The Cleveland Recycling and Energy Generation Center

Early Stage Project Development Case Study:

The Cleveland Recycling and Energy

Generation Center

Waste Conversion Congress – East Coast

June 13, 2012

1

Agenda

Introduction

History of Project Development

Project Development a. Request for Information (RFI)

b. Supplemental Request for Information and Qualification

c. Refuse Derived Fuel Production

d. Air Permit Strategy

e. Co-generation opportunity

Complexities of Project Development

Road Map for Project Development

2

Introduction

History of Cleveland Public Power

Cleveland Public Power was founded in 1907 by Mayor

Tom L. Johnson.

Largest municipally owned electric utility in the state of

Ohio

The only municipality that competes door to door for its

customers

Serves nearly 80,000 residential, commercial and industrial

customers

300 mega-watt system

Currently implementing a 65 million expansion project.

3

Introduction In 2006, CPP completed the development of a five year strategic

business plan that among other things identified CPP’s over

dependence on power supply contracts and the power grid.

CPP purchased nearly 100% of its electric power needs

from the market in the form of long and short term

contracts.

CPP owned less than 1%

generation capacity and the

strategic plan recommended

steps to decrease its market

dependence and its reliance

on the transmission grid for

100% of its needs.

4

Introduction

The City of Cleveland Department of Public Works operates the

Division of Waste Collection and Disposal (DWC).

The Division provides weekly collection of waste from 155,000

Cleveland homes, the City of Cleveland’s West Side Market, Fire

and Police Stations, the Justice Center, City Hall and other City

buildings and public areas.

5

Curbside Recycling

In 2007, a Curbside Recycling Pilot and Automated trash

collection system was launched to 15,000 households.

Through this program, residents receive sturdy garbage carts for

trash and recycling which can be wheeled to the curb.

The program will eventually be city-wide and currently residents

will receive postcards and brochures regarding the program

prior to receiving new carts.

6

Curbside Recycling

This year, the City of Cleveland will provide Automated Waste

Collection and Curbside Recycling service to an additional

30,000 households this summer, increasing the total number of

served households to 70,000.

Adding 30,000 households allows over 46% of Cleveland

residents the convenience of recycling curbside and enables the

City to gain additional revenue from the increased recyclables

Upon receiving carts, residents will be required to place glass,

plastic, metal cans, cardboard and mixed paper items into their

blue recycle bins – all remaining waste materials must go into

the black bins.

7

Ridge Road Transfer Station

DWC operates the Ridge

Road Transfer Station, a

municipal solid waste facility

located at 3727 Ridge Road,

Cleveland, Ohio 44144.

Municipal solid waste is

brought to the transfer

station via waste collection

vehicles.

The waste is gathered and

loaded into transport trucks

and then taken to landfills.

8


In 2007, Cleveland Public Power created a special

project team to investigate the production of electric

power using municipal solid waste as the feedstock.

9

CPP obtained the services of RNR Consulting, URS Corp.,

DLZ Ohio Inc. and Cloud & Associates to assess the

feasibility of a Municipal Solid Waste Facility at the

Cleveland’s Ridge Road Transfer Station.

RNR assembled a team experienced in technical analyses of

gasification technologies, environmental permitting and

regulations, traffic studies, financial analysis and community

assessments.


10

Composition of MSWE Steering Team

CPP created the MSW Steering Team in March 2009

The team consisted of 10 members varying in background expertise

Mission statement

“To position Cleveland as a global leader in advanced energy by developing an innovative resource recovery system that will employ efficient, safe and responsible technology and create a sustainable and transformative asset for the entire region.”

11

In 2008, the RNR consultant team found that

gasification and steam compression

technologies were scientifically sound,

presented numerous opportunities for

economic growth and development, and

recommended site inspections to see

gasification facilities in operation.


12


In August of 2009, a delegation comprised of City officials and MSWE Steering Team members visited waste-to-energy facilities in Japan and China. The objectives of the trip were to observe the technologies in operation, assess environmental/community impacts at operating facilities and interview personnel.

The delegation visited Kinsei Sangyo headquarters in Takaski Japan and saw their demonstration plant and also two large customer installations. Both customer facilities were located in environmentally or residentially sensitive areas. In addition the group visited an MSW incineration power plant in China.

13


In 2010, the City entered into a preliminary Facility Design Agreement for the MSWE project.

The Facility Design agreement was to provide services for the submission of an air permit and preliminary, non-construction, facility designs for a gasification facility.

CPP has an electric substation on the transfer station property which connects to the grid at 69KV and the generator at the gasification facility would connect to the grid at that location.

