Sie sind auf Seite 1von 110

Third Annual Conference on

Solid Waste Management in


Northern New England

Welcome
David Murphy
Program Co-Chair & Moderator
Chair, EBC Solid Waste Committee
Vice President
Tighe & Bond

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Welcome
Richard Dumore
Leadership Team, EBC NH Chapter
Supervisor Environmental Operations
Eversource Energy

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Thank you to our Collaborators


Solid Waste Association of North America
Northern New England Chapter
Solid Waste Association of North America
Southern New England Chapter
Northeast Resource Recovery Association
National Waste & Recycling Association
Air & Waste Management Association
New England Chapter

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Thank you to our Silver Sponsor

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Thank you to our Bronze Sponsors

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Introduction
Kevin Roche
Program Co-Chair
President, SWANA NNE
General Manager, ecomaine

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Introduction
Mike Durfor
Program Co-Chair & Moderator
Executive Director
Northeast Resource Recovery
Association

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Waste, Waste, Where it Goes


Nobody Knows
Mike Durfor
Executive Director
Northeast Resource Recovery Association

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Northeast Resource Recovery Association


1-800-223-0150
info@nrra.net
Mike Durfor Executive Director
A Recycling Non-Profit
Working Together to Make Recycling Strong!

MOM and NRRA Workshops

MOM - Members/Operations/Marketing meetings are held monthly.

In addition. NRRA conducts workshops and facility tours several times


a year that can be used for continuing education credits toward transfer facility
operator certifications and renewals.

Working Together to Make Recycling Strong!

The Reign of Recycling

By JOHN TIERNEY, October 3, 2015

If you live in the United States, you probably do some form of recycling. Its likely that you
separate paper from plastic and glass and metal. You rinse the bottles and cans, and you
might put food scraps in a container destined for a composting facility. As you sort
everything into the right bins, you probably assume that recycling is helping your
community and protecting the environment. But is it? Are you in fact wasting your time?
In 1996, I wrote a long article for The New York Times Magazine arguing that the recycling
process as we carried it out was wasteful. I presented plenty of evidence that recycling
was costly and ineffectual, but its defenders said that it was unfair to rush to judgment.
Noting that the modern recycling movement had really just begun just a few years earlier,
they predicted it would flourish as the industry matured and the public learned how to
recycle properly.
Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, its still typically more expensive for
municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill. Prices for recyclable
materials have plummeted because of lower oil prices and reduced demand for them
overseas. The slump has forced some recycling companies to shut plants and cancel plans
for new technologies. The mood is so gloomy that one industry veteran tried to cheer up
her colleagues this summer with an article in a trade journal titled, Recycling Is Not
Dead!

Last year, the city government in


Washington, D.C., paid Waste
Management $1.37 million to accept
the recyclables it collected from
residents. That represented a stark
reversal from 2011, when the
district earned $550,000 for sending
the company roughly the same
amount of material.

San Antonio made $305,000 from


collecting and selling 87,600 tons of
recycling last year. That was far less
than the $5.2 million the city made
in 2011, but it was better than the
alternative. Sending those
recyclables to landfill would have
cost San Antonio $2.1 million last
year.

Waste, Waste - Where it


Goes Nobody Knows

Landfi l l Ti ppi ng Fe e s i n USA


Hi gh
Al abama
$47.00
Al aska (4 Landfi l l s)
$85.00
Ari zona
$38.25
Arkansas
$43.00
Cal i forni a
$76.82
Col orado
$66.00
Conne cti cut (1 Landfi l l )
$57.15
De l aware (3 Landfi l l s)
$84.00
Fl ori da
$83.92
Ge orgi a
$45.00
Hawai i
$90.00
Idaho
$67.70
Il l i noi s
$60.00
Indi ana
$60.10
Iowa
$40.50
Kansas
$43.50
Ke ntucky
$55.00
Loui si ana
$31.00
Mai ne (4 Landfi l l s)
$115.00
Maryl and
$70.00
Massachuse tts
$100.00
Mi chi gan
$88.00
Mi nne sota
$63.33
Mi ssi ssi ppi
$47.00
Mi ssouri
$48.11
Montana
$31.05
Ne braska
$45.00
Ne vada
$31.00
Ne w Hampshi re
$87.55
Ne w Je rse y
$96.00
Ne w Me x i co
$62.01
Ne w York
$102.00
North Carol i na (4 Landfi l l s)
$65.84
North Dakota
$43.81
Ohi o
$52.80
Okl ahoma
$50.29
Ore gon
$83.75
Pe nnsyl vani a
$103.00
Rhode Isl and (1 Landfi l l )
$75.00
South Carol i na
$66.00
South Dakota
$59.00
Te nne sse e
$48.00
Te x as
$41.00
Utah
$33.00
V e rmont (2 Landfi l l s)
$87.14
V i rgi ni a
$66.00
Washi ngton
$142.01
We st V i rgi ni a
$69.25
Wi sconsi n
$66.00
Wyomi ng
$102.00
COPYRIGHT Gre e n Powe r Inc 2000 -2011
Thi s page l ast update d: 02/13/2014 14:52:36

