ESW0 P1250 An 0 Emissions 00 Final 0

Public Disclosure Authorized
70166
Report
Viability of Current and Emerging Technologies for

Prepared for:
Domestic Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal:
Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emissions
May 2011
www.erm.com
The World Bank Washington, DC
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

FINAL REPORT
The World Bank

Washington, DC
Viability of Current and

Emerging Technologies for
Domestic Solid Waste
Treatment and Disposal:
Implications on Dioxin and

Furan Emissions
May 2011
ERM Project: 0130996
World Bank Vendor ID Number: 125432
Environmental Resources Management

City Tower Building
250 Ponce de León Ave., Suite 900
San Juan, PR 00918
FINAL REPORT
The World Bank

Washington, DC
Viability of Current and

Emerging Technologies for
Domestic Solid Waste
Treatment and Disposal:
Implications on Dioxin and

Furan Emissions
May 2011
ERM Project: 0130996
World Bank Vendor ID Number: 125432
José A. Hernández, P.E.

Partner-in-Charge
Noel Marrero
Project Manager
David Minott, QEP, CCM

Technical Leader, Solid Waste Management
Javier Quintana, PhD, PE

Solid Waste Expert-LAC Specialist
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 TERMINOLOGY 13
2 BACKGROUND ON WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND

PRACTICES 15
3 CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN LATIN

AMERICA 17
4 EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR WASTE

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL 20
4.1 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES, OPERATING CAPACITIES, AND

COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE 20
4.2 SUSTAINABILITY ATTRIBUTES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES 21

4.2.1 Energy Recovery 21
4.2.2 Materials Recovery 22
4.2.3 Waste Diversion from Landfill 24
4.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 24
4.2.5 Land Resource Consumption 25
4.2.6 Water Use 25
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES 25

4.3.1 Air Pollutant Emissions 29
4.3.2 Emissions of Dioxins and Furans 29
4.3.3 Emissions of Mercury 29
4.3.4 Odor Nuisance 30
4.3.5 Solid Waste Generation 30
4.3.6 Wastewater Discharge 31
4.3.7 Storm Water Discharge 31
4.4 MSW TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS 32

4.4.1 Economics 32
4.4.1.1 Capital Costs 32
4.4.1.2 Operating Costs 35
4.4.2 Institutional Factors 35
4.4.2.1 Operating Complexity 36
4.4.2.2 Public Acceptance 36
ERM 0130996 WB DSW TREATMENT DISPOSAL DIOXIN AND FURAN EMISSIONS (FINAL)-05/25/11
i
CONTENTS
5 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY IN LATIN AMERICAN

SETTINGS 38
5.1 LARGEST CITIES, STRONGER MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY 40
5.2 SMALLER CITES, LIMITED MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY 41
5.3 RURAL AREAS, LITTLE MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY 42
5.4 LAND-CONSTRAINED REGIONS 42
5.5 REMOTE AREAS (PRIMITIVE ECONOMIES) 43
6 ANNEXES 44
Annex 1: Landfill
Annex 2: Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
Annex 3: Gasification and Pyrolysis
Annex 4: Anaerobic Digestion
Annex 5: Composting
Annex 6: Waste-Derived-Fuel (WDF) Production, an Alternative
Technology
Annex 7: Waste-to-Liquid Fuel, an Emergency Technology
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Technologies for MSW Treatment and Disposal 7
Table 2: Technology Comparisons for Operating Capacities,
Economics, Sustainability, and Air Emissions 9
Table 3: Characteristic Waste Management Settings within the
LAC Region 10
Table 4: Matching MSW Technologies with Waste Management
Settings within the LAC Region 11
Table 5: Sustainability Profiles for MSW Treatment and
Disposal Technologies 23
Table 6: Environmental Profiles for MSW Treatment and
Disposal Technologies 27
Table 7: MSW Technology Economics and Institutional Factors 33
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was undertaken to identify and assess the technologies available
worldwide for treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW), and
to make a general assessment of the applicability of these technologies to
various waste management “settings” within the Latin American and
Caribbean (LAC) Region. Each technology was evaluated for a number of
key attributes, including demonstrated commercial viability, economics,
institutional factors, sustainability metrics, and environmental attributes,
including emissions of dioxins/furans. The study focused on the waste
treatment technologies that have been commercially demonstrated
worldwide; however, selected alternative and emerging technologies were
also considered. After profiling the available waste management
technologies, an assessment was then made of the general applicability of
these technologies to various characteristic settings found within the LAC
Region. Technology applicability assessment at specific locations within the
LAC region would require detailed, site-specific evaluation. Such site-
specific evaluations of applicable technologies would be the subject of
subsequent studies.
Substantial progress in adopting modern waste management practices has

been achieved in the largest cities of the LAC region, but waste management
remains deficient outside of the major urban areas. Estimates vary, but
approximately one-quarter to one-half of all the MSW generated in the LAC
region is still being disposed in open dumps. Waste management
throughout the LAC region can be improved by implementing modern
techniques for waste minimization, recycling, resource recovery, and
disposal that have been proven effective in many developed countries of the
world. For MSW treatment and disposal, modern methods now exist that
would enable Latin American countries to phase out open dumping and
open burning of MSW, markedly reducing the associated environmental
burdens, including dioxins and furans emissions. Potential technology
alternatives include landfills of modern design, composting and anaerobic
digestion, modern conventional waste-to-energy (WTE) technology, and
advanced, non-burn technologies for energy recovery such as MSW
gasification.
1
The specific technologies assessed in this study are:
Commercially Demonstrated Technologies:

• Modern sanitary landfill
• Combustion waste-to-energy (WTE)
• Gasification WTE
• Anaerobic digestion (AD)
• Composting using air only, and also using worms
Alternative Demonstrated Technology:

• Production of waste-derived-fuel (WDF) by the municipality, with offsite
combustion of the WDF for energy recovery at an existing coal utility
boiler, industrial boiler, or cement kiln
Emerging Technology:
• Gasification of MSW and conversion the resulting gas to liquid fuel
products (e.g., ethanol, diesel fuel)
Each of these technologies is described in Table 1, along with summary

information on available processing capacities and the extent of commercial
deployment worldwide. The attributes for which each technology was
evaluated are as follows:
• Technical
• Sustainability attributes
• Environmental attributes
• Economics - capital and operating costs
• Institutional attributes for each technology - operating complexity and
public acceptance
Regarding the sustainability attributes above, the specific sustainability

attributes considered included:
Resource Recovery - the recovery of energy (e.g., electricity, steam or hot

water, liquid fuels) or beneficial materials (e.g., compost, construction
aggregate, chemicals)
2
Waste Diversion from Landfill - the fraction of post-recycling MSW processed
by the technology that is diverted from landfill disposal to beneficial use
Greenhouse Gas Emissions -the extent to which the technology causes a

decrease or increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases
Land Resource Consumption - the relative amount of land area required to site
and operate the technology
Water Use - the amount of fresh process water consumed in operating the
technology
Regarding the environmental attributes above, the specific attributes

considered were:
Air Pollutant Emissions, including combustion-related emissions, as well as

emissions, specifically, of dioxins/furans and mercury. Dioxin/furan
emissions resulting from MSW combustion became controversial in the
1980’s; however, advanced emission controls have abated dioxin/furan
emissions to minor levels. Mercury is present in MSW and is not destroyed
by any of the technologies for MSW treatment and disposal. Accordingly, if
not adequately controlled (removed) by the MSW processing or disposal
technology, that mercury will enter the environment.
Odor Nuisance – the potential for the technology to cause odor nuisance
offsite.
Solid Waste Generation - the amount of solid residue requiring landfilling that
is produced by the technology.
Process Wastewater Discharge - the amount of process wastewater requiring

discharge to the environment that is generated by the technology.
Storm Water Discharge – the potential for the technology to create

contaminated storm water that could flow offsite into the environment.
3
Typical Modern Landfill Landfill Gas Collection in Peru
(Source: DSW via World Bank) (Source: World Bank)
In Table 2, the relative rankings for the technologies are summarized from
favorable to unfavorable, against selected attributes described above.
Clearly, no single technology dominates in the favorability rankings across
all the various attributes. Landfills are favorable for costs, operating
simplicity, and flexible range of operating capacities, but unfavorable for
sustainability. Composting is favorable for costs, operating simplicity,
materials recovery (compost), and environmental attributes, but unfavorable
for potential odor impacts and its limitation to smaller operating capacities.
Anaerobic digestion is favorable for the sustainability metric of materials
recovery (compost), but is neither decidedly favorable nor unfavorable for
most other attributes. Combustion waste-to-energy (WTE) and gasification
WTE are favorable for the sustainability metrics of energy recovery and
greenhouse gas abatement, as well as odor prevention, but unfavorable for
costs, unavailability at small scale, operating complexity, and emissions to
the air. Production of waste-derived fuel (WDF) has a similar favorability
profile to combustion WTE, but is much more favorable for costs and
operating complexity.
Not shown in Table 2 is the emerging technology for conversion of MSW

into liquid fuels such as ethanol or synthetic diesel. This is because waste-to-
liquid fuel technology has not yet been implemented anywhere in the world
at commercial scale. However, this emerging technology has its first,
commercial scale facility in construction presently in Canada and
commercial operation is expected within two years. If this technology
becomes commercially established, it would provide a novel alternative to
combustion WTE or gasification WTE by converting the MSW into a
valuable energy product (liquid fuel), rather than converting the MSW to
energy directly onsite. Production of such liquid fuels from MSW could be
4
of interest in countries where petroleum is imported and expensive, or
where cleaner-burning transportation fuels are desired.
Following evaluation of the technologies as summarized in Table 2, the

technologies were then assessed for their general applicability to various
waste management settings found within the LAC region. The waste
management settings and their defining characteristics are summarized in
Table 3. Those settings are intended to be representative and are not meant
to include all waste management settings found within the LAC region.
Small WTE Facility in Martinique MSW Gasification at Small Scale in U.K.

Source: Energos. Note that World Bank does not
make commercial endorsements.
MSW Anaerobic Digester and Biogas Energy, Barcelona, MSW Composting in the State of California, U.S.
Spain Source: City of San Jose, California (U.S.), November
Photo credit: L. Arsova 2008, Final Report - Appendix E: Conversion
Technologies and Facilities for the Integrated Waste
Management Zero Waste Strategic Plan Development,
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
5
For each of these characteristic, waste-management settings, the applicability
of the various technologies for MSW treatment and disposal was assessed.
Findings are summarized in Table 4, including the key reasons for a given
technology being favorable or unfavorable for a particular waste setting.
Composting of food waste and yard waste at varying scales of operation is
the only technology that is favorable across all waste management settings.
The applicability of all other technologies varies from setting to setting, as
shown in the table. Finally, it is noted again that the assessments presented
here of the applicability of the technologies to various waste management
settings are general assessments. For any particular locale within the LAC
Region, determination of the “best” technologies for that locale requires a
case-specific evaluation.
For the assessments of waste management, technology attributes, and

technology applicability summarized above, more detailed analyses are
presented in the subsequent sections of this report:
• Background on waste management policy and practices
• Current waste management practices in Latin America
• Evaluation of technologies available for MSW treatment and disposal
• Technology applicability in Latin American settings
• Annexes providing in-depth profiles of each technology
6
Table 1: Technologies for MSW Treatment and Disposal
Processing
Capacity
Technology Description Extent Commercially Demonstrated
(Tons per
Day)
Modern Sanitary Liner beneath fill area to protect ground water; leachate 50 to 10,000 The most extensive commercial
Landfill collection and control; landfill gas collection and control; TPD experience worldwide, including in LAC
daily compaction of deposited MSW and covering with
soil. Impervious cap installed at landfill closure.
Thermal Processes (High Heat)
Combustion Waste-to- MSW is combusted at high temperature and energy is 100 to 1,000 Extensive commercial experience in North
Energy (WTE) recovered (electricity or steam/hot water). Stringent TPD, America, Europe, and Japan. None in
controls on air emissions, including dioxins. Ash is per module Latin America. Limited in Caribbean.
landfilled or beneficially used, depending on facility design
and national laws. 5 TPD is
smallest
Thermal Gasification MSW is pre-processed, then gasified in the presence of 40 to 900 Substantial commercial experience in
limited oxygen. The resulting syngas is used as a fuel to TPD, Europe and Japan. None in the Americas
generate energy (electricity or steam/hot water). Air per module to date.
pollutants are either removed from the syngas pre-
combustion, or removed via control of the emissions from
syngas combustion as a fuel. Ash/char residue is
landfilled or beneficially used.
Pyrolysis Gasification MSW is pre-processed, placed in a closed vessel, then 100 to 700 Commercial experience in Europe and
gasified in the absence of oxygen, by externally heating the TPD, Japan. None in the Americas to date.
vessel. The resulting pyrolysis gas is used as a fuel to per module
generate energy (electricity or steam/hot water). Air
pollutants are either removed from the gas pre-
combustion, or removed via control of the emissions from
gas combustion as a fuel. Char/tarry/oily residue is
landfilled or beneficially used.
7
Processing
Capacity
Technology Description Extent Commercially Demonstrated
(Tons per
Day)
Plasma Gasification MSW is pre-processed, then gasified at extremely high 200 to 500 Limited commercial experience in Japan.
temperature, using an electric arc. The resulting syngas is TPD, None in the Americas or Europe to date.
used as a fuel to generate energy (electricity or steam/hot per module
water). Air pollutants are either removed from the syngas
pre-combustion, or removed via control of the emissions
from syngas combustion as a fuel. The slag residue is inert
and is beneficially used.
Biological Processes
Anaerobic Digestion Yard waste, food waste, or mixed MSW is pre-processed 60 to 700 Extensive commercial experience in
(AD) and placed in a closed vessel, where it biologically TPD, yard Europe for digestion of organic
degrades in the absence of oxygen. A methane-rich biogas and food components of MSW, and very limited
is produced that is used as a fuel to generate energy waste experience in N. America; none in LAC.
(electricity or steam/hot water). The compost residue is Only one known digestion facility for
marketed for land application. Reject material culled from mixed MSW (Israel).
the MSW during pre-processing is landfilled.
Composting Yard waste, food waste, or mixed MSW is pre-processed, 6 to 270 TPD, Substantial commercial experience in
placed in rows, piles, or in a closed vessel, then allowed to for both Europe. Experience varies in North
biologically degrade in the presence of oxygen. The mixed MSW America and LAC, depending on whether
compost product is marketed. Reject material culled from and for mixed MSW, yard waste, or food waste is
the MSW during pre-processing is landfilled. organic composted.
components
Alternative Technology: MSW is mechanically processed into a more uniform, 100 to 700 Commercial experience for decades in the
Waste-Derived Fuel waste-derived-fuel (WDF) under municipal auspices. TPD U.S. and Europe
(WDF) Then, the WDF is trucked to an existing coal-fueled utility
power plant, industrial boiler, or cement kiln, where it is
converted to energy by a third party.
Emerging Technology: MSW is pre-processed, then gasified. The resulting syngas 80 to 600 TPD Emerging technology: No commercially
Waste-to-Liquid Fuels is purified, then converted using a chemical process such operating facilities operating yet
Conversion as the catalytic Fischer-Tropsch process to liquid fuels worldwide.
(ethanol, butanol, synthetic diesel) or chemicals.
8
Table 2: Technology Comparisons for Operating Capacities, Economics, Sustainability, and Air Emissions
Operating Capacity Costs Sustainability Air Pollutant Emissions
Technology Waste
Greenhouse
Favorability Energy Material Diversion Combustion
Large Small Capital Operate Gas Odor Dioxin Mercury
Recovery Recovery from Emissions
Emissions
Landfill
Most Gasify Gasify Gasify Gasify

Favorable Landfill Compost Compost Compost WTE Compost WTE WTE WTE Compost Compost Compost
Landfill WDF Ad WDF WDF WDF
WTE Landfill
WDF Digest Landfill AD AD AD
Gasify AD AD AD AD AD
WTE Compost Compost Landfill Landfill
Gasify Gasify WDF WDF
WDF Landfill Compost Landfill
AD WTE
AD WDF WTE Gasify Gasify
Gasify
Least Compost WTE Gasify Gasify Compost Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill WTE WTE WTE
Favorable WDF WDF WDF
Notes:
WTE = Combustion waste-to-energy (WTE); WDF = production of waste-derived fuel; Gasify = gasification WTE; AD = Anaerobic digestion; Compost = Composting.
The relative inter-comparison of technologies in this table is a general indication and could differ somewhat under case-specific conditions.
9
Table 3: Characteristic Waste Management Settings within the LAC Region
The largest-population cities, typically, capital cities

Stronger municipal financial/investment capacity
Largest Cities,
Higher per-capita incomes
Higher Income
Higher cost of living
(Stronger Municipal Investment Capacity)
Municipal waste collection
Good road network
Small, medium, and some large cities

More limited municipal financial/investment capacity
Smaller Cities,
Lower per-capita incomes
Lower Income
Lower cost of living
(Limited Municipal Investment Capacity)
Municipal waste collection, but adequacy varies
Adequacy of regional road network varies
Rural developed areas and very small cities

Little municipal financial/investment capacity
Rural,
Low per-capita incomes
Low Income
Low cost of living
(Little Municipal Investment Capacity)
Municipal waste collection unlikely
Regional road network is limited
Regions with special land constraints

Land-Constrained
Population density, municipal capacity, income levels, and road infrastructure varies with the
(Small Islands, Mountains)
locale.
Remote primitive areas, tribal