14


In September of 2011, the City of Cleveland issued a Request for Information and Qualification (RFI) from thermal conversion technology providers, waste handling equipment suppliers, project developers, consultants and financial services companies.

The RFI explained that the proposed MSWE facility would use thermal and physical conversion technologies to process municipal solid waste from the City of Cleveland and neighboring communities to generate electricity and a number of marketable by-products, such as recyclables, refuse derived fuel (RDF) pellets, steam, and possibly decorative bricks.

15

Project Design Objectives

The City will utilize MSW as a fuel source and assist

CPP in meeting the City of Cleveland’s Advanced Energy

Portfolio Standard (AEPS).

The AEPS requires CPP to purchase at least 15% of its

base load power from advanced and renewable sources

by 2015, 20% by 2020 and 25% by 2025.

Cleveland Advanced

Energy Portfolio

2015 15%

2020 20%

2025 25%

16


The CREG Center Project will

expand the City’s curb-side

recycling program which

currently covers over 46% of

the City.

Once fully implemented, all

residents will be able to

recover recyclables from their

household waste and be

allowed to comingle them in a

designated bin.

With the addition of a MRF,

onsite-sorting is expected to

further increase the material

diversion rate.

17


Items in the recyclable

container may be

commingled and will be

sorted at the Transfer

Station.

The City’s normal MSW

setout procedures, routing

and collection processes

will apply.

18


Recycled Materials

Curbside recyclable items and sorted recyclables from the MRF may include:

Heating inert materials in the gasification process would waste energy and reduce the efficiency of the gasifier.

o newspaper, o pop and beer cans,

o magazines, o steel and tin cans,

o catalogs, o aluminum foil,

o corrugated cardboard, o aluminum cans,

o mixed mail, o glass food/beverage containers

o boxboard, o plastic bottles (with a neck),

o phone books, o other recyclables.

19


The CREG Center would also include technology that

mechanically packages the sorted recyclable materials

to maximize revenues from the sale of recycled goods.

The CREG Center will also help the City meet its

Sustainability goals.

Connecting the project to the City’s other goals like the

AEPS and Sustainability goals has helped gain broader

range of support for the project.

Electricity generated at the facility will reduce Green

House Gas (GHG) emissions from the City’s current

waste management and energy generation sources.

20


The CREG Center will help the City align with other

sustainability related objectives including the US EPA

Waste Hierarchy and Food Waste Hierarchy guidelines.

21


Economic Benefits

In addition to the use of Cleveland’s MSW, interested

municipalities in the region will have opportunity to reduce

their tipping fees by 10-15% by tipping their MSW at the

Facility. They may also benefit from increased recycling

revenues.

22

Project Development A. Request for Information

The RFI directed toward waste-to-energy thermal conversion processes including pyrolysis and conventional gasification technologies, MSW recycling, sorting, refused derived fuel production, gasification, and other waste recovery technologies, processes and consulting and financial services.

The City received approximately 25 responses in regard to the RFI.

23

Request for Information

Proposed technologies must have a proven commercial

track record and history of successful installations for a

minimum of five (5) years.

Technologies and processes had to be scalable and

suitable for the range and volume of MSW received and

processed at the Cleveland Ridge Road Transfer

Station.

The output of the conversion process had to be the

production of synthetic gas that would be used for

electric generation production.

The residuals after the thermal conversion process was

required to be a usable, marketable by-product.

24


The proposed waste-to-energy project would be

designed to gasify the equivalent of 560 tons of

MSW per day.

After the completion of the bid process, the

winning gasification technology would be required

to process the same amount of MSW as the

technology provided in the City’s air permit

application.

25


The RFI requested information from gasification and

pyrolysis technology suppliers, material recovery

facilities and refuse derived fuel production technology

providers.

This group was encouraged to provide a list of

operating facilities, the size of such facilities, description

of whether they were commercial or demonstration

facilities, date placed in operation, and their current

status.

Thermal conversion suppliers were asked to discuss the

environmental impacts of their technologies and issues

that require permits of any type.

26

Thermal Conversion Technology

In addition to thermal conversion companies, waste

receiving and processing, recycling, drying, pelletizing,

syngas/fuel processing and air emissions controls system

providers were asked to provide a range of information.

Professional services companies, consulting firms,

developers, financers and related companies were asked

to provide a history of their experience working on

Municipal Solid Waste related projects.

27

RFI Responses

The City received nearly 25 responses to

the RFIQ. This group includes a number of

gasification technology providers, waste

sorting and handling equipment providers,

various consultants, project developers

and financial service providers.

