Workshop Agenda Presentations on background, technical information and perspectives. Discussion of “Measures” that can help CIWMB meet GHG emission reduction strategies. – Afternoon Session 1 – Presentation of CIWMB Measures – Afternoon Session 2 – Public Comment and Board Discussion
Workshop Agenda. Presentations on background, technical information and perspectives. Discussion of “Measures” that can help CIWMB meet GHG emission reduction strategies. Afternoon Session 1 – Presentation of CIWMB Measures Afternoon Session 2 – Public Comment and Board Discussion. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Workshop Agenda
Presentations on background, technical information and perspectives.
Discussion of “Measures” that can help CIWMB meet GHG emission reduction strategies.– Afternoon Session 1 – Presentation of
2-LF Capture Efficiencies 1.7 to 3.4? UnknownAssumes increased
efficiency 20%
3-Additional LF Data Unknown UnknownParameters to be
determined
4-Criteria Pollutant Issues -1.2 Unknown60 existing LF with
energy recovery
5-Multi-Family Recycling 0.5 to 0.8 212 2.6 million MF units
6-Curbside Recycling 0.07 300 250,000 units
7-Commercial Recycling 0.5 to ?? 51 0.5 is for 2 targeted sectors only
8-GHG Demo Grants 1.2 134 Ranges from LF to diversion programs
• Description: adopt regulations to: 1. Require methane control systems on uncontrolled landfills; 2. Maximize methane capture and emissions control (design and operation practices and performance standards); and 3. Require reporting of data (to target and verify reductions).
• Status: 1 and 2 are ARB proposed AB 32 Early Actions (April 20, 2007). Data reporting currently on voluntary basis (AB 32 Inventory, CEC Study, Climate Action Registry) and under consideration for AB 32 Mandatory Reporting.
Measures 1-3:Methane Control Systems on Uncontrolled Landfills
Maximize Landfill Methane Capture EfficiencyRequire Landfill Monitoring & Reporting Data
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1990 2006
StatewideLandfill WasteIn Place (milliontons)
Waste In Place-With MethaneGas ControlSystems
Waste In Place-No MethaneControl System
Important factor: most waste (94%) is in landfills with control systems that capture and destroy methane. Trend since 1990: more waste in fewer larger
landfills under more control and emissions control regulation.
Measures 1-3
• Estimated Reductions: Total 2-4 MMTCO2E
– 0.5 MMTCO2E (new control systems) (based on 32 landfills currently uncontrolled with 0.5-3.8 million tons waste-in-place (3.7% statewide total))
– 1.7-3.4 MMTCO2E (maximize capture efficiencies) (based on increased capture of 20% to 40% of fugitive emissions (statewide capture 78% to 84%)).
– Additional data would define subset of the role and potential reductions for working face/daily cover practices and green waste ADC.
– ARB Inventory and CEC study expected to improve confidence in estimates.
Measures 1-3
• Authority: PRC 43020: CIWMB shall not include any requirements that are already under the authority of the ARB for the prevention of air pollution.
– Landfill gas emissions are under the authority of ARB and enforced by local air districts under district rules, permits, and federal New Source Performance Standards/Emissions Guidelines (NSPS/EG) regulations.
– Under AB32, the ARB has the mandate and authority to regulate GHG emissions; determine the 1990 emissions level (inventory); and establish mandatory reporting requirements.
Measures 1-3
• Costs:
– New systems (extraction well field and flare): $48.50 per ton CO2E capital and $2.30 per ton CO2E per year operations and maintenance costs.
– Maximize landfill methane capture efficiency and emissions control: cost unknown but may be modest depending on site-specific factors (e.g., upgrade of control systems, compost in cover soils, partial final closure).
CIWMB funded study (recommended award 5/07 to SCS Engineers) will evaluate and recommend cost-effective options.
Measures 1-3
• Implementation Issues:
– Landfill emissions are regulated directly by local air districts not by ARB and coordination will be needed.
– Regulations need to address flexibility for landfills that do not generate enough methane to operate systems.
– Regulations to maximize capture/control will need to establish enforceable and verifiable performance criteria.
– Uncertain whether or not current voluntary data efforts from landfill operators will be adequate.