Remote Areas
Limited, if any centralized, local government
(Primitive Economy)
Subsistence economy
10
Table 4: Matching MSW Technologies with Waste Management Settings within the LAC Region
WDF Production
(Municipal)
Waste Engineered
Controlled Combustion + Anaerobic
Management Sanitary Gasification Composting
Landfill/Dump WTE Combustion Digestion
“Settings” in LAC Landfill
WTE
(by 3rd Party)
Largest Cities, Very Favorable Unfavorable Favorable, if: Very Favorable Unfavorable, if Acceptable, if: Very Favorable
Higher Income • Large Capacity • Environmental • Environmental • Large Capacity public project • Locally- for food- and
burdens benefits due to generated yard waste
(Stronger • Lowest Cost • Environmental technology risk
Municipal desired and energy energy needed • Large capacity
Investment • Renewable benefits • Acceptable, if • Combustion • Lowest Cost
Capacity) energy needed private project WTE strongly
• Low Cost
• adequate (“Affordable” • Large Capacity opposed
investment WTE) • Environmental
capacity and energy
benefits
Smaller Cities, Favorable Acceptable, as Unfavorable, Favorable Unfavorable, Very Favorable
Lower Income • Large Capacity interim solution unless private • Large Capacity unless private for food/yard
until investment project (limited project (limited waste
(Limited • Lowest Cost capacity grows • Environmental Same as above
Municipal municipal and energy municipal • Large capacity
Investment investment benefits investment • Lowest Cost
Capacity) capacity) capacity)
• Low Cost
(“Affordable”
WTE)
Rural, Unfavorable Acceptable, as Very Very Very Very Very Favorable
Low Income • Economics best solution Unfavorable, Unfavorable, Unfavorable, Unfavorable, for food/ yard
(limited given a limited Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient waste
(Little Municipal
investment local investment amount of waste amount of waste amount of waste amount of waste • Small capacity
Investment
capacity) capacity feasible
Capacity)
• Lowest Cost
• Worm
composting
possible
11
WDF Production
(Municipal)
Waste Engineered
Controlled Combustion + Anaerobic
Management Sanitary Gasification Composting
Landfill/Dump WTE Combustion Digestion
“Settings” in LAC Landfill
WTE
(by 3rd Party)
Land-Constrained Unfavorable Unfavorable Favorable Very Favorable Unfavorable, if Acceptable, if: Very Favorable
(Small Islands, • Land • Land • Insufficient • Large Capacity public project • Locally- for food/yard
Mountains) constraints constraints land for due to generated waste
• Environmental technology risk
landfill and energy energy needed • Large or small
• Power prices benefits Acceptable, if • Combustion capacity
often high private project WTE strongly • Lowest Cost
Low Cost
(“Affordable” • Large Capacity opposed
WTE) • Environmental
and energy
benefits
Remote Areas Composting of food waste and yard waste (back yard and small communal facilities). Small, communal, controlled dumps
(Primitive (no scavenging).
Economy)
Note: This table illustrates the general applicability of the technologies to various settings in the LAC Region. Actual applicability must be determined case-specifically for a particular
location.
Definitions:
“Controlled Landfill/Dump” = Landfill with minimal environmental controls, where scavenging is controlled (prohibited).;
“WTE” = Combustion waste-to-energy (WTE)
“WDF Production + Combustion WTE (3rd Party)” = Convert waste to waste-derived fuel (WDA) under municipal auspices, then burn the WDF as a fuel for energy recovery at an
existing coal power boiler, industrial boiler ,or cement kiln, owned by a private, third party.
12
1 TERMINOLOGY
A number of acronyms and specialized terms are used in this report, and
these are defined below as an aid to the reader.
AD Anaerobic Digestion
Biogenic Biogenic material is organic material (i.e., material containing
carbon) that was recently alive such as plant matter and animal
tissue
Btu/lb British Thermal Units of energy content per pound of fuel
$ U.S. Dollars
F-T Fischer-Tropsch process for converting gas to liquid fuel
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HHV Higher Heating Value (measure of fuel heat content)
kW-h/ton Kilowatt-hours of energy generated per short ton of MSW
processed
LAC Latin America and Caribbean
LFG Landfill Gas
LHV Lower Heating Value (measure of fuel heat content)
Mgy Millions of gallons per year
MJ/kg Mega-joules of energy content per kilogram of fuel
MRF Materials Recovery Facility (also called a Materials Recycling
Facility)
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
Organic Organic matter is any material that contains substantial
amounts of carbon, including biogenic organic matter (defined
above) as well as non-biogenic organic matter such as fossil
fuels and petroleum-based plastics and rubber
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel, known also as Waste Derived Fuel (WDF)
SSO Source-Separated Organic Waste, such as yard waste and food
waste
Syngas Synthesis Gas, produced from high-temperature gasification of
organic materials
TPD Tons per Day (short tons)
13
TPY Tons per Year (short tons)
WDF (RDF) Waste Derived Fuel, known also as Refuse Derived Fuel
WTE Waste-to-Energy
14
2 BACKGROUND ON WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PRACTICES
Modern waste-management policy follows a hierarchy of preferred waste

management techniques. In descending order of preference, the solid waste
management hierarchy entails the following waste management techniques
and outcomes:
1. Waste prevention (e.g., reducing packaging of consumer goods, use of re-
usable shopping bags, home composting of food and yard waste, de-
constructing and reusing old electronics)
2. Recycling (recovery and re-use of recyclable materials)
3. Composting (of yard waste and food waste)
4. Resource Recovery (recovery of energy from post-recycling waste, or
recovery of useful materials such as construction aggregate, fuels, or
chemicals)
5. Disposal (landfilling of waste components that can not be reclaimed
economically via recycling or resource recovery)
There is no single mix of these techniques that is universally “the right” mix.
Rather, the optimum mix of these techniques will vary significantly,
depending on many local factors. Determining the best mix of these
techniques for a given locale is referred to as “integrated solid waste
management.” With regard to the waste management hierarchy, the
present study focuses on waste treatment technologies for resource recovery
as well as for waste disposal. The waste prevention and recycling
components of the hierarchy are the subject matter of ongoing companion
studies.
In developed countries of the world, the disposal of MSW in communal open

piles (“garbage dumps”), as well as in backyard pits and metal drums, was
the norm three to four decades ago. The communal open garbage dumps
were often periodically burned and/or covered with earth, and backyard
garbage pits and drums were regularly burned. Communal open garbage
dumps created hazards to both human health and the environment. Open
dumping attracted disease carriers such as rats and flies, exposed workers
and scavenging trespassers to pathogens, caused fires, and caused water and
air pollution. While the uncontrolled burning of both communal open
garbage dumps and backyard garbage pits/drums reduces the volume of
MSW, it also causes significant air pollution, including emissions of
particulate matter and dioxins/furans. While developed countries have long
15
abandoned communal open dumping in favor of engineered landfills and
other modern MSW management options, burning garbage in backyard
drums persists (illegally) in the rural areas of some developed countries,
including the U.S. The poor combustion conditions characteristic of burn
barrels/drums are ideal for formation of dioxins/furans. The US EPA has
determined that illegal backyard burning of MSW is now the largest known
emission source of dioxins/furans in the U.S.♦
In the developing countries of the world, both communal open dumping of

MSW and backyard garbage pits/drums remain common. With the
communal open dumps, “open” means that scavenging by trespassers is not
prohibited or controlled. Increasingly, however, this has given way to
“controlled dumps/landfills,” where scavenging is prohibited. Engineered,
modern landfills now serve the largest population centers in some
developing countries.
As discussed subsequently in this report, substantial progress in adopting

modern waste management practices has been achieved in the largest cities
of the LAC region, but waste management remains deficient outside of the
major urban areas. The majority of MSW generated in the LAC region is still
being disposed in open dumps. Waste management throughout the LAC
region can be improved by implementing modern techniques for waste
minimization, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal that have been
proven effective in many developed countries of the world. For MSW
treatment and disposal, modern methods now exist that would enable Latin
American countries to phase out open dumping and open burning of MSW,
markedly reducing the associated environmental burdens, including dioxin
emissions. Potential technology alternatives include landfills of modern
design, composting and anaerobic digestion, modern conventional waste-to-
energy (WTE) technology, and advanced, non-burn technologies for energy
recovery such as MSW gasification.
♦
US EPA, November 2006. "An Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in
the U.S. for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000". http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286.
16
3 CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN LATIN AMERICA
In general, waste generation rates per capita are greater for populous urban
regions worldwide, especially in countries with higher incomes. This is true
for the LAC region as well. Conversely, waste generation is lower for rural
settings and in the urban regions where incomes are lower. Regarding the
waste composition in developing countries, higher-income, major
population centers tend to produce waste of a composition having
similarities to waste in developed countries (more paper, plastics, and
metals; less food waste). In the rural regions and in lower-income urban
centers, the waste composition features a higher fraction of food waste, with
less paper, plastics, and metals. Because of such differences in the waste
composition, the waste produced in urban, high-income regions of LAC
would have a moisture content that is much lower than with the waste
produced in rural and low-income urban regions. The differences from
region to region in waste generation rates and waste composition in Latin
America have important implications for the types of waste management
technologies that would be most suitable for a given region. Generally, the
“wetter” waste is more efficiently treated using biological processes such as
composting and anaerobic digestion, while the “drier” wastes are suitable
for high-temperature processes that recover energy such as combustion
waste-to-energy (WTE) and thermal gasification.
The current status of solid waste management in the Latin American and
Caribbean Region (LAC) is briefly summarized here, as the backdrop for
evaluation of waste management technologies and their applicability in the
LAC Region. Summary information for the LAC region regarding relevant
demographics and existing waste-management practices is as follows♦:
• LAC is highly urbanized: 78% of the 510 million population of the LAC
Region lives in cities.
• There is substantial income disparity among LAC countries:
– High income countries: US $22,000 per person per year
– Low income countries: US $370 per person per year
• There is substantial disparity in the waste generation rate among LAC
countries:
♦World Bank, August 2008. Solid Waste Management in LAC: Actual and Future CH4 Emissions, prepared by
Catalina Ramirez.
17
– High income countries: 600 kg per person per year
– Low income countries: 200 kg per person per year
• Solid waste management in the LAC region is advancing, relative to
many developing regions of the world, but substantial improvement is
still required:
– Municipal waste collection is good in largest cities, but still deficient
elsewhere.
– Recycling: Limited progress to date, but there is interest in
improvement.
– Disposal of waste generated in LAC region overall: 40%has disposal
in known landfills or open dumps. However, the disposal locations
are unknown for 60% of waste generated.
– Disposal of collected waste in LAC region overall: 24% to modern
sanitary landfills; 23%to controlled dumps (scavenging prohibited);
53% is disposed in open dumps or water courses. Very recent data
(2010)♦ indicates improvement, with 55% to modern sanitary
landfills; 18% to controlled dumps; and 27% is disposed in open
dumps or water courses.
– Disposal of collected waste in the largest capital cities: 60% is
disposed in modern sanitary landfills, 40% is still disposed in open
dumps. Again, very recent data (2010)♦indicates improvement, with
about 75% being disposed in modern sanitary landfills, and 25% is in
open dumps.
– Disposal of collected waste in smaller cities: most is disposed in open
dumps.
– Private: sector participation in waste management is growing.
In addition, in the present study, it was found that waste treatment

technologies other than landfilling have yet to be applied in the LAC region,
with few exceptions. Composting of food waste and yard waste is the
exception, as composting is practiced in a number of Latin American
countries. However, operating deficiencies are reported to be common,
owing to lack of proper operator training. Anaerobic digestion of waste for
energy recovery and compost production does not appear to have been
undertaken as yet in the LAC region. Traditional waste-to-energy (WTE),
♦AIDIS, 2010. “Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and the Caribbean for
year 2010” (www6.iadb.org/Residuos). This evaluation was a joint effort coordinated by the Inter-American
Association of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering (AIDIS for its Spanish acronym) and supported by the
Inter American Development Bank.
18
wherein the waste is combusted and energy is recovered, has not been
applied in Latin America, but small facilities do operate on two Caribbean
islands. Thermal gasification, which is advanced technology for recovering
energy from waste, has not been deployed as yet in the LAC region.
To summarize, substantial progress in adopting modern waste management

practices has been achieved in the largest cities of the LAC region, but waste
management remains deficient outside of the major urban areas. In the
largest cities, municipal waste collection is reliable and 60%of the waste
collected is disposed in modern sanitary landfills. Modest recycling
programs have started, as well as a limited number of composting programs.
Outside the large cities, however, open dumping still predominates and for
60%of all waste generated within the LAC region, the disposal fate is
unknown. Achieving rapid progress in improving MSW management in the
LAC region will require more pervasive implementation of: (1) MSW
collection infrastructure, and;(2) the modern technologies available
worldwide for treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW). The
present study assesses the available technologies and evaluates their
applicability to various settings within the LAC region.
19
4 EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR WASTE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
4.1 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES, OPERATING CAPACITIES, AND COMMERCIAL

EXPERIENCE
The technologies for treatment and disposal of post-recycling MSW that

were assessed in this study were presented in Table 1. In that table, each
technology was described, the available processing capacities were given,
and the extent of commercial experience worldwide was summarized. This
information is presented in greater depth for each technology in the
technology-specific Annexes appended to the report, and references are
supplied there for the factual information presented here.
From the table, clearly, modern sanitary landfills are the technology that has
the most extensive commercial deployment worldwide, including in the
LAC region. Sanitary landfills are also the technology available in the
greatest range of processing capacities. Combustion waste-to-energy (WTE)
also has an extensive commercial track record in Europe, Japan, and North
American, but not yet in Latin America. WTE is also available in a wide
range of processing capacities, but generally not in capacities as small as
available for landfills. Thermal gasification of MSW for energy recovery, an
advanced non-burn technology, has substantial commercial operating
experience in Europe and Japan, but not yet in the Americas. The range of
processing capacities available for gasification technology is similar to that of
combustion WTE. There has been extensive commercial operating
experience in Europe with anaerobic digestion (AD) of the organic
components of MSW such as yard and food waste; little experience in North
America; and no known commercial experience in Latin America.
Experience with AD for mixed MSW is minimal worldwide. The range of
processing capacities available for AD is approximately similar to that of
WTE and gasification. There is substantial experience in Europe for
composting of both mixed MSW as well as organic components. There is
significant experience in North America and Latin America with composting
of food waste and yard waste. Composting technologies are available at
advantageously-small capacities relative to the other waste treatment
technologies, while still ranging to moderately-large capacity. Production
of waste-derived-fuel (WDF) under municipal auspices, with combustion of
the WDF to recover energy at existing third-party facilities, has a multi-
decade commercial record in Europe and the U.S. WDF technology is
available in capacities similar to WTE. Finally, there is an emerging
20
technology, that while not yet demonstrated commercially, is likely to have
its first commercial facilities operating within two years in North America.
That technology is the conversion of MSW to liquid transportation fuels or
chemicals. The technology is being offered in processing capacities similar to
those of small- to medium-sized WTE units.
4.2 SUSTAINABILITY ATTRIBUTES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES
The technologies for treatment and disposal of post-recycling MSW were

assessed for their sustainability attributes, including the following:
Resource Recovery - the recovery of energy (e.g., electricity, steam or hot

water, liquid fuels) or beneficial materials (e.g., compost, construction
aggregate, chemicals)
Waste Diversion from Landfill - the fraction of post-recycling MSW processed

by the technology that is diverted from landfill disposal to beneficial use
Greenhouse Gas Emissions - the extent to which the technology causes a

decrease or increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases
Land Resource Consumption - the relative amount of land area required to site
and operate the technology
Water Use - the amount of fresh process water consumed in operating the
technology
Detailed assessments of sustainability are presented for each technology in

the Annexes to this report and a summary compilation is presented here in
Table 5. Key points follow:
4.2.1 Energy Recovery
Energy recovery is expressed in Table 2 in units of kilowatt-hours of energy

produced by the technology from each ton of MSW processed (kWh/ton).
With regard to recovering energy, the greatest energy recovery is achieved
by the high-heat processes: combustion WTE, production of waste-derived-
fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion offsite to recover energy,
gasification WTE, and also the technology that converts MSW to liquid fuels.
These high-heat processes are most favorable for energy recovery because
their high heat liberates the energy content from all constituents of MSW,
except for inert components such as glass and metals. Anaerobic digestion
(AD), which produces methane gas (biogas), also recovers energy when the
21
biogas is combusted as a fuel. The energy recovery with AD, however, is
less than with the high-heat processes because AD acts only on the readily
biodegradable components of MSW such as food waste and paper, and does
not convert the remaining components of the MSW (e.g., plastics, rubber)
into energy. Landfills produce landfill gas (a biogas) when the organic
components of MSW biodegrade within the landfill. The biodegradation
process is similar to that occurring with AD technology, but is less efficient.
Accordingly, although landfill gas is commonly used as a fuel to generate
electric energy, the energy recovery is less than with AD. Composting
technology is least favorable from the singular standpoint of energy
recovery, as the technology does not recover energy.
4.2.2 Materials Recovery
From the standpoint of materials recovery for beneficial use, composting and
AD are most favorable, as they produce significant amounts of a compost
product that is marketed as a soil amendment or fertilizer. The technology
for conversion of MSW to liquid fuels is also most favorable for materials
recovery, as it produces a valuable transportation fuel, which represents
both energy recovery and materials recovery (a liquid fuel product). With
combustion WTE and gasification WTE, the solid residue from the process
(ash, slag) can sometimes be recovered for beneficial use, for example, as
construction aggregate. This represents a modest amount of materials
recovery. Often, however, the residue is simply landfilled and there is no
associated materials recovery.
22
Table 5: Sustainability Profiles for MSW Treatment and Disposal Technologies
Resource Recovery
Land
Waste Diversion
Technology Greenhouse Gas Resource Water Use
Energy from Landfill
Materials Recovery Consumption
Recovery
Modern Sanitary Favorable Unfavorable Very

Unfavorable Unfavorable Very Favorable
Landfill (40 – 80 kWh/ton) (No recovery) Unfavorable
Unfavorable to Somewhat
Combustion Waste-to- Very Favorable Favorable, depending on Very Favorable
Very Favorable Favorable Unfavorable
Energy (WTE) (~ 600 kWh/ton) whether ash is beneficially (75% to 90%)
used or landfilled.
Very Favorable Very Favorable Varies from
Favorable, depending on
Gasification WTE (400 – 700 Very Favorable Favorable Unfavorable to
whether ash is beneficially (72% to 99%)
kWh/ton) Favorable
used or landfilled.
Favorable Favorable Varies from

Anaerobic Digestion Favorable Somewhat
(100 – 245 Favorable Favorable to
(AD) (Compost product) (60% to 75%) Unfavorable
kWh/ton) Unfavorable
Somewhat
Unfavorable Favorable Favorable, but
Favorable Somewhat
Composting (no energy depends on which Very Favorable
(Compost product) (60% to 75%) Unfavorable
recovery) waste components
are composted
Alternative Technology : Very Favorable
Very Favorable Favorable, depending on
Waste-Derived Fuel Very Favorable Very Favorable Very Favorable
(> 600 kWh/ton) whether ash is beneficially (75% to 90%)
(WDF)
used or landfilled.
Emerging Technology: Very Favorable Very Favorable Very Favorable Favorable to

Waste-to-Liquid Fuels (Energy in form of (Liquid Fuels, an energy Very Favorable Favorable
(75% to 90%) Very Favorable
Conversion liquid fuel) product)
23
4.2.3 Waste Diversion from Landfill
With regard to waste diversion from landfill, the most favorable technologies
are again the high-heat processes: combustion WTE, production of waste-
derived-fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion offsite to recover
energy, gasification WTE, and finally, the technology that converts MSW to
liquid fuels. These technologies divert all MSW processed from landfilling,
except for the solid residue (ash, char, slag) that is landfilled. Depending on
solid residue disposition, these technologies divert 70% to 99% of the MSW
from landfill. AD and composting provide lesser diversion from landfill at
60% to 75%, as those processes typically generate significant quantities of
reject material that is landfilled. With landfill technology, there is inherently
no waste diversion since landfills are the final repository for those waste
materials that have no beneficial use or value.
4.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Landfilling is the least favorable technology from the standpoint of

greenhouse gas emissions. While landfill gas is collected and controlled at
modern landfills, the collection systems are not 100% efficient. Typically,
20% to 30% of the landfill gas generated by a landfill escapes collection and
is emitted. That represents a globally-significant emission of methane
greenhouse gas. For reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the most favorable
technologies are, again, the high-heat processes: combustion WTE,
production of waste-derived-fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion
offsite to recover energy, gasification WTE, and finally, the technology that
converts MSW to liquid fuels. This is because these technologies (1) divert
the greatest amount of MSW from landfills, reducing landfill emissions of
methane and (2) recover the most renewable energy, displacing existing
fossil-fuel energy generation. AD is also favorable for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions for the same reasons, but does not recover as much energy for
displacing fossil-fuel energy generation. Experts consider the greenhouse
gas profile for MSW composting to be uncertain at present. Composting
does not produce energy, renewable or otherwise, so does not offer that
greenhouse gas advantage. But composting does divert waste from landfills,
which reduces landfill emissions of methane greenhouse gas. Specifically, it
appears that composting does reduce greenhouse gas emissions for
composting of food waste, compared with landfilling of food waste, but the
comparison is uncertain for composting of other components of MSW such
as woody yard waste.
24
4.2.5 Land Resource Consumption
The least favorable technology with regard to minimizing land use is

landfilling, as landfilling requires the most land area of all the technologies
and that land remains unavailable for other future uses for a century or
longer. Most favorable in minimizing land needs is the production of WDF
with subsequent combustion of the WDF offsite for energy recovery. This is
because new land development is needed only for the WDF production
facility; the WDF is taken to an existing power plant or cement kiln for
conversion to energy (hence, energy recovery requires no new land
development). Combustion WTE, gasification WTE, and waste conversion
to liquid fuels are also favorable, but require new land development for
energy generation equipment. AD and composting technologies require
more land than the high-heat technologies, but less than needed for landfills.
Both AD and composting normally require significant land area for piling
the waste in rows or piles for processing, but again, much less land area than
needed for landfills.
4.2.6 Water Use
Landfills and composting are most favorable from the standpoint of water
consumption, as those technologies typically do not require process water.
AD can also be favorable, as AD typically requires relatively small water
input. Also favorable is the technology for conversion of MSW to liquid
fuels, which can be a net producer of water. Some gasification WTE
processes are also net producers of water. Production of WDF is also very
favorable as it consumes no water. The power plant offsite where energy is
recovered from combustion of the WDF does have a substantial water
requirement, but this is not a new water requirement since the facility is an
existing one. Least favorable are combustion WTE and some types of
gasification WTE that require significant quantities of water for boiler steam
production and boiler cooling during energy recovery.
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES

assessed for their environmental attributes, including the following:
Air Pollutant Emissions - including combustion-related emissions, as well as

emissions, specifically, of dioxins/furans and mercury. Dioxin/furan
emissions resulting from MSW combustion became controversial in the
1980’s; however, advanced emission controls have abated dioxin/furan
25
emissions to minor levels. Mercury is present in MSW and is not destroyed
by any of the technologies for MSW treatment and disposal. Accordingly, if
not adequately controlled (removed) by the MSW processing or disposal
technology, that mercury will enter the environment.
Odor Nuisance - the potential for the technology to cause odor nuisance
offsite.
Solid Waste Generation - the amount of solid residue requiring landfilling that
is produced by the technology.
Process Wastewater Discharge - the amount of process wastewater requiring

discharge to the environment that is generated by the technology
Storm Water Discharge - the potential for the technology to create

contaminated storm water that could flow offsite into the environment.
Detailed environmental assessments for each technology are included in the

