Waste-To-Energy Burners: A Comparison of Solid Waste

1

Waste-To-Energy Burners: A Comparison of Solid Waste Disposal Strategies

By

Timothy Reavis

A paper submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration

Spring 2013

The attached paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student.

It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of School of Government faculty.

Executive Summary

Environmental considerations factor into a community’s solid waste management plan. A waste-to-energy

burner offers an alternative to the commonly used solid waste disposal option of landfilling. This paper

compares two measures, recycling rates and landfill disposal rates, of communities in New York that use

a waste-to-energy burner with communities in New York that do not use a waste-to-energy burner. By

knowing if these two environmental measures differ significantly, a community can make a better

informed decision regarding their solid waste management plan.

2

Intro and Literature

All communities must decide how they will dispose of their solid waste. Possible options include

landfilling, recycling, composting, the use of a transfer station, or the use of a waste-to-energy (WTE)

facility. The solid waste management hierarchy (Appendix A) ranks waste management solutions from

the most desirable to the least desirable in terms of environmental and energy benefits (i.e. conserving

resources, minimizing harmful air emissions1, waste pollution, and protecting health). The hierarchy

states waste to landfill is the least desirable option followed by energy recovery while recycling is the

most desirable of the three. This paper uses the hierarchy as a way to frame the correlation between the

three solid waste disposal practices. Additionally, in order to narrow the focus further, this paper focuses

only on one type of energy recovery disposal option2, mass burn WTE facilities (referred to as WTE

burners), which are able to recover energy through the incineration of waste materials.

This paper compares two key outputs, the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills and

recycling rates, between communities that use a WTE burner as part of their solid waste management plan

and communities that do not. Landfill disposal is measured using the Landfill Disposal Index (LDI). In

order to show the degree to which a community’s use of a WTE burner results in less landfill space used

and whether there is a correlation between a community’s use of a WTE burner and recycling rates, this

paper asks What effect does the use of a waste-to-energy facility have on recycling rates and landfill

disposal indices in New York communities?

A previous study based on a comparison of different waste management strategies produced

relevant results. Eileen Berenyi in “Recycling and Waste to Energy: Are They Compatible?” examined

the question of whether recycling and the use of WTE burners are compatible waste management

strategies. Since some argue WTE burners reduce recycling3 and hinder the effectiveness of communities

attempting to implement recycling programs, Berenyi compared the recycling rates of communities that

rely on WTE burners with national average recycling rates. Her study found that often the recycling rates

for communities with a WTE burner are slightly higher than the national average. She concludes,

therefore, that the use of a WTE burner and recycling efforts are compatible. Another study by Jonathan

Kiser makes similar conclusions; that WTE burners correlate with improved recycling rates4. This paper

will continue with Berenyi’s broad concept of comparing recycling rates of WTE burner communities

with other entities, but instead of extrapolating individual waste to energy communities’ recycling rates

out to the state level, then comparing them to the national average, this paper will compare WTE burner

communities’ recycling rates with other communities in New York State. This paper’s more localized

comparison does not have to account for variances in state laws and the organization of different solid

waste management systems.

The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation in

“Landfill Disposal Rates of Waste To Energy Communities” introduces the concept of the LDI to the

solid waste community. The index is intended by the authors to be used as a performance measure for

communities that have WTE-based systems and to compare the landfill disposal indices of WTE

communities to those of other solid waste management systems. The LDI should be reported on an annual

weight per capita basis such as tons of waste landfilled per person per year. For example, a LDI of .5

means that each individual generated ½ a ton of waste that was disposed of in a landfill in one year.

SWANA lists the information needed to calculate the index, and gives instruction5 on how to calculate it.

