................................................................................. 29
4.2.4 Zero Waste ....................................................................................................... 34
4.2.5 Local Work Toward Zero Waste ....................................................................... 38
4.3 Municipal Solid Waste is not a Sustainable Fuel .......................................................... 39
4.4 Biosolids ....................................................................................................................... 43
4.4.1 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................... 43
4.4.2 Definitions and Process Description ................................................................. 44
4.4.3 Management of Biosolids in Alachua County ................................................... 46
4.4.4 Pharma-Pollution in Drinking Water ................................................................. 49
4.4.5 Producing Class A or Class AA Biosolids .......................................................... 51
4.4.6 Energy Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion ........................................................... 55
4.4.7 Biosolids as Plant Nutrients ............................................................................. 56
4.4.8 Incineration (burning) ...................................................................................... 58
Bibliography
1
1
3
5
11
59
List of Tables
4.1 The Biggest Bang for the Buck ..........................................................................................
4.2 Components of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. (per year) ..............................................
4.3 Net GHG Emissions from Source Reduction and MSW Management Options (MTCE/Ton) a 8
4.4 Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs .......................................... 17
4.5 Useful Products Made From Recycled or Scrap Material .................................................. 39
4.6 Energy Required Using Recycled and Virgin Content vs WTE † .............................................................. 40
4.7 Wastewater Processing: Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion ............................................... 45
4.8 Global Warming Potentials of Greenhouse Gases (IPCC 4) .............................................. 46
4.9 Why Incinerating Biosolids Does Not Generate Electricity † ............................................................................... 58
2
6
List of Figures
4.1 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste †in the United States (2006) .....................................
5
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Example Yard Waste Flier from Seattle ..............................................................................
Example Yard Waste Flier from Seattle ............................................................................. 10
Wages In Recycling and Waste-Handling Industry .......................................................... 24
Reuser Building, Inc., Gainesville, Florida ........................................................................ 33
Materials Flow Diagrams .................................................................................................. 35
(a)
Current Materials Lifecycle ............................................................................... 35
(b)
Ideal Materials Lifecylcle .................................................................................. 35
4.7 Nitrate Testing at Whistling Pines Ranch, 2007 ............................................................... 50
4.8 Example Wastewater Treatment Process ......................................................................... 52
4.9 An Example of Aerobic Digestion of Wastewater ............................................................. 55
4.10 Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Tanks ............................................................................ 56
9
Text Boxes
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Florida Restrictions on Packaging ......................................................................................
JEA’s Class AA Fertilizer from Biosolids ............................................................................ 48
Anaerobic Digestion .......................................................................................................... 53
Class A versus Class B Biosolids ....................................................................................... 54
Estimated Carbon Impact of Hauling Sludge for Landspreading. .................................... 57
4
Key Terms
agronomic uptake The amount of nutrients that a plants can absorb from a given area of land. Plants
use the nutrients to grow, but if more fertilizer is applied to the land than can be absorbed, the
excess could pollute surface water or well water.
biogenic A substance that is produced by living organisms. Biogenic carbon is carbon that has
recently been taken (mostly) from the atmosphere by plants or other organisms. This type of
carbon is sustainable because carbon levels in the atmosphere can be returned to normal when the
plants regrow.
BTU British thermal units. The amount of energy required to heat 1 pound of water from 64 °F to 65 °F.
It is equal to approximately 0.29 watt-hours.
carbon equivalent The amount of carbon that would have the same global warming potential as
another gas. This can be calculated by finding the global warming potential of the gas and
multiplying by 12/44 to convert carbon dioxide equivalents to carbon equivalents. For example, the
global warming potential (over 100 years) of 1 pound of methane is approximately 25, meaning
that it would produce a warming of the atmosphere as much as about 25 pounds of carbon
dioxide. The carbon equivalent would be 25 x 12/44 = 6.818.
carbon sequestration The capture of carbon dioxide so that it is no longer in gaseous form. The
carbon dioxide gas can be dissolved in a liquid or combined with other chemicals so that it is in
liquid or solid state. The use of carbon dioxide by plants is a form of carbon sequestration
because the carbon is converted into plant material. Similar types of sequestration can be
conducted for other greenhouse gases.
diversion Diversion of materials from disposal so that they can be recycled, reused, or composted.
dry-stream The component of the solid waste stream that contains dry recyclables such as paper,
cardboard, glass, cans, and plastics, but does not contain food waste, yard waste, animal
manures, or other substances that contain water.
EPA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
GHG Greenhouse gas. These are gases that contribute to the warming o f the atmosphere. The
primary anthropogenic GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide.
GRU Gainesville Regional Utilities.
ILSR Institute for Local Self-Reliance. An institute dedicated to environmentally sound community
development. According to Dr. Neil Seldman, their president, their motto is “We solve
environmental problems by starting businesses.” Dr. Neil Seldman made a presentation to the
ECSC in February, 2008. Their home page is http :/ /www. i lsr . org/.
v
LBEP Leveda Brown Environmental Park (LBEP). A center near Waldo Road not far from
Gainesville that serves as a transfer station and includes facilities for recycling and household
hazardous waste.
megawatt 1 million watts. The amount of electricity needed to power 10,000 lightbulbs that are 100
watts each or enough to power 700 homes. For comparison, the total capacity of GRU
generatiion facilities was reported as 611 megawatts in the GRU 2005-2006 Annual Statement.
metric ton A metric unit of mass equalling 1,000 kilograms, also called a long ton. Similar to but not
exactly the same as a short ton, which is 2,000 pounds.
MSW Municipal Solid Waste. The stream of discarded materials from residential and commercial (but
not industrial) sources. MSW is often placed in landfills and is sometimes incinerated.
pay-as-you-throw A municipal waste program by which residents pay based on the amount of refuse
that they discard. By paying for disposal of refuse, residents are encouraged to recycle, which is
free.
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) A class of organic compounds that include one or more chlorine
atoms and are considered very toxic. They were used to make coatings for wires and were used
as additives in pesticides, adhesives and other compounds.
RFP Request for Proposal. A request that can be issued by governments or private businesses that asks
other companies to provide plans for fulfilling the requirements described in the document. RFPs can
be issued to collect proposals for the construction of buildings, construction of equipment,
installation of software systems, management of service operations, or other such things.
RFQ Request for Qualifications. A request that can be issued by governments or private businesses that
asks other companies to provide a description of their expertise that could be used to perform
a complex task, build something, or otherwise fulfill the requirements of an RFP.
RMDZ Recycling Market Development Zone. An expanded recycling center built around a recycling
transfer station and where private businesses who use those materials are also located. The
businesses might make products from recycled plastic, glass, metal or other such materials. There
might also be an area where these products are sold. The Development Zones would attract
businesses because the zones would offer some type of tax discount or other such offering.
Another possibility would be that the site would house a renewable energy generating station (such
as solar) that would allow RMDZ businesses to market their products as being made from
recycled materials and 100% renewable energy.
SCF Standard Cubic Feet. A measure of volume equal to the space occupied by a cube that has edges
of 1 foot each.
SFC Santa Fe College (formerly Santa Fe Community College). A college in north-west Gainesville that
serves Alachua County and the surrounding area.
short ton A mass of 2,000 pounds, also called a simply a ton. Similar to but not exactly the same as a
metric tonne, which is 1,000 kilograms or 2,200 pounds. This document will use the phrase short ton
to mean 2,000 pounds to avoid confusion with a metric ton.
UF University of Florida.
volatile solids Solid components of sewage sludge that would be lost on ignition of the dry material at
550 C. Volatile solids would include lipids (fats), proteins, carbhohydrates, and some household
cleaners and chemicals. Volatile solids are also a rough indicator of the amount of methane that
can be produced during anaerobic digestion.
wet-stream The organic components of the municipal solid waste stream that include food waste, yard
waste, animal manures, and other substances that contain water.
Whistling Pines Ranch A farm near Archer where GRU spreads Class B biosolids (processed sewage
sludged). The biosolids serve as a fertilizer for the farm, which grows food for animals.
WTE Waste To Energy. The conversion of waste materials to energy. These operations can be
conducted at waste-to-energy facility that convert either biomass or garbage into energy. There is
risk that these facilities will burn items that cause air pollution.
zero waste “Zero Waste is a goal that is both pragmatic and visionary, to guide people to emulate
sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are resources for others to use. Zero
Waste means designing and managing products and processes to reduce the volume and
toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them.
Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that may be a
threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health” (defnition from http :
//www.zwia.org/standards.html).
GreenEdge fertilizer produced from anaerobic digestion of municipal wastewater from Jacksonville Electric Authority. (Photo by Penny Wheat)
4.
W ast e an d En er gy
Imp
l cations
i
4.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management
To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land
instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in
undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we
ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.
Theodore Roosevelt, Seventh Annual Message, December 3, 1907
4.1 .1 Summary of Recommendations 4 . 1 . 1 . 1
Primary Recommendations
Achieve 75% diversion of materials from disposal through just these
three primary recommendations.
1. Three-stream collection: source separate all municipal solid
waste, both residential and commercial, into: “dry stream” recyclable materials, “wet-stream” biodegradable materials, and
other materials.
2. Expanded MRF: expand the materials recovery facility (MRF) at
Leveda Brown Environmental Park, or other suitable location, as
needed to process recovered recyclable materials.
3. Digestion of biodegradables: develop a facility for managing the
biodegradable portion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) through
either anaerobic digestion (for producing methane) or through
composting. Materials to be processed separately or in the same
facility could include wet-stream MSW, non-woody yard waste,
food wastes from sources such as institutions, grocery stores and
Revise the Comprehensive
Plan to establish a goal for
Alachua County (including
its municipalities) of 75%
diversion rate by 2020.
n
4-2
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Table 4.1 The Biggest Bang for the Buck
Diversion of 75% of waste from disposal would provide the biggest bang for the buck of all actions that
the community might take short of giving up cars and air conditioning! Benefits would be:
1. reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 200 million pounds per year. This is the equivalent of either
a) the power saved by 2,000,000 compact fluorescent lamps, or
b) 20,000 cars taken off the road.
2. create up to 1,500 jobs in waste-based industries
3. save $4.9 million in disposal costs
4. Anaerobic composting of wet-stream waste would produce up to 10 megawatts of green, renewable
power worth $8 million per year, offsetting another 180 million pounds per year of carbon dioxide
emissions.
restaurants, and sewage sludge. Discourage yard waste pickup
by charging an additional fee for such service.
4 . 1 .1 . 2 S e co nd a r y R ec om me n da t io ns
R e c yc l i n g R a t e s i n Al a c h u a
Count y
Newspapers
Glass
Aluminum
Cans
Plastic Bottles
Steel Cans
41
50
14
22
11
Source: Table 6B from Recycling: 2005 Solid
4. Submit a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to obtain technical
advice on details of anaerobic and aerobic composting of organic
components of MSW and sewage sludge and proceed to implement one or both of these technologies (necessary before source
separation of organics can begin). Issue a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for construction and operation of such a facility. Appoint a
citizens’ committee with technical expertise, to provide input in
this process.
5. Strengthen commercial recycling ordinances and vigorously
enforce them (see Section 4.1.5 on page 14).
Waste Annual Report Data by FDEP. Retrieved
from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/
categories/recycling/pages/05_data.htm
6. Promote the location of waste-based industries near the Leveda
Brown Environmental Park (LBEP) to make useful products from
recycled materials. Direct economic-development efforts of local
governments and agencies so that they support toward
establishing waste-based industries.
n
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
7. Enact a county-wide ordinance prohibiting disposal of a list of
recyclable materials.
8. Develop a joint Gainesville-Alachua County program to make
beneficial use of byproducts of anaerobic digestion: to grow plants
for landscaping, use in landscaping public places, growing trees such
as in Balu Forest or elsewhere, make available for use by the public
either for free or for sale through a third party.
9. Promote increased use of products with recycled content.
10. Promote purchases of durable goods rather than one-use, throwaway ones.
11. Promote enactment of beverage container deposit legislation
(bottle bill).
12. Provide input by local officials and interested citizens to the
Department of Environmental Protection on possible new regulations of packaging and disposable bags. Promote the ability of
local governments to enact more stringent regulations if they choose
to do so.
13. Develop and test enhanced communication techniques at apartment buildings that are found to be noncompliant with recycling
ordinances (see page 4-18).
14. As an incentive for recycling, businesses should receive carbon
credits for materials that they divert from landfills (see page 4- 19).
1. Promote a state law banning open burning of household waste.
2. Establish a goal for Alachua County (including its municipalities) to attain a diversion from disposal of 55% by 2013, increasing to 75% by 2020, consistent with FS 403.7032.2. The
ultimate goal is “zero waste” (considered to be 90% diversion or
better) by 2025, with the County managing all its waste within its
borders.
3. At the end of the New River Landfill contract on December 31,
2018, Alachua County will no longer send waste out of the
County. Materials for recycling are excluded.
4.1.2 Introduction
Management of municipal solid waste (MSW) is an important environmental challenge for communities throughout the world. How it is
managed has a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions and
Management options for
minimizing greenhouse gas
emissions (in prioritized order):
1. source reduction,
2. recycling,
3. composting (or
anaerobic digestion),
4. landfilling with gas
recovery and electric
generation,
5. combustion, and
6. landfilling without gas
recovery.
n
4-4
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Text Box 4.1 Florida Restrictions on Packaging
“The Legislature finds that prudent regulation of recyclable materials is crucial to the ongoing welfare of
Florida’s ecology and economy. As such, the Department of Environmental Protection shall undertake an
analysis of the need for new or different regulation of auxiliary containers, wrappings, or disposable plastic
bags used by consumers to carry products from retail establishments. The analysis shall include input from
state and local government agencies, stakeholders, private businesses, and citizens, and shall evaluate the
efficacy and necessity of both statewide and local regulation of these materials. To ensure consistent and
effective implementation, the department shall submit a report with conclusions and recommendations to the
Legislature no later than February 1, 2010. Until such time that the Legislature adopts the recommendations
of the department, no local government, local governmental agency, or state government agency may enact
any rule, regulation, or ordinance regarding use, disposition, sale, prohibition, restriction, or tax of such
auxiliary containers, wrappings, or disposable plastic bags.”
Source: Florida Statutes, Section 403.7033
The good news is that such
high diversion rates are being
achieved elsewhere by the
approach recommended in this
report, e.g. San Francisco [5].
What’s more, it takes no
personal sacrifice, just putting
trash into the appropriate
container. It is literally a
no-brainer!
energy consumed, and, thus, on climate change [1]. An EPA study [2]
ranks management options for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in
the order: (a) source reduction, (b) recycling, (c) composting (or
anaerobic digestion), (d) landfilling with gas recovery and electric generation, (e) combustion, and (f) landfilling without gas recovery. No
single one of these options is appropriate for managing the entire waste
stream. This report and the three primary recommendations address
how 75% diversion can be achieved primarily through (1) increasing
recycling, and (2) managing organic waste through composting (aerobic
or anaerobic). The additional secondary recommendations support the
three primary ones.
An important feature is waste-based industries, which provide
outlets for the re-use of waste that can add significantly to economic
development in the community. After briefly describing current management of waste in the County, information to support the recommendations is provided.
Currently, Alachua County produces about 800 short tons per day
(t/d) [3], of which 32% is recycled, mostly through the Leveda Brown
Environmental Park. The remaining 68% is shipped to New River
Landfill (Union County) where the disposal fee is $28.22 per short ton
[based on internal documents from the Division of Waste Management
and from 4]. Adding the hauling cost (continually rising because of fuel
cost), brings the total disposal cost to about $39 per short ton, for an
annual cost of about $7.8 million.
Yard waste of about 4,200 short tons per year is taken to Wood
Resource Recovery (WRR) located on Highway 121 just north of its
intersection with US 441 where it is either chipped for fuel or
composted. The annual disposal cost at WRR is about $94,500.
There are two main improvements that must be made in the current
program in order to achieve 75% diversion. These are: 1) recycling in
the commercial sector (that includes multi-family residences), for
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
n
Figure 4.1 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste †in the United States (2006)
†
Percentages by weight excluding construction debris and demolition debris.
Source: Figure 5 from Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United
States: Facts and Figures for 2006, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
which, ironically, recycling is low despite its being mandatory, and 2)
composting (anaerobic or aerobic) the organic fraction of the waste
consisting of food, soiled paper, etc. that is currently being landfilled.
Mandatory source-separation by all waste generators into three
streams: recyclables (that can be further separated as is currently done in
curbside collection), biodegradables, and trash will be essential in order
to reach 75% diversion.
The good news is that such high diversion rates are being achieved
elsewhere by the approach recommended in this report, e.g. San
Francisco [5]. What’s more, it takes no personal sacrifice, just putting
trash into the appropriate container. It is literally a no-brainer!
4.1.3 Management Options for Minimizing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Management of municipal solid waste (MSW) is an important environmental challenge for communities throughout the world. How it is
managed has a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions and
energy consumed, and, thus, on climate change [6]. Previously, the
Energy Conservation Strategies Commission approved a motion to use
the EPA report [6], “Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases
(3rd edition, 2007)” (SWMGHG) that applies life-cycle analysis of
greenhouse gas emissions for various management options of the
components of MSW in order to meet ECSC’s charge to identify ways to
reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions [see 6]. This
report provides details of how this can be accomplished through
reduction, re-use, recycling and composting (RRRC) that will come to life
by applying the Primary Recommendations for this section (see page
4-1).