Annexes to this report and a summary is presented here in Table 6. Key
points are summarized in the subsections that follow:
26
Table 6: Environmental Profiles for MSW Treatment and Disposal Technologies
Dioxin Mercury Odor Solid Waste Wastewater Storm Water

Technology Air Pollutant Emissions
Emissions Emissions Nuisance Generation Discharge Discharge
Unknown;
potentially
Very Favorable Somewhat
Somewhat Unfavorable Very Unfavorable
Modern Sanitary (Trace Emission Favorable to Very
(Minor Emission from Unfavorable Unfavorable (Landfill
Landfill from landfill gas Unfavorable Unfavorable
landfill gas combustion) (Leachate) runoff)
combustion) (Emission is
uncontrolled
and uncertain)
Unfavorable
Somewhat Somewhat to Favorable, Very
Combustion Somewhat
Unfavorable Favorable Favorable Very depending Favorable
Waste-to-Energy Favorable to
(Controlled Emissions) (Minor (Minor Favorable on (Enclosed
(WTE) Favorable
Emissions) Emissions) wastewater process)
disposition
Unfavorable
Somewhat
Somewhat to Favorable, Very
Somewhat Unfavorable to Favorable to Somewhat
Gasification Favorable Very depending Favorable
Unfavorable Favorable Favorable to
WTE (Minor Favorable on type of (Enclosed
(Controlled Emissions) (Emissions are Favorable
Emissions) energy process)
Trace to Minor)
equipment
Favorable, if
Favorable to
Most Favorable indoors.
Very Favorable Unfavorable,
Somewhat Unfavorable for food and Potentially
Anaerobic (Trace Emission Potentially Somewhat depending
(Minor Emission from yard waste Unfavorable,
Digestion (AD) from biogas Unfavorable Favorable on type of
biogas combustion) digestion if outdoor
combustion) AD process,
(No emission) curing of
Dry or Wet
compost
Most Favorable Potentially
Very
for food and Unfavorable,
Most Favorable Most Favorable Potentially Somewhat Favorable
Composting yard waste unless
(No Emission) (No Emission) Unfavorable Favorable (No
composting indoors
wastewater)
(No emission) composting
27
Dioxin Mercury Odor Solid Waste Wastewater Storm Water
Technology Air Pollutant Emissions
Emissions Emissions Nuisance Generation Discharge Discharge
Somewhat
Alternative Unfavorable Favorable Somewhat Very
Favorable Somewhat Favorable, Favorable
Technology (Controlled Emissions (Minor Very
Favorable to no new
Waste-Derived from offsite WDF Emissions from (Minor Favorable (Enclosed
Favorable discharge
Fuel (WDF) combustion) offsite WDF Emissions) process)
combustion)
Favorable for emissions
onsite
Very Favorable Unfavorable
Emerging (Trace to Minor
Somewhat to Favorable, Very
Technology: Emissions) (Trace Somewhat Favorable
Favorable Very depending
Waste-to-Liquid Emissions from Favorable to
(Minor Favorable on (Enclosed
Fuels Unfavorable for vehicle engine Favorable
Emissions) wastewater process)
Conversion emissions offsite offsite) disposition
(Emissions from vehicle
engines)
28
4.3.1 Air Pollutant Emissions
From the standpoint of combustion-related emissions, the most favorable

technology is composting, which does not involve combustion. The least
favorable technologies are combustion WTE, as well a WDF production with
offsite combustion. Those technologies entail combustion of a solid fuel
(MSW), which generally results in greater emissions of combustion-related
air pollutants than combustion of a gaseous fuel, as occurs with gasification
WTE, or combustion of liquid fuels, as occurs with combustion by vehicle
engines of liquid fuels produced from MSW. With AD and with landfill gas,
energy recovery also entails combustion of a gaseous fuel, so emissions are
less than with combustion WTE.
4.3.2 Emissions of Dioxins and Furans
Composting has the most favorable profile for dioxin, as composting does
not involve combustion, as is required for dioxin formation. Combustion
WTE is least favorable from the standpoint of dioxin emission. Although
combustion WTE has the highest dioxin emissions of all the technologies, the
emissions are well-controlled to minor levels. This dioxin profile also
applies to WDF production with subsequent WDF combustion offsite for
energy recovery. The technologies that combust a gaseous fuel would
normally have lower dioxin emissions, including gasification WTE and AD.
Lower dioxin emissions would also be expected with combustion by vehicle
engines of liquid fuel derived from MSW.
4.3.3 Emissions of Mercury
With regard to potential emissions of mercury to the air, the least favorable
technologies are the high-heat processes: combustion WTE, production of
waste-derived-fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion offsite to
recover energy, gasification WTE, and finally, the technology that converts
MSW to liquid fuels. The high-heat processes by their nature volatilize all
the mercury present in the MSW and that mercury, unless stringently
controlled, would be emitted to the atmosphere. The emission controls
widely used today are very effective in reducing the mercury emissions from
these technologies to minor levels. The most favorable technologies for
mercury emissions are composting and AD, where the feedstock is source-
separated food waste or yard waste. This is because those feedstocks are not
contaminated with mercury. Importantly, when mixed MSW is composted,
anaerobically digested (AD), or landfilled, the fate of the mercury present in
the MSW is presently uncertain. Mercury emission controls are not applied
29
to those technologies. Composting, AD, and landfills all biodegrade mixed
MSW at low temperature and this would imply less potential for the
mercury present in the MSW to volatilize. However, recent research
indicates that mercury emissions to the air from landfills may be significant.
With regard to composting and AD, it remains uncertain regarding the
extent of mercury emissions to the air, and also the extent to which mercury
may contaminate the compost product resulting from those technologies.
4.3.4 Odor Nuisance
With regard to the potential for offsite odor nuisance, the least favorable
technology is landfilling. Landfilling is an open process, and MSW handling
and landfill gas emissions at a landfill are very odorous and often cause odor
nuisance in the immediate vicinity of the landfill. That odor nuisance
potential can be mitigated by proper landfill operations, but can not
eliminated. Composting and AD can also cause offsite odor nuisance, as the
compost material produced by both technologies is often managed in rows
or piles that are open to the air. AD processes of the batch type also release
odors when the digestions vessel is periodically opened. With composting
and AD, proper operations can reduce the potential for odorous emissions;
however, the most effective odor mitigation measure is to establish a large
buffer distance to the nearest sensitive land uses. The most favorable
technologies for odor prevention are the high-heat processes: combustion
WTE, production of waste-derived-fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF
combustion offsite to recover energy, gasification WTE, and finally, the
technology that converts MSW to liquid fuels. This is because those
processes are totally enclosed and they apply effective odor controls to
interior ventilation air.
4.3.5 Solid Waste Generation
The MSW technologies that generate the least solid residue requiring
disposal are the high-heat processes: combustion WTE, production of waste-
derived-fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion offsite to recover
energy, gasification WTE, and finally, the technology that converts MSW to
liquid fuels. The disposable solid residue generated by these technologies
(ash, char, slag) is 1% to 30% of the weight of the MSW input for processing.
AD and composting are less favorable, as 25% to 40% of the weight of the
input MSW ends up as reject material that requires disposal. With landfill
technology, all the input MSW is deposited as solid waste, as landfills are the
final repository for those waste materials that have no beneficial use or
value.
30
4.3.6 Wastewater Discharge
Most favorable from the standpoint of wastewater discharge is composting,

as it uses no process water and has no wastewater discharge. “Dry”AD
processes are also advantageous as they would have only a limited
wastewater discharge. “Wet” AD processes are less favorable, because they
have the potential to generate significant quantities of wastewater that
requires treatment prior to discharge into the environment.
The wastewater profile can range from advantageous to disadvantageous for

the high-heat processes: combustion WTE, production of waste-derived-fuel
(WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion offsite to recover energy,
gasification WTE, and finally, the technology that converts MSW to liquid
fuels. Most of those technologies generate varying amounts of wastewater
that is boiler-related, gasifier-related, or from the air pollution control
equipment. While there is often a substantial wastewater generation with
these technologies, there is normally significant effort made to recycle and
re-use spent process water, which reduces the amount that is discharged to
the environment. Some combustion WTE facilities use the wastewater for
ash moistening and are “zero discharge” for process wastewater. Least
favorable from the standpoint of wastewater discharge is landfilling, as
normally, there are significant quantities of contaminated leachate that must
be treated and discharged to the environment.
4.3.7 Storm Water Discharge
The MSW technologies most favorable with regard to storm water discharge
are the high-heat processes: combustion WTE, production of waste-derived-
fuel (WDF) with subsequent WDF combustion offsite to recover energy,
gasification WTE, and finally, the technology that converts MSW to liquid
fuels. This is because those processes are entirely enclosed and rain fall
never contacts the MSW or process residues (ash, char). Both composting
and AD can be unfavorable for storm water discharge, as there is potential
for contaminated storm-water runoff into the environment, when the
compost material is managed in rows or piles outdoors. Composting and
AD can be favorable for storm water discharge, however, if conducted
entirely indoors or under roof. Landfills are unfavorable for storm water
discharge as there is a significant potential for contamination of storm water
by MSW and leachate leaks.
31
4.4 MSW TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

assessed with regard to economics, including capital costs and operating
costs. In addition, the technologies were assessed with regard to two
institutional factors, the operating complexity of a technology and the
technology’s history of public acceptance. Detailed assessments of these
economic and institutional factors for each technology are included in the
Annexes to this report and a summary is presented here in Table 7. Some
key points are presented below with regard to economics and the
institutional factors.
4.4.1 Economics
Information developed on capital costs and operating costs was based on

typical costs for these technologies when deployed in developed countries.
Generally, the technology capital cost would be relatively similar in both
developed and developing countries; however, labor costs, and hence
operating costs, could be much lower in developing countries, especially for
the less-complex technologies such as landfilling, composting, anaerobic
digestion (AD), and the production of waste-derived-fuel (WDF).
Technologies such as combustion waste-to-energy (WTE), gasification WTE,
and the conversion of MSW to liquid fuels are highly-complex technologies,
requiring very-skilled, highly trained specialists for proper operation.
Accordingly, the operating costs for those technologies in developing
countries could approach the operating costs in developing countries. Key
points follow:
4.4.1.1 Capital Costs
Capital costs are expressed in two ways in the table. First, a “Unit Capital
Cost” is given in units of dollars per ton. This is defined as the capital cost in
US dollars per annual ton (short ton) of MSW processing capacity. This
enables inter-comparison of the technologies for capital cost per ton of waste
processed.
32
Table 7: MSW Technology Economics and Institutional Factors
Typical Annual Capital Costs Institutional Factors

Processing Operating Cost
Technology Unit Cost
Capacity Total Outlay ($/Ton) Operating
(Tons per Year) ( $/Annual Public Acceptance
($) Complexity
Ton)
Opposed by abutting
Modern Sanitary ~ $1,000,000 to
17,000 to 1,650,000 $5 to $30 $10 to $30 Low neighbors, but
Landfill $50,000,000
acceptable otherwise
Acceptable generally,
Combustion Waste-to- $15,000,000 to
33,000 to 660,000 $450 to $750 $40 to $50 High but strong opposition
Energy (WTE) $495,000,000
in some settings
Acceptable generally,
$485 to $970 $6,000,000 to
Gasification WTE 13,000 to 297,000 ~ $50+ High to Very High but strong opposition
$288,000,000
in some settings
Anaerobic Digestion $200 - $600 $3,800,000 to Favorable, unless odor

19,000 to 240,000 $20 to $50 High
(AD) $144,000,000 nuisance develops
$200 to $300 Favorable, unless odor

Composting 2,000 to 89,000 $400,000 to $27,000,000 $20 to $50 Low to Moderate
nuisance develops
Alternative
Technology : $4,000,000 to Favorable; entails no
33,000 to 231,000 ~ $120 ~ $50 Moderate to High
Waste-Derived Fuel $28,000,000 combustion onsite
(WDF)
Emerging Technology: 26,000 to 198,000 Costs are unknown since there are no commercial facilities as yet. Very High Favorable; advanced,
Waste-to-Liquid Fuels Costs are estimated to be approximately similar to Gasification non-burn technology
Conversion WTE, above.
Note: Tons are short tons. All costs are in U.S. dollars and reflect typical costs for facility construction and operation in developed countries.
33
While comparing the technologies for capital cost on a unit basis is
instructive, this provides only part of the information needed for assessing
capital costs. One must also consider the total capital outlay required to
implement a given technology. That is, the total capital outlay is determined
by two factors: (1) the unit capital costs and (2) the range of operating
capacities for a given technology. To enable assessment of total capital
outlay, the typical range of operating capacities is given in the table for each
technology in units of tons of MSW processed per year.
The following points are apparent from comparing capital costs for the
technologies, as presented in the table:
• Clearly, for capital costs on a unit basis, the technologies with the highest
capital costs are the high-temperature technologies: combustion WTE,
gasification WTE, and conversion of MSW to liquid fuel. The high capital
cost is attributable to the technical complexity of these processes. From
there, the unit capital cost drops among the other technologies, as the
complexity of the process decreases. Accordingly, the next-highest unit
capital cost is for AD, followed by composting, and finally landfilling.
The unit capital cost for landfilling is decidedly less than all other
technologies, since comparatively, landfills require little capital expense
for buildings and equipment.
• Landfills are the most advantageous technology from the standpoint of
both unit capital costs and total capital outlay. The capital cost for a
landfill of a given capacity is substantially less than the capital cost for all
other technologies for treatment of mixed MSW. In addition, as landfills
are constructed in a succession of modules (landfill “cells”) rather than
building the total capacity at the outset, the total capital outlay is spread
out over multiple decades. Furthermore, landfills can be constructed
economically in a very wide range of capacities for mixed MSW, from the
smallest capacity to the largest. The comparatively low capital costs for
landfills explains why landfills are the dominant modern technology for
MSW disposal in both North and South America today.
• For composting, the unit capital cost is much higher than for landfilling;
however, the total capital outlay required for a composting facility can be
less than that of a landfill, if the capacity of the composting facility is
small. The low, total capital outlay required for small-capacity
composting makes the technology particularly attractive for composting
of source-separated food waste and yard waste.
• Anaerobic digestion (AD) has relatively high unit capital costs and is
normally not offered at the very small processing capacities available
34
with composting. Accordingly, the total capital outlay for AD is higher
relative to landfilling and composting. AD may be best suited where
there are other reasons for its selection, for example, a local need for
energy generation.
• The least favorable technologies from the standpoint of both unit capital
costs and total capital outlay are combustion WTE and gasification WTE.
These technologies are rarely implemented in processing capacities less
than 100 tons per day, so the smallest feasible facilities require a large,
total capital outlay. At the smallest, typical capacity, the total capital
outlay for combustion WTE or gasification WTE will be $15 to $25
million. The largest-capacity WTE facilities can have a capital cost
approaching $1/2 billion.
• From the standpoint of capital cost, a favorable option for implementing
waste-to-energy in developing countries is to produce waste-derived-fuel
(WDF) under municipal auspices, then to assign the WDF for combustion
by third parties for energy recovery at an existing utility boiler, industrial
boiler, or cement kiln offsite. The capital cost to the municipality to
produce WDF is less than one-quarter the cost for a combustion WTE
facility. This is because the high capital cost for the energy generation
equipment has already been absorbed by the third-party owner of the
offsite facility where the WDF is combusted as a fuel. Because of its
comparatively lower cost, WDF production has been called “poor man’s
waste-to-energy.”
4.4.1.2 Operating Costs
The operating costs for combustion WTE, WDF production, and gasification
WTE are all similarly high. The operating costs for AD and composting are
moderate to high by comparison. The operating costs for landfills are the
lowest of all the technologies for mixed MSW management, whether a large-
capacity or small-capacity landfill, making landfills highly favorable from
the standpoint of operating costs. The total annual operating cost for very-
small-scale composting facilities for food waste and yard waste can be even
smaller than total operating costs for the smallest feasible landfills.
4.4.2 Institutional Factors
Key points regarding operating complexity and public acceptance for the
technologies follow:
35
4.4.2.1 Operating Complexity
In terms of operating complexity, landfills are most favorable, as they are the
least complex to operate. Simple forms of composting are similarly
favorable to landfills owing to low operating complexity; however, some
composting technology (in-vessel) is moderately complex to operate.
Relative to landfills and composting, AD is decidedly more complex to
operate properly and requires specialized skills and proper training.
Combustion WTE is highly complex to operate and gasification WTE is the
most complex technology to operate, both technologies requiring specialized
skills and extensive training for proper operation.
4.4.2.2 Public Acceptance
Any type of waste management facility has the potential to generate public
opposition, especially from people living in close proximity. In some
settings, however, wider, organized public opposition develops, based on
opponents’ negative general perceptions regarding associated environmental
impacts. In those settings, elected public officials sometimes join the
opposition based on populist political objectives.
Of the MSW treatment technologies assessed, the least likely to cause public
opposition are WDF production, the emerging technology of converting
MSW to liquid fuels, and composting. WDF production and waste-to-liquid
fuels are less likely to incite public opposition because both types of facilities
are totally enclosed (less potential for causing odors and littering), neither
technology entails waste combustion onsite, and the waste-to-liquid fuel
technology is novel. Composting is also favorable with regard to public
acceptance, because composting is a simple biological-type processes the
public understands and can even perform themselves at small scale in their
own back yards. Also important for public acceptance, there is no
combustion with composting.
AD, although more complex technology than composting, is still a biological

process that does not entail waste combustion; hence, its public acceptance
would normally be favorable. However, very importantly, both composting
and AD technologies have experienced serious odor nuisance problems in
many locations, because of poor operating practices. Such odor problems
can turn public acceptance of composting or AD into determined opposition
very quickly.
36
The technologies that typically generate the most public opposition are
landfills and waste-to-energy. Strong public opposition to landfills,
however, is typically limited to neighbors living in proximity to the landfill
site, and such opposition usually tapers off rapidly with distance from the
landfill.
The public acceptance profile for combustion waste-to-energy (WTE) varies

markedly with location, from favorable to very unfavorable. Combustion
waste-to-energy (WTE), while accepted in Europe, Japan, and some regions
of the U.S. and Canada, is strongly opposed in other regions of the U.S. and
Canada. Of the MSW treatment technologies, combustion WTE has the
highest potential to cause broader public opposition beyond affected
neighbors, including organized environmental groups and populist
politicians. Where WTE has been strongly opposed, the organized resistance
is based on opposition to combustion-related emissions of air pollutants, no
matter how minor, and is also based on concerns that WTE will compete
with traditional recycling.
Gasification WTE does not entail waste combustion, but normally the syngas
produced is burned onsite as a fuel to recovery energy. Because gasification
WTE does not combust solid waste, it is less likely to generate public
opposition than is combustion WTE. But, in those locales where combustion
WTE would be strongly opposed, gasification WTE is also finding strong
opposition, as opponents in those particular locales object to any type of
large-scale combustion (including combustion of syngas) and many of those
opponents have a philosophical distrust of large-scale, complex technology.
37
5 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY IN LATIN AMERICAN SETTINGS
Many factors must be considered in determining which technologies for