Low
$26.00
$21.00
$30.00
$33.00
$34.37
$28.00
$57.15
$84.00
$25.50
$30.55
$39.00
$30.00
$28.00
$32.00
$25.00
$30.50
$33.50
$19.80
$72.00
$52.00
$60.00
$25.00
$26.66
$11.00
$30.00
$16.50
$21.00
$13.70
$67.00
$44.31
$14.98
$49.50
$27.50
$34.65
$30.00
$25.75
$28.50
$63.25
$75.00
$29.00
$34.00
$30.50
$5.00
$15.00
$77.50
$32.00
$28.80
$41.75
$35.00
$35.00
Total Ave rage

Ave rage
$37.60
$60.88
$33.05
$36.50
$52.07
$49.60
$57.15
$84.00
$43.65
$38.27
$75.17
$44.41
$43.46
$44.20
$34.15
$37.46
$44.69
$26.96
$91.00
$62.70
$78.50
$46.82
$47.04
$26.48
$38.38
$25.51
$31.13
$24.83
$77.85
$72.39
$33.80
$86.30
$41.59
$38.92
$39.66
$38.31
$55.74
$75.96
$75.00
$42.61
$41.90
$41.15
$28.95
$24.29
$82.32
$46.11
$70.44
$49.46
$50.20
$60.40
$49.78

EXAMPLE # B:
1. CHARGES and INVOICING. Invoices will be sent on a monthly schedule and
payment is required within thirty (30) days from invoice date.
Term

Acceptable Waste
Disposal
Charge Per Ton
Delivered to XXXX

Acceptable Recyclable
Materials Transportation
Charge Per Ton
Delivered to XXXX

Acceptable Recyclable
Materials Processing
Charge Per Ton
Delivered to XXXX

9/1/15 6/30/16

$62.00

$35.00

$78.00

7/1/16 6/30/17

$62.00

$35.50

$79.15

7/1/17 6/30/18

$62.00

$36.00

$80.35

7/1/18 6/30/19

$63.00

$37.85

$81.55

7/1/19 6/30/20

$64.00

$38.45

$82.75

What is your assessment of the current hauling


function?
2. Biggest success and biggest challenges?
3. How has it changed over the last 5 years?
4. What does the future look like regarding hauling?
5. How has single stream impacted hauling?
6. What do you predict for MSW and S/S haul rates
going forward?
7. Do you typically estimate hauling costs by the
mile, by the hour, by the truck, or all three?
1.

Perspectives from Waste Haulers


Moderator: Mike Durfor, NRRA

Panel Members
TJ Troiano, Troiano Waste Services, Inc.
David Allen, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
Tony Belanger, Pinard Waste Systems

Ben Harvey, E. L. Harvey & Sons, Inc.


Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy

Perspectives from
Waste Haulers
TJ Troiano
General Manager
Troiano Waste Services, Inc.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Changes and Challenges in The Waste Industry


Presented by TJ Troiano

1)Started in 1992
2)1999 Opened CDD Transfer Facility
3)2002 Added MSW Transfer to our existing Facility

4)2004 2007 Converted from Rear Load trucks to


Front Load
5)2010 Built new office and maintenance Facility
6)2015 Expanded into Kennebec County (Augusta
Waterville) Market through an Acquisition

1)Waste & Recycling Hauling


2)Liquid Waste Septic and Portable
Toilets
3)Towing and Recovery
4)Approximately 85 Employees
5)Southern, Mid Maine, Coastal NH

1)13 Front Load Trucks


2)12 Roll Off Trucks
3)3 Hook Lift Trucks
4)3 Rear Load Trucks
5)13 Tractors & 44 Trailers
6)1 Septic Truck
7)5 Portable Toilet Service Trucks
8)3 Car Carriers
9)2 Wreckers