Materials included in the EPA life-cycle analysis, which are typical
of waste characterization studies, are shown in Table 4.2. These
Section 403.7032,
Florida Statutes (excerpt)
By the year 2020, the
long-term goal for the
recycling efforts of state
and local governmental
entities, private companies
and organizations, and the
general public is to reduce
the amount of recyclable
solid waste disposed of in
waste management
facilities, landfills, or
incineration facilities by a
statewide average of at
least 75%. However, any
solid waste used for the
production of ren e wable
energ y shall count toward
the long term recycling goal
as set forth in this section.
n
4-6
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Table 4.2 Components of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. (per year)
Generation and Recovery of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste, 2006
(in millions of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Material
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Weight Recovered
Weight Generated
85.3
44.0
13.2
2.88
Recovery as
a Percent of
Generation
51.6%
21.8%
Metals
Steel
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metals*
Total metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Other materials
Total materials in products
14.2
3.26
1.65
19.1
29.5
6.54
11.8
13.9
4.55
184.0
5.08
0.69
1.18
6.95
2.04
0.87
1.81
1.31
1.13
61.0
35.7%
21.2%
71.5%
36.3%
6.9%
13.3%
15.3%
9.4%
24.8%
33.2%
31.3
32.4
3.72
67.4
0.68
20.1
0
20.8
2.2%
62.0%
0
30.8%
251.3
81.8
32.5%
Other Wastes
Food, other**
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total other wastes
Total Municipal Solid Waste
Source: Table 1 from Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and
Figures for 2006 by the U.S. EPA. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/garbage/pubs/msw06.pdf Includes
waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
* Includes lead from lead-acid-batteries.
** Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
n
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
materials constitute about 65% of a typical waste stream. Other characterization studies such as that in Figure 4.1 are available that typically has
the total of all components adding to 100% (except for rounding errors)
[1]. In reality, unless the characterization of the waste stream is highly
inaccurate, the implications for management are not greatly affected.
The different management options considered by EPA are: source
reduction, recycling (including re-use), composting, combustion, and
landfilling. Significantly, anaerobic digestion, an increasingly important
option for certain biodegradable components to produce methane for fuel
and digested solids for fertilizer was not included. Instead, the EPA
referred to Environment Canada for data on anaerobic digestion, which
we use in this report [7]. The results of the EPA analysis for greenhouse
gas emissions for management of the different components of MSW by
these options are given in Table 4.3.
In this analysis, the EPA uses the convention that negative numbers
indicate less emissions, while positive ones indicate more emissions.
Thus, the management options that provides the largest (smallest in the
algebraic sense) negative number is preferable. An important point to note
in connection with source reduction is that initial production of products
assumes using the current mix of virgin and recycles inputs. If recycling
rates increase, thereby increasing the proportion of recycled material in
the inputs, source reduction would have an even more favorable score,
particularly for aluminum.
As footnote (a) in Table 4.3 states, the numbers in the table are metric
tons (2,200 pounds) of carbon equivalent per short ton of material, where
carbon equivalent means the quantity of a given gas that would have the
same global warming effect as carbon. (Note: carbon dioxide equivalent
is sometimes used that is related to carbon equivalent by the ratio of the
molecular weights, 12/44, carbon-12, and carbon dioxide-44).
Based on these results and other benefits discussed in this report,
management options for minimizing greenhouse gas emissions are in the
following priority order: (a) source reduction, (b) recycling, (c)
composting (or anaerobic digestion), (d) landfilling with gas recovery and
electric generation, (e) combustion, and (f) landfilling without gas
recovery. The recommended management options are in priority order:
source reduction, re-use, recycling, and biological decomposition (by
anaerobic digestion or composting) of biodegradable materials not
included in the other options. The goal is to achieve “zero waste,” (i.e.
the quantity of waste that must be disposed shall be no more than 10%
by 2025). Workable plans for achieving this goal, based on
recommendations in this report, should be developed and adopted in
Comprehensive Plans.
4-7
n
4-8
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Table 4.3 Net GHG Emissions from Source Reduction and MSW Management Options (MTCE/Ton) a
Material
Aluminum Cans
Steel Cans
Copper Wire
Glass
HDPE
LDPE
PET
Corrugated Cardboard
Magazines/Third-class Mail
Newspaper
Office Paper
Phonebooks
Textbooks
Dimensional Lumber
Medium-density Fiberboard
Food Discards
Yard Trimmings
Mixed Paper
Broad Definition
Residential Definition
Office Paper Definition
Mixed Metals
Mixed Plastics
Mixed Recyclables
Mixed Organics
Mixed MSW as Disposed
Carpet
Personal Computers
Clay Bricks
Concrete
Fly Ash
Tires
Source
Reductionb
-2.24
-0.87
-2.00
-0.16
-0.49
-0.62
-0.57
-1.52
-2.36
-1.33
-2.18
-1.72
-2.50
-0.55
-0.60
NA
NA
Recycling
-3.70
-0.49
-1.34
-0.08
-0.38
-0.46
-0.42
-0.85
-0.84
-0.76
-0.78
-0.72
-0.85
-0.67
-0.67
NA
NA
Composting
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.05
-0.05
Combustion c
0.02
-0.42
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.30
-0.18
-0.13
-0.20
-0.17
-0.20
-0.17
-0.21
-0.21
-0.05
-0.06
Landfilling d
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
-0.08
-0.24
0.53
-0.24
0.53
-0.13
-0.13
0.20
-0.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-1.09
-15.13
-0.08
NA
NA
-1.09
-0.96
-0.96
-0.93
-1.43
-0.41
-0.79
NA
NA
-1.96
-0.62
NA
0.00
-0.24
-0.50e
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.18
-0.18
-0.16
-0.29
0.27
-0.17
-0.05
-0.03
0.11
-0.05
NA
NA
NA
0.05
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Note that totals might not add due to rounding, and more digits might be displayed than NA:are significant.
Not applicable, or in the case of composting of paper, not analyzed.
a MTCE/ton: metric tons of carbon equivalent per short short ton of material. Material tonnages are on an as-managed (wet weight) basis.
b
Source reduction assumes initial production using the current mix of virgin and recycled inputs.
c Values are for mass burn facilities with national average rate of ferrous recovery.
d
Values reflect estimated national average CH4 recovery in year 2003.
e
Recycling of tires, as modeled in this analysis, consists only of retreading the tires.
Source: Exhibit ES-4 of Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases, A Life-Cycle of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd edition, 2006. Retrieved from
http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf.
n
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
4-9
Figure 4.2 Example Yard Waste Flier from Seattle
Example flier for Seattle’s residential yard waste and composting program. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/6yrsg2
n
4-10
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Figure 4.3 Example Yard Waste Flier from Seattle
Example flier for Seattle’s residential yard waste and composting program. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/6yrsg2
n4.
1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
4 . 1 .3 . 1 S o u rc e R e du c ti on
Just as we Americans are among the top
producers of greenhouse gases, we also
are among the highest producers of
waste [8]. It has nothing to do with
standard of living; several countries
with comparable gross national
product per person produce much
smaller quantities of waste. It is this
simple: don’t acquire things that you
do not need and there are neither
greenhouse gas emissions nor Ways to Increase Recycling Rates
energy consumed.
As Table 4.3 indicates, source
reduction is the most effective man- from RECYCLING: Adagement option for MSW for reducing ditional Efforts Could
greenhouse gas emissions and energy Increase Municipal Recyconsumption (except for the case of cling by the Government
aluminum in Table 4.3). Some Accountability Office,
materials such as plastic bags, retrieved from http :
unnecessary packaging, such as //www.gao.gov/new.
polystyrene (Styrofoam) trays, bubble i t e m s / d 0 7 3 7 . p d f
packs, etc. should be banned or heavily
taxed to discourage their use.  Make recycling conveHowever, State government pre- nient and easy for their
emption of local governments’ ability residents.
to regulate products limits what can
be done at the local level. Newly  Offer financial incenenacted
legislation
addresses tives for recycling.
packaging waste. The Department of
Environmental Regulations is to  Conduct public educaanalyze the need for new regulations, tion and outreach.
and make a report to the legislature
by February 1, 2010. It is
 Target a wide range of
recommended that local officials and
materials for recycling.
interested citizens make input in this
process.
An effective way for local
governments to discourage waste
generation is by using an aggressive
pay-as-you-throw rate structure.
Payas-you-throw is the terminology
used to describe waste collection rates
based on the quantity of waste to be
collected. Currently, the rate for a 96
gallon container is only about twice
that of the smallest 20 gallon
container. A better rate structure would make disposal of the contents of a
n4-12
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
96 gallon container much more expensive than that of a 20 gallon
container.. This could be enhanced by continuing the current arrangement of charging customers only for the amount of waste placed in the
trash cart, with no charge for separated materials for recycling or
wet-stream waste for anaerobic digestion or composting.
An education campaign to discourage acquisition of unneeded items
should be implemented. Some reports suggest that 99% of the materials
that are harvested, mined, processed or transported are discarded within
6 months [9]. Overcoming the buy-buy-buy push by government agencies,
the President included, and businesses, especially during the holiday
shopping craze will take a concerted effort. Local governments can take
the lead by including educational “don’t buy it unless it is essential”
material in waste reduction programs.
4 . 1 . 4 R e c yc l i n g
Recycling 1 short ton of
aluminum cans instead of
sending them to a landfill
conserves about 207 million
British thermal units (BTUs)
which is equivalent to about 36
barrels of oil or 1,655 gallons
of gasoline.
As Table 4.3 indicates, recycling is almost as effective in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions as source reduction. In Alachua County, the
recycling rate was reported as 26% for 2001 [10], and 32% in 2005 [4]. In
order to be as effective as possible in reducing greenhouse gases and
conserving energy, clearly the recycling rate must be much higher.
Areas for improvement include: 1) institute mandatory residential
recycling as the logical counterpart to mandatory commercial recycling, 2)
collect more materials, 3) add source-separated wet-stream waste
collection (wet-stream waste refers to food waste, food-soiled paper,
grass clippings (see yard waste fliers from Seattle in Figures 4.2 and 4.3)
improvement of commercial recycling (that includes multi-family
housing).
The current mandatory City and County commercial recycling ordinances should be strengthened with adoption of three-stream collection and
a County-wide ordinance mandating separation of waste for the
appropriate stream. Suitable containers for each of the three streams
(recyclables might be collected in separate bins as is currently the case)
should be required for multi-family housing and for restaurants, and other
commercial establishments. Lists of acceptable and unacceptable items
for wet- and dry-stream collection should be provided by the County. The
County has recently hired its first enforcement personnel who will need
to be vigilant to bring commercial recycling to an acceptable rate. The
current waste reduction efforts are laudable and need to be expanded.
Recycling doesn’t just happen; it takes an ongoing concerted effort.
Recycling goals might seem unattainable, but cities around the world
have achieved high recycling rates. San Fransisco recycles 70% of its
recyclable material, and it is now aiming for 75% [5]. A report by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) [1 1] suggested that
municipalities could do several things to increase their recycling:
1. make recycling convenient and easy for their residents,
n4 . 1 . M u n i c i p a l S o l i d
WasteManagement
4-13
2. offer financial incentives for recycling,
3. conduct public education and outreach, and
4. target a wide range of materials for recycling.
The GAO also criticized some of the EPA’s programs for lacking
adequate performance measurements, and some programs that were
considered effective have received smaller budgets for the coming
years. One of their two primary recommendations for action was to
gather extensive performance data for the EPA’s existing recycling
programs. Another inference from their report is that measurement not
only helps municipalities track their progress, but it also might allow for
continued funding of effective programs.
The question of what can feasibly be recycled is best answered by
looking at other locations that have made recycling a priority. Perhaps the
top large city in the US for recycling is San Francisco with a rate of about
70% [5]. Seattle has a recycling rate for residential housing of about
65% and an overall rate of about 48% [12]. A common feature of these
programs that account for much of their success is the
The Benefits of Recycling
 Recycling protects and expands U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases U.S. competitiveness.
 Recycling reduces the need for landfilling and incineration.
 Recycling prevents pollution caused by the manufacturing of products from virgin materials.
 Recycling saves energy.
 Recycling decreases emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
 Recycling conserves natural resources such as timber, water, and minerals.
 Recycling helps sustain the environment for future generations.
Source: Puzzled About Recycling’s Value? Look Beyond the Bin, by the EPA, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/
recycle/benefits.pdf
collection of the wet-stream waste for either composting or anaerobic
digestion. In Alachua County, it is estimated that the wet-stream waste is
about 150 short tons per day out of about 800 short tons per day total
[personal communication from Karen Deeter]. Diversion of this waste
from disposal (landfilling or incineration) would increase the rate by
19% (150/800). The resources represented by this wet-stream waste when
processed for biogas and fertilizer by anaerobic digestion will be
discussed below.
n4-14
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
4.1.4.1 Three Waste-Stream Source Separation
Municipalities that are achieving high-diversion rates generally use
source-separation of waste into three streams: dry-stream recyclables
such as plastics, paper, glass, and metals; wet-stream biodegradable
waste such as food waste, soiled paper, paper products such as milk
and cereal cartons, and grass clippings; and non-recyclable,
non-biodegradable “trash.” Collection is usually with three carts in
which one cart (typically blue) is for conventional recycling of materials
such as plastics, paper, glass, and metals (that could be further separated
into bins such as are currently used here). Another cart (green) is for the
wet-stream biodegradable waste (see yard waste fliers from Seattle in
Figures 4.2 and 4.3), while the third one (black) is for non-recyclables
that are usually a small fraction of the total waste. Curbside collection in
Gainesville already employs three separate collection vehicles that
collect recyclables, yard waste, and garbage. Thus, implementing the
three-cart collection system would only require adjustment of what is
collected in each of the carts to match the three different waste streams.
Some locations use co-collection of two of the waste streams in the
same vehicle to reduce hauling cost. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 on pages 4-9 and
4-10 show the fliers used in Seattle to inform customers of what goes
into the wet-stream cart.
As is currently the case, the recyclable materials are taken to a
Materials Recycling Facility (Clean MRF) for sorting into the various
components for delivery to a facility for conversion into new products or
materials. In some communities, a single-stream waste collection is used
which is then taken to a dirty MRF for sorting recyclable materials and
biodegradable ones. The facilities do not have a good record of success
because recyclable materials tend to be contaminated by food and other wet
wastes and biodegradable waste tends to become contaminated by pieces
of plastic, glass, and other non-biodegradable items. Thus, materials
from dirty MRF’s are not easily marketed for further use because of
contamination of both the recyclables and the biodegradable material.
4. 1. 5 C om m erc i al an d Mu l t if am il y R ec yc l in g
Waste from this sector constitutes about 70% of the total waste stream in
the County [13]. Thus high rates of recycling in this sector are essentials
to achieve high overall recycling. Even if single-family residential
recycling were 100% and commercial recycling stayed near its present few
percent, the total would not exceed about 50%. In order to address this
problem and others associated with management of MSW, the County
should enact ordinances for the following (if they are not already in
existence):
1. A flow-control ordinance that directs all waste to be delivered to
facilities designated by the County for managing that particular
waste stream. The County ordinance that allows its environmental
regulations to preempt weaker ones of cities should provide the
basis for requiring managing waste in its facilities developed to
minimize adverse effects of waste disposal. Waste held for reuse
at private facilities would be exempt from flow control. If a
Source: Puzzled About Recycling’s Value? Look Beyond the
Bin,
by
the
EPA,
1998.
Retrieved
gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/benefits.txt
from
http://epa.
n
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
flow-control ordinance is not possible, the County and its
municipalities should enter into interlocal agreements to require
three-stream source separation of waste that is to be delivered to
County-operated waste facilities.
2. Create a landlord licensing ordinance (or use another enforceable
mechanism) and require all multi-family complexes to meet
recycling requirements. Create a mechanism to certify that
provisions of the commercial recycling ordinance are being met.
3. Enhanced recycling requirements linked to franchising of all
commercial waste haulers operating in the County with a requirement for certifying annually that provisions of the commercial
recycling ordinance are being met. On a random basis, codes
enforcement should inspect at least one load per month for each
waste hauler at any of
the facilities receiving
waste at the time it is
deposited
at
the
The ECS C recommends
facility. This would be
that all of the materials aca strong motivation to
cepted for recycling be recy-
waste
haulers
to
cled and that there should
prevail on their clients
be no exceptions for materials
to carry out the
that are only a small perrequired
source
centage of the customer’s
separation into the
waste stream.
three waste streams.
This is analogous to the
current practice of yard
waste haulers who do
not pick up non-compliant quantities of yard waste but leave a ticket
stating that it is not in compliance.
Ironically, both Alachua County and the City of Gainesville have
mandatory commercial (commercial includes multi-family residential)
recycling ordinances. Yet, commercial recycling rates are significantly
lower than those for single-family residences. In order to meet the
recently enacted state goal of 75% diversion, and to realize the energy
savings and reduction in greenhouse gases that improved recycling will
provide, it is essential that commercial and multi-family recycling rates
be improved dramatically. This will require substantial changes in the
mandatory commercial recycling ordinances of the City and County,
and, especially, improvements in the way in which they are
administered.
4 . 1 .5 . 1 Ma t e ri a ls to be re c ycl e d
The current City and County ordinances for commercial recycling
require that only a few items be recycled. The ECSC recommends that all
n4-16
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
of the materials accepted for recycling be recycled and that there should
be no exceptions for materials that are only a small percentage of the
customer’s waste stream. Any recycling costs that are less than the cost of
disposal produces an immediate gain. Expansion of mandatory recycling
was proposed with the understanding that the County might need to
take steps to increase the demand for these materials. One of these
demand-side measures is the development of the Recycling Market
Development Zone (RMDZ) where recycled materials can be made into
new products. Another demand-side measure is development of reuse,
such as thrift stores and building deconstruction and direct reuse of the
materials collected during recycling (i.e., reusing a bottle as a bottle or
as a component in another product).
Businesses and multi-family
complexes that do not want to
separate all waste into the
three streams could pay the
full cost of sorting the materials
in a dirty MRF processing
line that could be built at
LBEP.