MSW treatment and disposal are best suited for application in any given
setting within the Latin American and Caribbean Region (LAC). Some of the
key factors are summarized below.
• Population density – urban versus rural
– The population density determines how much MSW is generated
within a given local region.
– A significant amount of MSW must be generated locally to make
municipal waste collection and central waste management
economically feasible.
– A very large amount of MSW must be generated in the local region in
order for complex, waste management technologies to be
economically feasible. Expensive, complex technology like
combustion WTE and gasification WTE must be large-scale to be
economic, and hence, are only potentially feasible for large urban
areas.
• Regional road network
– Centralized waste management requires efficient, regional waste
collection for delivery to the centralized processing facility. This, in
turn, requires an adequate network of modern roadways within the
region served.
• Differences in waste composition
– In developed countries, MSW is lower in moisture content, as it
contains large fractions of paper and plastics relative to moister food
waste. This “drier” MSW makes a good fuel for energy recovery via
combustion WTE or gasification WTE.
– In developing countries, MSW contains less paper and plastics, and a
much greater proportion of food waste. This “wetter” waste is better
suited for treatment using biological processes such as composting
and anaerobic digestion.
– Some of the largest cities in the LAC region now generate MSW
having a composition more like the developed countries, with higher
fractions of paper and plastics, relative to food waste.
38
• The municipality’s economic and financial strength - municipal
financial/investment capacity, per-capita income level, and cost of living
– Strong investment capacity and higher income level: Can consider the
more complex, expensive technologies.
– Less-developed economy and lower income level: Must focus on less
complex, lower-cost technologies.
– Generally, the strongest municipal investment capacities will be
found in the largest cities. However, there can be local exceptions,
such as in more-rural tourist areas where robust tourism may
significantly enhance the local revenue base available for funding
waste management.
• Availability of skilled work force
– The more complex technologies such as combustion WTE, gasification
WTE, and anaerobic digestion require highly-skilled, trained
specialists for proper operation.
– Technologically skilled personnel would normally only be available in
the largest capital cities of LAC countries, and may not be available at
all in some LAC countries.
• Interest of private waste-management countries in public-private
partnerships
– If private waste-management companies have interest in a given
region of LAC, this provides an opportunity to implement modern
MSW treatment technologies by shifting responsibility for the
required substantial investment and skilled operations to private
sector specialists. This could be of particular interest those medium
and large cities that currently have limited investment capacity.
• Locales within the LAC region having unique land constraints
– Small island countries, being land-constrained, may not desire to
consume limited, available land with a landfill, and at the same time,
may have an incentive to generate energy using locally available fuels
such as MSW rather than imported fossil fuel. This can make MSW
treatment technologies attractive, despite their high capital cost.
– Some regions of LAC may be unsuitable geologically for landfills,
such as highly mountainous regions or areas underlain geologically
with karst bedrock. Technologies other than landfills are often better
suited for application in such regions.
39
In this study, an assessment has been made of the general applicability of the
available technologies for MSW treatment and disposal to various waste
management settings found within the LAC Region. Those characteristic
waste management settings were identified and defined previously above in
Table 3. Technology applicability assessment for specific locations within the
LAC region would require detailed, site-specific evaluation, and this would
need to be the subject of subsequent studies.
The applicability of the various MSW treatment and disposal technologies

was assessed for each of the characteristic waste-management settings
described in Table 3. The results of that assessment were summarized
previously above in Table 4. Some conclusions regarding technology
applicability follow:
5.1 LARGEST CITIES, STRONGER MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY

• Modern sanitary landfills represent the technology that (1) has lowest
capital and operating costs; and (2) is available in the range of capacities
required.
• If there is a suitable industry (coal utility boiler, industrial boiler, or
cement plant) in the region, then production of WDF municipally, with
combustion of that WDF at the offsite industry for energy recovery may
be very favorable to both the municipality (low waste treatment costs)
and the industrial partner (lower fuel costs).
• Combustion WTE, although costly, may be favorable as a landfill
alternative for any of the following reasons, providing there is adequate
municipal investment capacity:
– Renewable energy generation is locally needed or desired.
– There is a desire to conserve land for more productive uses than
landfilling.
– Environmental policy favors resource recovery over landfill disposal.
• Gasification WTE may also be favorable for the same reasons, if the
facility is privately developed, owned, and operated, so that the public
sector does not assume the higher technology risks inherent to an
advanced, complex technology such as gasification.
• Anaerobic digestion (AD) may be favorable in some cases, for example, if
local energy generation is desired, but combustion WTE is locally
opposed.
40
• Central composting of food waste and yard waste would be very
favorable as a low-cost technology, if the significant additional cost for
separate collection of those waste components is affordable. If not,
composting of food waste and yard waste in backyards or at small, local
drop-off locations would be a low-cost, very favorable practice.
5.2 SMALLER CITES, LIMITED MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY

• For cities of large- to medium population, modern sanitary landfills
represent the technology that (1) has lowest capital and operating costs
and (2) is available in the range of capacities required.
• For small cities and rural areas, the lowest cost technology for
management of MSW would be Controlled Landfill, as an interim
measure, until such time as local conditions evolve to enable upgrading
to a modern sanitary landfill (population increase and/or increased
municipal investment capacity).
• Combustion WTE and gasification WTE would normally be unfavorable
in this setting, as there is typically not enough MSW generated to reach
the minimum capacity requirements for these technologies, and the
municipality does not normally have sufficient municipal investment
capacity. Often, there is not the waste collection infrastructure in place
over a large enough region to collect and supply sufficient waste to meet
the minimum capacity requirement for a WTE facility. In principle,
however, if a small city area has sufficient waste generation and a waste
collection infrastructure, but insufficient investment capacity, there may
be the potential for implementation of WTE by the private sector.
• If there is a suitable industry (coal utility boiler, industrial boiler, or
cement plant) in a small-city region, then production of WDF
municipally, with combustion of that WDF at the offsite industry to
recover energy may be feasible. If so, this could be very favorable to both
the municipality (low waste treatment costs) and the industrial partner
(lower fuel costs).
• Anaerobic digestion (AD) is likely unfavorable for application in this
setting due to high costs, unless the project is undertaken entirely by the
private sector, without economic risk to the municipality.
composting of food waste and yard waste in backyards or at small, local
41
5.3 RURAL AREAS, LITTLE MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• For most rural areas, implementation of a modern sanitary landfill is
unlikely to be economic, as there isn’t likely enough MSW generated in
the region to meet minimum capacity requirements for a sanitary landfill.
In addition, the municipal investment capacity is normally too limited.
• For rural areas, the lowest cost technology for management of MSW
would be Controlled Landfill, as an interim measure, until such time as
local conditions evolve to enable upgrading to a modern sanitary landfill
(population increase and/or increased municipal investment capacity).
• Combustion WTE, gasification WTE, and anaerobic digestion are not
normally feasible, owing to insufficient MSW generation in the region to
meet minimum capacity requirements for those technologies.
• Composting of food waste and yard waste in backyards or at small, local
5.4 LAND-CONSTRAINED REGIONS

• Landfilling would be least favorable, owing to a scarcity of available land
(small island settings) or to unfavorable terrain/geology (e.g, mountains,
karst). Such land constraints can make more costly technologies such as
combustion WTE economically feasible.
• Combustion WTE may be very favorable, as it requires little land. In
small island countries, electric power costs are very expensive as fossil
fuel must be imported. Accordingly, combustion WTE can have an
added benefit of reducing local energy costs by producing energy using a
fuel from a domestic source (MSW), rather than expensive imported
fossil fuel.
• Gasification WTE may also be favorable for the same reasons, if the
facility is privately developed, owned, and operated, so that the public
sector does not assume the higher technology risks inherent to an
advanced, complex technology such as gasification.
• If the land-constrained region has a suitable industry (coal utility boiler,
industrial boiler, or cement plant), then production of WDF municipally,
with combustion of that WDF at the offsite industry to recover energy
may be very favorable to both the municipality (low waste treatment
costs) and the industrial partner (lower fuel costs).
42
• Anaerobic digestion (AD) may be favorable given the need for less-
expensive energy generation in the case of a small island country, or if
local energy generation is desired, but combustion WTE is locally
opposed.
composting of food waste and yard waste in backyards or at small, very-
local drop-off locations would be a low-cost, very favorable practice.
5.5 REMOTE AREAS (PRIMITIVE ECONOMIES)

• With a subsistence economy and weak, centralized local government, the
only viable technologies for improving waste management may be
composting of food waste and yard waste in back yards or at small
communal facilities, along with controlled communal dumps (scavenging
prohibited) for the small amounts of mixed waste that would be
generated.
Finally, it is noted again that for any particular locale within the LAC
Region, determination of the “best” technologies for that locale requires a
case-specific evaluation.
43
6 ANNEXES
44
Annex 1:
Landfill
ANNEX 1— LANDFILL
Technical Description and Operating Scale
Technology Description
Landfill Technology
In developed countries, the disposal of MSW in communal open piles (“garbage

dumps”), as well as in backyard pits and metal drums, was the norm three to
four decades ago. The communal open garbage dumps were often periodically
burned and/or covered with earth, and backyard garbage pits and drums were
regularly burned. Communal open garbage dumps created hazards to both
human health and the environment. Open dumping attracted disease carriers
such as rats and flies, exposed workers and scavenging trespassers to pathogens,
caused fires, and caused water and air pollution. While the uncontrolled
burning of both communal open garbage dumps and backyard garbage
pits/drums reduces the volume of MSW, it also causes significant air pollution,
including emissions of particulate matter and dioxins/furans. Today, developed
countries have long abandoned communal open dumping, in favor of engineered
landfills and other modern MSW management options. However, burning
garbage in backyard drums persists in the rural areas of some developed
countries, including the U.S.
In the developing countries of the world, both communal open dumping of

MSW and backyard garbage pits/drums remain common. With these communal
open dumps, scavenging by trespassers is not prohibited or controlled.
Increasingly, however, this is giving way to “controlled dumps,” where
scavenging is prohibited, and engineered landfills now serve the largest
population centers in some developing countries.
Landfill technology can be sub-classified with regard to the sophistication of

design and operational features incorporated to protect public health and the
environment. This is summarized in the table that follows and relevant aspects
of landfill engineering design and operation are discussed subsequently.
ERM Phase I - Annex 1

A-1
Landfill Classifications
Engineering and
Operational Features for
Landfill Classes Leachate Control Gas Control Scavenging
Environmental
Allowed?
Protection
Open Dumps • None • No control • No control Yes

Controlled • Normally none • Little to No • No Control No
Dumps • Sometimes, daily Control
covering with soil
Basic Sanitary • Bottom liner • Containment • Venting to No
Landfill • Compaction of daily • Some control atmosphere
waste • Sometimes, control
• Daily covering with via flaring
soil
Modern Sanitary • Bottom liner • Containment • Active collection No
Landfill • Compaction of daily • Collection • Venting (small
waste and landfills)
• Daily covering with Treatment • Control via flaring
soil or energy recovery
• Top cover seal at (large landfills)
closure
Modern landfills are engineered to protect human health and the environment.
In a modern landfill, the MSW discharged into the landfill is compacted using
heavy equipment to conserve landfill space. The MSW that is landfilled each day
is covered with several inches of soil (“daily cover”) to reduce odor, littering, and
disease vectors (rats, flies), and to reduce human exposure to pathogens. Once
MSW has been buried in a landfill, the organic fraction of the MSW (e.g., food
waste, paper, yard waste) decomposes. Two types of bacteria aid in
decomposition. One type of bacteria converts the organic fraction into organic
acids, then the other type converts the acids into carbon dioxide and methane.
The methane and carbon dioxide comprise the landfill gas which builds up
within the landfill as the waste decomposes.
In addition, rain falling on the landfill surface can become contaminated as it

percolates down through the landfilled MSW. That contaminated water present
within the landfill is referred to as landfill leachate. Both landfill gas and landfill
leachate must be actively managed, as discussed below.

A-2
The design of a modern sanitary landfill includes a number of features for
environmental protection:
• Landfill Liner – An impervious liner is placed at the base of the landfill,
beneath the fill area, to keep contaminants present in the buried MSW from
contaminating the ground water. The liner is typically comprised of a
synthetic membrane material overlying a layer of compacted clay.
• Leachate Collection and Removal System – Landfill leachate is a contaminated
waste water. Leachate is acidic and can contain toxic contaminants such as
heavy metals and organic compounds. Leachate is collected on the landfill
liner using a system of porous piping, then is directed to the surface for
proper treatment and disposal. This prevents the contaminated leachate from
migrating into the environment, where it can contaminate ground water and
surface waters.
• Landfill Gas Collection System – Many modern landfills, especially larger ones,
have a system of wells, subsurface piping, and blowers/pumps to collect the
landfill gas as it forms within the landfill. The collected landfill gas is
directed to the surface, where it is managed as further described below.
• Modular Construction in “Cells” – Landfills are typically constructed and filled
in sequential modules or “landfill cells” over a period of decades before the
entire landfill facility reaches capacity and is closed. This modular approach
to landfill construction enables spreading the total capital investment over
many years and enables more effective environmental management of landfill
leachate and gas. The duration of filling activity for a cell is typically five
years before the cell is closed and a new cell is started.
• Landfill Top Seal at Closure – When a landfill cell has reached capacity and is
being closed, the landfill is sealed at the top from further intrusion of
rainwater, by fitting the top of the landfill surface with a “cap” made of an
impermeable liner material.

A-3
Modern Landfill Design
(Source: World Bank)
Typical Modern Landfill

(Source: DSW via World Bank)

A-4
Finally, a variation of the standard modern landfill design has emerged over the
past 20 years, called a bioreactor landfill. With the bioreactor type of landfill, the
objective is to accelerate the biological decomposition of the organic fraction of
MSW so that degradation takes place within approximately 10 years after
depositing the waste, rather than the typical period of about 30 years for a
standard landfill design. This is accomplished by maintaining the moisture
content of the landfilled MSW at an optimal level for biological decomposition.
That, in turn, is achieved by pumping water into the landfill system, with the
water sources typically being landfill leachate re-injection and storm water
injection.
Bioreactors can be of the aerobic or anaerobic designs. With aerobic bioreactors,

air is pumped into the landfill along with the water. This encourages the growth
of bacteria that require oxygen and results in generation of carbon dioxide gas,
rather than methane. The waste degrades to a compost material. The main
benefits of the aerobic bioreactor over standard landfill design are the creation of
new landfill air space, a reduction in the formation and emission of methane
greenhouse gas emissions, and lower leachate disposal costs.
Anaerobic bioreactors inject water, but not air. This encourages growth of
bacteria that do not require oxygen and results in increased methane production.
The main benefits of the anaerobic bioreactor over standard landfill design
include the creation of new landfill air space, accelerated methane production for
energy generation, and lower leachate disposal costs.
Some bioreactor landfills are now operating; however, the standard landfill
design continues to dominate overwhelmingly, owing likely to lower costs and
simpler operating requirements.
Landfill Gas Generation, Control and Energy Recovery
Modern landfills are engineered to protect human health and the environment.
In this regard, management of landfill gas is essential, especially at large
landfills, to prevent safety hazards, odor nuisance, and greenhouse gas
emissions. Landfill gas is comprised typically of 50% methane and 50% carbon
dioxide. The methane can present a safety risk to and the public due to the
potential for methane fires and explosions. This risk of fires and explosions
extends to the public because the landfill gas can migrate offsite in the air and
can also migrate offsite subsurface through the soil where it can accumulate in
confined spaces such as the basements of nearby dwellings. The methane
releases from landfills are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions
globally. Landfill gas contains hydrogen sulfide, which is a strong odorant, and

A-5
without effective management of the landfill gas, offsite odor nuisance is a
common problem with landfills. In addition, landfill gas contains small levels of
toxic organic compounds and other toxic substances.
Effective control of landfill gas begins with an efficient collection system.

Landfill gas collection systems at modern landfills are typically 65% to 90%
efficient at capturing the landfill gas that is generated, meaning that the
remainder (the uncollected gas) is emitted uncontrolled to the atmosphere as a
“fugitive” emission1. Following collection, the collected gas is either vented to
the atmosphere, controlled via combustion using a flare, or controlled by
combusting the gas as a fuel to generate energy. With energy generation, the
landfill gas is typically used either to fuel an engine-generator set to produce
electric power or to fuel a boiler to make steam energy or electricity. Active
control of the collected landfill gas via flaring or energy generation is more
economic at larger landfills, while passive venting of collected gas to the
atmosphere without control is more economic for small landfills.
Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas, South Africa

(Source: World Bank) Landfill Gas Collection in Peru
(Source: World Bank)
The landfill gas is produced as the result of principally anaerobic (without

oxygen) decomposition of the organic fraction of the landfilled MSW (food
waste, yard/garden waste, paper, wood). Because the landfill gas comes from
biogenic sources (plant matter that was recently living), its combustion to
generate energy is “carbon neutral” from the standpoint of climate change.
Accordingly, from the scientific standpoint, energy produced by combusting the
landfill gas as a fuel is renewable energy. With landfills, converting the landfill
gas to energy results in approximately 55 kW of electric power generated for
1 Source: US EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/landfilling-chapter10-28-10.pdf -- accessed 11 April 2011.

A-6
each ton of MSW that was landfilled. However, because that energy is derived
only from the biodegradable fraction of the landfilled MSW, the potential energy
value of the remainder of the landfilled material remains unused. Thermal
technologies for MSW processing, such as combustion waste-to-energy (WTE),
gasification, and pyrolysis convert virtually all the heat content of MSW into
energy. Combustion WTE, for example, generates about ten times the energy
per ton of MSW processed than landfill-gas energy recovery2.
Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Care
Depending on factors such as waste composition and local climate, the MSW
deposited into a landfill will degrade at differing rates. Once waste has been
deposited in a landfill, waste decomposition and landfill gas production typically
peak after approximately 7 to 12 years, then declines over many decades (another
30 to 70 years). As a consequence, both landfill leachate and landfill gas continue
to be generated within a landfill for decades beyond the date when filling has
ceased. Accordingly, when a modern landfill is being closed, there are closure
and post-closure care requirements that are needed for continued protection of
the environment and human health. At closure, the top surface of the landfill is
normally fitted with an impervious cover material (e.g., geotextile). This landfill
“cap” decreases rain water penetration into the landfilled material so as to
reduce leachate generation by the closed landfill. Following landfill closure, the
ground water in the vicinity of the landfill is monitored for decades to ensure
that the landfill bottom liner and the closure cap remain intact and are
preventing the migration of contaminated leachate into the environment. In
addition, the landfill gas collection and control systems continue to operate for
many years after landfill closure, until testing indicates that significant new gas
generation has ceased. Importantly, some developed countries require the
landfill owner to provide a funding mechanism for ensuring adequate closure
and post-closure care in future decades following landfill closure.
Waste Types Processed
Modern sanitary landfills are designed to receive MSW, and normally other
waste materials such as construction and demolition debris, wastewater sludge,
medical waste, and non-hazardous industrial wastes.
2 Kaplan, P. et al., US EPA, Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 43, 2009.