1http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/wte/airem.htm

2http://www.e-renewables.com/documents/Waste/Waste%20to%20Energy%20-%20The%20Basics.pdf

3 See “myth 7” at http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Incinerator_Myths_vs_Facts%20Feb2012.pdf

4 http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec11/nawtec11-1685.pdf

5 See page 4 at http://swana.org/Portals/ARF/TheLDIsofWTECommunitiesFinalReport1.3.11.pdf

3

SWANA’s paper compares the LDI of WTE communities nationally with communities touting a

“zero waste” vision for their solid waste management program. Their study finds that the LDI for “zero

waste” communities is more than double the average LDI documented for communities with WTE

systems. This paper will use the LDI as defined by SWANA as one way of comparing New York

communities’ solid waste outcomes.

Methodology

The United States is home to 85 WTE burners. Florida contains the most with 11 and New York

the second most with 10. This paper focuses on New York for several reasons. First, the large number of

burners it possesses in relation to other states allows for more instances for comparison. Second, Florida

possesses a greater risk for hurricanes, which create additional waste that is difficult to control for. Third,

New York’s overall solid waste organization is very clear. The State provides uniform planning

guidelines for each of the 65 solid waste planning units (or communities)6. Such guidelines allow for

credible comparisons amongst the units.

Individual planning unit data from 2007-2011 provided by the New York Bureau of Permitting

and Planning - Division of Materials Management was used to calculate the communities’ LDI and

recycling rates (See Appendix B for specific planning unit LDI and recycling rates ). The LDI is defined

as tons of solid waste per capita per year disposed of in a landfill.

The formula for calculating LDI is as follows:

LDI= (ash disposed of in landfill in a given year + waste disposed of in landfill in a given year) /

population served.

A formula provided by the Environmental Protection Agency7 was used to calculate the communities’

recycling rates:

Recycling rate = (total municipal solid waste recycled / total municipal solid waste generated) x 100.

Total municipal solid waste generated = tons municipal solid waste recycled + tons of municipal solid

waste landfilled + tons of municipal solid waste to a WTE facility.

For this paper, items considered “recyclable” are limited to the following: newspaper, corrugated

cardboard, paperboard, office paper, magazines, junk mail, other paper, glass containers, glass non-

containers, other glass, tin containers, aluminum containers, metal from residents, enameled appliances,

plastics with resign codes #1 – 7, plastic film and bags, other plastic, organics (except biosolids),

electronics, textiles, and commingled goods. Construction and demolition debris and industrial waste are

not included in this calculation because New York planning units report them separately from municipal

solid waste.

In order to answer the research question, two separate independent samples t-tests were ran

individually for each year using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software, one for LDI

and one for recycling rates. The outputs from the independent samples t-tests were used to compare the

difference of the mean of one sample, in this case WTE burner communities, to the mean of the other

sample, non-WTE communities. The tests aimed to show whether or not the difference between the two

samples was statistically significant. The number of cases from year to year differed due to completeness

6 http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/47861.html

7 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/worksh_a.pdf

4

of data. Sample size ranged from 40 (2009, 2010) – 48 cases (2007, 2008). The ratio of WTE

communities to Non-WTE communities varied slightly year-to-year: 2007- 12 WTE: 36 Non WTE, 2008-

14: 34, 2009- 14: 26, 2010 – 13: 27, 2011- 13: 30.

The data (Recycling rates and LDI) meet all three requirements for a valid independent samples t-

test: (1) Independence: Individual observations (recycling rate or LDI) within each sample must be

independent. They may not influence each other. This assumption is met because all calculations were

done from data independently submitted by separate communities. (2) Normal Distribution: The

individual observations in each sample must be normally distributed. This assumption is met by showing

that the distribution of the observations make a normal curve (see graphs below). (3) Homogeneity of

Variance: The two samples must have similar standard deviations. When an independent samples t-test is

run in SPSS, the Levene’s Test is simultaneously run in order to show whether or not this assumption is

met.

LDI Independent Samples T-Test:

Null Hypothesis: The means of the LDI between WTE communities and non-WTE communities are not

significantly different. The independent samples t-tests yielded the following results regarding LDI:

In each of the five years, the mean LDI for WTE burner communities is lower than the mean LDI

for non-WTE communities. The average standard deviation (which is a measure of variation of the data

points in relation the mean) for LDI from 2007-2011 for a WTE burner community is .248 (See Appendix

C for yearly standard deviation chart). For non-WTE communities it is .362. The LDI across all measured

communities from the five years ranges from .02- 1.7, a difference of 1.5.These two measurements

indicate that while the community with the lowest LDI is very different from the community with the

highest LDI, the average difference between communities is much lower. Additionally, WTE burner

communities are more likely to possess a similar LDI amongst each other than non-WTE burner

communities.