The County should enact a county-wide ordinance requiring
source-separation of recyclables and biodegradables. While the City and
County already have mandatory commercial recycling ordinances, some
argue against mandatory recycling as if it were somehow Un-American
to tell people what they must do with their trash. However, in our society
there are many mandatory regulations that are necessary for an orderly
society. One is mandatory participation in collection of municipal solid
waste throughout the City and much of the County. Without mandatory
participation, dumping waste into woods and other out-of-the-way places
could be a big problem. Other examples of mandatory ordinances and
laws in our society are speed laws, seatbelt laws, child seats in autos,
no-smoking in various places (including only recently in planes and
restaurants). One person’s trash, thrown in
a landfill rather than recycled, results in the production of greenhouse
gases that affect our whole society. Unfortunately, voluntary programs do
not achieve the high diversion rates needed to reduce greenhouse gases
to the level required to protect the planet [1].
An EPA study [14] of multi-family recycling lists the characteristics of
successful programs shown in the Table 4.4. It should be noted that 90%
of high-diversion programs have mandatory participation, as does Alachua
County and the City, and that 82% include many more commodities for
recycling than just three out of eight in the current County ordinance.
The benefits of high-diversion rates in the notes at the bottom of the
table provide some interesting insight. These include lower unit costs for
recycling, decreased waste disposed and a reduction in waste
generation.
Revisions to our current ordinance (County) are in the process which
will include mandatory recycling of all recyclable commodities which
constitute greater than 10% of a business’ waste stream.
The current mandatory ordinances require recycling only a few of the
items being recycled at LBEP. Because the objective is to achieve 75%
diversion of waste, there is no basis for requiring recycling of only a sub-set
of recyclable items nor for allowing exclusions for materials less than
10% of a businesses waste stream. Doing so complicates checking
compliance when recyclables are found in non-recyclable trash and
would be the Achilles heel for the zero-waste objectives. It is confusing to
waste generators who have to decide if particular items are being recycled
by their housing complex or commercial establishment. Recycling
everything on the list of recyclables is the simplest approach and is not
burdensome. It is simple enough to place all recyclable items in recycling
containers that businesses and multi-family residential complexes will
be required to make as convenient as placing trash in the non-recyclable
bins. Businesses and multi-family complexes that do not want to separate
all waste into the three streams could pay the full cost of sorting the
materials in a dirty MRF processing line that could be built at LBEP.
4.1.5.2 Responsibilities of Property Managers
Responsibility for implementing the requirements of recycling in multifamily housing (rental or Condo) must be placed in the hands of
property managers. A newly-required licensing agreement (see item #2
on page 4-14 about landlord licensing) between managers and the County
should have a section on recycling that licensees must sign stating that
they understand and will enforce the provisions of the recycling
ordinance. Mangers, or other responsible persons, should be required to
certify that the complex has the necessary containers for collecting the
three waste streams, that recycling and organic waste containers are as
convenient for residents as trash containers, that appropriate signs and
posters (approved by the County or supplied
n
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
4-17
Table 4.4 Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs
Program
Element
What Happens In High-Diversion Communities?
Conduct recycling through a private firm under contract or
Management exclusive franchise to local government.
Collect multifamily recyclables on the same routes as single
Collection
family recyclables, using the same truck and crew.
Ensure compliance through mandatory participation, with
Participation
sanctions available to local governments for enforcement. Include
more recycled commodities: mixed waste paper, cardboard,
Commodities magazines, and phone books in addition to newspaper, glass,
plastics, and steel and aluminum cans.
Provide container with capacity of at least 90 gallons. Col lect
Containers
materials in sets of containers, with one set per 15–20
households and two to three containers in the average set. Charge
monthly flat fee (usually $2 or more) to units for recycling.
Fees
Charge variable fee for refuse (reduced solid waste fee as more
materials are diverted to recycling). Average fee is lower in
high-diversion communities.
Source: ES Table 3 from Multifamily Recycling: A National Study by the EPA, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/multifamily.pdf
Percentage of
High-Diversion
Communities With This
Practice
82% of
group
61% of
group
90% of
group
82% of
group
high-diversion
high-diversion
high-diversion
high-diversion
64% of high- and
medium-diversion groups
nn4-18
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
ECSC recommends that the
Division of Waste Management develop and test enhanced communication techniques at apartment buildings
that are found to be
noncompliant with recycling
ordinances.
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
4-19
in electronic form) are posted prominently in waste collection areas, and
that renters or owners of condos have been supplied with County
approved brochures giving details of what they are required to do.
As noted in the EPA study [14], communities play varied roles in
enforcing multi-family recycling regulations. With less enforcement activities, diversion rates are low (just as Alachua County and Gainesville
have experienced). High-diversion rates require enforcement actions
such as fines, liens, or other sanctions against rule breakers. In one
situation, fines against complexes that do not recycle properly ranged
from $100 for complexes up to 25 units to $300 for complexes with 101
units or more. Extensive education programs have been used, including
increased designated contacts at each complex and requiring complexes
to have a trained recycling captain. Leases should have a clause that the
renter signs saying that they understand and will comply with recycling
ordinances.
For both the multi-family and commercial sectors, more oversight by
City and County officials (more codes inspectors) to assure compliance
with recycling ordinances is essential. In order to fund personnel for
enforcement activities, a surcharge should be added to commercial
accounts.
The ECSC recommends an immediate change to the penalty for
noncompliance of recycling laws at commercial buildings and multiunit
residential buildings. For buildings that fail to comply after three
warnings, the customer will be required to post signage, at their own
expense, to notify residents or employees of the noncompliance and to
explain the instructions for recycling. The signage material will be
made available to violators in electronic form and they will be
responsible for having them printed according to the standards set by the
County. The standards might allow for several formats including a
pedestal sign, large signs attached to garbage bins or recycling bins, or
signs conspicuously attached to fencing that surrounds garbage bins or
recycling bins.
In addition to enforcing revised recycling ordinances, the Division of
Waste Management should develop and test enhanced communication
techniques at half of the apartment buildings that are found to be
noncompliant with recycling ordinances (perhaps not exceeding 15
apartment complexes or applying the most costly techniques only at 10
complexes). The techniques can be chosen by the Division of Waste
Management from among of suite of possibilities that might include
posting pedestal signs in front of garbage bins to inform residents of
noncompliance and to inform them how to recycle properly, hanging
notices on the doorknobs of every resident at noncompliant apartment
complexes, sending notice in the mail to residents explaining the violation and providing instructions, posting large signs on recycling bins
and garbage bins explaining how to recycle, talking to apartment
managers to encourage compliance, providing each existing and each
new tenant with a flier about proper recycling and a notice about the
prior violations. The gap between current recycling rates and the goal of
n4-20
Florida Statute 403.706
(c) Local governments are
encouraged to separate all
plastics, metal, and all
grades of paper for
recycling prior to final
disposal and are further
encouraged to recycle yard
trash and other
mechanically treated
solid waste into compost
available for agricultural
and other acceptable
u s e s . . . .
(d) By July 1, 2010, each
county shall develop
and implement a plan to
achieve a goal to compost
organic materials that
would otherwise be
disposed of in a landfill.... The composting plan
is encouraged to address
partnership with the private
sector.
(e) Each county is encouraged to consider
plans for mulching organic materials that would
otherwise be disposed of
in a landfill. The mulching
plans are encouraged to
address partnership with
the private sector.
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
75% recycling is great at these noncompliant locations, and the
measures needed to attain the goal might not be simple or inexpensive.
The Office of Waste Alternatives is in the process of putting together
multi-family tool kit for successful diversion programs which includes
templates for signage, lease agreements, fliers, web-based info as well
as a pilot project to test the feasibility of a reusable recycling bag
program. They are expecting to implement these tool kits fully by the
fall of 2008.
Compliance with recycling requirements by commercial establishments such as restaurants, bars, hotels, stores, etc. should be relatively
easy compared with multi-family residences. Informing businesses of the
requirement to recycle and the three-bin collection arrangement
(recyclables, biodegradables, and trash), followed by occasional inspections (and possibly fines for non compliance) should be sufficient to
achieve high diversion. The responsibilities of waste haulers (see
Section 3 on page 14) would be a very strong enforcement mechanism for
this sector. As an incentive for recycling, businesses should receive carbon
credits for materials that they divert from landfills.
4.1.5.3 Composting and Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid
Waste
There are several components of MSW listed in Table 4.2 that are
biodegradable and are not normally considered recyclable. Materials that
are biodegradable but not recyclable cannot be readily converted into new
products. These materials, including food waste, soiled paper, yard
clippings, etc., are collectively known as wet-stream waste as
distinguished from the dry stream paper, glass, plastics, etc that are
considered recyclable. This wet-stream waste typically comprises about
25% of the total waste stream, or about 150 short tons per day for
Alachua County. Throughout the US, wet-stream waste is usually
landfilled except in jurisdictions that employ some sort of biological
decomposition, usually composting.
With the revisions that took effect July 1, 2008, Sections 403.706, (d)
and (e) Florida Statutes, state: “By July 1, 2010, each county shall develop
and implement a plan to achieve a goal to compost organic materials
that would otherwise be disposed of in a landfill.... The composting plan
is encouraged to address partnership with the private sector.
(e) Each county is encouraged to consider plans for mulching organic
materials that would otherwise be disposed of in a landfill. The mulching
plans are encouraged to address partnership with the private sector.”
The guidelines set by F.S. 403.706 are an important part of reducing
greenhouse gas emission. Unless the wet-stream waste is diverted from
landfills, it constitutes a large source of the greenhouse gas
methane that has a global warming potential of 25 times that of carbon
dioxide (see Table 4.8 on page 4-46)). The decomposition of this waste in
landfills is by anaerobic digestion resulting in the production of methane
because the air is excluded. Most landfills now have methane recovery for
energy production or the methane is flared (burned) to produce less
harmful carbon dioxide [15]. However, recovery of methane from a
landfill is at best about 50%, with the other half escaping slowly to the
atmosphere [6, 16].
The 150 short tons per day of wet waste generated in Alachua
County undergoing anaerobic digestion in a landfill would produce
about 500 standard cubic feet (SCF) of methane per short ton (over a
period of 20-30 years) for an average of 27.7 million SCF per year.
Assuming that 50% of this or 13.7 million SCF per year escapes into the
atmosphere, this is 700 short tons per year of methane. Because it has a
global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide, the effect is
4,772 short tons of carbon equivalents per year. (It is important to
understand the difference between carbon dioxide equivalent and
carbon equivalent, which requires multiplication by 12/44, the ratio of the
weight of carbon to that of carbon dioxide.) Thus it is important to use
either composting that produces only carbon dioxide (rather than
methane) and water vapor or, preferably, anaerobic digestion that
produces methane that is captured in the digester for use as a fuel.
Another advantage of using one of these technologies instead of
landfilling the waste is that it would be conducted locally instead of
running trucks on a 70-mile round trip to haul the waste to the New River
Landfill. These, of course, require diesel for fuel. The tipping fee of about
$28 per short ton paid to New River Landfill would remain in the local
economy.
Still another advantage of either composting or anaerobic digestion over
landfilling is the value of the digestate (solid fraction in anaerobic
digestion). The EPA [6] recognizes the benefit of carbon sequestration,
which in landfills with gas recovery provides a reduction of greenhouse
gases of -0.05 million short tons of carbon equivalents per short ton of
waste. This reduction is largely through the sequestration of carbon in
the landfill. Of course a better use for the carbon than sequestering it in a
landfill is to produce compost to improve soils on which crops are being
grown. Compost is a valuable humus-like soil amendment with similar
products selling in garden supply stores for several dollars for a 25-pound
bag. Another option is to dry the digestate to produce pelletized,
slow-release fertilizer similar to GreenEdge that is marketed locally.
In addition to the solid fraction, aerobic digestion produces the gases
carbon dioxide and water vapor that are released to the atmosphere.
The carbon in MSW is biogenic, meaning that it was recently created from
plants or natural processes that obtained the carbon from the atmosphere.
Thus, returning some of the carbon to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide is considered to be equivalent to natural
n
4. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
processes that do the same. However, anaerobic digestion (discussed in
Section 4.4.5.2 on page 52 and in the Alternative Energy chapter of this
report) improves on this natural process by producing methane for use as
a fuel and compost that sequesters carbon.
Anaerobic digestion facilities cost about $10–15 million (2007),
which is about, 1.2 to 1.5 times the cost for composting facilities. Thus
communities using biological decomposition of wet-stream waste typically choose composting rather than anaerobic digestion [17] . However, when the fuel value of methane produced in anaerobic digestion is
added to the value of the compost, the balance tips in favor of anaerobic
digestion, which is discussed fully in Section 4.4 of this report and in the
Alternative Energy chapter of this report. Furthermore, because
anaerobic digestion is the preferred treatment of sewage sludge, if the
County decides to use anaerobic digestion of organic waste, it might be
economical to co-digest the wet-stream organic waste and sludge in a
single facility [18]. Another possibility would be to locate the MSW
anaerobic digestion facility at a site where waste heat is available.
Perhaps collocation near a power plant, cement factory or other location
that produces waste heat would be beneficial to both parties to the
partnership.
4.1.5.4 Practical Composting
As the price of fertilizer increases and food becomes more expensive, it
becomes increasingly prudent to redirect food waste away from landfills
and toward composting operations that can sustain agriculture in and
around Alachua County.
Composting is a biological decomposition process by which
microorganisms convert raw organic materials into relatively stable
humus-like material. Proper composting assimilates organic substances
and releases inorganic nutrients [19].
Compost used in the agriculture, nursery and landscape industry has
many benefits including increasing yields while reducing the need for
fertilizer, fungicide, and water, all the while suppressing many soil born
plant diseases. The results are not immediate however; studies show
that it usually takes 3 years for the addition of compost to show positive
results.
Composting on large commercial scale is neither easy nor cheap.
Consistent and dependable quality compost requires consistent and
dependable feedstocks and management. Incoming feedstocks must be
ground or processed into uniformly sized material to allow proper
moisture and oxygen management. Large piles must be turned frequently using diesel equipment or aerated using electric fans as in
anaerated static pile process. This is all in an effort to keep microorganisms
alive and the pile from becoming anaerobic, which would slow the
decomposition process, release methane, and cause objectionable odors.
One solution for biodegradable municipal solid waste
would be to process it using
anaerobic digestion and then
capture the methane for
energy production. The
residual would be valuable as
a soil amendment or fertilizer.
n
4-22
4.2. Waste-to-Wealth
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
4-23
Most successful community composting programs, including that in
Alachua County, are backyard programs, meaning that community
members are composting their own organic wastes. Composting on a
small scale is easy and cheap and saves communities large amounts of
money. A study in 1996 by North Carolina State University found that
the average community spent 12 dollars per short ton on their back yard
composting program while saving 52 dollars per short ton in collection
and disposal fees [20].
Many communities like Seattle and San Francisco are experimenting
with collection and composting yard waste and green waste from grocery
stores and restaurants on a community-wide scale and having some
success. The Director of the Board of The California Board of Integrated
Solid Waste [21] said “we use the term composting very loosely.”
The Wilmington, Delaware area is constructing a $20 million
composting facility on 20 acres for composting 400 short tons of food
waste daily [22]. Construction will take about one year.
The City of Boston is currently seeking qualified vendors for the
design, construction and operation of leaf, yard and other organic waste
processing, composting, anaerobic digestion and or other beneficial
re-use of organic materials from municipal waste streams. Leaves will
be composted, wood waste separated for chipping, while grass clippings
and other organic materials suitable for methane generation will be
processed by anaerobic digestion [23].
Alachua County’s yard waste has a high carbon and sand content
making it difficult and likely not cost effective to compost and is
already effectively separated, reduced and used. Other materials
available to compost however, are green waste from restaurant and
grocery operations.
Alachua County is currently paying over $22.50 per short ton for
transport and disposal of this material and due to increasing fuel costs this
is only likely to increase. Separating this material for composting or
anaerobic digestion would be cost-effective. Financing of such a facility
could be achieved by issuing a bond that would be paid with the tipping fees
and savings in transport cost. The ECSC recommends that the City and
County jointly issue either (a) a Request for Expressions of Interest (REI)
similar to that of Boston, or (b) an RFQ to get advice on managing the
organic waste and constructing suitable facilities.
A citizens’ committee with expertise in managing organic waste
should be appointed to make input in the process.
4.1.5.5 Backyard Composting
Alachua County subsidizes the price of composting bins each Earth Day.
This is also a precedent for bulk buying programs.
Alachua County Office of Waste Alternatives, Waste Management
Division disseminates education materials on backyard composting
to citizens, schools and businesses. A complete guide to backyard
composting is available which instructs users on how to compost and
suggests available resources.
Alachua County offers citizens wire compost bins for backyard
composting at no charge to Alachua County residents. These bins are
subsidized through funding provided by the solid waste assessment. Bins
are purchased in lots of 1,000–1,500 bi-annually and distributed through
municipalities and the County Public Works Department. Additionally the
County sponsors and enclosed composter (The Earth Machine) annual
sale. Composters are available at a reduced cost subsidized by the solid
waste assessment during a one day sale once annually.
Free mulch is also available to residents year round, on a first come
first served basis, at the Leveda Brown Environmental Park and
Transfer Station. This mulch is made from recycled wood debris
generated by Alachua County residents and businesses.
4.2 Waste-to-Wealth
There are several ways in which waste recycling and re-use can create jobs
and add to the economy of communities while reducing adverse impacts
of consumption on the environment.
Locally, the number of waste-related jobs could be 1,500 or more with
an annual payroll of up to $50,000,000 if the possibilities are fully
exploited.
The US EPA has studied this matter for the entire country and has
issued its findings in the report, US Recycling Economic Information Study
(see Figure 4.4 on page 4-24). Similar studies for particular states or
cities have been carried out by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
(ILSR). ILSR has just provided the State of Delaware with a report on
resource management that emphasizes using waste for economic
development [24].
The EPA study divides jobs into four different categories that may be
particularized to Alachua County based on its population of about
220,000 and projecting to a recycling rate of 75%, twice the national
average. Then the number of expected jobs for Alachua County in the
four EPA categories would be: collection-47, processing-234,
manufacturing-1114, reuse and remanufacturing-247, for a total of
1642. Clearly, the County is missing out on many of these jobs in
categories except collection (particularly in processing, manufacturing,
and reuse and manufacturing).