A-7
Operating Scale
Basic engineered sanitary landfills worldwide have capacities ranging from less
than 50 tons per day (TPD) to over 10,000 TPD. Basic engineered landfills in
Latin American countries exhibit the same range of landfill capacities, including
landfills in Argentina and Brazil with capacities of 6,000 to 8,000 TPD3.
For modern engineered sanitary landfills, the minimum economically-viable

capacity is generally hundreds of tons per day (~ 250 to 500 TPD), as economies
of scale are required to accomodate the additional costs of the advanced
engineering design and operating features of a modern sanitary landfill.
Commercial Experience and Viability
Landfills represent the first modern method for centralized management of

MSW, and have the longest commercial track record of all MSW management
methods. The number of engineered landfills worldwide is in the tens of
thousands, with most engineered sanitary landfills found in the developed
countries and most engineered basic landfills in developing countries. There are
thousands of engineered sanitary landfills operating in the U.S. and Canada
alone, where landfills remain overwhelmingly the principal method for solid
waste management. For developed countries, Japan is an exception. As a
populous, industrialized, island nation, Japan has phased out landfills in favor of
energy recovery.
While engineered sanitary landfills are the norm in developed countries, they are
comparatively rare in developing countries of the world. By contrast, in the
many developing countries of the world, centralized open dumping and
backyard garbage pits remain common practices for disposition of MSW. Over
the past 20 years, however, some developing countries have moved away from
open dumping and have implemented basic engineered landfills to serve their
major, urban population centers. Developing countries in Asia led this trend;
however, many Latin American countries have also made substantial progress.
For Latin America overall, 55% of the waste is reportedly disposed in basic
engineered landfills, and that disposal figure ranges from 40% to 80% in the
countries of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Mexico, Panama, and Peru4. Other data5 indicate that for the Latin America
overall, only 23% of the waste is disposed in modern sanitary landfills, 24% is
disposed in controlled landfills that include some engineered features, and the
3Kaplan, P. et al., US EPA, Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 43, 2009.
4Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and the Caribbean for year 2010, Pan American Health Organization (www6.iadb.org/Residuos)
5World Bank, August 2008. Solid Waste Management in LAC: Actual and Future CH4 Emissions, prepared by Catalina Ramirez.

A-8
rest (over half) is disposed via open dumping. On a positive note, 60% of the
MSW collected in the largest capital cities of Latin America is now disposed in
modern sanitary landfill.
In many developed countries, it is common for private-sector waste management

companies to operate large publicly-owned landfills under a long-term contract.
This trend towards public-private partnerships for waste management is also
being adopted for operation of large landfills in Latin America.
Technology Suppliers
While modern landfills are engineered systems, the technology is not highly
complex or proprietary in its fundamentals. Accordingly, most developed
countries have many domestic engineering-construction firms capable of
designing and constructing a modern landfill. While some of these companies
operate nationally or even internationally, most provide their services only
within a local sub-region of the country.
In many developing countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, the

engineering-construction expertise for developing a landfill exists within the
country’s principal urban centers. Accordingly, in those developing countries,
much, if not all of the required expertise for development of a modern landfill is
available in-country. However, in the least developed countries of the world, the
required skills may not yet exist and the expertise would need to be imported.
Sustainability
Resource Recovery
With landfills, there is typically no substantive resource recovery, unless the

landfill uses the collected landfill gas as a fuel, converting it to energy.
Energy Conversion Efficiency
Landfill gas is typically comprised of approximately 50% methane and 50% CO2.
Landfill gas has value as a fuel due to its methane content; however, landfill gas
has only half the calorific value (heat content) of natural gas, which is mostly
methane.

A-9
When landfill gas is converted to energy at a landfill, the energy is normally
electricity. The generation rate of electric energy per ton of MSW landfilled
varies, but a typical energy conversion efficiency is 65 kWh/ton, and is reported
to vary from approximately 41 to 84 kWh/ton6. While a valuable energy
contribution, the energy conversion efficiency for landfill gas is ten times less
than the energy conversion efficiency of thermal treatment technologies (WTE,
gasification), typically 600 kWh/ton or greater7. This is explained by the fact that
landfills convert only the biodegradeable fraction of MSW into an energy-laden
fuel, while with WTE, all components of MSW having fuel value are converted to
energy.
Carbon Profile and Renewable Energy
Landfills generate substantial quantities of the greenhouse gas, methane, as the

MSW biodegrades over time within the landfill. Landfills are recognized to be a
major emissions source of methane globally and in the U.S., it accounts for 17%
of all methane emissions caused by human activity8. Modern landfills include
landfill gas collection systems and many modern landfills then combust the
collected landfill gas in flares or as a fuel to generate energy, destroying the
collected methane. However, even the best collection systems are not 100%
efficient at gas capture, and typically, 20% to 30% of the gas being generated
escapes to the atmosphere, uncollected and uncontrolled9. That “fugitive”
emission of methane can be on the order of 10% of total generation, even after a
modern landfill is fully closed. Accordingly, landfills with or without landfill gas
controls constitute a major source of greenhouse gas emissions as methane.
Renewable energy is often defined as energy that is derived from renewable

sources and does not contribute to global warming. When the landfill gas is used
as a fuel to generate energy, the energy comes from combustion of the methane
content of the gas. That methane resulted from the anaerobic biodegradation of
organic material present in landfilled MSW, constituents such as food waste and
paper. As that organic material is biogenic (derived from plants that were
recently alive), the energy produced from it is renewable energy. When the
landfill gas is combusted as a fuel, an emission of the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide (CO2) results. However, that CO2 represents carbon that was previously
circulating in the environment (in plant matter), and accordingly, that CO2
emission is “carbon-neutral,” not contributing to climate change. Furthermore, if
the energy generated using landfill gas as a fuel displaces energy now being
generated using fossil fuel, this can reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall.
6US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html. Accessed 18 April 2011.

7Kaplan J, Decarolis, and Thorneloe, US EPA, Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Energy Generation?, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 43, 2009.
8US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html. Accessed 18 April 2011.

9Kaplan J, Decarolis, and Thorneloe, US EPA, Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Energy Generation?, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 43, 2009.

A-10
Water Resource Use
Landfills typically do not have process water uses.
Waste Diversion from Landfill
In developed countries, the goal of many solid waste managers is to divert as

high a fraction of the MSW from landfill disposal as possible. Landfills are
always the final repository of residual MSW after implementing waste diversion
measures; i.e., waste minimization, recycling, and resource recovery. As landfills
are always the final repository, the “waste diversion from landfill” measure is
inherently zero for landfills.
Land Resource Use
Of all MSW management technologies, landfills require the greatest land area.
Furthermore, when a landfill closes, the associated land area has only limited
potential uses, as the MSW will continue to settle and generate landfill gas for
decades after closure. Accordingly, landfills make a long-term claim on the land
resource, likely a century or longer.
Environmental Impacts
Air Pollutant Emissions
Air pollutant emissions from landfills are associated primarily with emissions of
landfill gas. Landfill gas that is not destroyed by combustion (flaring or energy
recovery) is emitted to the atmosphere, either through vent pipes or from leaks in
the landfill surface (“fugitive” emissions). The primary air pollutants emitted
with landfill gas include methane (greenhouse gas) and odorants (hydrogen
sulfide and others). However, landfill gas also contains many toxic air
pollutants at trace levels, including organic compounds (some carcinogenic) as
well as trace levels of mercury. While the toxic air pollutants are emitted at trace
levels, they are emitted near-ground and do not disperse significantly before
moving offsite, where any individuals living next to the landfill can be
chronically exposed.
At landfills where landfill gas is combusted (flaring or energy recovery), this

controls the emission of landfill gas, but also results in new emissions, at
relatively low rates, of the standard combustion pollutants, nitrogen oxides,
carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. As landfill gas is
combusted, the trace toxic organic compounds and odorous compounds present

A-11
in the landfill gas are destroyed. However, any mercury present in the landfill
gas is not destroyed and is emitted. Combustion-related emissions of
dioxins/furans are addressed subsequently below. Generally, add-on emission
controls for combustion-related pollutants and mercury are not yet used with
combustion of landfill gas.
Emissions of Dioxin/Furans and Mercury
As with most combustion processes, combustion of landfill gas results in trace

emissions of dioxins/furans, but at levels lower than uncontrolled emissions
from modern WTE technology.
As MSW contains mercury, the environmental fate of that mercury is an

important issue for all MSW management technologies and methods, including
landfills. The emission levels of mercury from landfills are not well
characterized. Only in the past decade has focused research yielded detailed data
on the levels and forms of mercury emitted to the air from landfills, the
mechanisms by which the emissions occur, and the emissions variability. Much
uncertainty remains. With landfills, all of the mercury present in the solid waste
gets deposited into the landfill with the solid waste, where that mercury can
potentially discharge to the environment (air, water, and soils) over time without
control. The mercury deposited with the solid waste in the landfill can volatilize
to the air; it can contaminate landfill leachate which is then discharged to water
bodies; and it can migrate to soils with storm water runoff. In addition, elemental
mercury deposited with solid waste in landfills is suspected of converting
biologically within the landfill to the organic methylated form10, resulting in
environmental discharges of methylated mercury, the form of most concern for
human exposure. While all the mercury deposited to a landfill with the solid
waste has the potential to discharge eventually to the environment without
control, it is presently unknown what fractions actually do migrate to the air,
water, and soils, and over what time periods. It is also possible that some portion
of mercury deposited to landfills may become sequestered there, following
conversion to stable sulfur compounds.
Recent field research10 confirms that mercury is commonly emitted to the air at
different rates for various phases of landfill operation. That research determined
that most (90%) of the emission of mercury to the air at a landfill occurs at the
working face of the landfill, as waste is being spread. The remainder of the
emission (< 10%) occurs with the escape of landfill gas. Furthermore, the
research confirms that mercury emissions from landfills are principally in the
10 Lindberg, S. E., et al., 2005. “Gaseous methyl- and inorganic mercury in landfill gas from landfills in Florida, Minnesota,
Delaware, and California,” Atmospheric Environment, Volume 39, 2005, pp. 249,.252-254, 257.

A-12
elemental form, but also contain mercury in the organic methylated form, which
is of most environmental concern. At landfills where the landfill gas is
combusted in a flare or engine, the methylmercury present in the landfill gas
would be converted to the inorganic form prior to emission. Nonetheless,
cognizant researchers11 believe that landfill emissions of organic methylmercury
from uncombusted landfill gas may be environmentally significant.
Odor
Landfills are known sources of odor nuisance in the vicinity of the landfill site.
One source of odor is the smell of decomposing garbage that is emitted as MSW
is deposited in the landfill and spread. While the odor is unavoidable, it can be
mitigated by keeping the “working face” of the landfill as small as practical and
by promptly covering the freshly spread MSW with daily cover material
(normally soil).
The other sources of landfill odor are landfill gas, which contains powerful
odorants such as hydrogen sulfide, and exposed landfill leachate, which contains
odorous organic compounds. Odors from those sources can be mitigated by
installing and operating effective control systems for landfill gas and leachate.
While odors associated with landfill operation can be mitigated, they can not be
totally eliminated. Accordingly, any landfill operation has the potential to create
an odor nuisance in the immediate vicinity offsite.
Wastewater Discharges
The leachate generated within landfills is highly contaminated waste water. If

not controlled, it can flow into groundwater and contaminate drinking water
wells. It can also flow offsite with storm water runoff to pollute surface waters
and the land. Accordingly, effective mitigation entails installing a liner system
beneath the landfill to protect the ground water, and an effective system for
collecting the leachate for treatment before the leachate is discharged back into
the environment. Finally, when a landfill closes, further mitigation is provided
by fitting the top of the landfill surface with an impermeable liner ( a landfill
“cap”), which prevents rain water from permeating into the landfilled material to
create leachate.
11Lindberg, S. E., et al., 2005. “Gaseous methyl- and inorganic mercury in landfill gas from landfills in Florida, Minnesota, Delaware, and California,” Atmospheric Environment, Volume 39, 2005,
pp. 249,.252-254, 257.

A-13
Solid Waste Generation
As noted above, landfills serve as the final repository for residual waste after all
measures for waste minimization, recycling, and resource recovery have been
implemented. As the final repository, landfills inherently do not generate solid
waste. It is possible that treatment processes for leachate could generate a very
small quantity of solid residue, but that would also be disposed in a landfill.
Safety Hazards
The safety hazards specific to landfill facilities would include the following:
• Fires on waste delivery trucks and within the landfill (landfill fires can be
difficult to arrest, once started)
• Risks of potentially-fatal fires and explosions from landfill gas build-up,
especially in confined spaces
• Risk of asphyxia from exposure to landfill gas in confined spaces
• Exposure to waste-borne and leachate-borne pathogens and toxic substances
• Chronic exposure to low levels of air pollutants present in landfill gas
• Increased traffic hazard from waste delivery trucks
• Safety risks from heavy diesel equipment used to spread and compact the
MSW
While these are all safety hazards for workers at a landfill facility, the truck-
related safety hazard would likely extend significantly to the public offsite. In
addition, depending on site-specific circumstances, other risks could accrue to
the public if living in very close proximity. Landfill gas, if not well-controlled,
can migrate beneath the surface offsite and accumulate in basements of
structures, where it can explode. In addition, people living adjacent to a landfill
are exposed chronically to the air pollutants emitted a low levels from the
landfill.

A-14
Economics/Institutional
Economics
Of the modern technology alternatives for solid waste management, landfilling is

the lowest cost among technologies available for disposition of large daily
amounts of waste, i.e., several hundred ton per day or more. That is why
landfilling remains the predominant method for waste management in North
America and is the most common technology being implemented in developing
countries that are moving beyond open dumping for waste management. The
economic feasibility of modern landfills in developing countries is likely greatest
in locations with the following attributes:
• Near a major population center
• Good road network in the metropolitan area
• There is ample open land available in the local region at low cost, that has
suitable hydrogeology and has buffer distance from the nearest sensitive land
uses.
While some developing countries are implementing modern landfills, including

many in Latin America, economics remain a barrier for numerous other
developing countries worldwide.
The capital and operating costs for landfill technology will vary with the type of
landfill (Basic Sanitary Landfill versus Modern Sanitary Landfill), as well as with
the landfill size, the nature of the country’s economy, taxation laws, and other
factors. Based on review of the literature, the capital cost for a modern
engineered landfill is in the general range of US$ 5 to $30 for each ton of annual
processing capacity, but cost as high as $120 was reported in the literature.
Stated in another common form, the capital cost is approximately US $2,000 to
$10,000 for each ton-per-day (TPD) of processing capacity, assuming that the
landfill operates 90% of the days in a year (330 days). For example, a landfill
processing 100,000 tons per year of MSW (~ 300 TPD) would have a typical total
capital cost in a developed country of US $600,000 to $3,000,000.
The typical operating cost for a modern engineered landfill in developed

countries can vary significantly, but based on review of the literature, a typical
cost is US $10 to $30 per ton of waste processed. In certain circumstances,
however, operating costs as high as $120 per ton have been reported.

A-15
Summarized below are literature sources consulted in estimating the capital and
operating costs for landfill technology:
• Cost information published in a leading handbook on solid waste
management12
• Information compiled previously for the World Bank13,14.
Operational Complexity
Proper operation of a modern engineered landfill requires specialized training.

Adequately trained personnel are available in the largest cities of many
developing countries, including Latin America and Asia. In Latin America, there
has been a trend towards contracting with private waste management companies
for landfill operation, as a means to secure the necessary trained operating
personnel. In lesser developed countries of the world, however, adequately
trained personnel for proper landfill operation may not exist and private contract
operations is not affordable.
Public Acceptance
Proposed new landfills typically generate substantial public opposition, but the
opposition is generally limited to the local area of the proposed landfill. Local
residents simply don’t want a new landfill built in their neighborhood. By
contrast, at least in North America, WTE is more controversial in general, with
strong opposition in some cases, not only from people affected locally, but also
from national environmental advocacy groups and some elected officials.
12 Tchobanoglous G, et al., 2002, “Handbook of Solid Waste Management.”

13 World Bank, Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Technologies and Carbon Finance, January 2008]; [World Bank presentation, 2005, Urban Week – Isabelle Paris
14 World Bank, March 2008. Landfill ER Revenues versus Landfill Costs, prepared by Sandra Cointreau. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/340232-
1208964677407/Cointreau.pdf

A-16
Annex 2:
Waste-to-Energy
ANNEX 2 – WASTE-TO-ENERGY (WTE)
Technology Description and Operating Scale
Garbage has been burned for centuries in communal open piles and dumps, as
well as in backyard pits and metal drums. While uncontrolled burning reduces
the volume of MSW and reduces pathogens, it causes air pollution, including
significant emissions of particulate matter and dioxin. Most developed countries
have phased out open burning of MSW over the past four decades. However,
open burning continues in most developing countries of the world and persists
in the rural areas of some developed countries including the U.S.
Starting in Europe in the 1970’s, advanced technologies emerged for efficient

combustion of MSW in boilers, with recovery of energy. These evolving waste-
to-energy (WTE) technologies provided high combustion efficiency, and hence,
lower generation of air pollutants than open burning. Modern WTE technology
reduces the volume and weight of the MSW combusted by approximately 90%
and 75%, respectively, while eliminating pathogens and recovering energy from
the MSW. While the early WTE technology was a vast improvement over open
dumping of MSW, public concerns arose worldwide in the 1980’s regarding WTE
emissions of specifically dioxins/furans and mercury. In response, effective new
emission control methods for dioxins/furans and mercury were adopted in the
developed countries, and these have dramatically reduced emission levels.
With WTE combustion technology, the MSW fuel must have a sufficient heat
content or “calorific value” to ensure efficient combustion and economically-
viable energy generation. The calorific value of MSW in developed countries is
sufficient for WTE combustion technology, but is sometimes not sufficient in
developing countries, owing to differences in waste composition.

A-1
Simple Process Schematic of a Waste-to-Energy Facility
Detailed Process Schematic of a Typical Waste-to-Energy Facility

(Source: Website of Fairfax County, Virginia, USA, accessed 13 April 2011)

A-2
The MSW treatment process in a typical, modern WTE facility is depicted in the
figures above and can be summarized as follows:
• Waste continuously enters the enclosed furnace on a moving grate.
• As the waste moves along in the furnace, it undergoes complete combustion
at high temperature.
• Via adjusting the combustion air supply and the grate speed, the burning is
controlled to ensure that complete combustion occurs.
• Ash resulting from waste combustion is removed from the boiler grate (boiler
ash), as well as being filtered from the flue gas (fly ash). Boiler ash comprises
about 85% of the total ash.
• Air pollutant emissions are controlled using a combination of good
combustion techniques plus add-on emission control technology.
• The heat from combustion is used to produce steam in a boiler. The steam is
then used to turn a steam-turbine generator to produce electric power.
Alternatively, the steam is piped to a municipal, institutional, or industrial
user of thermal energy (steam). Some WTE facilities produce both electric
and thermal energy (combined heat and power).
While there are a number of WTE technologies in use, the most common are
mass-burn, modular, and RDF technologies:
• Mass-burn WTE technologies use large-capacity furnaces that are field-
erected, and can combust mixed MSW without requirement for any
mechanical pre-processing or refinement of the MSW.
• Modular technologies accept unprocessed MSW as do mass-burn types, but
are of much smaller capacity, so are typically factory-assembled and brought
to the site.
• WDF combustion technologies, also known as RDF technologies, are
somewhat similar to mass-burn technologies, but require that the MSW be
mechanically pre-processed into a more homogeneous fuel prior to
combustion. That processed MSW is called Waste Derived Fuel (WDF) or
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). MSW is processed into WDF via mechanical
processing using equipment such as grinders, shredders, trommels and
screens. This results in removal of some recyclable materials and inert reject
materials, and yields a fuel product of more uniform composition and particle
size. Typically, the WDF product is a shredded material. However, in the
most advanced WDF processes, the WDF is further processed into dense fuel
pellets. Most WDF combustion technologies are large in capacity and are
field-erected. The most common WDF technology is a stoker boiler, which
uses a grate combustion system. Besides WDF stoker technology, there is also
WDF fluid bed technology, which has found some application in Europe.

A-3
With fluid bed technology, the waste is not burned on a grate; rather, it burns
in suspension within the combustion chamber, entrained in an updraft of
combustion air and extremely hot inert particles (e.g., heated sand). There are
two varieties of fluid bed technology, bubbling fluid bed and circulating fluid
bed. The latter is distinctive as it separates the combustion process into two
zones within the combustion chamber and also recirculates the hot inert
material for re-use in the furnace.