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

All Communities 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.5 0.52

WTE Communities 0.27 0.3 0.24 0.31 0.39

Non-WTE Communities 0.64 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.6

Mean LDI for New York Communities

This chart shows a large

percentage of WTE

communities produced a

very low LDI in 2010

while the highest LDI

were from landfill

communities.

5

The independent samples t-tests for the five years show a statistically significant difference

between the LDI of New York WTE communities and non-WTE New York communities. This finding

rejects the LDI null hypothesis. WTE communities use significantly less landfill space than non-WTE

communities.

Recycling Rate Independent Samples T-Test:

Null Hypothesis: The means of the recycling rate between WTE communities and non-WTE communities

are not significantly different. The independent samples t-test yielded the following results regarding

recycling rates:

In all but 2007, the mean recycling rate for WTE communities is slightly higher than the mean

recycling rate for non-WTE communities. The standard deviation for recycling rates for each individual

year for all New York Communities ranges from 10% - 17%. Each year the recycling rate between

communities results in an expansive range. For example in 2010, the range from the lowest community to

the highest community is 43 percentage points. These two measurements indicate the recycling rates

among communities vary wildly across the state.

An independent samples t-test from each of the five years shows that while the mean recycling

rate for New York WTE communities is usually higher than the rate for non-WTE communities, the

difference is not statistically significant. This finding confirms the recycling rate null hypothesis. There is

no statistically difference between the recycling rates of WTE burner communities and non-WTE

communities.

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

All Communities 21% 22% 19% 21% 19%

WTE Communities 20% 23% 21% 25% 23%

Non-WTE Communities 21% 21% 17% 19% 16%

Mean Recycling Rate for New York Communities

This chart shows that

recycling rate

distributions from 2010

is even among WTE

communities and Non-

WTE communities.

6

Preliminary Conclusions

Based on the results of the independent samples t-tests, as expected, communities that use a WTE

burner as part of their solid waste management plan dispose of significantly less waste per capita in

landfills than communities that do not use a WTE burner. Also, the recycling rates in communities that

use a WTE burner are not significantly different than communities that use other methods of disposal.

This result supports Berenyi’s finding on a smaller scale in that WTE facilities do not negatively

influence recycling rates. By using a WTE burner, a community minimizes the use of the least preferred

disposal method on the solid waste management hierarchy, landfilling, but most importantly, such

avoidance is not at the expense of a more preferred step on the hierarchy, recycling.

Limitations

• This paper does not provide a comprehensive guide on all factors a community should consider

when deciding how to manage its solid waste. There are many other costs associated with such a

decision this paper does not address. For example, a WTE facility involves substantial monetary

investment, high operating costs, and the need for an adequate volume of waste in order for the

facility to operate.

• This paper only focuses on communities in New York State. Laws regarding solid waste

management in other states may be different from New York. Such differences would limit the

applicability of this study to other states. A community in a different state should review laws

between their state and New York before accepting the conclusions of this paper.

• In each of the five years, planning unit data is missing or incomplete. It is unclear how the

inclusion of this additional data would alter the results. If the additional communities have lower

or higher LDI or recycling rates than the communities reporting sufficient data, the results might

change. A complete data set would have made for more definitive results.

• The solid waste tonnage totals only include municipal solid waste (MSW). They do not include

industrial waste, or construction and demolition debris. Communities with a large industrial waste

stream or heavy construction and/or demolition needs will need to conduct further research.

Other Factors to Consider

For communities wishing to explore WTE facilities, here are a few key areas they would need to research

further in order to determine its feasibility:

• Burners need a guaranteed steady supply of waste in order to efficiently operate. A community

would need agreements dictating that an adequate volume of solid waste reaches the facility.