Furthermore, the average pay of recycling-based jobs of over
$30,000 per year exceeds that of the average for all paid jobs as shown in
Figure 4.4.
There is an interesting comparison between recycling-based jobs and
auto and truck manufacturing jobs, which pay only about $10,000
n
4-24
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Figure 4.4 Wages In Recycling and Waste-Handling Industry
All Paid Jobs
Source:
Recycling
Machinery
Food Manufacturing
Mining
and Reuse
Manufacturing
Waste Management
Auto and
Computer and Electronics
Truck Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Results of the National REI Study by
the EPA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/jtr/econ/rei-rw/result.htm
sustainability goal de- The
pends upon businesses finding
profitable ways to make use of
and find markets for
thelmaterials that aretcollected
in the recycling program.
a
p
e
o
b
a
s
s
,
e
c
y
redesign, and manufacturer
product responsibility.”
Source:
Stop Trashing the Climate
by
Brenda Platt. Retrieved from {http://www.
stoptrashingtheclimate.org/fullreport_
An F&V"0iargtYXXXibGEt1E.5E$0LUTION, COPY-
more per year. Several states have given huge subsidies to automobile
plants to lure them to their state while largely ignoring the possibilities of
recycling-based jobs (choosing, instead, to burn or bury the waste).
Another advantage of recycling-based jobs is that they are not easily
outsourced to other countries—the jobs remain local.
In contrast to the huge potential for economic development through
recycling, when waste is used as a fuel only a few jobs are provided,
similarly for landfilling. Based on studies done for the EPA, Brenda Platt,
co-director of ILSR states, “On a per-ton basis, recycling sustains ten times
the number of jobs as landfills and incinerators” [25, 26]. These
economic considerations indicate the failure of the “third-E test”
mentioned in Section 4.3 Municipal Solid Waste is not a Sustainable
Fuel.
The ECSC recommends that local governments, states, chambers of
commerce and other economic development agencies devote much more
of their effort toward establishing recycling-based businesses in their
communities. Ways in which this can be accomplished are discussed in
the next section.
RIGHTED, NO PERMISSIONS, NOT LEGIBLE
4.2.1 Recycling Market Development Zones (RMDZs)
The ECSC recommends that Alachua County allocate approximately 40
acres of land to be developed as an RMDZ. The center would be built
around a recycling transfer station where recyclable or reusable materials
are sent and then redirected to businesses and residents who can reuse,
refurbish, or recycle them. Businesses that produce valuable products from
the discarded material sent to the center would receive incentives for
locating in the RMDZ—perhaps land leased at a low rate, tax reductions,
carbon credits, or other such incentives. Another possibility would be that
the site would house a renewable energy generating station (such as
solar) that would allow RMDZ businesses
n
4-26
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
to market their products as being made from recycled materials and
100% renewable energy. The purpose of collocating the businesses
and the transfer station is to develop a critical mass of industrial development that can support the County’s overall goals, which include
energy conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, sustainability, and development of the local economy. The sustainability goal depends upon
businesses finding profitable ways to make use of and find markets for the
materials that are collected in the recycling program.
The center would handle traditional recyclables such as metal,
plastic, and paper, and might also handle building materials from deconstructed buildings, electrical components from discarded electronic
goods, and other goods from salvage operations. It would also develop
markets for these materials. Market development is an important part of
achieving zero waste. A recent report by the GAO faulted the EPA for
failing to develop domestic and international markets [1 1] and listed,
as one of two primary recommendations, that the EPA pursue market
development of recyclable material. The GAO recognized the great
importance of developing markets so that our economy can become
sustainable. Other communities already have or are developing their
own RMDZs [27, 28, 29].
The overall benefits of the center would include:
1. energy savings through reuse, or refurbishment of existing materials that are available locally,
2. GHG reductions by reusing products that would otherwise generate greenhouse gases in their production,
3. job creation by providing a innovative productivity zone that will
employ both skilled and unskilled labor [30, 31],
4. reduction in the volume of material sent to landfills, especially if
the center makes good use of deconstructed buildings,
5. a consolidated shopping location where consumers and contractors
can find many different products that are produced locally and that
advance each customer’s stewardship of the environment,
6. provide useful products that will be required in the retrofitting of
buildings—examples would include insulation made from
discarded fibers or recycled glass, clothing or household goods
made from recycled plastic, used household goods that were
donated or salvaged,
7. a potential magnet for larger companies that already have expertise in processing recyclable or reused materials to make
valuable products,
n
4.2. Waste-to-Wealth
8.
a conspicuous reminder to residents that Alachua County has
made a commitment to energy conservation, greenhouse gas
reduction, and sustainability,
9.
a concentration of like-minded entrepreneurs whose collocation
at the sustainability center might foster innovative product
development in the sustainability sector,
10. reduced reliance on foreign sources of materials, and
11. reinforcement for Alachua County youths who recognize the
viability of the sustainability industry and then seek employment or
education in sustainability-related careers.
Presentation by Dr. Neil Seldman to the ECSC.
http://alachua.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?
The ECSC hosted a presentation by Dr. Neil Seldman from the
Institute for Local Self-Reliance. During his presentations on February 15
and 16, 2008, Dr. Seldman made the following recommendations, which
are supported by the ECSC in concept:
view_id=3&clip_id=616
1. Enact an ordinance to require a deconstruction, salvage, and
recycling plan for buildings that would otherwise be demolished and discarded. This would include a plan to recycle the
construction materials as well as the contents of the building.
2. Develop a Stewardship Council, composed of public staff, citizens
and private industry representatives, which would meet once a
month or once a quarter to determine how to best package products to
balance the requirements of the product and the need to reduce
waste. For example, work with product manufacturers to reduce
composite packaging (such as frozen orange juice containers
made from cardboard attached to metal) so that the packaging is
easier to recycle.
3. Pay-As-You-Throw program (County and City of Gainesville
volume-based cart garbage collection system)—increase cost
differential between sizes of carts.
4. Double the County’s recycling percentage (from current 32% to
64%):
a) Consider mandatory residential recycling.
b) Incentives or lotteries—example: Recycle Bank in
Philadelphia rewards citizens who recycle with coupons per
pound of recycling. Coupons can be redeemed for
merchandise.
5. Government should act as a role model. Every public place there is a
garbage container; there should be a recycling container. This
could be implemented quickly at government facilities, parks, and
public universities. The County has already started
The Institute for Local
Self-Reliance is a team of economic development planners
whose motto is: “We solve
environmental problems by
starting businesses.”
n4-28
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
this process by ordering a recycling container for every garbage
container in every County park [per Sally Palmi, personal communication] .
6. Internships for high school students in waste and recycling,
whether they are going to college or technical school.
7. Resource Recovery Parks—8 businesses= 200+ jobs.
a) Recycling Market Development Zones (RMDZs). They do
not have to be contiguous—example: Los Angeles has
RMDZs that are not contiguous.
b) The current proposal for Alachua County is for a 40 acre site,
and this could be advertised in Solid Waste journals as a
means of soliciting partners.
c) $125 million for green jobs is funded in new energy bill.
Other information provided in the presentation came from Dr. Seldman’s research and experience in the field of recycling-based industry. For
every 10,000 annual short tons of material that is incinerated or sent to
a landfill, one job is created, but for every 10,000 yearly short tons of
material that is recycled, 8–200 jobs are created. Based on his
experience with manufacturers of waste-handling systems, the unit
cost of recycling is much less than the unit cost of landfilling or
incinerating.
Tiles made from recycled materials (photographed by Bob Hoot
4.2.2 Potential Products for the RMDZ
at Indigo g r e e n store in Gainesville, FL)
Timbron
Timbron makes materials from recycled polystyrene. They make
mouldings that are used as floor boards or crown mouldings.
Recycled Tires
Several companies make products from recycled tires. Gerbert produces a flooring from recycled tires. Rubber Products makes material
for safe ground cover for playgrounds, cargo containers, acoustical
liners for flooring, and other products. U.S. Rubber makes rubber tiles
that could be used for special-use flooring, such as in gyms or outdoor
flooring.
PaperStone
PaperStone™ is a product made from post-consumer recycled paper
and resins made from raw materials like cashew nut shell liquid [32].
It is used in countertops or cabinetry.
Fly Ash Products
Squak Mountain Stone™ by Tiger Mountain Innovations, Inc., makes a
material that looks and feels like stone but that is made from fly
4.2. Waste-to-Wealth
4-29
n
ash from coal-fired electric generation plants [33]. Temple Inland
makes drywall from recycled materials that include fly ash, and
also make medium-density fiberboard and other products. A list of
products that contain fly ash is available from the University of North
Dakota
(see
http://www.eerc.und.nodak.edu/carrc/
BuyersGuide/browse.asp?catid=35).
Tiles from Recycled Glass
Trinity Glass™, by Tiger Mountain Innovations, is a material made from
75% recycled glass and can be used for countertops and tile [34].
TerraGreen also makes tiles from recycled content.
Samples of Environ Biocomposite® (colored samples) and
Wall Paneling
Kirei Board ™ (made from sorghum) on a Squak Mountain
Wall Paneling can be made from renewable resources (although some of
the most widely used bamboo might not grow in Florida). Kirei USA
makes a wood-like product from sorghum, poplar, and an adhesive that
does not emit formaldehyde. It can be used for wall paneling, ceilings,
cabinetry, furniture, flooring, and other such things. They also have
similar products made from bamboo and wheat.
Another company can make board from wheat straw, another one
from recycled paper, another product made from agricultural fiber and
sunflower hulls,: http :/ /www. environbiocomposites .
com/products.php
Stone™ countertop made from recycled
materials.
Insulation
Bonded Logic makes an insulation from recycled blue jeans. They also
make another product that is made from recycled, post-industrial blue
jeans and cotton fibers bonded to aluminum http ://www.
bondedlogic.com/documents/InsulatorBroch.pdf.
Any business that uses aluminum might also use lots of energy, but at the
same time it is more efficient from the country’s point of view to use
recycled materials. For example, if recycled aluminum is used, most of
the energy required to produce it is saved (see Table 4.3 on page 4-8).
4. 2. 3 R e - us e
The saying that one person’s trash is another’s treasure is literally true—
the conversion of waste to wealth can be facilitated by merely providing the
mechanisms for exchange. Charities such as The Salvation Army,
Goodwill, Habitat for Humanity and others that accept unwanted items
from individuals and offer these for free or at low costs provide a
mechanism for such exchanges. Another example is Gainesville
Community Ministries that has three thrift shops and also provides
services such as food, clothing, health care, and more to the needy.
Resale and thrift shops are helping to reduce waste, energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions across America. They are also creating
Roof
t iles
made from recycled
t i res
(photographed
Hoot at the Indigo green store, Gainesville, FL)
Tiles made from recycled glass.
Photo by Bob Hoot
by Bob
n
4-30
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
jobs, and increasing economic prosperity in many communities.
According to the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops, these
shops are generating over $200 billion in revenue every year.
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
/20080602/LIFE/806020304/-1/archives
http://www.narts.org/press/stats.htm
Approximately 16% of all shoppers buy second-hand items at thrift
stores and this percentage is expected to rise to 20% very soon. The
demand for second-hand items has been the catalyst for a 5% annual
growth in resale and thrift shops in the past few years.
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
/20080602/LIFE/806020304/ -1/archives
Even local governments are opening thrift shops. The Palm
Beach County Thrift Store (PBCTS) sells surplus government property,
mink coats, sheriff’s department evidence, jewelry, unclaimed items,
golf clubs that were donated to the school board and many other items.
The PBCTS is a municipal investment recovery cooperative involving
twelve area local governments. The PBCTS has served the area for
15 years and has generated over $20m for the taxpayers of Palm Beach
County.
http
:/
/www.
pbcgov.
com/fin_mgt/store/
http://www.bizjournals.com/
southflorida/stories/2000/10/30/story6.html
The retail establishments that sell second-hand items go by many
names. They are called thrift stores, charity shops, re-use shops,
consignment shops, used furniture stores, second hand stores, etc.. The
concept of formally selling second hand goods in retail stores started in
the late 1940s when OXFAM opened a store in the United Kingdom. Many
thrift stores are associated with religious organizations, yet many are
secular as well. The charity status of many thrift stores in the US
provides a significant benefit for taxpayers by providing a tax deduction
for the items donated to the charity shop.
The local economic benefit of thrift stores can be seen in many
ways. Local jobs are created when these stores open, affordable products
are made available to people who can’t afford to buy new products from
retail stores, landfill costs are reduced, the release of greenhouse gases
and other pollutants are reduced, and local sales tax revenues increase.
Other forms of re-sale and non-profit organizations also have positive
economic and environmental impacts in the community. The Alachua
County Library Book Sale sells used books from its archives and books
donated by library patrons to generate money to invest in new books for
the library district. The Dignity Project takes old cars and computer
equipment and refurbishes these items for donation to economically
disadvantaged people in Gainesville. These products help people prepare
for jobs and provide transportation for these folks to work and other
destinations.
On-line marketplaces for used products are becoming popular.
n
4.2. Waste-to-Wealth
Craigslist.com is a very popular international marketplace with local
affiliates. Local marketplaces like Gainesville4sale.com are also
popular.
The rising cost of energy and food in the past year has shown how
fragile our economic status is. As energy and food costs rise, demand for
the products offered by resale and thrift stores will increase. It is
important that these organizations are nurtured so they can prosper
within our community. The benefits they provide to our community are
many.
The following recommendations might help these organizations
prosper within Alachua County:
1. List all the resale and thrift stores located in Alachua County on the
Alachua County website
2. Work with the state legislature to create a week long Used Products
tax holiday in Florida that coincides with the start of the college
school year around the state. This tax holiday would promote the
purchase of used products and all the economic, environmental
and natural resource benefits to Florida and local communities.
3. Work with UF and Sante Fe College (SFC) to ensure that all
incoming students know where all the resale and thrift shops are
located.
4. Have the appropriate organization within Alachua County government create and distribute a flier describing the financial and
environmental benefits associated with buying used products.
The Environmental Protection Agency may have this information.
5. Have Alachua county employees promote purchasing used products for economic and environmental reasons when they are
talking with local citizens or other governmental employees. Lead
by example.
6. Have Alachua County officials work with the local resale and thrift
stores to develop a carbon credit market for local resale and thrift
stores within the county. Many of the products sold in these stores
would have ended up in the landfill and new products would have to
be manufactured to replace them, creating more greenhouse gas
emissions. These stores also aggregate used products that
cannot be sold and sell/give them to recyclers, further reducing
the amount of waste going to the landfills.
7. If a carbon market cannot be developed for carbon the reduction
benefits for these products, Alachua County can provide some
sort of local recognition for the contributions they make to our
Source: Puzzled About Recycling’s Value? Look Beyond
the Bin, by EPA, retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/benefits.pdf
n4-32
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
community by reducing the amount of waste going to the landfill,
creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing
affordable products to the residents in our community.
8. Work with local organizations to develop a repair business in the
Recycled Materials Development Zone to repair products brought
into the RMDZ that can be repaired and resold. Local people
without work or wanting to develop repair skills could be
employed or trained in this business by volunteers or paid staff.
Funding for these programs could come from the sale of products
that are repaired. Gainesville Community Ministries operates
several thrift shops that receive, repair, and re-sell used goods and
has a significant social service program [35].
4.2.3.1 Building Deconstruction
Composition of Construction
and Demolition Debris
Concrete and mixed
rubble
Wood
Drywall
Asphalt roofing
Metals
Bricks
Plastics
40–50%
20–30%
5–15%
1–10%
1–5%
1–5%
1–5%
Source: Construction and Demolition (C&D) Materi als: Basic Information by the EPA. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/CDmaterials/basic.htm
Debris from building demolition comprises approximately 25–33% of
Florida’s municipal solid waste, depending on how the debris is
classified [36]. An energy efficient and sustainable way to reduce that
which is landfilled is to deconstruct the buildings so that the materials can
be used again.
The Deconstruction Institute, from Charlotte County, Florida, has
compiled a collection of case studies on deconstruction [37] that describe the reduction in landfill and the value of products recovered from
different deconstruction approaches. Another case study, by the Center
for Construction and Environment at the University of Florida, included a
detailed analysis of the quality of the materials that were recovered from
the deconstruction, and they found that deconstruction is more
cost-effective than conventional demolition and landfilling [38].
Local examples of this process can be found at the Reuser Building
Products, Inc. and Bearded Brothers Deconstruction, both in
Gainesville. Reuser Building Products receives materials from Bearded
Brothers Deconstruction and from other contractors and the general
public and then makes those materials available for sale. They sell
reclaimed lumber, windows, doors, sinks, toilets, cabinetry, bath tubs
and many other components from deconstructed or remodeled homes.
Another example of a deconstruction business is The Deconstruction
Institute in Portland, Oregon. They deconstruct buildings and make the
materials available to be used again. They also provide information about
how their process works. The Deconstruction Institute is a division of the
Rebuilding Center, which sells the materials that were salvaged during
deconstruction operations. They estimated that every 2,000 square foot
home that is deconstructed saves 33 trees. They also provide a
Deconstruction Calculator to estimate the savings of deconstruction
versus landfilling.
n
4.2. Waste-to-Wealth
4-33
Figure 4.5 Reuser Building, Inc., Gainesville, Florida
Reuser Building, Inc. sales materials from deconstructed buildings.
n
4-34
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Other examples of combined deconstruction and resale operations can
be found in Seattle at Second Use. A company called Reuse Development Organization (REDO) in Baltimore, Maryland, provides
technical assistance to businesses and communities that want to develop comprehensive reuse businesses. Another source of information on
deconstruction is Building Reuse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which acts
as a broker for information about deconstruction.
The value of recovered lumber for re-use can be increased through
re-certification that is conducted by licensed private-sector re-certifiers.