WTE technology is intended principally for combustion of MSW and WDF. It is
not suitable for combustion of certain components of MSW individually, such as
yard leaves or source-separated food waste. WTE technology is suitable for co-
combustion of certain other wastes such as medical waste, demolition wood,
auto shredder residue, dried sewage sludge, and some industrial solid wastes.
Operating Scale
The size (capacity) of modern WTE facilities is typically expressed as the number
of tons per day (TPD) of MSW or WDF that can be processed by a combustion
unit. WTE combustion units are available worldwide in capacities ranging from
~ 5 TPD to over 1,000 TPD. The economic viability of WTE technology depends
on economies of scale in most locales. Accordingly, WTE units in the U.S. are
rarely less than 100TPD in capacity, and units in the 200 to 700 TPD range are
most common. Smaller capacity units have been economic in regions of Europe.
WTE is a mature processing technology with decades of successful commercial

application worldwide, from small scale to large scale in processing capacity.
Well-operated WTE facilities are reliable, typically achieving an annual
operational availability exceeding 90% of all hours in a year. There are over 700
WTE facilities operating in 37 nations worldwide, including some small island
nations†. Most of the WTE facilities operating worldwide are of the traditional
combustion type; however; a number of advanced technology (gasification) WTE
facilities are also reflected in the total.
The distribution of commercially operating WTE facilities in Europe, the

Americas, and Asia is summarized in the tables that follow. In 2005, 431 WTE
facilities operated in Europe, while in 2010 there were 87 WTE facilities operating
in the U.S. In Europe, France, Germany, Italy, and Denmark have the most WTE
plants. Clearly, with WTE in Europe, the production of thermal energy (heat) for
† Columbia University (U.S.), Waste-to-Energy Research & Technology Council (WTERT), http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/, accessed 12 April 2011.

A-4
municipal district heating systems (steam or hot water) predominates over
electricity generation. By contrast, the generation of electricity dominates almost
exclusively over heat production at WTE facilities in the U.S. Elsewhere in the
Americas, there are eight WTE facilities operating in Canada; none are known to
operate yet in Latin American countries; but WTE facilities operate on two
Caribbean islands (Martinique, St. Barthelemy). In Asia, Japan depends entirely
on WTE for MSW management, rather than on landfills.
WTE Facilities Operating in Europe

WTE Plants*
Country Predominantly Electric or Heat Energy?
(2005)
Austria 9 Heat
Belgium 18 Electricity
Czech Rep. 3 Heat
Denmark 34 Heat
Finland 1 Heat
France 127 Heat
Germany 68 Heat
Great Britain 22 Electricity
Hungary 1 Heat
Italy 51 Electricity
Netherlands 11 Electricity
Norway 13 Heat
Portugal 3 Electricity
Spain 10 Electricity
Sweden 30 Heat
Switzerland 30 Heat
Total 431 Heat Predominates Overall
* List includes all types of WTE technology. Most are traditional combustion WTE technology; however, there are a
number of advanced technologies (gasification) represented as well.
Source: International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/ERC_2010_Directory.pdf,
accessed 13 April 2011
WTE Facilities Operating in the North America

Country WTE Plants Predominantly Electric or Heat Energy?
U.S. 871 85% Electric and 15% Heat or Heat + Electric
Canada 82 Mostly electric
1 Source: Energy Recovery Council (U.S.), http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/ERC_2010_Directory.pdf, accessed 13
April 2011
2 Source: Candadian Energy from Waste Coalition, http://www.energyfromwaste.ca/resources/EFW-Worldwide,
accessed 14 April 2011

A-5
WTE Facilities Operating in Asia and Australia

Japan 46* 1 Heat
Taiwan 82 Electric
Singapore 52 Electricity
China 42 Electricity
Malasia 12 Electricity
India 12 Electricity
Australia 02 -
* Includes all types of WTE technology, that is, a mix of traditional combustion WTE technology and advanced
technologies (gasification).
1 Source: Columbia University (U.S.), Waste-to-Energy Research & Technology Council (WTERT),
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/, accessed 12 April 2011

2 Source: http://www.industcards.com/ppworld.htm, accessed 13 April 2011
WTE Facilities Operating in Small Island Countries

Caribbean (Martinique) 11 Electricity
Caribbean (St. Barthelemy) 11 Heat for desalination
Bermuda 12 Electricity
1 Source: http://www.industcards.com/ppworld.htm, accessed 13 April 2011
2 Source: Government of Bermuda, http://www.rossgo.com/Tynes%20Bay/Incinerator.html, accessed 13 April 2011

A-6
Large WTE Facility in the U.S. (Huntington, NY) Small WTE Facility in Martinique
Listed below are many of the experienced suppliers of WTE combustion

technology worldwide that have been active in the past decade. The leading
suppliers are based primarily in Europe and the U.S. Most of the listed suppliers
provide WTE boiler technology; however, some listed companies provide
complete WTE systems (e.g., Alstom, AE&E, CNIM, Covanta, Energy Answers,
Lurgi, SITA, Wheelabrator, and others).
Traditional WTE Technology Suppliers Worldwide
AE&E/Von Roll CTC Inova Onyx
ABAY DBA JFE Seghers
ABB Energy Answers Kvaerner SITA
Alstom EPI Lentje Steinmuller
AVR Fire Power Lurgi SUEM
Anseldo FLS Leroux Techtue
Babcock Foster Wheeler Martin Veolia
Baumjarte Gotaverken Mitusubishi Wehrle
CNIM HERA Mucchi Wheelabrator
Covanta Volund

A-7
Sustainability
Resource Recovery
The principal form of resource recovery with WTE technology is energy, either in
the form of electric power, thermal energy (steam or hot water), or both electric
and thermal energy. WDF WTE energy facilities may also recover small
quantities of traditional recyclable materials in conjunction with the mechanical
processing of MSW into WDF. Most WTE facilities also recover modest amounts
of ferrous metal from the ash.
With WTE combustion technology, the MSW fuel must have a sufficient heat
content or “calorific value” to ensure efficient combustion and economically-
viable energy generation. In Europe, the calorific value of fuel is expressed as the
Lower Heating Value (LHV), which is the heat content of the fuel, net of the
amount of that heat content required to evaporate the water present in the fuel.
The LHV is expressed in units of MJ/Kg. In the U.S., the heat content of fuel is
expressed as the Higher Heating Value (HHV), which is the gross heat content,
expressed in units of Btu/lb. In highly developed countries, the heat content of
mixed MSW has HHV values ranging from 3,800 to 5,500 BTU/lb, and a typical
value is 4,500 to 4,900 BTU/lb. For WDF, the heat content is higher than for
mixed MSW and can range typically from 5,000 to 6,000 Btu/lb. The LHV of
MSW in highly developed countries ranges from 6.3 to 12.6 MJ/Kg, and is
typically 9.0 to 10.4 MJ/Kg‡. Generally, to be viable for WTE combustion
technology, the gross calorific value (HHV) of the MSW must average above
4,000 Btu/lb. The net calorific value (LLV) must on average be at least 7 MJ/kg,
and must never fall below 6 MJ/kg in any season§.
WTE facilities are not as efficient as fossil fuel power plants at converting the
energy content of the fuel into useful electric or thermal energy. Traditional
power plants have a singular purpose, to generate electric power as efficiently as
possible. WTE facilities are less efficient at energy generation because, they have
to achieve two objectives: to reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal and
to recovery of energy. Waste contains less fuel value per pound or kilogram than
do the fossil fuels used at traditional power plants.
‡ European Commission, August 2006, Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration.
§ World Bank, June 2000, Municipal Solid Waste Incineration – A Decision Maker’s Guide]

A-8
With WTE technology, the energy conversion efficiency is greater for generating
thermal energy such as steam or hot water for district heating systems, than it is
for generating electric power. As summarized by WTE experts at Columbia
University in the U.S., WTE technology typically generates a net output of
electric power of 500 to 600 kW-hour per ton of MSW or WDF combusted (500-
600 kW h/ton); however, the net energy output for producing thermal energy
(steam) is typically 1000 kW h/ton**. A study by US EPA scientists reported the
net energy output for WTE to be typically 590 kW h/ton, and the range to be 470
to 930 kW h/ton††. Based on this information, the range of energy conversion
efficiencies for combustion WTE to generate electric power is 500 to 600 kW
h/ton, and the net energy efficiency for producing thermal energy is typically
1000 kW h/ton.
Whereas production of electric energy is the norm for WTE facilities in North
America, the production of thermal energy, steam and hot water, is common in
Europe. For example, 35% of Denmark's municipal district heating is provided
by the 28 WTE plants operating in Denmark.

sources and does not contribute to global warming. Only part of the energy
produced by a WTE facility is considered renewable energy. Specifically, the
energy produced by a WTE facility is renewable in proportion to the biogenic
content of the MSW fuel that is combusted. Generally, approximately half of the
total energy generation from WTE is renewable energy and half is not. This is
because about half the content of MSW is comprised of biogenic materials
derived originally from plants that were recently alive (e.g., paper, food waste,
wood). The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), emitted from combusting the
biogenic fraction of MSW is carbon that was previously circulating in the
environment, and accordingly, that CO2 emission is “carbon-neutral,” not
contributing to climate change. However, the other half of the MSW content is
comprised of materials derived from fossil fuels (e.g., plastics, rubber). The
combustion of the non-biogenic fraction of MSW generates emissions of CO2 that
are a “new” injection of carbon into the atmosphere, which increases the
potential for climate change, just as with fossil fuel combustion. To summarize,
approximately half the CO2 emissions from MSW combustion are biogenic and
carbon-neutral; hence, about half the energy produced by a WTE facility is
renewable energy.
** Columbia University (U.S.), Waste-to-Energy Research & Technology Council (WTERT), http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/, accessed 12 April 2011.
†† Kaplan J, Decarolis, and Thorneloe, US EPA, Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Energy Generation?, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 43, 2009.

A-9
• US EPA AP-42 emission factor compilation at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf.
While the CO2 emissions from combustion of the biogenic fraction of MSW are
carbon-neutral for WTE technology, a WTE facility can cause a net reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, if the energy generated by the WTE facility displaces
existing fossil-fuel energy generation.
Water Resource Use
WTE facilities require process water. The most significant process uses include
water needed by the boiler to make steam, as well as water for use in the boiler’s
cooling tower. Significant water use is also required by some types of emission
control equipment, notably, wet and semi-dry scrubbers. Much of the water
used by these processes is recycled and re-used.
As noted above, the ash produced by WTE technology is about 15% to 25% of the
weight of the MSW or WDF that is combusted. Accordingly, WTE technology
diverts approximately 75% to 85% of the MSW by weight from being landfilled.
In addition, where the bottom ash is used beneficially in construction

applications, rather than being landfilled, then the diversion rate from landfilling
could exceed 90%.
While the mass-burn and WDF types of WTE technology each claims unique
advantages and disadvantages, the WDF technology has a sustainability
advantage from the standpoint of materials recovery. With RDF technology,
mixed MSW is pre-processed mechanically into a more homogeneous fuel (WDF)
prior to combustion and the pre-processing system is often designed to also
separate significant quantities of metals, glass, plastics, and cardboard for
traditional recycling. Mass-burn WTE facilities do not require preprocessing of
the MSW, so normally this additional opportunity to divert materials to recycling
is forgone. Mass-burn WTE facilities, however, do typically recover ferrous
metals from the ash for recycling.

A-10
Land Resource Use
WTE energy facilities require adequate land for the facility structures that house
the processing equipment and fuel storage, and to enable efficient onsite flow of
MSW delivery trucks. In addition, the landfill where the WTE combustion ash is
disposed consumes land resources.
The land area required for a WTE facility is much smaller than the land required
for a landfill of similar capacity. Accordingly, from the standpoint of land
resources, WTE facilities are best suited to serve regions where adequate land for
a landfill is unavailable or too expensive, or the attributes of the available land
resource are incompatible with landfills (ground water is near surface, karst
geology).
The combustion of MSW in a WTE facility produces air pollutants, including the
common, combustion-related pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide
(CO), and particulate matter (PM). In addition, because constituents of MSW
contain levels of sulfur and chlorine, combustion of MSW results in emissions of
the acid gases, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen chloride (HCl). Further,
combustion of MSW results in trace emissions of mercury and other toxic heavy
metals, as well as trace emissions of toxic organic compounds, notably, dioxins
and furans. Modern WTE technology includes emission control techniques that
are well-demonstrated to control these emissions to levels considered acceptable
by environmental regulatory agencies worldwide. Control techniques
commonly used at modern WTE facilities include:
Control Technique Pollutants Controlled

Good combustion practices PM, NOx, CO, dioxin
Fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP) PM, heavy metals, dioxin
Scrubbers (dry, semi-dry, wet, ionizing types) SO2, HCl,
Ammonia reagent injection (catalytic, non-catalytic) NOx
Carbon injection Mercury, dioxin

A-11
With any high-temperature treatment process for MSW, there is a potential

concern over the formation of dioxins and furans. In addition, with any
treatment process for MSW, there is also a concern over the environmental fate of
the mercury that is present in MSW.
Public concern arose in the 1980’s regarding the potential risks to public health
associated with the emission of dioxins/furnas and mercury from WTE facilities.
In response, WTE combustion efficiency was further enhanced to reduce the
formation of dioxins/furans, and an additional add-on control technique was
implemented to ensure stringent control of both dioxins/furans and mercury,
namely, the injection of carbon into the flue gas. These additional control
measures have been very effective. For example, the US EPA has determined
that these emission controls successfully reduced WTE emissions of
dioxins/furans in the U.S. by over 99%, and mercury emissions by 96%, between
1990 and 2005‡‡. While modern WTE facilities still emit quantities of
dioxins/furans and mercury, the emission levels are so small today that they are
no longer a significant issue with most environmental regulatory bodies
worldwide.
Odor
Modern WTE facilities normally do not cause odor nuisances offsite, because of
mitigation methods that are proven effective. MSW storage and process are
performed entirely within enclosed structures. Interior ventilation air is used as
combustion air by the boiler, hence destroying odors present in that air.
While much of the process water used by WTE facilities is recycled and re-used,
a quantity of wastewater is generated. Contaminants build up in the process
water used in the boiler and in the cooling system, so a portion of the
contaminated process water must be constantly withdrawn as a wastewater, and
replaced with fresh water. The process wastewater is treated and discharged to
the sewer or to an adequate, receiving water body. Many WTE facilities are
“zero discharge” for process wastewater, with no process wastewater discharge
to the environment. This is the norm for WTE facilities in North America.
Instead of discharging process wastewater, those facilities use the wastewater to
quench and moisten the ash, which facilitates ash handling.
‡‡ US EPA, 10 August 2007, Memorandum from W. Stevenson to docket file, “Emissions from Large and Small MWC Units at MACT Compliance.”

A-12
Regarding storm water, there is little potential for a contaminated storm-water
discharge to the environment from a modern WTE facility. This is because
modern WTE facilities are totally enclosed, including MSW delivery and storage
operations, and ash handling and storage. Accordingly, the environment is not
exposed to the MSW and ash.
The principal generation of solid waste by WTE technology is the combustion

ash, which comprises about 15% to 25% of the incoming MSW or WDF by
weight, and about 10% by volume. Small quantities of waste sludge can be
generated when waste water from emission control scrubbers is treated. With
WDF WTE facilities, the mechanical processing of MSW into WDF results in
quantities of solid waste in the form of inert unprocessible material such as grit.
Ash management at WTE facilities is different in Europe and Japan from North
America. In Europe and Japan, the ash removed from the boiler grate (boiler
ash) is managed separately from the ash filtered from the flue gas by the
emission control equipment (fly ash). Rather than landfilling the bottom ash, it is
typically beneficially used, principally in road construction. The fly ash, which is
contaminated with heavy metals, is normally disposed in a landfill. In North
America, however, the boiler ash and fly ash are normally combined at the WTE
facility, not managed separately, for economic reasons. As a consequence, this
discourages beneficial use of the ash, and most ash is landfilled. Except for some
use as daily cover material at landfills, instead of using soil, there is very little
beneficial use of WTE ash in North America. Because of the heavy metals
present in fly ash, toxicity testing of WTE ash is required in North America to
determine suitable disposal.
The generation of solid waste by WTE technology varies from 15% to 25% of the
weight of the input MSW in the U.S. where the ash is landfilled, to as little as 10%
in Europe, where the fly ash is also landfilled, but the bottom ash component of
total ash is beneficially used.
Safety Hazards
The safety hazards specific to WTE facilities would include the following:
• Fires on waste delivery trucks and during waste storage
• Exposure to waste-borne pathogens and toxic substances

A-13
• For WDF WTE technology, there is an explosion risk if explosive materials
(e.g., gas tank) are mixed with the waste that is being mechanically processed
into WDF.
• Injury, potentially fatal, from rare boiler-related explosions.
While these are all safety hazards for workers at a WTE facility, only the truck-
related safety hazard would likely extend significantly to the public offsite.
Economics/ Institutional
Economics
Thermal technologies for MSW processing such as combustion WTE,

gasification, and pyrolysis, are typically the most costly options for MSW
processing. WTE technology requires high capital cost as well as high operating
and maintenance costs. Accordingly, the implementation of WTE technology
worldwide has been confined mostly to developed countries. While the high
cost of WTE has kept it beyond the reach of most developing countries to date,
there are circumstances under which WTE is potentially viable in developing
countries:
• Locations in major urban centers with a robust industrial/commercial
economy and adequate municipal financial/investment capacity, as well as a
skilled work force
• Other urban centers where non-economic factors control, making modern
landfills infeasible. For example, locations with unsuitable subsurface
conditions (e.g., ground water near surface, karst) or lack of land resource
(island nations or mountainous areas).
• Project locations where the high cost for WTE can be adequately defrayed by
using international financing mechanisms.
The capital and operating costs for WTE technology will vary with the type of
WTE combustion technology, the facility size, the nature of the country’s
economy, taxation laws, market competition, and other factors. The capital cost
for modern WTE technology in developed countries has risen substantially over
the past 15 years, owing to the cost of improved emission controls. Based on
review of the literature, the capital cost for modern WTE technology today is in
the general range of US $450 to $750 for each ton of annual processing capacity.
Stated in another common form, the capital cost is approximately US $150,000 to
$250,000 for each ton-per-day (TPD) of processing capacity, assuming a modern

A-14
plant operates 90% of the days in a year (~330 days). For example, a WTE facility
processing 100,000 tons per year of MSW ( ~ 300 TPD) would have a typical total
capital cost in a developed country of US $45,000,000 to $75,000,000.
The typical operating cost for a WTE facility in developed countries can vary
significantly, but based on review of the literature, a typical cost is US $40 to $50
per ton of waste processed.
Summarized below are literature sources consulted in estimating the capital and
operating costs for WTE technology:
• The capital cost in Europe in 2001 for a hypothetical WTE facility combusting
250,000 tonnes per year of MSW was estimated to be 140,000,000 euros, and
the operating cost was estimated at 29 million euros per year§§.
• A representative capital cost for WTE is given presently as US $650/annual
ton (500 euros) by waste management specialists at Columbia University
(U.S.), which for an operation of 330 days per year converts to
$215,000/TPD***.
• A comprehensive study in 2004 of thermal treatment technologies for MSW
estimated the capital cost for WTE technology to be US $150,000/TPD for a
500 ton per day facility, and the operating cost to be $44/ton†††.
WTE combustion technology is technically complex and requires skillful

operation and careful maintenance. This requires facility operating personnel
who possess specialized skills and who are highly trained. While qualified
personnel are readily available in developed countries, this is not the case in
most developing countries, except in some major urban centers.
Public Acceptance
Public acceptance of combustion WTE technology varies around the world in the
countries where it has been deployed. WTE technology has generally been
supported in European countries and Japan. In the U.S. and Canada, WTE has
been much more controversial, with some regions of those countries supporting
WTE development and others prohibiting it. While there has been only limited
implementation of WTE in developing countries to date, the initial WTE projects
proposed to date appear to be publicly supported.
§§ European Commission, August 2006, Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration, P.14.
*** Columbia University (U.S.), Waste-to-Energy Research & Technology Council (WTERT), http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/, accessed 16 April 2011.
††† Alternative Resources Inc., September 2004, Phase-I, Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies, P.90, prepared for the Economic Development Corp. of the City
of New York.]