1)Started OCC Route in 1993


2)Started Sorting CDD stream in 2000
1)Metals
2)Wood
3)Inert Materials
4)Shingles
3)Started Single Sort Route 2008

1)Partnership with We-Compost IT


2)Challenges
1)Contamination
2)Transportation cost
3)Overall costs for consumer

1)Commodity Market
1)Market dropped
2)Contamination
3)Cost of transportation
4)Cost of Equipment
2)Being an Independent Hauler
1)Resources / Infrastructure
2)End sites Recycling Process
Plants, Incinerators, and
Landfills

1)Finding new drivers for growth of business


2)Benefits are becoming more expensive
3)Hours are not always most attractive
4)Building a Safety & Performance Bonus system

Perspectives from
Waste Haulers
David Allen
Division Manager
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Perspectives from
Waste Haulers
Tony Belanger
Director of Operations
Pinard Waste Systems

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Perspectives from
Waste Haulers
Benjamin A. Harvey
Executive Vice President
E. L. Harvey & Sons, Inc.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Perspectives from Waste Haulers


Moderator: Mike Durfor, NRRA

Panel Members
TJ Troiano, Troiano Waste Services, Inc.
David Allen, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
Tony Belanger, Pinard Waste Systems

Ben Harvey, E. L. Harvey & Sons, Inc.


Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy

Networking Break

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Energy from Waste


Moderator: Duane Himes, Weston & Sampson
Panel Members

Jim Connolly, Wheelabrator Technologies


Kevin Roche, ecomaine
George Aronson, CommonWealth
Resource Management Corp.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Energy from Waste Emerging


Market Conditions
Jim Connolly
Vice President
Environmental, Health & Safety
Wheelabrator Technologies

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Wheelabrator Technologies
3rd Annual Conference on Solid Waste Management
in Northern New England
April 2016

Wheelabrator Technologies
Key Stats

Operating Assets

Second largest energy-fromwaste player in the U.S.

Falls, PA
1,500 TPD

Operating Performance:
~7.5m annual waste processing
capacity
853MW combined electric
generating capacity enough
to power 805,000 homes in
addition to our operations

North Andover, MA
1,500 TPD
Frackville, PA
48 MW

Shrewsbury, MA(3)
>400,000 TPY

Shasta,CA
58 MW

Millbury, MA
1,500 TPD

Baltimore, MD
2,250 TPD

Putnam, CT (3)
>700,000 TPY

Portsmouth, VA
2,000 TPD

92.3% availability
17 certified VPP Star Worksites

Lisbon, CT(2)
500 TPD

Norwalk,CA
28 MW

Gloucester, NJ
500 TPD

Assets:
Ridge, FL
50 MW

16 operating EfW in U.S. &


U.K.

FL(2)

McKay Bay,
1,000 TPD

2 biomass facility

3 development projects in U.K.

Dutchess County, NY(2)


465 TPD

South Broward, FL(1)


2,250 TPD

1 waste coal facility


2 advanced metals recovery in
addition to in-plant systems

Bridgeport, CT
2,250 TPD
Westchester, NY
2,250 TPD

Fleet of 20 operating assets

4 ash monofills

Saugus, MA(1)
1,500 TPD

Hudson Falls, NY
Headquarters
500 TPD
Concord, NH
Portsmouth, NH
575 TPD

Ferrybridge 1 & 2 JV
3,000 TPD
Combined

North Wales
500 TPD

UK

EfW facilities (Disposal / Energy)


Power plants (Energy)
EfW Development Project
Ash monofills

Kemsley
1,500 TPD

OSHA VPP Star Worksite certified


Headquarters

(1) Saugus and South Broward also operate ash monofills.


(2) WTI manages Lisbon, Dutchess County, and McKay Bay and receives O&M fees.
(3) Putnam and Shrewsbury ash monofills include a metals recovery installation through a 50/50 JV with Inashco Eco Recovery Solutions.