Establishing regional arraignments may provide economies of scale for smaller communities that

would ensure an adequate volume of waste flows to the facility.

• Part of what makes burners economically feasible is the sale of energy. As the energy sector is

heavily regulated, communities will need ample time to make sure their plan is compliant with

applicable energy regulations.

• It is generally most feasible when energy from the burner is sold to only one consumer for either

its own use or resale. A community with growing energy needs will have an easier time finding a

suitable end use for the energy produced by the facility.

• The community will need to hire either skilled staff or train new workers in order to operate and

maintain the advanced waste treatment technology required for burners.

• Since burners are more expensive to construct than a landfill, paying for such a large capital

expense may only be possible after the community has saved money via a dedicated capital fund

or accumulated fund balance over several years.

• With a decision to place any type of solid waste disposal facility, including burners, comes

contentious public debate regarding its location. Nimbyism ensues. A sufficient level of

community buy-in may only be achieved after a strong collaborative effort involving many

stakeholders and an aggressive public education campaign.

7

Key Sources

Eileen Berenyi, “Recycling and Waste to Energy: Are They Compatible?,” 2009, Governmental Advisory

Associates. Retrieved from

http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf.

Elbert Dijkgraaf and Herman R.J. Vollebergh. “Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste

disposal methods,”Ecological Economics 50 (2004): 233-47.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments,”

1997, accessed on October 14, 2012 at http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/guide.pdf.

Independent Samples T-Test PowerPoint, accessed on November 15, 2012 at

http://lap.umd.edu/psyc200/handouts/psyc200_0812.pdf

John Aquino, Editor, Waste Age / Recycling Times’ Recycling Handbook (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,

1995).

SWANA Applied Research Foundation. (2010). “The Landfill Disposal Rates of Waste To Energy

Communities,” 2010, accessed October 14, 2012 at

http://swana.org/Portals/ARF/TheLDIsofWTECommunitiesFinalReport1.3.11.pdf.

T. Rand and J. Haukohl, Decision Maker’s Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. (Washington

DC: The World Bank, 1999) Last accessed on October 15, 2012 at

http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/urbanenvironment/resources/references/pdfs/DecisionMakers.pdf

Ted Michaels, “The 2010 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants,” 2010, accessed October 12, 2012 at

http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/ERC_2010_Directory.pdf.

United Nations Environment Program. (2005). “Integrated Waste Management Scoreboard: A Tool to

Measure Performance in Municipal Solid Waste Management,” 2005, accessed on October 14, 2012 at

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/spc/iwm_scoreboard-binder.pdf.

http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/guide.pdf

http://lap.umd.edu/psyc200/handouts/psyc200_0812.pdf

http://swana.org/Portals/ARF/TheLDIsofWTECommunitiesFinalReport1.3.11.pdf

http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/ERC_2010_Directory.pdf

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/spc/iwm_scoreboard-binder.pdf

8

Appendix A – Solid Waste Management Hierarchy Image

Found at:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/images/waste_hierarchy_green_400pxw.png