A-15
Annex 3:
Gasification and Pyrolysis

ANNEX 3 – GASIFICATION AND PYROLYSIS
Technology Description and Operating Scale
Thermal gasification, in general, is a centuries-old technology, with a long history of

commercial application. Pyrolysis-type gasification (defined below) has been in
continuous use for several hundred years to produce charcoal from wood. Modern
gasification got its start in the 1800’s when coal was gasified to produce “town gas” for
street lights and cooking stoves. Gasification to produce liquid chemicals and liquid
fuels from coal started in the 1920’s. Gasification of coal, woody biomass, and
industrial scrap/wastes has been accomplished successfully at commercial scale,
principally in Europe and Asia. Application of gasification technology specifically to
MSW has gained commercial viability over the past 20 years, again, principally in Asia
and Europe.
Thermal gasifiers use high heat to convert solid feedstocks into a synthetic gas for use
as a fuel, which is then combusted in a boiler to generate electricity or thermal energy
(steam), or is combusted in an engine-generator set to produce electricity.
Alternatively, the synthetic gas can be converted in a chemical process to liquid
transportation fuels (ethanol, synthetic diesel) or chemicals. The basic process for
gasification of MSW is shown in the diagram below. MSW is normally pre-processed
with mechanical equipment that reduces the MSW to particles of a uniform small size,
and in some processes, densifies this waste-derived fuel (WDF) into pellets. The WDF
is then introduced to the gasifier unit. There, the MSW is converted at high
temperature to a synthesis gas. The synthesis gas is cleaned of impurities, then used as
a fuel to generate energy or as a feedstock to make synthetic liquid fuel or chemicals.
Gasification produces a solid residue in the form of ash, slag, or char that is normally
disposed, but can be beneficially used in some cases.

A-1
Gasification of Solid Waste to Produce Energy or Liquid Fuels
(Source: Gasification Technologies Counsel)
Modern gasifiers are of three types. Conventional thermal gasifiers use a limited amount
of air, steam, or oxygen to initiate heating and gasification reactions. Pyrolysis gasifiers
use an external heat source and accomplish gasification in the absence of oxygen.
Plasma gasifiers use an electric arc to generate the heat needed for gasification or
pyrolysis. The three gasifier types are further described below.
Thermal Gasification – Converts organic feedstock materials (i.e., carbon-containing

materials such as MSW, coal, plastics, wood, manures) into a synthetic gas via a thermo-
chemical reaction in the presence of a limited amount of oxygen. Enough air, steam, or
oxygen is used to promote partial oxidation (partial combustion) of the feedstock
materials, but not enough to enable full combustion. Hence, MSW gasification is
different from MSW combustion. The partial oxidation in the gasifier produces
hydrogen, carbon monoxide and heat energy. The heat energy from partial oxidation
in the gasifier releases volatile compounds from the feedstock material (the process of
pyrolysis) and leaves a char. The heat energy also enables a second reaction to occur
rapidly (“water-gas shift”), in which some of the carbon monoxide reacts with water
vapor to yield hydrogen. Conventional thermal gasification yields a synthesis gas
(syngas) that is rich in carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and also contains varying
amounts of methane, other gases, tars, and water vapor. The hydrogen and carbon
monoxide provide the principal fuel value of the syngas. The syngas is typically treated
to remove impurities, and can then be used as a fuel in a boiler to generate electricity or
thermal energy (steam). The syngas can also be used to fuel a reciprocating-
engine/generator set to generate electric power. Gasification results in an ash-like solid
residue that must be disposed, if not suitable for beneficial uses.

A-2
While MSW is not combusted in a gasification process, the syngas resulting from
gasification is combusted in the boilers and engine-generators used to recover energy.
Those boilers and engines need to employ standard, air-pollutant emission controls.
Another use for the syngas is to subject it to a process that converts the syngas to a
synthetic liquid fuel (e.g., ethanol, diesel fuel) or a chemical product. The conversion of
the syngas to liquid fuel often uses a metal catalyst in a long-established chemical
process referred to as the Fischer-Tropsch process.
There are variations of thermal gasifier design (fixed bed, fluid bed, downdraft, updraft,
others) and each has advantages and disadvantages, depending on the particular
application.
Pyrolysis – In this type of gasification, the MSW is placed in a closed vessel and heated
from the outside to a high temperature, with no oxygen or air present. No combustion
of the MSW occurs. With pyrolysis, the source of heat for heating the vessel can be
fossil fuel combustion, fuel gas recovered from downstream in the process, or plasma
(described next below). The heating converts the carbon present in the MSW to gases
and oils composed of hydrocarbons and hydrogen gas. High-temperature pyrolysis
produces more gases than oils, and the gas produced is characterized as a synthetic gas
(“syngas”). Lower temperature pyrolysis processes produce more volatilized oils than
gas, and the resulting gaseous product is called a “fuel gas,” and the resulting liquid
fuel oil is called “pyrolysis oil.” Pyrolysis oil can be used as a lower-grade fuel, or
refined into higher-grade fuels and chemicals. Following treatment to remove
impurities, the syngas or fuel gas can be used in boilers to generate electricity and/or
steam, or in an engine-generator set to generate electricity. Pyrolysis gas can contain
significant concentrations of methane and high tar levels, making conversion of the gas
to high-grade liquid fuels challenging. The solid residue resulting from pyrolysis, the
char, can potentially have beneficial uses, but is also simply disposed.
Plasma-Arc Gasification – Plasma is used as the source of heat for gasification or

pyrolysis of the feedstock materials, including MSW. Plasma is an extremely hot (7,000o
F) flow of ionized gas, produced by passing electricity through electrodes to create an
electric arc torch. The high operating temperature results in almost complete
conversion of the carbon in the MSW to energy, the virtual destruction of organic
pollutants, and the conversion of the process residue into an inert glassy slag. The high-
quality synthesis gas can be used directly as a fuel for electricity or steam generation, or
be converted in a subsequent process to a high-grade liquid fuel. Plasma gasifiers,
however, generally can’t operate efficiently at partial load conditions, which could be a
problem if the amount of available MSW were to vary from day to day. The economics
of plasma-arc gasification can be very challenging. Plasma gasification has the
important advantage of converting the energy value of the feedstock material into
useful energy with the highest efficiency of all of the gasifier types; however, a related
disadvantage is that a large fraction of the energy generated is offset by the high electric
power consumption inherent to the operation of a plasma arc torch. Finally, the ability
A-3
of plasma gasification to render the most toxic pollutants inert makes it ideal for co-
disposal of multiple types of waste: MSW, medical waste, hazardous waste, and
nuclear waste.
With gasification technology, the MSW fuel must have a sufficient heat content or
“calorific value” to ensure efficient and economically-viable energy generation. The
calorific value of MSW in developed countries is sufficient for gasification technology,
but may not be in the least developed countries and in rural sub-regions of many
developing countries, owing to differences in waste composition.
While gasification technology is suitable for MSW and WDF, it is generally not suitable
for processing of certain components of MSW individually, such as yard leaves or
source-separated food waste. The technology is suitable for co-gasification of virtually
any other type of waste, including medical waste, hazardous waste, demolition wood,
auto shredder residue, dried sewage sludge, industrial solid wastes, and radioactive
waste
Operating Scale
The size (capacity) of MSW gasification technology is typically expressed as the number
of tons per day (TPD) of MSW or WDF that can be processed by a gasification unit.
MSW gasification units are available worldwide in capacities ranging from ~ 40 TPD to
900 TPD. The economic viability of MSW gasification depends on economies of scale in
most locales. Accordingly, MSW gasification units operating worldwide are most
commonly in the 150 to 600 TPD.
As noted above, gasification technology in general is a centuries-old technology, with a

long history of commercial application. Many advancements in gasification technology
have been made since the 1940’s, principally in Europe and Japan. Gasification of coal,
woody biomass, industrial scrap/wastes, and, notably MSW, has been accomplished
successfully at commercial scale, again principally in Europe and Asia. In most of the
world, the syngas from gasification of all feedstocks, MSW included, has been used for
energy generation. Since the 1950’s, however, South Africa has been a pioneer and
world leader in the gasification of solid feedstocks (coal, and recently, wood), with
conversion of the syngas to liquid transportation fuel. Gasification of MSW for
conversion to liquid fuels is still an emerging technology, and is evolving most rapidly
in North America.

A-4
While gasification of MSW has not yet been commercialized in the in the Americas,
there is a substantial commercial track record in Asia and Europe for successful
gasification of MSW, established over the past two decades. There are over 60 MSW
gasification facilities operating worldwide. In Japan, there is an extensive commercial
track record for MSW gasification – nearly three dozen facilities using various types of
gasifiers (conventional thermal, pyrolysis, plasma arc). MSW gasifiers became
commercially common in Japan first, because Japan is a small island nation, has no
landfill capacity and is thus accustomed to high waste management costs. In addition,
the cost for electric power generated from fossil fuels is high in Japan. These factors
make advanced MSW treatment technologies such as gasification cost-effective in
Japan. Most of the MSW gasification facilities in Japan became operational since 2000,
and all convert waste materials into electricity and steam. Those waste materials
include MSW; components of MSW such as waste wood, plastics residue, auto shredder
residue, and old tires; biosolids; and even hazardous waste co-gasified with MSW. All
types of MSW gasification technology have been commercially demonstrated in Japan –
thermal gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc.
There has been significant commercial experience in Europe as well with MSW
gasification (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and the U.K.), and at
least 15 commercial facilities for gasification of MSW have operated there. In Europe,
the commercial experience is significant for both thermal gasification and pyrolysis
gasification. No plasma gasifiers for MSW have operated in Europe.
There has been increased interest in MSW gasification in the Americas since the late
1990s. Gasification technology vendors have operated demonstration-scale facilities for
MSW gasification in the U.S. and Canada, and a number of commercial project
developments are in various stages of planning and implementation. To date, however,
MSW gasification has not been demonstrated at commercial scale in the Americas.
Detailed information is summarized in the tables below on the worldwide, commercial

implementation of MSW gasification technology. Again, this experience is presently
confined to Asia and Europe. As these compilations were performed by third parties,
there are differences between the tables in the type of information provided, and there
is some overlap between the tables in the gasification facilities listed. These tables
summarize the commercial implementation of MSW gasification worldwide through
2005, and there have been a number of additional MSW gasification facilities that have
begun commercial operation after 2005, for example, the Skive Plant in Denmark (2008)
that gasifies both biomass and MSW to produce electric power using the GTI U-GAS
gasification process. It is noteworthy that all three types of gasifier technology (thermal
gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc) have had significant commercial
implementation worldwide processing MSW.

A-5
Commercially Operating Facilities Worldwide for MSW Gasification as of 20031
Location Company Began Operation MSW Capacity
Toyohashi City, Japan Mitsui Babcock March 2002 2 x 220 TPD

Aichi Prefecture
Hamm, Germany Techtrade 2002 353 TPD
Koga Seibu, Japan Mitsui Babcock January 2003 2 x 143 TPD

Fukuoka Prefecture
Yame Seibu, Japan Mitsui Babcock March 2000 2 x 121TPD

Fukuoka Prefecture
Izumo, Japan Thidde/Hitachi 2003 70,000 TPY
Nishi Iburi, Japan Mitsui Babcock March 2003 2 x 115 TPD

Hokkaido Prefecture
Kokubu, Japan Takuma 2003 2 x 89 TPD
Kyouhoku, Japan 2 x 88 TPD

Mitsui Babcock 2003
Prefecture
Ebetsu City, Japan

Mitsui Babcock 2002 2 x 77 TPD
Hokkaido Prefecture
Oshima, Hokkaido Is., Japan Takuma unknown 2 x 66 TPD
Burgau, Germany Technip/Waste Gen 1987 40,000 TPY
Itoigawa, Japan Thidde/Hitachi 2002 25,000 TPY
SVZ, Germany Envirotherm 2001 275,000 tpy
Karlsuhe, Germany Thermoselect/JFE 2001 792 tpd
Ibaraki, Japan Nippon Steel 1980 500 tpd
Aomori, Japan Ebara 2001 500 tpd (ASR)
Kawaguchi, Japan Ebara 2002 475 tpd
Akita, Japan Nippon Steel 2002 440 tpd
Oita, Japan Nippon Steel 2003 428 tpd
Chiba, Japan Thermoselect/JFE 2001 330 tpd
Ibaraki #2, Japan Nippon Steel 1996 332 tpd

A-6
Commercially Operating Facilities Worldwide for MSW Gasification as of 20031
Location Company Began Operation MSW Capacity
Utashinai City, Japan Hitachi Metals unknown 300 tpd
Kagawa, Japan Hitachi Zosen 2004 unknown
Nagareyama, Japan Ebara 2004 229 tpd
Narashino City, Japan Nippon Steel 2002 222 tpd
Itoshima-Kumiai, Japan Nippon Steel 2000 220 tpd
Kazusa, Japan Nippon Steel 2002 220 tpd
Ube City, Japan Ebara 2002 218 tpd
Sakata, Japan Ebara 2002 217 tpd
Kagawatobu-Kumiai, Japan Nippon Steel 1997 216 tpd
Lizuka City, Japan Nippon Steel 1998 198 tpd
Tajimi City, Japan Nippon Steel 2003 188 tpd
Chuno Union, Japan Ebara 2003 186 tpd
Genkai Envir. Union, Japan Nippon Steel 2003 176 tpd
Iabarki #3, Japan Nippon Steel 1999 166 tpd
Ishikawa, Japan Hitachi-Zosen 2003 160 tpd
Kocki West Envir., Japan Nippon Steel 2002 154 tpd
Nara, Japan Hitachi-Zosen 2001 150 tpd
Toyokama Union, Japan Nippon Steel 2003 144 tpd
1 “Conversion Technologies Report to Legislature (Draft),” Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA, February 2005.

A-7
Commercial Facilities in Europe for MSW Gasification as of 20051
1 Source:
U.K. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2007, Advanced Thermal Treatment of
Municipal Solid Waste, http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/residual/newtech/documents/att.pdf

A-8
Regarding gasification of MSW to produce liquid fuels and chemicals, there are
no commercial facilities operating anywhere in the world as yet. However, in
North America, companies such as Enerkem, Rentech, and Plasco have
demonstration scale facilities. Enerkem has a large commercial scale facility in
construction in Edmonton, Canada. In addition, Coskata and Fulcrum Bioenergy
have recently announced planned project developments in the U.S.
MSW Gasification at Small Scale (30,000 TPY), U.K. MSW Gasification at Large Scale (260,000 TPY), Germany
(Source: Energos. Note that World Bank does not make commercial (Source: Thermoselect. Note that World Bank does not make commercial
endorsements.) endorsements.)
Listed below are many of the suppliers of gasification technology worldwide that
have been active in the past decade. The leading suppliers are based primarily in
Europe and North America. Most of the listed suppliers provide the gasification
technology; however, some listed companies provide complete systems for
conversion of MSW to energy via gasification.

A-9
Suppliers of MSW Gasification Technology Worldwide
AE&E Envirotherm IES Taylor Recycling
AlterNRG EPI Lurgi Techtrade/Wastengen
Coskata Foster Wheeler Mitsui Babcock Thermoselect/IWT/JFE
Dynecology Fulcrum Bioenergy Nippon Steel Thidde/Hitachi
Ebarra GEM Primenergy Hued Prenflo
Energos Geoplasma Remtech Wastegen
Envirotherm GTI U-Gas Rigel Westinghouse
EPI Gentech Plasco
Energos Hitachi Takuma
The suppliers of gasification technology who have been actively pursuing the
market specifically in the Americas for MSW gasification include the following:
• AlterNRG (Westinghouse-plasma gasification)
• Ebara (conventional gasification)
• Geoplasma (plasma gasification)
• Enerkem (gasification for ethanol production)
• Interstate Waste Technologies/Thermoselect (integrated pyrolysis and
conventional gasification)
• IES - International Environmental Solutions (pyrolysis gasification)
• NTech Environmental (conventional gasification)
• Primenergy (conventional gasification)
• Rigel Resource Recovery and Conversion (Westinghouse-plasma gasification
process)
• WasteGen (pyrolysis gasification)
Note that all three types of gasification technology (thermal, pyrolysis, plasma)
are represented among the vendors of commercially-demonstrated gasifiers
pursuing the market in the Americas for MSW gasification.

A-10
For a number of the MSW gasification technologies being marketed in the
Americas, information is summarized below regarding the U.S. sponsor for each
technology and the commercial reference plant for each technology.
Gasification Technology and US Sponsor Company

Type of Commercial
Gasification Reference Plants for
Technology Vendor
US Sponsor Technology Gasification of MSW
(Country)
Twin-Rec Ebara Conventional Kawaguchi, Japan

(Japan) (Japan) (379 TPD)
GEM GEM America Pyrolysis South Wales, UK (40

(UK) (US) TPD)
JFE Thermoselect IWT -- Interstate Waste Conventional Kurashiki, Japan (610

(Japan) Technologies (US) TPD)
Chiba, Japan (330 TPD)
Karlsruhe, Germany
(678 TPD)
Westinghouse Rigel Plasma-Arc Utashinai, Japan (247

(US) (US and Others) TPD)
IES – International IES Pyrolysis Romoland, California

Environmental Solutions (US) (50 TPD)
(US)
Entech NTech Environmental Conventional Genting, Malaysia (67

(Australia) TPD)
Data Sources:
New York City Economic Development Corporation, “Focused Verification and Validation of Advanced Solid Waste
Management Conversion Technologies: Phase 2 Study,” prepared by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI), Concord, MA,
March 2006
County of Los Angeles (California) Department of Public Works and County Solid Waste Management Committee, “Los
Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report – Phase II,” prepared by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI),
Concord, MA, October 2007.
Finally, again, although there are no commercial scale facilities operating in the
world as yet for conversion of MSW to liquid transportation fuels, companies
actively pursuing the market in the Americas include Enerkem, Plasco, Remtech,
Coskata, Fulcrum Bioenergy, and others.

A-11
Sustainability
Resource Recovery
The principal form of resource recovery with MSW gasification technology is

energy, either in the form of electric power, thermal energy (steam or hot water),
or both electric and thermal energy. However, technology is emerging rapidly
towards commercialization of processes that gasify MSW and convert the
resulting syngas to liquid fuels such as ethanol or synthetic diesel, or to
industrial chemicals such as methanol.
While the solid residue produced by most gasifiers is likely to be disposed as a

solid waste, the residue from plasma-type gasification of MSW is an inert, glassy
slag having market value as aggregate. Beneficial use of the solid residue is
another opportunity for resource recovery.
As with combustion WTE technology, MSW gasification is generally not as

efficient as fossil fuel power plants at converting the energy content of the fuel
into useful electric or thermal energy. Traditional power plants have a singular
purpose, to generate electric power as efficiently as possible. MSW gasification
facilities are less efficient at energy generation because, they have two objectives:
to reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal and to recovery energy and
other products. The energy content of waste per pound or kilogram is much less
than with fossil fuels used by traditional power plants. With MSW gasification
technology, the energy conversion efficiency is greater for generating thermal
energy such as steam or hot water for district heating systems, than it is for
generating electric power.
The energy conversion efficiency is measured as the amount of net energy output
generated per ton of MSW or WDF gasified, expressed in units of kW-h per ton.
In studies performed in the U.S. for the City of New York and Los Angeles
County, California, the energy conversion efficiency of MSW gasification was
evaluated for a number of individual vendors’gasification systems being
marketed for MSW gasification in the U.S. The energy conversion efficiencies are
summarized below:

A-12
Energy Conversion Efficiency Determined for a Number of MSW Gasification Systems
Energy Conversion Efficiency –

MSW Gasifier Net Electric Energy Output per
Gasifier Type Reference
Supplier Ton of MSW Processed
(kW h/ton)
Ebara Thermal 383, <455 1,2

gasification
GEM America Thermal 583 2

gasification
IES Pyrolysis 489 3
IWT/Thermselect Thermal 476, 493, and 851 (combined cycle) 1,2,3

gasification
NTech Thermal 573 3

gasification
Rigel Plasma 684 1

gasification
References:
1Alternative Resources Inc., September 2004, Phase-I - Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management
Technologies, prepared for the Economic Development Corp. of the City of New York.
2Alternative Resources Inc., March 2006, Phase 2 - Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies,
prepared for the Economic Development Corp. of the City of New York.
3Alternative Resources, Inc., 2007. “Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report – Phase II,” prepared
for the Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works, October 2007.
Another assessment of available data compiled the following ranges of energy

conversion efficiencies for electric power production using MSW gasification1:
Thermal gasification: 400 – 650 kW h/ton

Pyrolysis gasification: 450 – 530 kW h/ton
Plasma Arc gasification: 400 – 1,250 kW h/ton
The anomalously high-end value for plasma gasification may represent the gross
energy generation, rather than net, that is, the energy output before subtracting
the considerable fraction of the energy generated that is required to operate the
plasma equipment.
1 Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), July 2009, Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable
Energy Feedstock.

