Energy Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste in California: Needs and Challenges

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Helou ◽  
Kim Tran ◽  
Cecile Buncio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Air Quality ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Municipal Solid Waste ◽  
Solid Waste ◽  
Energy Recovery ◽  
Solid Waste Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Waste To Energy

Thermal technologies, such as gasification, pyrolysis, waste-to-energy (WTE), and advanced thermal recycling (second generation WTE with the most advanced air emission control system), can be employed to recover energy from municipal solid waste (MSW), reduce the volume of material to be landfilled, and lessen the potential emission of methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and a major component of landfill gas. All operating WTE facilities in the United States have been subjected to strict environmental regulations since the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. As a result, U.S. WTE facilities now meet or exceed stringent local air quality standards, including those imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the important role of WTE in the integrated solid waste management and ranks combustion higher than landfilling in its solid waste management hierarchy. In addition to upstream source reduction and recycling, downstream thermal treatment of the residual MSW (conducted in controlled environment) can effectively recover energy and further reduce waste volume. Despite all the advantages and environmental benefits of thermal technologies, its utilization for treating MSW in California still faces many challenges. These include negative public perceptions, economical disadvantages, local marketability of by-products, and disposal options for residuals. This paper discusses the need to include energy recovery in the integrated MSW management in California and the challenges encountered by many local jurisdictions.

Global capacity, potentials and trends of solid waste research and management

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 923-934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A Nwachukwu ◽  
Mersky Ronald ◽  
Huan Feng
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Solid Waste ◽  
Solid Waste Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Waste To Energy ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Research Impacts ◽  
Global Capacity

In this study, United States, China, India, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Egypt, Brazil, Italy, Germany, Taiwan, Australia, Canada and Mexico were selected to represent the global community. This enabled an overview of solid waste management worldwide and between developed and developing countries. These are countries that feature most in the International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management (ICSW) over the past 20 years. A total of 1452 articles directly on solid waste management and technology were reviewed and credited to their original country of research. Results show significant solid waste research potentials globally, with the United States leading by 373 articles, followed by India with 230 articles. The rest of the countries are ranked in the order of: UK > Taiwan > Brazil > Nigeria > Italy > Japan > China > Canada > Germany >Mexico > Egypt > Australia. Global capacity in solid waste management options is in the order of: Waste characterisation-management > waste biotech/composting > waste to landfill > waste recovery/reduction > waste in construction > waste recycling > waste treatment–reuse–storage > waste to energy > waste dumping > waste education/public participation/policy. It is observed that the solid waste research potential is not a measure of solid waste management capacity. The results show more significant research impacts on solid waste management in developed countries than in developing countries where economy, technology and society factors are not strong. This article is targeted to motivate similar study in each country, using solid waste research articles from other streamed databases to measure research impacts on solid waste management.

Alternative Financing for Enhanced Environmental Protection: The Intersection of Waste-to-Energy Technology and Solid Waste Flow Control Authority

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott M. DuBoff
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Flow Control ◽  
Municipal Solid Waste ◽  
Solid Waste ◽  
Solid Waste Management ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Waste To Energy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Waste Flow

When local governments evaluate the environmental benefits and costs of alternatives for managing non-recyclable municipal solid waste, the relative costs of modern waste-to-energy (WTE) technology can be a significant stumbling block despite WTE technology’s environmental benefits. Although the preceding point is an important economic reality that has constrained WTE development in the United States, fortunately there is a highly effective means — the use of municipal solid waste “flow control” (or “facility designation”) authority — to overcome WTE’s perceived cost disadvantage. The relationship between flow control and WTE development, including significant encouragement for use of flow control as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (2007), is the focus of this paper, which will address the following topics: Policy Basis for Flow Control — Absent government intervention, management of municipal solid waste will seek the lowest cost (i.e., short-term cost) and frequently less environmentally protective alternatives. Flow control can counter the tendency to choose alternatives with lower short-term costs and at the same time facilitate implementation of the environmentally-preferable waste management alternatives a local government selects, such as WTE technology and other aspects of “integrated waste management.” Flow Control and the Courts — While the authority of a given local government to use flow control is grounded in state law, flow control also implicates matters that arise under federal law, such as Commerce Clause issues, given the possibility that solid waste regulation in one state can affect commercial interests in solid waste management in another state. Although concerns regarding claims of impact on interstate commerce prompted a negative Supreme Court response to flow control in C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994), the Court’s decision 13 years later in the Oneida-Herkimer case was in many ways just the opposite. WTE’s Correlation with Flow Control and Practical Guideposts — WTE development can be significantly advanced by the use of flow control. That conclusion is borne out by empirical data. The concluding portion of this paper addresses that topic as well as corollary issues, such as public-private collaboration for WTE development and other practical guideposts for implementing flow control ordinances.

Risks for Occupational Health Hazards Among Solid Waste Workers

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehrad Bastani ◽  
Nurcin Celik ◽  
Danielle Coogan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Solid Waste ◽  
Health Risks ◽  
Solid Waste Management ◽  
Health Hazard ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Methods

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Please check back later for the full article. The volume of municipal solid waste produced in the United States has increased by 68% since 1980, up from 151 million to over 254 million tons per year. As the output of municipal waste has grown, more attention has been placed on the occupations associated with waste management. In 2014, the occupation of refuse and recyclable material collection was ranked as the 6th most dangerous job in the United States, with a rate of 27.1 deaths per 100,000 workers. With the revelation of reported exposure statistics among solid waste workers in the United States, the problem of the identification and assessment of occupational health risks among solid waste workers is receiving more consideration. From the generation of waste to its disposal, solid waste workers are exposed to substantial levels of physical, chemical, and biological toxins. Current waste management systems in the United States involve significant risk of contact with waste hazards, highlighting that prevention methods such as monitoring exposures, personal protection, engineering controls, job education and training, and other interventions are under-utilized. To recognize and address occupational hazards encountered by solid waste workers, it is necessary to discern potential safety concerns and their causes, as well as their direct and/or indirect impacts on the various types of workers. In solid waste management, the major industries processing solid waste are introduced as recycling, incineration, landfill, and composting. Thus, the reported exposures and potential occupational health risks need to be identified for workers in each of the aforementioned industries. Then, by acquiring data on reported exposure among solid waste workers, multiple county-level and state-level quantitative assessments for major occupational risks can be conducted using statistical assessment methods. To assess health risks among solid waste workers, the following questions must be answered: How can the methods of solid waste management be categorized? Which are the predominant occupational health risks among solid waste workers, and how can they be identified? Which practical and robust assessment methods are useful for evaluating occupational health risks among solid waste workers? What are possible solutions that can be implemented to reduce the occupational health hazard rates among solid waste workers?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document