9

Appendix B – LDI and Recycling Rate Numbers for Individual Planning Units

Planning Unit WTE? LDI Recycling Rate

Allegany County no 0.53 32.1%

Babylon yes 0.26 20.0%

Boston no 0.51 22.8%

Brookhaven yes 0.10 22.8%

Broome County no 1.17 21.1%

Cattaraugus County no 0.52 32.9%

Chemung County no 1.43 5.9%

Chenango County no 0.39 15.1%

Clinton County no 0.64 11.4%

Colonie no 1.34 17.5%

Columbia County no 0.11 38.7%

Delaware County no 0.39 17.9%

Dutchess County yes 0.12 22.7%

East Hampton no 0.76 37.0%

Essex County no 0.31 18.0%

Fulton County no 0.39 22.1%

GLOW Region SWMC yes 0.49 14.3%

Greene County no 0.47 10.3%

Hamilton County no 1.40 4.5%

Hempstead yes 0.17 22.0%

Huntington yes 0.16 27.6%

Jefferson County no 0.30 12.9%

Lewis County no 0.49 8.6%

Long Beach yes 0.21 10.6%

Madison County no 0.74 16.2%

Montgomery County no 0.57 7.5%

North Hempstead no 0.60 17.7%

Oneida-Herkimer no 0.59 37.7%

Onondaga County yes 0.16 42.5%

Orange County no 0.66 14.7%

Oswego County yes 0.18 33.5%

Otsego no 0.53 10.2%

Rockland County no 1.40 14.5%

Saratoga County yes 0.65 3.3%

Schenectady County no 0.80 9.0%

Schoharie no 0.53 7.5%

Schuyler County no 0.46 5.7%

Smithtown yes 0.14 32.7%

Southhampton no 0.11 72.0%

Southhold no 0.36 61.2%

St. Lawrence County no 0.55 30.1%

Steuben County no 0.62 15.4%

Tioga County no 0.08 58.9%

Tompkins County no 0.57 33.0%

Troy no 0.37 10.1%

Ulster County no 0.98 19.9%

Warren County yes 0.04 16.7%

Western Finger Lakes no 0.49 19.7%

2007 LDI and Recylcing Rates

10


Allegany County no 0.51 5.9%









Columbia County no 0.11 40.8%



East Hampton no 0.77 13.2%


Franklin County no 0.47 4.2%

Glen Cove yes 0.51 15.0%

GLOW Region SWMC no 0.50 19.4%









Monroe County no 0.81 20.1%


North Hempstead yes 0.56 19.0%

Oneida-Herkimer no 0.60 38.0%


Orange County yes 0.19 14.0%


Otsego no 0.53 10.0%



Schenectady County no 0.63 17.6%

Schoharie no 0.51 9.8%




Southhold no 0.50 55.5%


Tioga County no 0.08 53.5%


Troy no 0.38 11.3%


Westchester County yes 0.20 39.2%


2008 LDI and Recycling Rates

11

Planning Unit WTE? LDI Recycling Rates








Cortland County no 0.39 6.4%





GLOW Region SWMC yes 0.45 22.7%







North Hempstead no 1.19 2.7%

Oneida-Herkimer SWA no 0.57 21.7%

Onondaga County RRA yes 0.17 52.0%



Otsego County no 0.47 11.4%

Oyster Bay no 0.40 33.5%



Schoharie County no 0.85 4.4%





Sullivan County no 0.55 11.0%


Ulster County RRA no 0.87 20.5%

Warren County yes 0.30 3.9%

Washington County yes 0.28 6.0%




12




Capital Region SWMP yes 0.63 33.70%

Chautauqua County no 0.92 16.50%







Franklin County no 0.49 3.50%


Glen Cove yes 0.54 16.70%








Niagara County yes 0.82 10.70%

Oneida Herkimer SWA no 0.57 36.80%

Onondaga County RRA yes 0.1 46.50%






Schenectady County yes 0.67 12.10%


Schuyer County no 0.3 24.50%










2010 LDI and Recyling Rates

13

Planning Unit WTE? LDI Recycling Rates




Capital Region SWA yes 0.63 38.1%







Dutchess County RRA no 0.18 26.8%


Franklin Conty no 0.53 7.0%







Long Beach no 0.14 9.1%



Niagara County yes 1.08 6.1%

North Hempstead yes 0.70 5.3%

Oneida-Herkimer

SWAno 0.57 31.6%





Rockland County

SWMAno 1.20 19.5%

Schenectady County yes 0.73 16.7%




Southhold yes 0.19 31.0%




Tioga County yes 0.57 18.8%


Ulster County RRA no 0.87 20.1%




14

Appendix C – Standard Deviation Tables

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

WTE Communities 11% 12% 14% 11% 13%

Non-WTE Communities 16% 17% 14% 11% 10%

Recycling Rate Standard Deviation

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

WTE Communities 0.231 0.265 0.154 0.284 0.306

Non-WTE Communities 0.379 0.423 0.27 0.384 0.353

LDI Standard Deviation

Documents

Waste-To-Energy Burners: A Comparison of Solid Waste