28

B. Supplemental Request for

Information and Qualification In April of 2012, Cleveland City Council passed

legislation extending an opportunity for a broader range

of interested MSW recovery and conversion technology

providers to file responses to an addendum to the

request for information and qualifications of September

2011.

That lead to the issuance of the Supplemental Request

for Information and Qualification (SRIQ) on May 18,

2012. In the SRIQ, the City sought information from

other interested parties to ensure consideration of all

practical options before determining its next steps.

Reponses to the SRIQ are due July 31, 2012.

29

Supplemental Request for

Information and Qualification The supplemental request targets the range of waste

conversion technology suppliers that were not provided opportunity to respond to the City’s initial request.

On May 18, 2012, the City issued the Supplement Request for Information and Qualification. The SRIQ expanded the City’s review of waste-to-energy and waste management technology options.

Similar to the City’s initial request, the criteria the SRIQ applied to each new option was that it demonstrate a proper application for the City’s waste stream, demonstrate it had proven reliability, show that it could obtain an air permit, if applicable, demonstrate commercial viability, and demonstrate successful operation for no less than five years.

30

Respondents to the SRIQ

Respondents to the SRIQ were asked to discuss integrated municipal solid waste management processes including but not limited to:

◦ recycling,

◦ composting,

◦ pre-processing,

◦ conversion,

◦ post-processing and management of MSW products and residue,

◦ refuse derived fuel production and electricity generation.

31


Information and Qualification

For each reference facility and technology identified by the respondent, the SRIQ asked for the following ◦ Facility name/location;

◦ Description, owner/operator, dates in operation;

◦ Process flow diagram;

◦ Demonstration or commercial facility;

◦ Designed capacity tons per day (tpd);

◦ Current operating capacity (tpd);

◦ Number of units and unit capacity (tpd); Annual availability;

◦ Byproducts and outputs (designated in units MW, Btu, tpd, etc.);

◦ Type & quantity of waste processed;

◦ GHG emissions data that demonstrates how the proposed technology would help achieve the City of Cleveland’s GHG reduction goals and more.

32

Supplemental Request for Information

and Qualification

For waste management, composting, recycling and other related companies, the SRIQ asked for answers to the following:

a) name and location of reference facilities;

b) the owner/operator;

c) type of technology;

d) feedstock;

e) capital and operation and maintenance cost;

f) raw MSW and feedstock throughput;

g) types/quantities of products and by-products;

h) amount of residual sent to landfill;

i) history of operations;

j) start-up date;

k) time in service; and

l) a discussion of operating and maintenance challenges.

33


Qualification

These companies were asked to discuss the

environmental impacts of their technology

including permit requirements, air emissions,

odors and more.

They were also asked to provide a description

of any pre-processing system required to

prepare the feedstock for processing and

include equipment used to pre-sort, separate,

shred, size, screen, dry, or otherwise process

the feedstock material.

34

Supplemental Request for Information

In April of 2012, Cleveland City Council

passed legislation extending an

opportunity for a broader group of

interested MSW recovery and conversion

technology providers to file responses

The legislation also authorized the hiring

of a new consultant

35

New Request for Consulting

Services The responses to the RFI of September 2011 and the

responses to the SRIQ of May 2012 will be provided to the consultant selected through this Request for Proposal process.

The information and steps the City undertook in its air permit application to develop the CREG Center as a gasification, waste-to-energy facility. will also be permitted to the consultant.

The information CPP has on the development of a cogeneration project will also be provided.

The consultant will evaluate all of the above.

The consultant will develop recommendations after reviewing each of these activities.

36

Cleveland Recycling & Energy

Generation Center

The City moved away from the generic MSWE label and

focused on branding to better position the facility with the

community and surrounding neighborhoods and renamed

the project.

The City’s recycling and waste-to-energy facility is now

referred to as the Cleveland Recycling & Energy

Generation (CREG) Center.

37

C. Refuse Derived Fuel Production

Fuel Pellet Production

In addition to power production, the CREG Center will use yard waste, food, paper residuals and other non-hazardous and non-recyclable materials to produce an environmentally friendly, refuse derived fuel pellet.

The fuel pellet can be marketed as an alternative or supplement to coal and can be blended with coal to produce electricity.

The CREG Center’s RDF pellet could serve as the primary feedstock for the thermal conversion technology selected. Among the requirements of the RDF pellet is that it must be environmentally friendly.

Excess pellets would be sold to a local company that is currently using coal for steam production. Under the gasification model, only the RDF pellet would be feed into the gasifier.

38

Refuse Derived Fuel Production

Although most gasifiers do not require pelletization of

feedstock, the City intends to weigh the benefits of

pelletizing against the benefits of using less extensively

prepared feedstock in the gasifier.