The certification process helps consumers to ensure that they are buying
materials that are suitable for construction.
4. 2. 4 Ze ro W as te
4 . 2 . 4 . 1 W h a t i s Z e r o W as t e ?
Zero waste is a movement to reduce the waste that humans produce—
ideally reducing the waste to zero so that nothing would have to be
discarded by any means such as landfills or incinerators. Our use of the
term zero waste includes zero solid waste, zero hazardous waste, zero
toxics, and zero GHG emissions. Zero Waste International describes zero
waste as follows:
Zero waste is a goal that is both pragmatic and visionary, to
guide people to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all
discarded materials are resources for others to use. Zero waste
means designing and managing products and processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and
recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing
Zero waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that may
be a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health. (Zero
Waste International [39])
The concept of zero waste is not something that is applied after the
product life-cycle is near completion. In addition to aggressively
reducing, reusing, recycling, and composting (RRRC), it is necessary to
modify production processes so that less waste is produced and more
materials are reused. This would require industries to accept recycled
and reused materials as a fundamental part of their production processes.
The visionary goal of zero waste expresses the need for a closed-loop
industrial/societal system as suggested in Figure 4.6 on page 4-35.
Moving toward zero waste helps to reduce energy use, GHG emissions, and the pollution related to landfills (see Table 4.2 on page 4-6 and
Table 4.3 on page 4-8). Moving toward zero waste also helps communities
to become more sustainable. Once the zero waste philosophy is
internalized, it becomes clear that waste is a sign of inefficiency and
unsustainability.
n
4.2. Waste-to-Wealth
4-35
Figure 4.6 Materials Flow Diagrams
(a) Current Materials Lifecycle
(b) Ideal Materials Lifecylcle
Manufacture
Adapted from Figures 4 and 5 from The Case for Zero Waste: http : //www. zerowaste . org/case . htm
n4-36
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Zero Waste, a Visionary Goal That Strives for
 zero waste of resources (100% efficiency of energy, materials, and human resources),
 zero solid waste,
 zero hazardous waste,
 zero emissions to air, water, and soil,
 zero waste in production activities,
 zero waste in administrative activities,
 zero waste in product life cycle, and
 zero toxics.
The Results are
 reduced risks to to employees,
 reduced risks to the environment,
 reduced presence of toxics creates less hazardous waste,
 closed loops for materials, and
 reduced costs.
Adapted from The Case for Zero Waste by the Zero Waste Alliance. Retrieved from http://www. zerowaste.
org/case.htm.
Organizations, among them the Zero Waste Alliance, have embraced the concept and have adopted zero waste as a goal. Various governmental agencies, including The University of Florida and Alachua
County have adopted zero waste as a goal and are working toward it
[40].
Zero waste suggests that the entire concept of waste should be
eliminated. Instead, waste should be considered a potential resource,
and this new perspective might counter our basic acceptance of waste as
a normal course of events. Opportunities such as reduced costs,
increased profits, and reduced environmental impacts are found when
returning these residual products or resources as food to either natural
and industrial systems. This may involve redesigning both products
and processes in order to eliminate hazardous properties that make
them unusable and unmanageable in quantities that overburden both
industry and the environment.
A zero waste strategy leads us to look for inefficiencies in the use of
materials, energy, and human resources. To achieve a sustainable
future, extreme efficiency in the use of all resources will be required in
order to meet the needs of all of the earth’s inhabitants. A zero waste
strategy directly supports this requirement.
n4.2.
Waste-to-Wealth
4.2.4.2 Broadly applicable.
The benefits of a zero waste strategy can be achieved in nearly any kind
of organization. Some examples are:
1. Community programs can be designed to consider all uses of
materials and energy both in operations and services. Focus on zero
solid waste to landfills and zero wasted energy can result in new
jobs not only in the recovery process, but also in the use of
recovered waste products as raw materials to produce new
products.
2. Business programs can be designed to minimize uses of energy and
materials in products, processes and services. Focus on increasing
efficiency by eliminating solid and hazardous waste, process
wastes, wastes in production operations (motion, time, over
production, misprinted invoices, etc.) and striving for energy
reduction.
3. Industry-wide programs can be very effective if the industry
members are willing to work together. As such, it reaches its
maximum effectiveness in reducing energy and material use and
achieving environmental improvements.
4. School programs when applied to all school activities and classroom teaching can save money while providing important education to help the younger generation be prepared to contend with
coming changes. Zero waste can be applied not only to energy
and material use, but also in the facilities plant, offices, classrooms
and cafeteria.
5. Home programs can be developed that include energy savings,
changes in purchasing habits, reduction in the toxicity of cleaning
agents, use of more appropriate fertilizers and pesticides. This
can help provide badly needed education for the general
population.
4.2.4.3 What is Waste?
There is strong evidence that humankind’s current interaction with the
environment cannot be sustained [41, 42]. Natural systems are cyclical
and are generally sustainable whereas human activities currently
produce by-products with no clear use and no market value or they
directly produce materials that are either hazardous or that reduce the
value of existing resources. Waste takes many different forms: from solid
and hazardous waste to wastes in energy and material use; wastes in
manufacturing and administrative activities and wastes of human
resources.
4-37
n4-38
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
4.2.5 L oc al W ork T owa rd Zero W as te
Florida Statute
403.7032
(1) The Legislature finds
that the failure or inability to
economically recover
material and energy resources from solid waste
results in the unnecessary
waste and depletion of
our natural resources....
(2) By the year 2020,
the long-term goal for the
recycling efforts of state
and local governmental
entities, private
companies and organizations, and the general
public is to reduce the
amount of recyclable solid
waste disposed of in
waste management
facilities, landfills, or incineration facilities by a
statewide average of at
least 75%....
(3) The Department of
Environmental Protection
shall develop a comprehensive recycling program
that is designed to
achieve the percentage
under subsection (2) and
submit the program to the
President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives
by January 1,
2010....
The ECSC has drawn from the report called Maximizing Waste Prevention
and Waste Reduction [43]. The original report was issued as a waste
management staff report and is informally known as the Blue Sky report
unless more specific information is provided under this cover. The goal of
the report was to suggest ways that Alachua County could achieve zero
waste. After consulting with the Alachua County Department of Waste
Management, the ECSC reemphasizes some of the proposals from the
Blue Sky report (as outlined below).
The Blue Sky report makes a series of recommendations that will be
summarized very briefly here:
1. Zero Waste at Events: Require event organizers to use compostable food packaging at festivals or other such events.
2. Paperless Office: Continue the migration to email, electronic
databases, and electronic versus paper documents. Examples of
County paperless initiatives include: Commission Agendas are in
electronic format in E-Agenda, budget is completed in the
electronic budgeting software, GovMax, SharePoint, and the hiring
process is in the electronic program, Neo Gov.
3. Universal Curbside Collection of Recyclables and Garbage.
4. Mandatory Commercial Recycling: The ECSC recommends
mandatory recycling of all materials that are being collected in the
curbside program.
5. Expand Electronic Appliance Recycling.
6. Support and Enhance Existing Construction and Demolition
Recycling, possibly including tax breaks and zoning changes.
7. Creative End Use for Recyclables: Find new applications for
recycled materials, such as tiles and countertops made from
recycled glass and clothing made from recycled plastics. The ECSC
recommendation is to integrate this at the same location as the
reuse center. See page Section 4.2.1 on page 4-24.
8.
Innovative Loans Program for Entrepreneurs: Loans to
businesses that use recycled or reused materials. A State
program is in place for this. Information and a down loadable
brochure
are
at:
http://www.ffcfc.com/
PROD-RECY-Description.html
Bernie Machen, as President of the University of Florida, pledged to
achieve zero waste on campus by 2015 [40]. There were also some
proposals presented by the University of Florida Sustainability Task
Force that were intended to help the university achieve its goal of
n
4.3. Municipal Solid Waste is not a Sustainable Fuel
Table 4.5 Useful Products Made From Recycled or Scrap Material
Earth Wool insulation made from Holz Wood Fiber Insulation
Bonded Logic Ultratouch®
recycled glass
Photo by thingermaejig
tion made from used blue
Photo by thingermaejig
Photographed by Bob Hoot at Indigo Green store, Gainesville, FL
Insulajeans.
zero waste [44]. Their proposal focused on low-cost and high-impact
changes.
The ECSC recommends working with the University of Florida to
progress toward meeting their commitment and to partner with them to
help achieve the mutual goals of the County and the University of
Florida.
4.3 Municipal Solid Waste is not a Sustainable
Fuel
In order to qualify as an acceptable fuel, waste should pass the 3-E
tests: (a) Energy: provides more energy than is required to replace
materials that are burned,. (b) Environment: does not deplete natural
resources nor cause adverse environmental effects, and (c) Economic
development: provides more jobs than available through waste-based
industries. As we see in this section and in Section 4.2 on waste-towealth, MSW as a fuel flunks all three of these tests.
Burning recovered materials for fuel is like eating your seed corn.
Resources needed to make new materials go up in smoke.
Despite combustion’s low standing in the hierarchy of favorable options for managing waste (only higher than landfilling without landfill gas
recovery), there is considerable use of MSW as a fuel in so-called WTE
facilities in Florida that were built primarily for disposal of MSW [45]. As
a result of intensive lobbying by the WTE industry, MSW has been
included as a renewable fuel in Florida law [46]. Certainly, MSW will
continue to be produced for the foreseeable future despite zero-waste
efforts aimed at elimination of waste being disposed in landfills or
incinerators[6, 47]. The City of Gainesville has issued a Request for
Proposal for biomass energy plant that could include MSW as one of the
fuels [48]. However, the City has added the stipulation in
As we see in this section
and in Section 4.2 on wasteto-wealth, MSW as a fuel flunks
all three tests: energy,
environment and economic.
Biosolids are not a sustainable
fuel. They are about 95%
water and require more energy
to dry than is obtained from
burning them.
n
4-40
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Table 4.6 Energy Required Using Recycled and Virgin Content vs WTE †
Material
1. Virgin
2. Recycled
3. Recycling saves
4. Energy content
5. WTE (19% eff)
6. Percent Recycled
Aluminum
220.48
15.25
205.23
<0
0
49
Steel
36.18
15.81
20.37
<0
0
44
Plastics
32
4.25
27.75
30
7.6
10
Paper
39.92
22.03
17.89
16
3.42
52
OCC
26.44
12.6
13.84
14
2.66
62
WTE = Waste-to-Energy conversion. OCC=old corrugated cardboard
†
Recycling saves 3–5 times energy produced by waste to energy (WTE)
All quantities are in units of million BTUs per short ton. The rows in this table are:
1-energy to produce items from virgin stock,
2-energy required to produce from recycled stock,
3-the amount of energy saved by using recycled stock, (i.e. row one minus row two),
4-energy content of each item (i.e. the maximum energy that is obtained in a process of 100% efficiency, taken from
SWMGHG Exhibit 5-2),
5-the energy obtained in WTE plants (which have only 19% efficiency).
6-the current recycling rates (that do not enter into these energy considerations) for the various materials. For metals that
have no energy content (actually it is slightly negative because the metal must be heated to the temperature of the
incinerator), reduction and recycling obviously win over incineration. For the combustible materials listed, by
coincidence, the energy saved by recycling is almost exactly the same as the energy content. Thus to be competitive
from the energy standpoint the process of obtaining energy using the material as a fuel would have to be essentially
100% efficient,which is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics. Existing WTE facilities have efficiencies of
about 19% and promotions for gasification technologies claim that they will achieve up to 60% efficiency, which has yet
to be demonstrated. Even if this promise is forthcoming, such facilities still flunk the E-1 test for not producing more
energy than required to replace the materials using virgin stock.
Source: adapted from Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases by the EPA. Retrieved from http :
//epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf
n
4.3. Municipal Solid Waste is not a Sustainable Fuel
the RFP that “waste that can feasibly be recycled will not be included as a
fuel.” Thus, it is essential that ECSC study the suitability of MSW as a fuel
and ways to improve recycling to divert as much as is feasible. At the time
of this writing (April 28, 2008) none of the three binding proposals
include MSW as a fuel [49]. The final binding proposal was for biomass
only; however, this technology is being promoted in much of Florida.
When wastes are used as fuels, it is obvious that for each short ton
burned, another short ton must be produced from virgin product.
Production of new products from virgin materials has many long term
adverse consequences. In addition to the requirement for being
renewable, a long-term fuel source should also be sustainable, criteria for
which have been given: (a) produce more energy than used to produce
it; (b) not deplete natural resources; and (c) not create by-products
that negatively affect society [50]. The first of these is easily
addressed using the data in Exhibits 2-3, 4, 5, 6 of Solid Waste
Management and Greenhouse Gases report [6]. These tables give the
energy required to produce a given component of MSW from either virgin
or recycled materials. Then, the difference between these, i.e. the energy
that could be saved by recycling a product may be compared with what
could be obtained using the product as fuel. The result of the calculations
are presented in Table 4.6 on page 4-40 and shows the saving from
using recycled versus virgin materials. Aluminum and steel, which are
metals that have no heating value (slightly negative), are included along
with the three materials, plastics, paper, and cardboard, that provide most
of the energy of waste used as a fuel.
Applying the second criterion for sustainability, namely that the
process must not deplete natural resources, many components of MSW fail,
e.g. plastics made from natural gas or petroleum. Plastics that are not
fully recyclable, and recycled at a very high rate, should be banned.
Paper and cardboard are two materials that supply much of the
energy when MSW is used as a fuel. Paper production has been largely at
the expense of destroying forests that would be exceedingly difficult to
replenish. Even growing trees on plantations to produce paper is not
sustainable for a number of reasons [51]. In the United States, the
expansion of pine plantations for pulp and dimensional lumber has also
come at the expense of natural forests. According to U.S. Forest Service
data, pine plantation cover in the Southeast grew by nearly 8 million
hectares between 1952 and 1985, while natural pine forest cover
declined by 12 million hectares, an area nearly equal in size to the state
of Mississippi or three times as large as Switzerland. The Forest Service
predicts that this trend will continue into the future, anticipating that by
2030 there will be about twice as much area in plantation pines as in
natural pine stands.
The world is currently losing about 14 million hectares of forest
Element 10 of Alachua
County’s Guiding
Vision:
Sustainable economic
development will be encouraged through a written economic development plan focusing on
strengthening existing
small businesses, growing
diversified industries
locally, implementing an
aggressive poverty reduction plan, introducing
economic empowerment
strategies, improving
public infrastructure as our
principle economic
incentive and assuring
new industries. These
economic development
strategies will be evaluated utilizing a comprehensive matrix detailing
how each contributes to
our quality of life.
n
4-42
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
cover each year—an area larger than Greece- and even larger areas are
being degraded by less obvious threats such as fragmentation, soil
degradation, exotic species, and air pollution. Pulpwood plantations
currently account for about 16% of the world’s total fiber supply for paper.
Second-growth forests provide 30 percent, and old-growth forests, another
9 percent. The remaining 45% is recycled and nonwood fiber. Most of the
old-growth forests that are still being logged for pulp are in boreal
regions of Canada and the Russian Federation. A smaller share comes
from virgin temperate and tropical forests in countries such as Australia,
Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Rather than managing natural mixed-species, mixed-age forests, the
forest industry has shifted toward an agricultural model, in which genetic
strains are carefully bred and selected, and seedlings are planted and
developed into well-organized, single-species, single-aged stands and
treated with fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. These are largely
derived from petroleum as is the energy necessary to operate the
machinery used in growing trees. Pulpwood plantations are generally
harvested in 6-10 year rotations in the tropics and 20-30 year rotations in
temperate regions.
In Florida, the semi-tropics, pulpwood rotations are around 15 years.
Of course, the whole plot is clearcut, and the process is repeated starting
with nothing but the soil, which is commonly first bedded, that is, thrown
up into a series of parallel higher ground rows when the land is naturally
too wet for pines. This, of course, increases water runoff, which includes
the herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides. Native Flatwoods
salamanders, Ambystoma cingulatum, which live in the soil of native
Florida pine forests, are destroyed and never return, along with many
native plant species that grow in the understory of natural forests. Fast
growing Slash pine is then planted, which is a naturally occurring species
in Florida, but once naturally restricted to wetter areas only. Longleaf
pines, a fire-adapted species of drier uplands, originally covering 30%
of Florida, was rarely replanted because of its slow growth. Fire, once
used to control plants competing with the pine seedlings, has now been
abandoned for herbicides, especially Garlon, a proven carcinogen. This
poison has eliminated many of the frogs in Florida, because the
tadpoles die at extremely low doses. Now, we have a new threat to what
is left of natural forests—biomass conversion for ethanol and electricity.
A recent study has found that the increasing number of pine plantations in the southern US could contribute to rises in carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere [52]. This comes from cutting of hardwood and
natural pine forest to make way for the pine plantations that will not
recover the carbon capture for 30 years. In just three southern states,
the study estimates that 21 million short tons of carbon dioxide will be
released over the 30-year period.
Lower whole soil carbon is another adverse effect on forest soil
where herbicides are used [53]. Plantation forests have been found to
have lower productive capacity as a result of the lower carbon content of
the soil.
Upon applying sustainability criterion 3 that the process does not
create by-products that negatively affect society, MSW as a fuel also
fails. For each short ton of MSW consumed as a fuel, an additional short
ton must be produced from virgin stock to replace it. The processes
involved all negatively affect society. The large amount of water required in
making paper from virgin stock and the large amount of air pollution
produced are just two examples of negative effects on society. The large
amount of water required to produce paper from virgin trees is a particular
concern in Florida where increasing shortages of water are occurring
[54].
Thus, MSW as a fuel flunks both the 1-E and 2-E tests, energy and the
environment. As is shown in the Waste-to-Wealth section starting on page
4-23, it also flunks the 3-E test: economic development.