Concord Energy-from-Waste Facility


A key part of the New Hampshire waste disposal and energy infrastructure, delivering
sustainable waste solutions, local low-carbon energy and reduced dependence on landfills
Energy-from-waste facilities reduce carbon emissions by offsetting the need for energy from fossil fuels; We also reduce
methane emissions from landfills and recycle metals
Concord facility directly employs 35 New Hampshire residents and contributes an estimated $5 million annually in economic
activity to the region through direct and indirect jobs, purchases of goods and services, and city and state tax payments
Strong commitment and track record of engaging and supporting our host communities including Concord YMCA, Penacook
Community Centers, Concord Payson Center and Concord Education Fund

Commenced operations:

Annual processing capacity:

Tons of waste per day:

1989

575
Annual energy generation:

Gross MW Rating:

14
New Hampshire homes powered:

14,000

117,040 MWh
Annual oil for power saved:

376,000 BARRELS

191,110 TONS
Metals recovered:

3,800 TONS
Annual coal for power saved:

87,000 TONS

Waste-to-Energy Market Conditions and


Wheelabrator
OUTPUTS
Waste-to-Energy

INPUT

MSW undergoes thermal


conversion to create steam
and electricity

Metal

50 lbs

Power

750 kWh

Municipal Solid
Waste
1 ton
Ash
Metal

10%
of original volume

51

Energy-from-Waste Industry

Conference Themes and Wheelabrator


Diminishing Capacity
Closing Facilities
Claremont in 2014 (Market Conditions)
Extreme Difficulty in Siting New Facilities
Zero Waste Demand
Zero Landfill Option
Lag in Feasible Technology
Pressure to increase recycling
Enhanced Metals Recovery at Landfills
Regulatory Changes and Issues

Energy from Waste Emerging


Market Conditions
Kevin Roche
President, SWANA NNE
General Manager, ecomaine

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Trends in Solid Waste/Recycling

April 14, 2016

54

Our Mission
ecomaine provides
comprehensive long-term
solid waste solutions in a
safe, environmentally
responsible,
economically sound
manner,
and is a leader in raising
public awareness of
sustainable waste
management strategies.

55

ecomaine serves 56 Maine communities

56

Facilities:
1. Single-Sort Recycling
2. Waste-To-Energy
90% reduction of waste to ash
3. Ashfill/Landfill

Programs:
Outreach & Education

57

Connecting with the Community

58

At the core of our mission lies a commitment to


Environmental Sustainability that rests on the Waste Hierarchy.

Maine Policy in Action


LD 1578 An Act to Update Maines Solid
Waste Management Laws
LD 273 An Act to Encourage and Enhance the
Future of Waste-to-Energy Facilities by
Establishing a Portfolio Requirement for
Electricity from Waste Energy Resources

59

Volume from Owner Communities


Residential tons down 20% over 10 years, but now up
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000

30,000
06 07 08
09 10 11
12 13

14

15

16

17

60

Commercial Tons
Tons down 6% from 2006, but up 23% from 2009
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
06 07 08
09 10 11
12 13
14

15

16

17

61

Associate & Contract Member Tons


Up 129% Since 2006, Level Since 2013
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
06 07 08
09 10 11
12 13 14
15 16 17

62

Spot Market Tons Adjusting to Meet


Capacity Requirements
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
06 07 08
09 10 11
12 13
14

15

16

17

63

Overall Solid Waste Tons


190,000
180,000
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
120,000
110,000
100,000
06 07 08
09 10 11
12 13 14
15 16
17

64

Power Sold Remains Strong


Almost reached our FY 13 record in FY 16
Megawatt Hours Sold
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2006
2007
2008

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0

65

Power Rates - Volatility


Down 6% from 2016, 45% from FY 10 peak
$/MWh
$80
$70
$60
$50

$40
$30
$20
$10
$06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

66

Recycling Materials & Markets

67

Recycling Commodities by
Weight, FY 2014
2% 1%
1% 1%
2%
8%

1%

1%

Mixed
Plastic
Colored
HDPE
Nat HDPE

25%

61%

PET

Newspaper

Recycling Commodities by
Weight, FY 2015
1%
1%

2%

1%

2% 1%

1%

Mixed
Plastic
Colored
HDPE

8%

Nat HDPE

27%
59%

Newspaper

Cardboard

68

Tonnage evolution
Light weighting of
packaging and
shipping materials
decreases tonnage.

69

Recycling Market Average Price Per Ton


$107

$120
$100
$80
$60

$104 $103

$86

$82
$72

$70

$70

$62

$56

$40

$20
$0

Recycling markets see strong downward pressure.