Chief of all concerns is the environmental impact

followed closely by the economic impact of such an

investment and the impact on system efficiency.

The targeted materials for pelletization may include

items such as residual paper, light plastics, food, yard and

wood waste and these items would be shredded and

converted to a biomass fiber.

39

Refuse Derived Fuel Production

Depending on the pelletization technology selected,

the biomass fuel fiber would exit the system with a

low moisture content and a heat value around 10,000

BTU.

This biomass pellet would contain minimal sulfur and

would be much cleaner burning than fossil fuel. The

end product would be a high value fuel pellet that is

90% cleaner than coal.

40

D. Air Permit Application

In March of 2011, CPP applied for an air

permit for a MSWE facility at the City of

Cleveland’s Ridge Road Transfer Station.

The Ohio EPA issued a draft of the

permit in November of 2011 and is

currently reviewing comments filed on

the draft permit.

41

Air Permit Strategy

Consistent with Ohio EPA’s air pollution control rules, CPP identified three objectives for the CREG Center air permit application: ◦ Control air pollutant emissions with the use of

the best available air pollution control technology to minimize the discharge of air pollutants to the environment;

◦ Restrict annual air pollutant emissions (tons per year or TPY) consistent with classification as a “minor source” or “synthetic minor source”; and

◦ Design the facility and site layout to ensure the air pollutant emissions result in off-site air quality impacts that are well under acceptable levels.

42

Air Permit Strategy The types of air contaminants (or air pollutants) that will be emitted by the proposed CREG Center fall into three general categories:

1. Air contaminants for which the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has adopted National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS pollutants include:

Ozone (the precursor pollutants for ozone formation in the

ambient air are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx));

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (approximately 75% of the total NOx is NO2); Sulfur dioxide (SO2);

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10);

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) (the precursor

pollutants for PM2.5 formation in the ambient air are NOx and SO2);

Lead (Pb); and

Carbon monoxide (CO).

43

Air Permit Strategy

2. Air contaminants that are: (a) listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) by the US EPA, including hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and dioxin; and/or (b) identified as a toxic air pollutant by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), including ammonia (NH3) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4); and

3. The Greenhouse Gas air pollutants designated by US EPA, including carbon dioxide (CO2) nitrous oxide and methane, expressed as CO2 equivalents or CO2e.

44

Air Permit Strategy

The CREG Center’s air emissions are expected to be below all required air quality standards for the following reasons:

1. CREG Center will feature the best available, state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment that will capture harmful pollutants and cut emissions;

2. The City will invest millions of dollars in a state-of-the-art material recovery facility (MRF) at CREG that will help remove items that have mercury and lead at the beginning of the process, so these items will never be gasified and the related pollutants will be significantly reduced from the start;

3. The selected gasification technology will have a proven track record for pollutants such as NOx, mercury and lead.

4. CREG reduces the number of trucks in and out of Ridge Road Transfer Station and also reduces the number of trucks dumping waste at the landfill and thereby cuts Greenhouse gases by millions of tons a year; and

45

Air Permit Strategy

Gasifier Max Operation

◦ Schedule: 12 hours per day per gasifier (365

days per year)

◦ Feedstock: 70 tons of MSW/batch.

◦ Cycle: One batch of MSW will be processed

each day in each gasifier

46

Public Meeting

A public meeting was conducted by Ohio

EPA on January 9, 2011,

◦ A number of elected officials and

representatives of neighborhood

organizations expressed concern about the

original January 13, 2012 deadline.

◦ As a result, Mayor Jackson formally requested

that the deadline be extended by thirty days

◦ The Ohio EPA extended the public comment

period through February 23 2012.

47

Public Meetings

Although CPP had conducted a number of public meetings prior to the issuance of the draft permit, the City added a number of additional meetings to inform and educate the public.

February 23, 2011 Meeting with residents and business stakeholders

April 4, 2011 Meeting with local environmental groups

January 11, 2012 Meeting with Cleveland City Council

January 19, 2012 Public Meeting at the Estabrook Recreation Center

January 26, 2012 Public Meeting at the Zelma George Rec. Center

February 8, 2012 Public Meeting at the Cudell Recreation Center

February 9, 2011 Public Meeting at the Harvard Com. Services Center

February 15, 2012 Public Meeting at the West Side Ecumenical Ministry

48

E. Co-Generation Opportunity

Cleveland Public Power is in discussions with a local steam heat and cooling company about a co-generation project.

This company is a CPP customer that would modify one of its air permits and use the CREG fuel pellet along with coal to produce steam and electricity.