4.4 Biosolids
4.4.1 Summary of Recommendations
Anaerobic digestion is recommended as a replacement for Gainesville
Regional Utilities’ (GRU’s) current wastewater treatment practice of
aerobic digestion. The anaerobic digestion process would generate
methane gas that could be used to either generate electricity or to
supplement a process that would create a high quality fertilizer that
would reduce the health hazards of the current GRU Class B biosolids that
are land applied at Whistling Pines Ranch.
Modification of GRU’s wastewater treatment process to use anaerobic
digestion of sewage sludge would have the benefits of (a) providing an
alternative source of energy through production of methane, (b)
reducing emissions of various GHGs, and (c) destroying harmful microorganisms in the sewage sludge. The ECSC recommends using the
methane from anaerobic digestion to facilitate the production of liquid,
Class A biosolids. The leftover methane produced by the anaerobic
digestion process can be used by GRU to offset electrical use in the
wastewater treatment process thereby reducing their GHG liability.
An alternative treatment process, incineration (thermal oxidation) of
sewage sludge biosolids, has the following adverse effects: (a) sewage
sludge is about 95% water, and the energy needed to dry the sewage
sludge would exceed the energy produced from burning it (see Table 4.9);
(b) carbon from the sludge would be released into the atmosphere as
carbon dioxide, a GHG; and (c) the energy value and agricultural value
of the biosolids would be lost.
Recommendations in this report can help to achieve various goals of
the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners by promoting the
reuse of products derived from wastewater; providing the foundations for
new businesses that sell or use Class A or Class AA fertilizer;
Generating energy from
anaerobic digestion and using
the digestate as a Class AA
fertilizer is a good example of
fully closing the recycling loop
on a waste stream.
n4-44
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
enhancing Alachua County’s efforts to ensure clean soil (by reducing
the risk of adverse impacts from landspreading potentially hazardous
Class B biosolids); and fostering sustainability through the development of industries that use locally produced fertilizers as replacements for
commercial fertilizers. Commercial fertilizers are made with natural
gas, most of which now comes from foreign countries.
4.4.2 Definitions and Process Description
Biosolids: The term biosolids was coined by the Water Environment
Drying biosolids is one way to
reduce vector attraction (risk
of spreading disease), and
anaerobic digestions with
volatile solids reduction is
another.
Volatile Solids are
compounds that break down when
heated to 550 °C and include
lipids (fats), proteins,
carbohydrates, and other
compounds.
See http://waterquality.ifas.ufl.edu/
Glossary/Glossary.htm#Volatile_Solids_
and
http://dairy.ifas.ufl.edu/files/
WEF-June2003.pdf.
Foundation, formerly known as the Federation of Sewage Works Associations, to lessen public objection to spreading sewage sludge on the land
[55]. Now the term is used to differentiate between raw, untreated sewage
sludge and treated sludge (biosolids) that would be suitable as a soil
amendment or fertilizer.
Anaerobic Digestion: Anaerobic digestion is a process, conducted in
the absence of oxygen, in which bacteria decompose organic material into
methane and carbon dioxide [56]. In wastewater treatment, the process is
conducted in closed, heated vessels that are free of oxygen and nitrates,
and these conditions force the bacteria to decompose sulfates . The
resulting product, called the digestate, has less odor and fewer
pathogens than the original product [57]. When the process of digestion is
conducted at approximately 122–150 °F (50–60 °C), called the
thermophilic temperature range, pathogens are killed and the biosolids
attain a Class A or even Class AA rating [57, 58].
The Class A rating is defined by federal regulations and is awarded to
biosolids when they are tested with low level of pathogens and treated
using one of several regimes that involve heat of at least 122 °F
[59]. The exact treatment regimes vary according to the concentration of
the solids. Class AA rating is awarded by the State of Florida, per FAC
62-640.600 and FAC 62-640.650, and must be tested monthly to ensure
that it contains low levels of 12 chemicals, several of which are metals.
Only Class AA, and not Class A or lower, can be used as a fertilizer on
leafy vegetables per FAC 62-640.400.7, but Class A biosolids can be used
in most cases, and Class B can be used in some cases.
Another requirement for Class AA biosolids is vector attraction
reduction. Vectors are organisms that can potentially spread diseases.
Insects, birds and rodents are examples of vectors in this context [60]. A
report by the EPA, called Environmental Regulations and Technology,
explained some of the principles of vector attraction reduction
[60]. They listed three primary techniques for reducing vector attraction: decomposition to reduce the available nutrients for certain types of
microorganisms, adding chemicals to stop microbial growth, and using
barriers to prevent contact with the sludge.
The Code of Federal Regulations, section 503.33(b) lists eight
standards for reducing vector attraction of biosolids that will be used
Table 4.7 Wastewater Processing: Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion
Aerobic Digestion
Advanced Anaerobic Digestion
Processed in open air
Processed at ambient temperatures
Releases GHGs to the atmosphere
Releases odors in the community
Processed in closed vessels
Processed at approximately 130 °F
Harnesses GHGs for energy
Releases few odors
in homes or gardens. Treatment facilities must choose only one [61].
Option number 8 is to dry the biosolids so that there is low moisture
content. Option number 1 requires a 38% decrease in the volatile solids
during treatment. Option 1 might be a good choice for anaerobic digestion.
The EPA [60] described how anaerobic digestion meets this criteria:
“Anaerobic systems reduce volatile solids by 35% to 60%, depending on
the nature of the sewage sludge and the system’s operating conditions.
Sewage sludges produced by systems that meet the operating conditions
specified under Part 503 will typically have volatile solids reduced by at
least 38%, which satisfies vector attraction reduction requirements” (p.
46).
Besides the efficient reduction of pathogens, anaerobic digestion is
recommended because of it use as an energy source. Methane extracted
and captured from the anaerobic digestion process can be used to
generate electricity or heat. A rough estimate of the methane produced
from wastewater is 18,250 kg per 1,000 persons per year [62]. Another
estimate is that the wastewater from one person can produce enough
methane to generate 2.2 watts of electricity [63]. For the population
served by GRU wastewater treatment facilities, this would create about 0.5
megawatts (enough to run 5,000 100 watt light bulbs or enough to
power 700 homes). If combined heat and power were used, a total of
about 1 megawatt could be produced. Additionally, approximately 2
megawatts of the 4 megawatts used by GRU wastewater treatment
facilities could be saved by changing from energy-intensive aerobic
digestion to anaerobic digestion [58].
The GRU Biosolids Management Plan, in Exhibit 5-44, proposed an
anaerobic digestion model, but the temperature used in the analysis was
not optimal and might not have fully represented the potential of an
anaerobic system [58, 64]. Within the thermophilic temperature range
(approximately 122–150 °F), one study found that methane output is
maximized at approximately 127 °F. At this temperature methane
n
4-46
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Table 4.8 Global Warming Potentials of Greenhouse Gases (IPCC 4)
G l ob al Wa r mi ng P ote n ti a l fo r
Given Time Horizon
SAR†
Name of Gas
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
(100-yr)
1
21
310
20-yr
1
72
289
100-yr 500-yr
1
1
25
7.6
298
153
SAR=the Second Assessment Report from IPCC that was published in 1995
Source: table 2.14 from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Retrieved from http://www. ipcc. ch/pdf /asses sment-report/
a r4/ w g 1/a r4 -w g1 - c ha p te r 2. pd f
†
Methane released into the
air from GRU’s current
wastewater treatment process
has approximately 25 times
the global warming impact as
the same amount of carbon
dioxide.
Florida Statute 403.7055
Methane capture.
(1) Each county is encouraged to form multicounty
regional solutions to the capture and reuse or sale of
methane gas from landfills and
wastewater treatment
facilities.
(2) The department shall
provide planning guidelines
and technical assistance to
each county to develop and
implement such multicounty
efforts.
output is approximately three times what it would be at 135.5 °F and
double what it would be at the 95 °F (35 °C) second-stage temperature
recommended by the GRU Biosolids Management Plan. At the optimal
temperature, methane output is also higher than it would be at the
primary digestion temperature (107'F, 42'C) recommended to GRU in
section 5.4.3 [58, 64].
Aerobic Digestion: Another process for treating wastewater is
aerobic digestion, which is conducted at ambient temperatures and
requires air to be pumped into the water using aerators. Bacteria used
in the aerobic digestion process produce carbon dioxide and the
resulting solid product is typically Class B biosolids that contain more
pathogens than Class A or Class AA biosolids. The aerobic digestion
process is typically quicker than an anaerobic process.
Because it has significant global warming potential, the large
amount of methane produced from wastewater treatment can be problematic if it is not captured and is, instead, released into the atmosphere.
Both the carbon dioxide and the uncaptured methane produced during
digestion can contribute to global warming, but each unit of methane
produces approximately 25 times the global warming potential over a
100-year period as the same amount of carbon dioxide [65, 66] (see
Table 4.8). These gases trap relatively more solar radiation than other
gases do, and the result is a warming of the atmosphere [65]. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that these
warming effects threaten to increase average temperatures, change
precipitation patterns, raise sea levels, and increase the frequency and
intensity of extreme weather events [41].
4.4.3 Management of Biosolids in Alachua County
In Alachua County, biosolids are produced from sewage sludge that is
treated by GRU at its Main Street and Kanapaha Water Reclamation
n
4.4. Biosolids
Facilities (commonly called wastewater treatment facilities). The
wastewater is collected from the City of Gainesville and other portions of
Alachua County that have GRU sewer service. GRU also provides
biosolids treatment and handling for the University of Florida and the
smaller communities of Hawthorne, High Springs, and Waldo [58]. The
city of Alachua has its own wastewater treatment facility with final
disposal of biosolids on land owned by the city [67].
Once some of the wastewater has been separated from the solid
sludge, it has a water content of either 5.3% or 16.0%, for thickened and
dewatered sludge respectively [58]. Because of the difference in water
content, the quantity of sludge is given in dry short tons per day, which for
the year 2006 was 13.9 short tons per day for undigested sludge or 9.85
short tons per day once it has been digested [48]. The decrease in mass
can be attributed to the conversion of biosolids to carbon dioxide,
methane and other gases by the digestion process. The current GRU
treatment process is aerobic: air is blown through the sludge and the
digestion process decomposes some organic material into carbon dioxide
and other gases that are released into the atmosphere.
After the Class B biosolids are processed by GRU at the wastewater
treatment facilities, they are transported by truck to Whistling Pines
Ranch, a site near Archer, and spread on the farmland for growing hay
and other crops. When applied to the soil, biosolids can add nutrients,
such as nitrogen and phosphorus, that help plants grow. Adding
nitrogen and phosphorus to the soil in this way can become problematic
if the amounts added exceed the agronomic amount that can be
absorbed by the crops being grown [58].
For the past 25 years, GRU has been landspreading Class B
biosolids on 1,175 acres of farmland at Whistling Pines Ranch [58]. The
present contract expires in 2009 [58], after which it may be renewed if
GRU and the current owner agree. Recent tests of ground water at
Whistling Pines Ranch show marginal levels of nitrates (see Figure 4.7
on page 4-50). The levels of nitrates on the ranch exceed the 10
miligrams per liter standard for drinking water, but the criteria applies
only if those levels are attained outside the boundaries of the farm.
One reading that appears to be outside the boundaries of the farm (on
the right side of the image) is listed as 12 miligrams per liter, but it is
not clear from the image if the well is used for drinking water or
irrigation (see Figure 4.7 on page 4-50). According to representatives at
the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department, these
readings are not unusual for farms.
GRU has proposed to purchase the Whistling Pines Ranch property so
that landspreading can continue indefinitely [68]. Because the land is in
unincorporated Alachua County, GRU submitted an application to
Alachua County for a Special Exception to allow this continued use.
Frequently, nearby residents object vigorously to the practice of
landspreading Class B biosolids. County residents and the Archer City
Commission oppose continued landspreading of biosolids on
4-47
GRU has been spreading
sludge on the same farm for
25 years.
n
4-48
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Text Box 4.2 JEA’s Class AA Fertilizer from Biosolids
JEA is now transforming biosolids, a product of the sewage treatment process, into a
fertilizer for home lawns, golf courses, ball parks and other turfgrass and ornamental
applications. GreenEdge graphic
JEA is partnering with GreenTechnologies and
GreenTechnologies’ patent pending process. The
new
process transforms up to 16,000 tons of biosolids per
year into a
premium slow-release organic fertilizer product,
ending
decades of burning the biosolids in incinerators at
the plant.
JEA permanently decommissioned the incinerators
at Buckman Treatment Plant, eliminating the associated air
emissions.
JEA constantly seeks technological solutions that
the environmental performance of its processes.
“The number one reason people should use this
is that it is environmentally friendly and produces
quality turfgrass, ornamental plants and trees,” said
Varshovi, president of GreenTechnologies. Dr.
has a doctorate
in soil and water science and turfgrass nutrition from
University of Florida.
improve
fertilizer
high
Dr. Amir
Varshovi
the
The new product is marketed as GreenEdge, a
complete, slow-release organic fertilizer that supplies essential nutrients for turfgrass and
plant growth and health. Initially GreenEdge will be targeted mainly to golf courses, ball
parks, and recreational parks. GreenTechnologies now has GreenEdge available to
professional green industries as well as homeowners. Home owners can find GreenEdge in
their local retail stores such as ACE Hardware and Garden Centers. Commercial users may
contact GreenTechnologies directly.
GreenTechnologies, Inc. is a technology and marketing company which develops, produces and markets technologies and products for turfgrass and plant nutrition.
For more information contact GreenTechnologies, Inc. at 1-877-473-3630 or visit them
online at www.green-edge.com.
Reproduced from
http://www.jea.com/community/stories/greenedge.asp.
Whistling Pines Ranch [69].
4.4.4 Pharm a - Polluti o n in Dr i nk ing W ater
Current laws require that biosolids be tested to determine their levels of
biologic pathogens and metals—but current laws do not require testing for
specific organic compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
dioxin, pharmaceuticals, and cleaners [59, 70, 71]. Because of Florida’s
low level of industry, there have been low levels of metals in the
wastewater stream [72], but there has been concern about other types of
chemical contamination of water.
A potentially hazardous class of contaminants in biosolids is endocrine disruptors, sometimes called pharma pollution. One example of
the effects of endocrine disruptors was seen recently in Lake Apopka.
These chemicals threatened the local alligator population by causing
serious reproductive problems [73, 74]. Unfortunately, endocrine disruptors are not the only chemicals that slip past the EPA’s regulation of
biosolids. In Florida, only 12 chemicals and a few pathogens are tested in
biosolids [59, 71]. The County might want to explore the potential
benefits of advanced anaerobic digestion and additional processes that
might reduce the risks associated with the current, partial treatment of
biosolids.
A recent news report from the Associated Press raised concern
about the threat of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water [75]. The
potential threat is that drugs will pass through wastewater treatment
plants and eventually find their way in downstream supplies of drinking
water. In response to this threat, GRU was reported as saying that local
water supplies are safe but that they were not testing for pharmaceuticals
[76]. To reduce the threat of pharma pollution, Alachua County
developed a program in 2005 to allow residents to safely dispose of old
pharmaceuticals [76]. The program processed a large amount of
pharmaceuticals, but the hazardous waste coordinator for the county
was reported as saying that pharmacies continue to believe that flushing
pharmaceuticals down the drain is safe [76].
A new series of tests conducted in May, 2008 at Whistling Pines
Ranch showed low levels of 12 chemicals [77, 78, 79]. The analysis
included tests for some pharmaceuticals and also included tests for
household chemicals that could affect hormone levels. Most of the tests
showed no measurable amount of chemicals, and the test for Prozac
showed only trace amounts (110 nanograms per liter). The report
indicated that a person would have to eat 5.5 pounds of dried biosolids to
receive a therapeutic dose of Prozac. These tests results seem
promising, but further research would be needed to understand any risk
from the accumulation of these compounds as they enter the food chain.
Other studies have shown that trace chemicals in food and water can
become highly concentrated at the top of the food chain [80]. A recent
study has found that frogs in farming areas show high
Objective 1.3 of
Alachua County’s
Economic Element:
The County shall evaluate and ensure that
the types of new businesses and industries
developing and locating
in Alachua County (and
the expansion of existing
businesses and industries) will contribute to
maintaining a clean
environment (air, water,
soil) and be located in
areas with suitable infrastructure and compatible land uses. Each
employer shall be a good
neighbor by preventing
adverse impacts on the
environment with emphasis given to the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 5.1 Conservation and Open Space
Element of the Alachua
County Comprehensive
Plan:
Provide for energy efficiency in human activities, land uses, and
development patterns in
order to reduce overall
energy requirements for
the County and its residents.
n
4-50
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Figure 4.7 Nitrate Testing at Whistling Pines Ranch, 2007
The standard for drinking water outside the boundaries of the farm is 10 miligrams per liter. Some readings on the east (right) side of the zone are elevated, but
it is not clear from the report if those samples are from drinking water wells.
n
4-52
4.4. Biosolids
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
4-51
incidence of genital deformities as a result of endocrine disruptors
[81].
Neither aerobic nor anaerobic digestion will decompose all chemicals
from the wastewater stream, but if Alachua County finds it necessary to
reduce the impact of pharmaceuticals and other such chemicals on the
wastewater stream, they could attempt to capture some of these chemicals
at the source (i.e. hospitals and other medical facilities)
[82]. These treatment processes might require the use of ultraviolet
light, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone [82]. Using these intensive
water-purification processes only at localized sites would be much more
energy-efficient than treating the entire wastewater stream simply
because the volume of water that is processed would be greatly
reduced. The existing pharmaceutical collection program in Alachua
County could also be extended, perhaps including more signs in pharmacies (for both employees and customers), information pamphlets for
customers, and more convenient disposal sites.
4.4.4.1 Changing Regulations
Another consideration that affects continued landspreading of biosolids is
the expected change in the regulatory environment. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), which is responsible for
administering EPA regulations in the state, is in the process of revising its
rule 62-640 for landspreading biosolids. A new subsection,
62-640.100(1)(b), added in the 2008 draft states: “The Department
[FDEP] intends to encourage the highest levels of treatment, quality, and
use for biosolids” [83]. Although the GRU Biosolids Management Plan
states that promulgation of new, stricter regulations would require
treatment to Class A or Class AA standards, at this point the draft Florida
rule does not prohibit landspreading Class B biosolids.