70

The Recycle Market Total Revenue


Down 37% from peak in FY 11
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000

$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$08 09 10
11 12
13 14
15

16

17

71

Inbound Recycling Tons


42k

45,000
40,000

35,000
30,000
25,000

25k

25k

28k

31k

33k

36k

35k

44k

35k

21k

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

0
FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13

FY 14 FY15

FY2015 was a record year for inbound recycling tons, up 110 percent since 2005.

72

Export Markets

Impact to ecomaine:
Orders/Movement are Strong
Prices Weak but Seeing Relief
Quality standards remain the
same

73

MSW Tipping Fees


Tonnage up 3% and fees down 21% since FY 06
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
06 07 08

09 10 11
12 13 14
15 16 17

74

Recycling market rates are down 46% from 2008, however just
beginning to see some relief. Have added tipping fees up to $35/ton.
Electrical market rates are down 45% from 2010 with no relief in sight.

Spot Tons becoming more available at higher rates.


Significant capital investments at WTE.

In Demand - solution for organics.

75

10% Metal Recovery from Ash


38,000 Tons of Metal Recovered
17,000 Cubic Yards of Airspace
$726,000 in Revenue and
Airspace to ecomaine

Metals Mining from the Ashfill.

76

We continue excavate raw waste from our MSW landfills and return it as ash.

Temporary Landfill Storage

77

Our Mission

ecomaine provides
comprehensive long-term
solid waste solutions in a
safe, environmentally
responsible, economically
sound manner,
and is a leader in raising
public awareness of
sustainable waste
management strategies.

78

Leadership
79

Energy from Waste Emerging


Market Conditions
George Aronson
Principal
CommonWealth Resource
Management Corp.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Energy from Waste: The MRC and


the Fiberight/Hampden Facility
Presented to the 3rd Annual Conference on
Solid Waste Management in Northern New England
EBC SWANA NRRA - NWRA
Eversource Energy, Manchester, NH

14 April 2016

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

The MRC Mission


Ensure affordable, long-term,
and environmentally sound
disposal of MSW
187 towns from Mars Hill to
Boothbay Harbor having Waste
Disposal Agreements with
PERC through March 31, 2018
Recorded deliveries of about
175,000 tons per year of MSW
82

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

The problem: electricity prices do not support


acceptable tip fees at the PERC facility after 2018
MRC town Net Disposal Cost
(graph from 2009
MRC Annual Meeting)

PERC PPA and Maine Zone


Wholesale Electricity Prices:
Monthly Average $/MWh

$140

180.00

40.00
20.00
Nov-15

Jun-15

Jan-15

Aug-14

Mar-14

Oct-13

May-13

Dec-12

Jul-12

83

60.00

Feb-12

$-

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

$20

80.00

Sep-11

$40

100.00

Apr-11

$60

120.00

Nov-10

$80

140.00

Jun-10

$ per ton

$100

160.00

Jan-10

ISO-NE Maine Zone LMP, $/MWh

$120

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

MRC Objectives for the Post-2018 System


Encourage waste reduction and diversion
Avoid guaranteeing a tonnage amount
Be scalable below 200,000 tpy
Make high-value products other than
electricity
Use existing systems and infrastructure for
collection, transfer and haul
Operate competitively
84

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

15 responses with
3 diversion levels
1. 10% to 20%
MSW MRF
2. 30% to 50%
with AD for
organics
3. 75% to 85%
with advanced
organics
processing
85

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

Mixed-wasted processing: materials, PEF, AD

MSW pelletized fuel, Vaughan, ON

86

IREP Processing, Montgomery, AL

SSO AD,
Harvest
Power,
Orlando
Florida

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

Hydrocarbons and carbohydrates Electricity ???


Hydrocarbons
Crude oil
Natural gas

87

Petrochemical
building blocks
Ethylene
Propylene
Butadiene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene

Refined fuels

Gasoline
Distillates
Residuals

Chemical
intermediates
Polymers

HDPE
PET
Etc.

CH4
EtOH

Carbohydrates
Industrial sugars
Converted using
biomass from
agriculture or wood,
or organics from
MSW

Consumer
and
industrial
products

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

88

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

89

Photos by CRMC

Front end sorting. Lawrenceville, VA.

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

Washing tunnel for pulp production. Lawrenceville, VA.

Clean pulp

90

Photos by CRMC

Clean biomass

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

Bio-methane
production
digestion bed.
Lawrenceville, VA.

Bio-refinery for
hydrolysis and
sugar production.
Lawrenceville, VA.