This configuration would be a co-generation operation with steam used for both CPP’s electric generation and Cleveland Thermal’s steam heat requirements.

The offsite location for co-generation may resolve neighborhood concerns about CREG Center’s waste-to-energy air emissions.

49

Co-Generation Opportunity

Plant Operation

The co-generation facility would install two fluidized

bed, multi-fuel fired boilers and one 42 MW steam

turbine generator.

The facility could purchase all or some of the CREG

Center’s pellet product.

Gasification of CREG’s fuel pellet alone would not be

adequate for power output greater than 20 MW, so

additional feedstock or fuel would be needed for 42

MW capacity.

The remaining feedstock could be coal and/or additional

renewable feedstock.

50

Co-Generation Opportunity

Ridge Road CREG Center Activities

Under the co-generation approach, the City-wide

recycling, the recycling center, the material recovery

facility, the fuel pellet production facility and decorate

bricks would all remain and could be located at the

Ridge Road CREG Center campus.

The steam production and electric generation facility

would be located at the co-generation site. Composting

could be located at Ridge Road or a suitable located

elsewhere, if found to be a viable, self supporting option.

51

Complexities of Project

Development

Political Realities

◦ Local concerns and influence will either

propel a project forward or provide additional

impediments

◦ Timing is everything (expect a lengthy

development period) so knowing when and

who is important

◦ A well developed Public Relations campaign is

critical

52


Development The driving forces behind coalitions

To form a coalition one needs to demonstrate:

that the goals of each of the prospective members are similar and compatible;

that working together will enhance each groups' ability to reach their goals;

that the benefits of coalescing will be greater than the costs of proceeding alone;

that it is risky to consider alternatives to the coalition; and

that the activities of the coalition are likely to receive more media attention than those of any individual organization.

53


Development

Unique Nature of Coalitions Not all coalition members buy into the

joint effort equally Some members may be less committed to

the “goals” of the coalition than others Some members of a coalition may take

positions that are counter to the respective member’s traditional positions

Members may move away from their traditional views for the sake of joining or supporting a coalition

54


Development

Identify the differences in the core messages or

objectives of the members

To keep a coalition together, it is often

necessary for a coalition to cater to one side

more than another--especially when negotiating

External influences and

relationships are important

55


Development

Settlement strategies may be effective to respond to members that: ◦ are not committed to extreme opposition

positions

◦ may be receptive to concessions that align with their core missions

◦ find the coalition is not meeting their expectation

◦ believe the other coalition members are not taking that respective member’s concerns seriously

56


Strategy development (outline how the project will be developed) ◦ Rigorously analyze the technical, economic and

environmental feasibility of the technology/project

◦ Work with the local interest groups an leaders for community buy-in

◦ Include a broad group of stakeholders

◦ Form a Steering Committee (include public leaders, waste management personnel, local environmental groups, sustainability representatives if possible)

Develop air permitting strategies ◦ Demonstrate reductions in harmful emissions

◦ Map emissions of key pollutants

◦ Meet with regulators before, during and after you file

57


Secure legislative support

Meet with community groups ◦ Identify groups more likely to support the project

◦ Meet with groups likely to oppose the project to understand their concerns

◦ Seek credible environmental and sustainability stakeholders to gain support for the components/benefits that support their agendas

Understand the technology ◦ Seek independent validation of technology

options

◦ Check references and ask for documentation

58


Determine how much risk will be taken with new technology verses mature technology

◦ Are full scale commercial projects required or are successful smaller scale demo projects acceptable

Visit/ inspect technologies that provide the most promise

◦ Verify technology claims

◦ Document environmental impacts

◦ Seek feedback from residents in the community where the technology is used

◦ Confirm successful commercial operation

◦ Visit technology user customers locations

59


Economic Impacts ◦ Emphasize the regional/community benefits of the

project to gain the support of contractors/labor in the area

◦ Job creation

Environmental Impacts ◦ Work to achieve the community’s recycling and

sustain ability goals

◦ Highlight reduction of landfill cost and environmental impacts like avoidance of GHG

◦ Marketing and branding is key emphasizing Green Energy, environmentally friendly energy and sustainability objectives

60


Public Education ◦ Public hearings and public meetings

◦ Brief community groups (community outreach)

◦ Connect the project to other successful and related

beneficial community programs

◦ Target all age groups

◦ Advertise your message

61

QUESTIONS?

Commissioner Ivan Henderson

Cleveland Public Power

Email: [email protected] 62

The Cleveland Recycling and Energy Generation Center

Documents

Transcript of The Cleveland Recycling and Energy Generation Center