4.4.5 Produc ing Class A or Class AA Bios olids
4.4.5.1 Composting
Either anaerobic digestion or composting can accomplish the biological
decomposition of sludge and produce Class A or Class AA biosolids
depending on the level of pollutants remaining after treatment.
Composting might be the simplest, low-cost, low-tech process that will
produce these classes [58]. In composting sewage sludge, another
component of waste such as wood chips or yard waste is used as a bulking
agent to disperse the liquid sludge and allow air to be circulated through
it. With adequate aeration, the solids in sludge decompose into carbon
dioxide and water vapor, with compost, a solid humus-like material,
remaining. If aeration is inadequate, some methane is produced that is
undesirable because it is a GHG that the composting facility is not likely to
capture.
Figure 4.8 Example Wastewater Treatment Process
A final stage of anaerobic digestion of thickened sludge
replaces an aerobic process.
Source: Coming Clean With Fuel Cells by Y. Kishinevsky
and S. Zelingher in IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, p.
22, November/December, 2003. Retrieved from http:
//www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Co urses/
EGR325/Readings/FuelCells.pdf
The two most common methods for composting are the static pile
and windrows [84]. For the static pile, aeration is achieved by blowing
air through pipes up through the pile. Aeration of windrows is
provided by frequent mechanical turning of the pile. For each of these
methods, energy is required to accomplish the aeration.
However, there is a useful environmental benefit of carbon
sequestration (keeping carbon out of the atmosphere). The EPA
estimates that the net GHG sequestration of composting is 0.05 metric
metric tons of carbon equivalents per (standard) short ton of wet
organic material composted [2]. This means that, after accounting for
the mass of water in wet compost material, composting could be
used to sequester carbon and thereby reduce the greenhouse gas load
in Alachua County.
4.4.5.2 Anaerobic Digestion
Florida has historically had low
levels of industry and,
correspondingly, has low levels of metals and chemicals in
its water.
In comparison to GRU’s practice of landspreading Class B biosolids,
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) uses anaerobic digestion and a
supplemental drying process to convert its wastewater to Class AA
fertilizer. About 60% of the energy for the drying process currently
comes from the methane that is produced during the anaerobic digestions process and the remainder of the energy comes from natural gas
[85]. The process is currently being optimized and the team at JEA
suggested that the optimized process will produce enough methane to
run 100% of the drying process. After initial treatment, JEA’s biosolids
are processed by GreenTechnologies, Inc. and made into GreenEdge, an
organic fertilizer marketed in various outlets [86]. GreenTechnologies,
Inc. is located in Alachua County. Its president and CEO, Dr. Amir
Varshovi, is a graduate of the University of Florida.
The preferred option for managing biosolids is anaerobic digestion
carried out in a closed, heated vessel in the absence of oxygen.
Thermophilic anaerobic digestion is carried out at 122–150 °F with
Text Box 4.3 Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion involves biologically stabilizing biosolids in a closed tank to reduce the organic con tent,
mass, odor (and the potential to generate odor), and pathogen content of biosolids. In this process,
microorganisms consume a part of the organic portion of the biosolids. Anaerobic bacteria that thrive in the
oxygen-free environment convert organic solids to carbon dioxide, methane (which can be recovered and used for
energy), and ammonia. Anaerobic digestion is one of the most widely used biosolids stabilization practices,
especially in larger treatment works, partly because of its methane recovery potential. Anaerobic digestion is
typically operated at about 35 °C (95 °F), but also can be operated at higher temperatures (greater than 55 °C [131
°F]) to further reduce solids and pathogen content of the stabilized biosolids.”
Source: Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States by the EPA, page 11. Retrieved from http://www.newnanutilities.org/LAS_
PDF/10--Biosolids%20Generation%20Use%20Disposal%20EPA%20530.pdf
retention times of two to three weeks, which destroys pathogens (but not
heavy metals).
The decomposition of biosolids produces a gas of about 60%
methane and 40% carbon dioxide, a solid digestate, and process liquor [64].
The methane can be used for power production at 80% efficiency using
combined heat and power [56]. The waste heat can be used to heat the
anaerobic digestion vessels or to dry the digestate for pelletized
fertilizer. A net energy of about 100 kilowatt hours per short ton is
realized, as well as the digestate, which produces Class AA biosolids, a
valuable soil amendment [63, 84].
GRU has not expressed interest in anaerobic digestion, citing
capital cost of $40,000,000. However, this cost might be inflated
[18, 87]. The actual cost could be no more than GRU expects to pay for
Whistling Pines Ranch. To determine the cost of constructing an
anaerobic digestion facility that meets the recommendations listed in
this report, GRU could issue a Request for Proposals for its construction
and then the City of Gainesville could weigh the costs against the
greenhouse gas impacts, energy generation from methane, and other
long term costs and consequences.
JEA replaced its incinerators with an anaerobic digestion process and
cited benefits such as the absence of incineration ash that would
otherwise go to a landfill, reduction in air emissions, reduction in
natural gas use, and a reduction of withdrawals of 1 million gallons of
water per day [88].
Anaerobic digestion of waste to produce methane is an increasingly
important way to provide an alternative to fossil fuel. It is being used in
various European cities to power city buses, on farms to supply power
needed to operate the farm (with energy left over to sell), and in various
locations to produce energy from food waste [89]. The small community
of Live Oak, Florida looked for ways reduce electricity use in their aerobic
digestion treatment process and switched to anaerobic
Chemicals Tested in Class
AA Biosolids
Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Potassium, Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel,
Selenium, Zinc.
Source: FAC 62-640.650.1(b)
n
4-54
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Text Box 4.4 Class A versus Class B Biosolids
“Part 503 Biosolids Rule classifies biosolids on their level of pathogen reduction.
Class A Biosolids undergo advanced treatment to reduce pathogen levels to below detectable levels.
Heat drying, composting, and high-temperature aerobic digestion (described in Section 2.2) are
treatment processes that typically achieve Class A pathogen reduction requirements. Class A biosolids,
often sold in bags, can be beneficially used without pathogen-related restrictions at the site. If they also
meet vector reduction requirements and Part 503 concentration limits for metals, Class A biosolids can
be used as freely and for the same purposes as any other fertilizer or soil amendment product.
Class B Biosolids are treated to reduce pathogens to levels protective of human health and the
environment, but not to undetectable levels. Thus, Class B biosolids require crop harvesting and site
restrictions, which minimize the potential for human and animal contact until natural attenuation of
pathogens has occurred. Class B biosolids cannot be sold or given away for use on sites such as
lawns and home gardens, but can be used in bulk on agricultural and forest lands, reclamation sites,
and other controlled sites, as long as all Part 503 vector, pollutant, and management practice
requirements also are met.”
Source: Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States by the EPA, Box 4. Retrieved from http://www.newnanutilities.org/
LAS_PDF/10--Biosolids%20Generation%20Use%20Disposal%20EPA%20530.pdf
digestion to save about $28,000 per year in electricity costs [90]. Much of
the savings was a reduction in the need to operate the aeration pumps in
the old aerobic digestion process [90].
Generating energy from anaerobic digestion and using the digestate as
a Class AA fertilizer is a good example of fully closing the recycling loop
on a waste stream.
There are different ways to design anaerobic digestion systems so
that they produce Class A biosolids. One example is shown on page
4-52 where the final stage of aerobic digestion of thickened sludge has
been replaced with anaerobic digestion. Note that both systems would
include an aerobic process during preliminary treatment of unthickened
wastewater. The last stage in which anaerobic digestion has replaced
aerobic digestion is conducted on thickened sludge as opposed to the
watery input in the preliminary treatment process. Other anaerobic
digestion systems that can attain Class A or Class AA ratings include
the ODI 2PAD™ System [91]; temperature phased anaerobic digestion,
two-phase anaerobic digestion, anaerobic thermophilic pretreatment,
and pre-pastuerization followed by anaerobic digestion [92, 93]; the
BioPasteur system (includes pretreatment at 160 °F for 30–60 minutes)
[94]; and autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion [95].
4.4.6 Energy Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion
Advanced anaerobic digestion of GRU’s sewage sludge would have the
following positive effects relative to the current aerobic digestion
process.
1. Energy saved by avoiding aeration (approximately 2–3
megawatts) [58].
2. Energy content of methane produced by anaerobic digestion
using combined heat and power (approximately 1 megawatt)
[63].
3. Savings in energy for thermophilic digestion using ground (or
wastewater) source heat-pump for heating of up to 50% [89].
4. Reduction in carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs released
during aeration. The methane reduction is important because it
has about 25 times the global warming potential as carbon dioxide
[65]. Approximately 60% of the gas released during digestion is
methane and 40% is carbon dioxide [56, 64].
5. Reduction in ammonia and methane from landspreading of
biosolids [58].
6. Savings and reductions in GHG emissions associated with the
burning of fossil fuels need to truck the Class B biosolids to the
Archer site and spread it. Based on an estimate from GRU that the
landspreading operation uses 244 gallons of diesel per week, halting
the landspreading process would save about 141 short tons of
carbon per year (see Text Box 4.4.6).
7. Savings from the capital cost of the trucks ($436,000) and spreading
equipment ($1,082,500) needed to haul the sludge and the
Figure 4.9 An Example of Aerobic
Digestion of Wastewater
Photo by RMC Green Team
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Figure 4. 10 Advanced Anaerobic
Digestion Tanks
rental of another truck from Whistling Pines Ranch ($30 per
hour) [58].
Photo by KQED Quest
8. Production of Class AA biosolids would eliminate health concerns with pathogens and other toxic substances in Class B
biosolids.
9. Class A or Class AA biosolids would be useful for replenishing soil
carbon, for landscaping, and for use as a soil amendment.
10. The economics of anaerobic digestion should reflect the savings
from not having to purchase the Whistling Pines Ranch. The price
was reported as $11.5 million by the Gainesville Sun [69] and
counted as approximately $14 million in the GRU Biosolids
Management Plan between tables 5-11 and 5-12 [58].
4.4.7 Biosolids as Plant Nutrients
Farmers who use Class B
biosolids on their land must
disclose the potential hazard
when the land is sold.
Florida’s sandy soils are low in nitrogen and humus material, which
generally necessitates the addition of fertilizer in one form or another for
growing healthy crops. Environmental horticulture is now the number
one agricultural industry in Florida [96]. Cities, counties, and highway
departments require significant amounts of soil amendment, compost,
or mulch for landscaping streets and other public areas and for growing
plants for their landscaping requirements [personal communication,
Meg Niederhoffer, Arborist, City of Gainesville]. Biosolids are a rich
source of some of the needed nutrients that can reduce the
requirement for commercial fertilizers produced largely from natural
gas. The global food supply is now being threatened by growing
shortages of fertilizers produced from natural gas [97].
Text Box 4.5 Estimated Carbon Impact of Hauling Sludge for Landspreading.
Carbon Output From Hauling Biosolids to be Spread at Whistling Pines Ranch
(Rough Estimates)
244 gallons of diesel/week to haul sludge
22.20 pounds of CO2 released per gallon of
diesel 282,634.85 pounds of CO2 per year from hauling
sludge
141.32 tons of CO2 per year from hauling sludge
Estimations calculated by the ECSC based on input from GRU.
Class B biosolids contain higher levels of pathogens than Class A
or AA. Farmers are warned that the value of their land might be reduced
if they apply Class B biosolids and thereby need to disclose the potential
hazard when the land is sold [98]. Furthermore, Class B biosolids may not
be used for food crops or in areas that have public access.
Class B biosolids have been applied by GRU to the same 1175 acres
at Whistling Pines Ranch for the past 25 years. There the concern is that
the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus contained in the biosolids not
exceed the agronomic uptake of the crops being grown. A preferable use
of these nutrients would be to upgrade treatment to anaerobic digestion
that would produce Class AA biosolids, which could have much more
widespread usage.
Following anaerobic digestion, biosolids may be dried to produce a
pelletized slow-release fertilizer such as is done at JEA [personal communication, Dr. Amir Varshovi, GreenTechnologies, LLC, Gainesville,
Florida.] and other similar facilities. This fertilizer is marketed in
Gainesville under the label GreenEdge using a process developed by Dr.
Amir Varshovi [personal communication, Dr. Amir Varshovi,
GreenTechnologies, LLC, Gainesville, Florida.]. The drying process
takes additional energy that is provided by natural gas [85]. However,
with the design of an efficient heat exchanger for the dryer and a more
efficient anaerobic digester, no external source of energy should be
required [personal communication, Bob Leetch, P.E., Manager Wastewater Treatment and Reuse, JEA]. Use of ground-source heat-pumps
[89] and and the heat-pipe drying technology for drying rice invented by
Khanh Dinh [99] would further reduce the energy required to dry the
biosolids. Pelletizing to produce a slow-release fertilizer is an additional
value-added step, but is not necessary in order for the biosolids to be used
in landscaping, as a soil amendment, or in potting mixes.
n
4-5
8
Chapter 4. Waste and Energy Implications
Table 4.9 Why Incinerating Biosolids Does Not Generate Electricity †
Energy returned from burning the solids in wastewater:
6,411 B T U
x 5.3pounds of solids =
33,980 BTU
p
pound of biosolids
Heat 94.7 pounds of water to boiling (212 °F):
— (212 — 95 °F) x 1BTU pound 94.7 pounds =
Vaporize (latent heat of evaporation):
— 970 BTU
—11, 090 BTU
=
—91,860 BTU
Heating of vapor to the temperature of the furnace (2,000 °F$):
— (2, 000 — 212) °F x 0.87 BTU x 94.7pounds =
—147,311 BTU
pound
x 94.7 pounds
.
pound F
Total energy gained from burning burning biosolids:
p
—216,281 BTU (energy lost)
†
Based on a sample of 100 pounds of wastewater that is 5.3% solids by weight.
#
Heating water vapor requires 0.87 BTUs per pound per degree Fahrenheit.
Anaerobic Digestion
and Vector Attraction
Reduction
“Because the biological
activity [of anaerobic digestion] consumes most of
the volatile solids needed
for further bacterial growth,
microbial activity in the
treated sewage sludge is
limited. Currently, anaerobic digestion is one of the
most widely used
treatments for sewage
sludge treatment, especially in treatment works
with average wastewater
flow rates greater than
19,000 cubic meters/day
(5 million gallons per day).”
Source: Environmental Regulations and Technology:
Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in
Sewage Sludge, p. 45 by the EPA, 2003.
Retrieved from http://www.
epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/pubs/625r92013/
625R92013.pdf
4.4.8 Incineration (burning)
Incineration (burning) was presented by GRU consultants (using the
euphemism thermal oxidation instead of incineration) as an option for
disposal of sewage sludge. The 2007 GRU Biosolids Management Plan
reviewed incineration and other waste disposal methods but failed to
consider the full impacts of GHGs [58]. The plan for landspreading of
biosolids might also be affected by proposed changes in Chapter 62-640
of the Florida Administrative Code that require registration of lands,
restrictions on when and where biosolids can be spread, prohibition of
spray guns, prohibition of some stockpiling, and requirements for
redundancy of equipment [83].
GRU’s Request for Proposals [48] for a planned biomass-burning
generator includes sewage sludge as a possible fuel, and City Commissioners have expressed interest in using this once the biomass burner is
online. Sewage sludge is about 95% water. Burning sewage sludge would
be primarily a disposal mechanism rather than an energy producing
process (as opposed to anaerobic digestion) because the energy needed to
dry the sewage sludge would exceed the energy produced from burning
it (see Table 4.9).
Burning the carbon in sludge would also release 10–15 metric
metric tons of carbon equivalents per day into the atmosphere [58].
Thermal oxidation, although allowed by environmental regulations, is
not advisable because (a) no energy is produced, (b) the carbon is
released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, a GHG, and (c) the
energy value and agricultural value of the biosolids would be lost.
Bibliography
[1]
Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in
the united states: Facts and figures for 2006. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw06.pdf
[2]
Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: A
life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks. 2006. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html
[3]
T. Townsend. Operating landfills as bioreactors to decompose and stabilize solid waste.
R e t r i e v e d J u l y 0 1 , 2 0 0 8 f r o m
http://cluin.org/wales/download/townsend_usa_landfills.pdf
[ 4 ] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling: 2005 solid waste annual report
data. 2006. Retrieved May 22, 2008 from http:/ /www. dep . state. fl. us /waste/
categories/recycling/pages/05_data.htm seealso
http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/www_rcra/reports/WR/Recycling/
2005AnnualReport/AppendixB/6B.pdf and
http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/www_rcra/reports/WR/Recycling/
2005AnnualReport/AppendixB/4B.pdf.
[5]
F. Barringer. A city committed to recycling is ready for more. New York Times. May 7, 2008. URL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/07garbage.html?_r=
3&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=
1210550739-8Lwmm1wZwbMdkubwmouT2g.
[6]
Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste management and greenhouse gases, a life-cycle of
emissions and sinks, 3rd edition. 2006. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from http:
//epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf.
[7]
ICF Consulting. Determination of the impact of waste management activities on greenhouse gas
emissions: 2005 update. 2005. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from
http://www.recycle.nrcan.gc.ca/ICF%20final%20report.pdf
[8]
R. A. Denison and J. Ruston. Recycling and Incineration. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1990.
[9]
A. Leonard. The story of stuff [video]. 2007. Retrieved May 26, 2008 from
http://storyofstuff . com/ see also http:
//storyofstuff.com/pdfs/annie_leonard_footnoted_script.pdf.
[10]
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Final disposition of municipal solid
waste in florida. 2002. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/
shw/recycling/2001AnnualReport/AppendixA/5A.pdf
[11] Government Accountability Office. Recycling: Additional efforts could increase municipal
recycling. December 2006. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0737.pdf.