91

Photos by CRMC

Energy from Waste:


The MRC and the Fiberight/Hampden Facility

Development timeline

92

2015 Signed Development Agreement


Performed process peer review (UMaine FPRI)
Applied for Maine DEP permits
Negotiated Site Lease/Waste Supply Agreements
2016 Get town approvals (80,000 tpy to date)
ID guarantors (EPC GMP, O&M, process, CP
Equipment [MRF], Novozymes [enzymes], )
Close construction financing (autumn)
2017 Construct and test
2018 Enter commercial operation

Energy from Waste


Moderator: Duane Himes, Weston & Sampson
Panel Members

Jim Connolly, Wheelabrator Technologies


Kevin Roche, ecomaine
George Aronson, CommonWealth
Resource Management Corp.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Perspective on Landfilling
Steve Poggi
Area Director of Disposal Operations
New England New York Market Area
Waste Management Inc.

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Economic Business Council


Solid Waste Committee Program

Solid Waste Management in Northern New


England ~ Talking Trash

Steven Poggi, Director of Disposal Operations


Waste Management NE & NY Market Area
April 14, 2016

Waste Management - New England

Add NE Map

National:
- 207 on the Fortune 500 NYSE List, 40k
Employees
- 360 Collection Ops & 20M Customers
- Large network of LFs & TSs
- Operate 114 LFGTE plants - 500 MW
- Operate 150 Recycling sites 8.5M TPY
In New England:
- Approx. 40k Comm. & 30 Muni.
Customers
- 12 Collection Districts
- 11 Transfer Stations
- 7 Disposal sites
- 6 Recycling Facilities: SS + Transload
- 1 C&D Processing Operations
- 1 Organics Processing (+1 in 2016)
Page 96

Commercial Waste Service Providers in NE

Non-Traditional

Traditional

Provider

Key Assets

Operations

National
Providers

13- WTE
Strong disposal presence serving national, regional,
6 - Landfills
and small haulers
21 - Collection Ops Long term municipal contracts
16 -Transfer Stations Some National providers in NE only have disposal,
8 MRFs
others have both collection and disposal or primarily
collection using 3rd party disposal outlets

Regionals

13- Collection Ops


Extensive Collection Operations
4 Landfills
Landfill disposal sites across NE
2 - WTE
10 -Transfer Stations
2 MRFs

Small Collection 100 + Small


collection &
independent
companies

Typically Collection only


Utilize private and municipal disposal sites
Continue to grow in market share

Regional C+D
processing
operations ~5

16- C&D Processing


sites >50k tpy each

Serve numerous haulers, seeking C&D Fines,


Residuals, and wood waste end use markets

6-Compost Ops
~100k TPY

Includes AD & farm based ops, source sep. organics


and sludge, expect to grow in 2015+

Organics - 3

Page 97

Commercial Landfills in ME, VT, NH & MA

Non-Traditional

Traditional

Provider

Landfill Assets

Operation Status

National
Providers

6 MSW Landfills

Smaller sites are closing.


3 closing within the next 5 years, leaving 2 LFs in MA
Out of State disposal will continue to serve the
disposal needs of municipal and private customers.
Long Haul options are being pursued

Regionals

5 MSW Landfills

2 closing within 5 years


Landfill disposal sites in northern NE states

Ash landfills

7 - Ash Landfills
supporting WTE

Primarily serves the ash disposal needs for the WTE


plants in Mass. Collectively accepted 900,000 TPY.

8 + various
operations

New landfills & closures approved by MADEP in the


last year to serve the needs of developers with
impacted soils; Tewksbury, Chelmsford, Clinton, Blue
Hills, Rutland, Dartmouth, Upton, Westfield

Impacted Soils

Page 98

WM of New England landfills

Anticipated annual tons and site life (w/o expansions)

WMNE Site

2015

2016

1,081,000

1,050,000

1,050,000

1,050,000

1,050,000

Norridgewock

180,700

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

2025

Fitchburg

344,000

360,000

360,000

360,000

360,000

360,000

360,000

2027

Taunton

112,800

115,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

2021*

Middleboro

50,000

55,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

2031

Chicopee

236,700

250,000

230,000

Barre

36,000

10,000

Rochester

Total:

2,041,200

2,040,000

2017

2018

2020

2021

1,050,000 1,050,000

2,020,000

2019

Est. Year at
Permitted
Capacity

1,790,000 1,790,000

2017
-

1,790,000 1,790,000

Notes: 1. Tonnages are MSW, C+D, and SPW; RGC is an additional 1/3 of the tons on avg. unless a small site or in closure.
2. Taunton includes a vert. expansion to be permitted in 2016

2025

2016

Driving Forces Policies and Waste Reduction


1. Northern NE capacity is generally stable and supporting the current
population and economic growth conditions.
2. Policies in some NE states are limiting future development. Expanded
list of waste ban items, C+D processing and resulting residuals
impacts. Separate landfills for impacted soils. These, coupled with
agency and community resistance, are reducing MSW landfills.