– CEC study will provide a model expected to address uncertainty in emissions estimates and additional data needs but will not be completed until 2010.
Measures 1-3
• Pros:
– Control technologies (flares) are commercialized and readily available.
– Small landfills are successfully utilizing these technologies.
– Added benefit of indirectly reducing other air contaminants from landfill gas and potential for explosive gas migration and ground water contamination.
– Significant reductions may be achievable at modest cost for measures other than new systems to maximize capture efficiency and emissions control.
Measures 1-3
Cons:
– Reductions from new systems relatively modest and high cost per ton CO2E. Costs may be burdensome, especially for the closed sites with no revenue sources.
– Small and old landfills may not generate enough landfill gas to operate systems without supplemental natural gas.
– Measures to maximize capture not clearly determined and benefits difficult to quantify and verify.
Measures 1-3
• Potential Approach:
– CIWMB continue to provide technical assistance and support to ARB on AB 32 Early Action Item on landfill gas (Measures 1-2) and Inventory Efforts (Measure 3).
– Based on ARB actions under AB 32, CIWMB later consider regulatory concepts within its purview if necessary to support ARB actions, either through authority granted by ARB under PRC 43020 or additional legislative authority and mandate.
Measures 1-3Methane Control Systems on Uncontrolled Landfills
Maximize Landfill Methane Capture EfficiencyRequire Landfill Monitoring & Reporting Data
• Potential Approach (cont.):
– CIWMB continue to provide technical assistance and support to CEC on its landfill methane emissions study.
– CIWMB approve contract award May Agenda Item 8: Technologies and Management Practices Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills and coordinate the project with stakeholders.
Measures 1-3Methane Control Systems on Uncontrolled Landfills
Maximize Landfill Methane Capture EfficiencyRequire Landfill Monitoring & Reporting Data
• Description: funding incentives for research and demonstration of pollution control technologies to address criteria air pollutants (NOx and CO) from devices that recover landfill gas and other biogas.
• Status: Proposed South Coast AQMD Amended Rule 1110.2 would impose emissions standards that may peril biogas recovery and shutdown existing systems.
CEC PIER Program and ARB continues funding of emissions control technology projects.
CIWMB funded UCD landfill gas to hydrogen study; landfill gas to LNG grant award May Agenda Item 7.
Measure 4
Overcoming Criteria Pollutant Challenges to Recovery of Landfill Gas and Other Solid-Waste Related Biogas
• Existing Data: 60 landfills utilize IC engines and gas and steam turbines to recovery landfill gas and produce over 200 MW in biomass electricity.
• Estimated Reductions:
– Recovery of landfill gas currently provides approximately 1.2 MMTCO2E in avoided emissions from displaced fossil fuel energy sources. There is potential to add to these avoided emissions by over 1.2 MMTCO2E (total 2.4+ MMTCO2E).
– Additional avoided emissions are being achieved and can be expanded from other biogas sources (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, solid waste anaerobic digesters).
Measure 4
• Implementation Issues– Funding source(s) need to be identified.– Need coordination with related programs (CEC, ARB).
• Pros:– Non-regulatory incentive based program will have more support
from industry stakeholders.– Significant positive contribution to in-state production of renewable
electricity and biofuels.– Biogas recovered would otherwise be a wasted resource by
combustion in flares.– Specific treatment technologies may be within CIWMB purview
such as compost biofilters.
Measure 4
• Cons:
– Technologies resolving criteria pollutant issues have limited demonstration for commercial scale use.
– CIWMB has minimal in-house expertise and resources.
– Potentially duplicates existing programs implemented by CEC and ARB.
• Implementation Options– Seek statutory direction and appropriation.– Establish funding through budget change proposals (BCPs)
and/or CIWMB discretionary contract concepts.– Rely on industry to provide necessary funding.
Measure 4
• Potential Approach to Implementation:
– Identify funding sources through BCPs and CIWMB discretionary funds.
– Consult with CEC, ARB, and stakeholders to determine potential projects or areas where CIWMB may focus efforts that would not duplicate or conflict with other programs.
Measure 4
Overcoming Criteria Pollutant Challenges to Recovery of Landfill Gas and Other Solid-Waste Related Biogas
Measures 5, 6 & 7Related Statewide Waste Characterization Data