[12] City of Seattle. City of seattle recycling rate: 2007 update. July 1, 2008. Retrieved September
02, 2008 from http://www. seattle.gov/util/stellent/groups/
public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu01_003838.pdf
59
[13] Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse gas emissions from management of selected
materials in municipal solid waste. 1998. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from
ht tp :/ /t i nyur l. com/54nl3o EPA530-R-98-013.
[ 14] Environmental Protection Agency. Multifamily recycling: A national study. 2001. Retrieved
J u l y 0 2 , 2 0 0 8 f r o m
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/multifamily.pdf
EPA530-R-01-018.
[15] Environmental Protection Agency. Landfill methane outreach program (LMOP): Basic
information. 2008. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/overview.htm
[16] Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. methane emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, projections,
and opportunities for reductions, appendix 2. 1999. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from
http://www.epa.gov/methane/reports/02 -landfills.pdf EPA
430-R-99-013. see also http :/ /www. epa . gov/methane/pro jections.html.
[17] B. Platt, C. Doherty, A. Broughton, and D. Morris. Beyond 40 Percent. Island Press,
Washington, DC, 1991.
[18] U. Zaher, D-Y Cheong, B. Wu, and S. Chen. Producing energy and fertilizer from organic
municipal solid waste. 2007, Washington State University, Ecology Publication No. 07-07-024.
Retrieved May 03, 2008 from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/ 0707024.pdf
[19] M. Ozores-Hamptom. Beneficial effects of organix amendments to sandy soils. 2004.
Retrieved April 22, 2008 from
www.imok.ufl.edu/compost/training/cd/020403/Beneficial%
2 0 e f f e c t % 2 0 o f % 2 0 o r g a n i c % 2 0 a m e n d m e nt s% 2 0 t o % 2 0 s a n d y % 2 0 s o i l . p d f
[ 2 0 ] North Carolina State University. Community backyard composting programs. Retrieved
J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 f r o m h t t p :
//www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/vermicomposting/pubs/composting.pdf
[21] California Integrated Waste Management Board. Rosalie mulé [biography page]. Retrieved July
12, 2008 from
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BoardInfo/BoardMembers/Mule/
[22] City of Wilmington, DE. Mayor Baker announces new ‘green’ compost facility in south
Wilmington; company and community sign a community benefits agreement. February 28,
2008. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from http :/ /www. ci . wi lmington . de.us/
newsroom/2008/0228_south_wilmington_composting.htm
[ 2 3 ] City of Boston. Request of expression of interest (RFI): Organic materials composting and
management. 2008. Retrieved May 26, 2008 from http :/ /www. cityofboston . gov/
environmentalandenergy/pdfs/Reque_Express_of_Interest.pdf
[24] Institute for Local Self-Reliance. A scenario for resource management in the State of Delaware.
M a y 2 0 0 7 . R e t r i e v e d A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 f r o m
http://www.awm.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/AWM%
20Gallery/AWM-DelawareILSR060407.pdf
[25]
Stop Trashing the Climate. Trash is big climate problem, new report finds [press
release]. June 5, 2008. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from http://www. st opt rashingtheclimate .
org/Stoptrashingtheclimate_pressrelease.doc
[26]
B. Platt, D. Ciplet, K. M. Bailey, and E. Lombardi. Stop trashing the climate. 2008.
Retrieved July 12, 2008 from http ://www. st opt rashingtheclimate . org/fullreport_
stoptrashingtheclimate.pdf
[27] California Integrated Waste Management Board. Recycling market development zones. 2008.
Retrieved July 20, 2008 from http :/ /www. ciwmb .ca.gov/RMDZ /
[28] Sacramento Regional Recycling Market Development Zone. Sacramento regional recycling
market development zone [home page]. 2008. Retrieved July 20, 2008 from
http://sacberc.org/Web/programs/rmdz/
[29] Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County recycling market development zone (RMDZ).
R e t r i e v e d J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 f r o m h t t p :
//www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/rmdz/index.htm
[30] G. Goldman and A. Ogishi. The economic impact of waste disposal and diversion in California. April
4, 2001. Retrieved July 20, 2008 from the California Integrated Waste Management Board web
site:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Agendas/MtgDocs/2002/01/00007123.pdf
[31] National Recycling Coalition. California recycling economic information study. 2001.
Retrieved July 20, 2008 from the California Integrated Waste Management Board web site:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Agendas/MtgDocs/2002/01/00007124.pdf
[32] PaperStone, Inc. PaperStone benefits and key points. Retrieved June 04, 2008 from
http://www.paperstoneproducts.com/ps_benefits_key_points.php
[33] Tiger Mountain Innovations, Inc. Squak Mountain Stone. 2007. Retrieved June 04, 2008 from
http://www.tmi-online.com/literature/SLABS.pdf
[34] Tiger Mountain Innovations, Inc. Trinity Glass productions. Retrieved June 04, 2008 from
http://www.trinityglassproducts.com/specifications.html
[35] Gainesville Community Ministry. 2008. Retrieved July 23, 2008 from
http://www.betterday.org/
[36]
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. C&D debris recycling study: Final
report. 2001. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from htt p :/ /www. dep .st ate.fl. u s /waste /
quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/candd/CDreport5-8.pdf
seealsohttp://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/
pages/canddmain.htm.
[37] Deconstruction Institute. Case studies. 2007. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from
http://www.deconstructioninstitute.com/casestudies.php
[38] B. Guy and S. McLendon. Building deconstruction: Reuse and recycling of building materials.
2002. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from http :/ /www. recyclecddebris .com/rCDd/
Resources/Documents/CSGReuseRecycling.pdf
[39] Zero Waste International. Zero Waste International [home page]. 2008. Retrieved July 30,
2008 from http://www.zwia.or g/standards.html
[40] Bernie Machen. Campus community council, September 13, 2006. 2006. Retrieved May 14,
2008 from http://www. president.ufl.edu/speeches/2006/09/
campusCommunityCouncil.html
[41] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. 2007. U R L
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.
[42] United Nations Environment Programme. Global Environmental Outlook. Progress Press,
Valletta, Malta, 4thedition, 2007. URL http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/report/GEO-4_
Report_Full_en2.pdf.
[43]
Alachua County Department of Waste Management. Maximizing waste prevention and
waste reduction (blue sky report). 2001. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from
https://govconnect.alachuacounty.us/committees/ECSC/
Strategies /wei/Shared%20Documents/bluesky.doc See also
https://govconnect.alachuacounty.us/committees/ECSC/
Strategies/wei/Shared%20Documents/011508BlueSkyStatus.doc.
[44]
University of Florida Sustainability Task Force. Implementation proposals for high
priority recommendations. 2003. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from http:/ /www. sustainable.
ufl.edu/reports/200303ImplementationProposals.pdf
[45] Integrated Waste Services Association. Waste-to-Energy (home page). 2008. Retrieved
July 09, 2008 from http:/ /www. wte .org/
[ 4 6 ] Florida statutes, sects. 366.91, 366.92, 377.803. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from
http://tinyurl. com/4u2u8u see also http://tinyurl. com/3rk4nr.
[ 4 7 ] Zero Waste Alliance. The case for zero waste. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from
http://www.zerowaste.org/case.htm
[48] Gainesville Regional Utilities. Request for proposals 2007-135: Addendum no. 2—Biomass
fueled generation facility. 2007. Retrieved March 3, 2008 from http:
//ww w .gr u .c om /Pd f/ f u tur e Po wer/R F P% 2 0A dd end u m% 2 0 N umb er % 2 0 2. pd f %
bn.
[49] City of Gainesville, Florida. Evaluation of biomass fueled generation proposals. Retrieved May
15, 2008 from http://www.gru.com/Pdf/futurePower/BindingProposals/Binding%20
Proposal%20Recommendation%20CC%20Presentation%204-28-08.pdf
[50]
J. Pearce and A. Lau. Net energy analysis for sustainable energy production from silicon
based solar cells. Proceedings of Solar 2002: Sunrise on the Reliable Energy Economy, June
15–20, 2 0 0 2 , R e n o , N e v a d a . 2 0 0 2 . U R L
http://geoinfonusantara.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Net_
Energy_Analysis_of_Silicon_Based_Solar_Cells.110133755.pdf.
[51] J. N. Abramovitz and A. T. Matton. Recovering the Paper Landscape. WW Norton, New York,
2000.
[52] H. Wagner. Pine plantations may be one culprit in increasing carbon dioxide levels. 2006.
Retrieved May 15, 2008 from
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/pinetree.htm
[53] M. E. Echeverría, D. Markewitz, L. A. Morris, and R. L. Hendrick. Soil organic matter fractions
under managed pine plantations of the southeastern USA. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 68:950–958. 2004. URL
http:// soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/68/3/950, see also
http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/3/950.pdf.
[54] C. Barnett. Mirage: Florida and the Vanishing Water of the Eastern US. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 2007.
[55]
SourceWatch. Biosolids. Retrieved May 12, 2008 from
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biosolids
[56] Environmental Protection Agency. Biosolids technology fact sheet: Multi-stage anaerobic
digestion. 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/multistage.pdf
[57] Water Environment Federation. High performance anaerobic digestion. 2004. Retrieved
February 28, 2008 from http://www . wef . org/NR/rdonlyres/
4D51F55C-2CDD-42A0-AB9C-D77C4139F51C/0/AnaerobicDigestion.pdf
white paper report.
[58] CH2MHILL. Draft final biosolids management plan. 2007. Retrieved March 3, 2008 from
h t t p : / / w w w . a l a c h u a c o u n t y . u s / a s s e t s / u p l o a d s / i m a g e s / e p d / documents
/ECSC/GRU_Sludge . pdf (Report submitted to GRU).
[59]
Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 503.32. 2007. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11sep20071500/edocket.
access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/40cfr503.32.pdf
[60] Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental regulations and technology: Control of
pathogens and vector attraction in sewage sludge. chapter 8. July 2003. Retrieved May 17,
2008 from
http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/pubs/625r92013/625R92013.pdfsee
also
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lrpcd/esm/projects/sewagesludge.html.
[61] Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 503.33. 2007. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11sep20071500/edocket.
access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/40cfr503.33.pdf
[62] Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Methane capture and
use—waste management workbook. 1997. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/challenge/
publications/methanequickref.html
[63] Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater fact sheet: Energy savings and energy
reliability for wastewater treatment facilities. 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from
http://epa.gov/chp/markets/wastewater_fs.html
[64] C. A. Wilson, S. M. Murthy, Y. Fang, and J. T. Novak. The effect of temperature on the
performance and stability of thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Conference paper from Moving
Forward: Wastewater, biosolids sustainability: Technical, managerial, and public synergy. 2007.
Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://tinyurl . com/246shu)
[65] D.L. Albritton, L.G. Meira Filho, U. Cubasch, X. Dai, Y. Ding, and D.J. Griggs et. al..
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Technical Summary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 2001.
[66] P. Forster, V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C.
Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, M. Schulz R. Prinn, G. Raga, and R. Van Dorland. Changes in
atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, editors, Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007. URL http : / /www. ipcc . ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf.
[67] City of Alachua. Wastewater treatment. 2007. Retrieved March 3, 2008 from
http://tinyurl.com/2aspyl
[68] Gainesville City Commission. Meeting minutes, July 23, 2007. 2007. Retrieved March 20,
2008 from http://tinyurl. com/2yjcqr
[69] N. Crabbe. Tests to gauge land pollution. Gainesville Sun. February 12, 2008, Retrieved
March 20, 2008 from
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080212/NEWS/802120321
[70] S. R. Jenkins, C. W. Armstrong, and M. M. Monti. Health effects of biosolids applied to land:
Available scientific evidence. 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http :/ /www. vdh .
virginia.gov/epidemiology/DEE/documents/Biosolids.pdf.(Virginia
Department of Health white paper).
[71] Florida Administrative Code. Domestic wastewater residuals. 62-640.650. 1b. 2007. Retrieved
April 7, 2008 from
www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/rules/wastewater/62-640.pdf
[72] D. Z. Haman and D. B. Bottcher. Home water quality and safety. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from
the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences web site:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AE009
[73] R. E. Hester and R. M. Harrison. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Royal Society of
Chemistry, Cambridge, 1999.
[74] E. Z. Harrison, S. R. Oakes, M. Hysell, and A. Hay. Organic chemicals in sewage sludges. The
Science of the Total Environment, 367(2–3):481–497. 2006.
[ 7 5 ] J. Donn, M. Mendoza, and J. Pritchard. AP probe finds drugs in drinking water. ABC News.
March 9, 2008. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=4416882
[76] N. Crabbe. GRU says drinking water is safe. Gainesville Sun. March 13, 2008. URL
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080314/NEWS/803140322/
1002/NEWS.
[77] CH2MHILL. Whistling Pines Ranch—microconstituent sampling results. May 13, 2008. Retrieved
May 18, 2008 from https : //govconnect .alachuacounty.us/
committees/ECSC/Strategies/wei/Shared%20Documents/
SludgeMotion/GRU%20Biosolids%20 -%20CH2MHILL%20Report080515.pdf
technical report.
[78] P. Davis. Letter to GRU: Whistling Pines Ranch microconstituent sampling and analysis. May
12, 2008. Retrieved May 18, 2008 from https :/ /govconnect .alachuacounty.
us/committees/ECSC/Strategies/wei/Shared%20Documents/
S l u d g e M o t i o n / G R U % 2 0 B i o s o l i d s % 2 0 J E A % 2 0 r e p o r t % 2 0 2 0 0 8 - 0 5 - 1 3 . p d f letter
describing the soil and water sampling at WPR.
[79]
N. Crabbe. Tests: Sludge free of drugs. Gainesville Sun. May 16, 2008. URL
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
/20080516/NEWS/805160329/1002/NEWS%26title=Tests__Sludge_free_
of_drugs&template=printart.
[80] M. N. Jacobs, A. Covaci, and P. Schepens. Investigation of selected persistent organic
pollutants in farmed Atlantic salmon (salmo salar), salmon aquaculture feed, and fish oil
components of the feed. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(13):2797–2805. 2002.
[81] A. Hoover. New study points to agriculture in frog sexual abnormalities. July 3, 2008.
Retrieved July 23, 2008 from
http://news.ufl.edu/2008/07/03/abnormal-frogs/
[ 8 2 ] Science Daily. Purified wastewater from hospitals. 2007. Retrieved May 03, 2008 from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206231740.htm
[ 8 3 ] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Draft 62-640 biosolids. 2008. Retrieved March
28, 2008 from http ://www. dep . state. fl . us /water /wastewater/dom/
docs/draft_62-640_2-21-07.pdf
[84] Biocycle. The BioCycle Guide to Yard Waste Composting. JG Press, Emmasus, PA, 1989.
[85] A. Varshovi. Presentation to the Sierra Club, April 3, 2008. 2008.
[ 8 6 ] Jacksonville Electric Authority. Greenedge-fertilizer.. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from
http://www.jea.com/community/stories/greenedge.asp
[87] D. O’Keefe. Presentation to the Sierra Club, april 3, 2008. 2008.
[ 8 8 ] Jacksonville Electric Authority. Sewer treatment byproducts.. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from
http://www.jea.com/business/services/prodandserv/b yproducts/
byproducts_sewer.asp
[89] S. Salter. Turning waste into gold. Watershed Sentinel. September–October 2007. Retrieved
March 10, 2008 from http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/documents/ModernAlchemyWS.pdf,
See also http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/PDF/UVic-Waste-to-Gold.pdf.
[90] National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Live Oak, FL, wastewater treatment facility.
2005. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http ://ncppp .org/cases /liveoak2 . shtml
[91] Infilco Degrememont. Two-phase anaerobic digestion for class a biosolids. 2004. Retrieved
May 14, 2008 from
http://www.infilcodegremont.com/images/pdf/2pad.pdf
[92]
R. Sieger (CH2MHIL). Anaerobic digestion: Revitalized. The Straight Scoop on Biosolids, 4
(Winter/Spring):3–6. 2001. URL http :/ /www. ch2m . com/webuploads /
n e w s g e n e r a t o r / E x t _ W a t e r / A S L _ S e r v i c e s / S t r a i g h t S c o o p . p d f , R e t r i e v e d May
14, 2008 from http://www.ch2m.com/webuploads/newsgenerator/Ext_
Water/ASL_Services/StraightScoop.pdf.
[93]
D. Bible, B. Borneman, A. Cannella, and J. Adamik. Two-phase anaerobic digestion for
Class A biosolids at Moccasin Bend WWTP. 2006. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from
http://www.infilcodegremont.com/images/pdf/tech-papers/
2-Phase_Digestion_2006-Biosolids-Conf.pdf
[94] N. Heck. Carmel included in national league of cities ‘best practices’. March 10, 2008.
R e t r i e v e d M a y 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 f r o m
http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/GOVERNMENT/newsrelease/03 -07-08.htm
[95] M. Hanson, B. Keenan, M. Perez-Falcon, and S. M. Romah. Biosolids treatment and disposal
alternative for Altamonte Springs. Florida Water Resources Journal, April:32–36. 2004. URL
http://www.fwrj.com/TechArticles04/April%2004%20Tech%202.pdf.
[96] A. W. Hodges, M. Rahmani, and W. D. Mulkey. Economic contributions of agricultural, food
manufacturing, and natural resource industries in Florida in 2006. 2007. Retrieved April 16,
2008 from http://www.florida -agriculture.com/economic_impact.htm
[97] K. Bradsher and A. Martin. Shortages threaten farmers’ key tool: Fertilizer. New York Times. April
30, 2008.
[98] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Domestic wastewater residuals: Fact sheet for
Florida’s farmers and ranchers. 2005. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from http :/ /www .
dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/dom/docs/ResidualsFS.pdf.
[99] K. Dinh. Dehumidifier heat pipes for rice drying and storage. Paper presented at the 6th
International Heat Pipe Symposium—2000, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 2000. Retrieved May 12,
2008 from http://www.advancedryer.com/paper_content.htm