3. Manufacturers are reducing packaging and making efforts to reduce


use of landfills. This has helped to reduce capacity pressure to an
extent.
Hormel Foods Corp. said that in 2013 it reduced the solid waste it sent
to landfills by 1,000 tons, and reduced product packaging by 4.72
million pounds. Waste 360 5/28/14

Many companies are developing Zero Waste strategies and are


implementing sustainable - environmental initiatives to meet consumer
expectations.

100

Waste Industry Reflections


At the Regional level:
Volumes generated in NE declined ~1M tons in the last 8 yrs. following the
economic slowdown & waste diversion, now leveling off.
Landfill disposal capacity is becoming more difficult to permit.
PPA for WTE plants are expiring, challenging their future viability.
Future technologies advancing slowly & not yet proven commercially viable.
Volumes continue to move across state lines.
Long haul options are now growing as NE capacity becomes limited, yet
pricing remains stable.

101

Waste Industry Reflections


At the National level:
The overall decrease in waste generation & increased
diversion is a reflection of what is occurring nationally.
We do not see per capita waste volumes returning to the
levels we saw before the recession.
Abundant landfill capacity outside region and nationally.

102

Management of Waste in the U.S.

Waste Flow Analysis (All Waste Types) New England


2006

2008-09 MSW volumes


decreased 7% or 800+k
tons during recession.

2012

Volumes have picked up


in NE over last 2 yrs. as
economy improves.

WTE
41%
WTE
34%

MRF
23%

MRF
25%

MSW disposal capacity is


getting tighter, with
alt. outlets for soils.

Waste
Flow
Other
0%

Transfer
Station

9%

Other
0%

Landfill
34%

Transfer
Station

3%

Landfill
30%

Disposal split between


landfills and WTE with
approximately 6 M TPY
in permitted capacity
Large waste companies
with more than 7% of
the NE MSW disposal
capacity include WM;
EPC-WTI; Covanta; and
Casella

Sources: EPA, GAA, MADEP, RIDEM, NHDES, MEDEP, CTDEP, BioCycle Magazine, EEC of Columbia
University

Page 104

Market Dynamics - Summary

Major Waste Trends for NE

1. MSW volumes are slowing returning to pre-economic


slowdown conditions.
2. Smaller MSW landfills are closing since they lack economy
of scale.
3. Development of greenfield landfills & WTE (traditional
and emerging tech.) is limited. Future capacity will be
provided by larger existing operations through permit
modifications.
4. Out of state and region landfills, including expanded long
haul options, will continue to provide disposal capacity.

Waste Disposal
volumes are
leveling off

Page 105

Market Dynamics Summary (Cont.)


5. MSW volumes to WTE plants and recycling remain steady,
trend is expected to continue.
6. Disposal options for urban-fill soils have expanded with
MADEP permits opening old landfills, quarries, and general
fill operations.
7. Landfills are generally seeing lower MSW volumes, reducing
gas generation and the alternative energy they produce.
8. Organics and recycling will continue a slow growth.

Page 106

Market Dynamics Summary

A greater % of waste is being diverted


to WTE, recycling & composting.
This diversion and local and state
challenges will reduce landfill capacity
in southern NE going forward.

Fewer large sites, special purpose,


and remote landfills will help meet
future disposal needs.

Page 107

Panel Discussion
Moderator: David Murphy, Tighe & Bond
Panel Members
Steve Changaris,
National Waste & Recycling Association
Steve Poggi, Waste Management Inc.
Jim Connolly, Wheelabrator Technologies
Kevin Roche, ecomaine

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Closing
David Murphy
Program Co-Chair & Moderator
Chair, EBC Solid Waste Committee
Vice President
Tighe & Bond

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy

Please Enjoy Lunch

Environmental Business Council of New England


Energy Environment Economy