A-13
From the data bases above, typical values are presented below for the efficiencies
with which the energy content of MSW is converted to net electric output via
MSW gasification:
Typical Energy Conversion Efficiency for MSW Gasification to Generate Electricity
Thermal Gasification 400 to 600 kW h/Ton of MSW
Pyrolysis Gasification 450 to 530 kW h/Ton of MSW
Plasma Arc Gasifaction 400 to 700 kW h/Ton of MSW
Benchmark: Combustion WTE 500 to 600 kW h/Ton of MSW
It is important to recognize that the energy conversion efficiencies shown above

for MSW gasification to generate electricity could be substantially higher if the
energy product is thermal energy (steam, hot water), rather than electricity. In
addition, if electric power is generated using a combustion turbine with waste-
heat recovery, rather than a conventional steam boiler, then the energy
conversion efficiency would also be much higher than indicated above. Such
efficient “combined cycle” electric generation is technically feasible with MSW
gasification, but not with combustion WTE technology. The energy conversion
efficiencies for MSW gasification to generate thermal energy, rather than
electricity, or to generate electric power using combined-cycle technology, is
estimated to be in the range of 800 to 1,000 kW h/ton.
Finally, the energy conversion efficiency is also likely higher for gasification to
convert MSW to liquid transportation fuels than it is for conversion to electric
power.

sources and does not contribute to global warming. Only part of the energy
produced by a MSW gasification facility is considered renewable energy.
Specifically, the energy produced by a MSW gasification facility is renewable in
proportion to the biogenic content of the MSW fuel that is gasified. Generally,
approximately half of the total energy generation from a MSW gasification
facility is renewable energy and half is not. This is because about half the content
of MSW is comprised of biogenic materials derived originally from plants that
were recently alive (e.g., paper, food waste, wood)2. The greenhouse gas, carbon
2 US EPA AP-42 emission factor compilationhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s01.pdf.

A-14
dioxide (CO2), emitted from gasifying the biogenic fraction of MSW is carbon
that was previously circulating in the environment, and accordingly, that CO2
emission is “carbon-neutral,” not contributing to climate change. However, the
other half of the MSW content is comprised of materials derived from fossil fuels
(e.g., plastics, rubber). The gasification of the non-biogenic fraction of MSW
generates emissions of CO2 that are a “new” injection of carbon into the
atmosphere, which increases the potential for climate change, just as with fossil
fuel gasification. To summarize, approximately half the CO2 emissions from
MSW gasification are biogenic and carbon-neutral; hence, about half the energy
produced by a MSW gasification facility is renewable energy.
While the CO2 emissions from gasification of the biogenic fraction of MSW are
carbon-neutral for MSW gasification technology, a MSW gasification facility can
cause a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, if the energy generated by the
MSW gasification facility displaces existing fossil-fuel energy generation. Since
the net energy conversion efficiency for producing electric energy from
gasification of MSW is similar to that of combustion WTE, they would typically
have similar carbon profiles. However, unlike with combustion WTE, there is
the potential with MSW gasification to use highly efficient “combined-cycle”
technology for generating energy. If used, then the carbon profile for MSW
gasification would be better than that of combustion WTE. Similarly, if the
syngas resulting from MSW gasification is efficiently converted to liquid fuels,
the carbon profile is likely more favorable than that of combustion WTE.
Conversely, if fossil fuel were used continuously as the heat source in a

pyrolysis-type MSW gasifer, then the carbon profile could be less favorable than
with combustion WTE. The same is potentially true for plasma arc gasification of
MSW if the electricity needed to run the plasma technology is derived from fossil
fuel generation.
Water Resource Use
MSW gasification facilities can require process water to various degrees,

depending on a number of factors. Steam is injected into some gasifiers as part
of the process and that requires water. Process water is needed for the scrubbing
systems used by some gasifiers to clean the syngas of impurities. If energy is
produced by combusting syngas using a boiler, significant process water would
be needed by the boiler to make steam, and water would also be needed for use
in the boiler’s cooling tower. Significant water use is also required by some types
of emission control equipment, notably, wet and semi-dry scrubbers, if used to
clean the boiler exhaust. Much of the water used by these processes is recycled
and re-used.

A-15
Notably, some gasification processes actually produce more water than they use.
This is especially so for MSW gasification when the product is liquid fuels. In
comparison with combustion WTE, gasification of MSW would use process
water in amounts varying from similar to substantially lower, depending on the
type of gasification technology and the type of energy product produced.
All technologies that process MSW thermally at high temperature (combustion,

gasification, pyrolysis) generate a solid residue that, if not beneficially used, must
be disposed. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the diversion of waste from
landfilling achieved using combustion WTE ranges from about 75% where the
combustion ash is simply landfilled, to 90% or more where most of the ash is
beneficially used. Waste diversion for gasification has been estimated based on
literature data3,4. With pyrolysis gasification, the waste diversion ranges
similarly from 72% to 95%, depending on the fraction of the solid residue (char)
that is landfilled versus beneficially used. With thermal gasification there
appears to be a greater potential for beneficial use of the solid residue (ash/slag),
and waste diversion from landfill ranges from 94% to nearly 100%. Finally, with
plasma gasification which operates at extremely high temperature, the solid
residue takes the form of an inert, glassy slag that has market value as
construction aggregate. Accordingly, little of the residue needs be landfilled and
the waste diversion rate from landfill is 95% to 100%.
Land Resource Use
MSW gasification requires adequate land for the facility structures that house the
processing equipment and fuel storage, and to enable efficient onsite flow of
MSW delivery trucks. In addition, if solid residue is landfilled, the landfill where
that ash/char/slag is disposed consumes land resources.
The land area required for a MSW gasification facility is much smaller than the
land required for a landfill of similar capacity. The land area requirements for
MSW gasification and combustion WTE are approximately similar. Accordingly,
from the standpoint of land resources, MSW gasification technology and
combustion WTE facilities are best suited to serve regions where adequate land
for a landfill is unavailable or too expensive, or the attributes of the available
land resource are incompatible with landfills (ground water is near surface, karst
geology).
3 Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), July 2009, Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable
Energy Feedstock.
4 Alternative Resources Inc., September 2004, Phase-I, Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management

A-16
Gasification processes, including gasification of MSW, are “closed processes,”

and as such do not generally have emissions to the air. Whereas combustion
processes produce an exhaust gas containing air pollutants, gasification creates a
syngas that is beneficially used, not exhausted to the atmosphere. While the
gasification process does not emit air pollutants, the combustion of the syngas to
produce energy does result in an exhaust gas and air pollutant emissions.
Accordingly, there will be air pollutant emissions from the boiler, combustion
turbine, or engine-generator set in which the syngas is combusted to produce
energy.
With gasification, air pollutants can be removed from the syngas before the
syngas is combusted as a fuel, or the pollutants can be removed using controls
placed on the exhaust of the syngas combustion devices, as is done with
combustion WTE. Combustion of syngas to generate energy would result in
emissions of the standard combustion pollutants, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, and particulate matter. Those emissions would be controlled using a
combination of good combustion efficiency and add-on control methods, as
required. Generally, the formation and emission of those pollutants would be
less for MSW gasification than with combustion WTE, as combustion of a
gaseous fuel is more efficient than combustion of a solid fuel. The potential for
emissions of acid gases such as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride would be
similar for MSW gasification and combustion WTE. With gasification, the sulfur
and chlorine responsible for those emissions are typically cleaned from the
syngas, prior to combustion using conventional scrubbing techniques. Potential
emissions of dioxins/furans for MSW gasification are addressed subsequently
below.
With any high-temperature treatment process for MSW, there is a potential

concern over the formation of dioxins and furans. In addition, with any
treatment process for MSW, there is also a concern over the environmental fate of
the mercury that is present in MSW.
Emissions of dioxins/furans and mercury from waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities

became very controversial in the 1980’s; however, stringent control requirements
imposed since have been effective in reducing the emissions to minor levels.
Regarding dioxins/furans, because with gasification, the MSW gasification

A-17
process takes place with little to no oxygen present, the potential for formation of
dioxins/furans is lower than with combustion WTE.
Comprehensive summaries of data on actual emissions of dioxins/furans from

MSW gasification facilities were not found. However, dioxins/furans emissions
data supplied by the vendors for three specific gasification technologies are
summarized in the table below. As a benchmark, the emission rates for the
MSW gasifiers are compared there with the typical emission rate of
dioxins/furans for combustion WTE. While the emissions are very low for both
MSW combustion and gasification, the MSW gasifiers have typical
dioxins/furans emission levels that are lower than for combustion WTE.
Emission of Dioxins/Furans for MSW Gasification
Typical Emission of Dioxins/Furans – ITEQ

MSW Gasifier Gasifier Type (Billionth of a Pound Emitted per Ton MSW
Processed)
Thermal
Ebara 0.001
gasification
Thermal
IWT 0.0001
gasification
Plasma
Rigel 0.01
gasification
Benchmark: Combustion
0.1 to 1
Combustion WTE Benchmark
ITEQ = Toxic Equivalent Emissions of Dioxins/Furans, International Protocol
Reference::
Alternative Resources Inc., March 2006, Phase 2 - Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies,
Mercury present in MSW will be volatilized during thermal treatment of the

MSW (combustion, gasification) and, unless controlled, will be emitted to the
environment, where it can pose a health risk. The potential emissions of
mercury for MSW gasification are the same as with combustion MSW, and the
control technique, carbon adsorption, is the same. Use of carbon to adsorb
mercury from the flue gas of a WTE facility or the syngas produced by a MSW
gasifier is highly effective and reduces mercury emissions to minor levels.

A-18
Odor
MSW gasification facilities would not be expected to cause waste-related odors

offsite, if effective mitigation measures are used. As the first step in effective
odor control, MSW storage and processing are performed entirely within
enclosed structures. If there is a boiler combusting the syngas, the interior
ventilation air would be used as combustion air for the boiler, hence destroying
odors present in that air. If a boiler is not used for energy recovery, then
alternative emission control methods may be needed to remove odorants from
the ventilation air, such as an odor control scrubber.
The syngas resulting from MSW gasification contains hydrogen sulfide and is
very odorous. Normally, the odorant present in the syngas would be destroyed
when the syngas is combusted as a fuel. However, any leaks of syngas could
cause an odor nuisance. Any release of raw syngas during facility testing or in
an emergency could cause a significant odor nuisance offsite.
While much of the process water used by MSW gasification facilities is recycled
and re-used, a quantity of wastewater is generated. Water use by MSW
gasification technologies varies with many factors, as discussed above. Hence,
the amount of wastewater discharge will similarly vary. Wastewater generation
for MSW gasification would be typically similar too or less than with combustion
WTE technology. The process in which MSW is gasified and the syngas is
converted to liquid transportation fuels can actually produce more water than it
consumes. Its wastewater discharge could be minimal.
Regarding storm water, there is little potential for a contaminated storm-water

discharge to the environment from a modern MSW gasification facility. This is
because modern MSW gasification facilities are totally enclosed, including MSW
delivery and storage operations, and ash handling and storage. Accordingly, the
environment is not exposed to the MSW and solid residue.
All technologies that process MSW thermally at high temperature (combustion,

gasification, pyrolysis) generate a solid residue that, if not beneficially used, must
be disposed in a landfill. Gasification produces a solid residue in the form of
ash/slag, or char, or glassy slag, depending on the type of gasifier – thermal,
pyrolysis, or plasma, respectively. As noted elsewhere in this report, the solid
residue (ash) generated by combustion WTE technology is typically 25% of the
weight of MSW processed. Depending how the ash is managed at a WTE

A-19
facility, all of the ash produced may be landfilled, or the majority of it may be
beneficially used in construction. For thermal gasification, it appears that the
potential for beneficial use of the solid residue is high, as discussed previously
above. With thermal gasification, the amount of solid residue landfilled is about
6% of the weight of the MSW processed, on average. With pyrolysis gasification,
the potential for beneficial use of its solid residue varies considerably, with the
amount landfilled being about 5% to 28% of the weight of the MSW processed.
With plasma gasification, the extremely high temperatures involved result in a
slag residue that is glass-like and inert and can not contaminate the environment.
Accordingly, the residue has value as a construction material and it is unlikely
that it would be disposed. Accordingly, essentially none of the solid residue
produced via plasma gasification is expected to be landfilled.
Safety Hazards
The safety hazards specific to MSW gasification facilities would include the
following:
• If WDF is produced onsite, there is an explosion risk if explosive materials
(e.g., gas tank) are mixed with the waste that is being mechanically processed
into WDF.
• Risk of injury/death from explosion of leaking syngas
• Risk of asphyxia from exposure to leaking syngas that builds up in confined
spaces
• With conversion of MSW to liquid fuel, there is risk of fuel-related fires
• Injury, potentially fatal, from rare boiler-related explosions, if a boiler is used.
While these are all safety hazards for workers at a MSW gasification facility, only
the truck-related safety hazard would likely extend significantly to the public
offsite.

A-20
Economics
Thermal technologies for MSW processing such as combustion WTE and MSW
gasification are typically the most costly options for MSW processing. These
technically-sophisticated thermal technologies require high capital cost as well as
high operating and maintenance costs. Accordingly, the implementation of both
combustion WTE and MSW gasification technologies worldwide has been
confined mostly to developed countries. While the high cost has kept these
technologies beyond the reach of most developing countries to date, there are
circumstances under which combustion WTE and MSW gasification are
potentially viable in developing countries:
• Locations in major urban centers with a robust industrial/commercial
economy, an adequate municipal financial/investment capacity, as well as a
skilled work force
• Other urban centers where non-economic factors control, making modern
landfills infeasible. For example, locations with unsuitable subsurface
conditions (e.g., ground water near surface, karst) or lack of land resource
(island nations or mountainous areas).
• Project locations where the high cost for the technology can be adequately
defrayed by using international financing mechanisms.
The capital and operating costs for MSW gasification technology will vary with
the type of gasification technology, the facility size, the nature of the country’s
economy, taxation laws, market competition, and other factors. Reliable
information on the capital and operating costs for MSW gasification technology
remains difficult to obtain. Detailed cost estimates, however, were developed for
a potential, very large MSW gasification facility in New York City and are
summarized in the table that follows.

A-21
Capital and Operating Cost Estimates for MSW Gasification
Technology Planned Projected

Sponsor in Type of Facility Construction Cost Projected Operating
the US Gasification Processing
(US Dollars, 2005 to Cost in First Year
(Technology Technology Capacity
Origin) for MSW 2007)
Ebara Conventional 3,000 TPD $763 million $32 million/year

(Japan)
$258, 000/TPD capacity $29/ton processed
GEM Pyrolysis 2,800 TPD $468 million $52 million/year

(UK)
IWT Conventional 2,600 TPD $406 million $51 million/year

(Japan)
Rigel Plasma-Arc 2,700 TPD $877 million $167 million/year

(US)
Note:
Costs were estimated for a planned, full-scale facility in New York City, requiring very large processing capacity.
Projected costs for smaller-scale plants would likely be higher, due to lose of economies of scale. Projected construction
costs do not include land cost or cost of financing.
Reference:
New York City Economic Development Corporation, “Focused Verification and Validation of Advanced Solid Waste
Management Conversion Technologies: Phase 2 Study,” prepared by Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI), Concord, MA,
March 2006.
Based on this limited available information, the following cost estimates for
MSW gasification technology are presented:
Capital cost is expressed in units of US dollar cost for each ton per day (TPD) of
MSW processing capacity. The capital cost for MSW gasification technology
appears to be in the approximate range of US $160,000/TPD of MSW to
$320,000/TPD. Assuming a modern plant operates 90% of the days in a year
(~330 days), this would equate to a capital cost of $485/annual ton to
$800/annual ton. Plasma arc gasification has higher capital cost at $970/annual
ton than thermal gasification or pyrolysis. The range of capital cost for MSW
gasification ($485 to $970 per short ton) is generally higher than the range of cost
presented elsewhere in this report for combustion WTE ($450 to $750 per ton).

A-22
A typical operating cost for thermal and pyrolysis gasification appears to be ~
$50/ton of MSW processed; however, the operating cost for plasma arc
gasification could exceed $150/ton, owing to the technology’s unique
complexity. The operating cost for thermal and pyrolysis gasification ($50/ton)
is similar to or slightly higher than the operating cost presented elsewhere in this
report for combustion WTE ($40/ton). The operating cost for plasma arc
gasfication is likely much higher than for combustion WTE.
The range of operating costs represented by the limited data base is large, from
$29 to $167 per ton of MSW processed, with two of the four values being in the
$50+/ton range. This indicates that the typical operating cost for MSW
gasification may be higher than the typical operating cost for combustion WTE
of $40-$50/ton given elsewhere in this report
MSW gasification technology is technically complex and efficient, economic

operation requires facility operating personnel who possess specialized skills and
who are highly trained. While qualified personnel are readily available in
developed countries, this is not the case in most developing countries, except in
some major urban centers.
Public Acceptance
Conventional combustion waste-to-energy (WTE) is controversial in the U.S. and

Canada, less so in Europe, and even less so in Asia. Where combustion WTE is
controversial, gasification is an alternative that may more easily gain public
acceptance, as gasification does not entail waste combustion.

A-23
Annex 4:
Anaerobic Digestion
ANNEX 4 — ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological process. AD reduces the volume of the

input material, which is important in the management of MSW. Typically, waste
materials to be digested are mechanically preprocessed as necessary to reduce
the material to a uniform particle size, and to isolate the organic biodegradable
fraction by removing inert or undesirable material such as glass shards and
metals. In the AD process, the organic biodegradable materials are placed in a
closed vessel and allowed to digest (ferment) without oxygen present. Materials
suitable as feedstocks for anaerobic digestion in general include sewage sludge
and animal manures; biomass (leaves, wood, agricultural residue); and the
biodegradable components of municipal solid waste (MSW) such as paper, food
waste, used fats/oils, slaughterhouse waste, leaves, and tree prunings. When the
organic feedstock material is digested, a portion of the carbon present in the
feedstock is converted to a methane-rich gas (biogas) which has use as a low
grade fuel. When the process of digestion is complete, a solid residue remains
called “digestate” that is similar to compost. Water is mechanically removed
from the digestate. The de-watered digestate must undergo a period of “curing”
via aeration in composting piles before it is marketed for use as a fertilizer or soil
amendment. If a market can not be found for the digestate product, then it must
be landfilled.
With AD, the biological processing of the input material occurs in two phases. In
the first phase, a group of microorganisms referred to as “acid formers” breaks
down complex organic materials in an acidic environment. In the second phase,
a different variety of microorganisms, referred to as “methane formers,” breaks
down the output from the first phase and consumes the organic material to form
methane-rich biogas.
While the basic process of AD is straightforward, there are variations among

specific process designs for AD, related to the following factors:
• Retention time of the feedstock material in the digester (which varies from 10
to 25 days generally);
• Moisture content of the digesting material in the digesters (dry vs. wet
designs);
• Operating temperature during digestion (two operating regimes can be used:
higher-temperature thermophilic or lower-temperature mesophilic); and

A-1
• Number of digestion stages (one or two).
Aspects of these design variations are normally considered in selecting AD

technology for processing of various organic feedstocks, including components
of MSW. The design variations are further explained below.
• Wet vs. Dry: Wet digestion means operating at a higher moisture content than
dry digestion. Moisture is added to the incoming waste material. Digesting
the material in a wet slurry has the advantage of enabling removal by
floatation of any plastic materials that have been commingled with the
organic feedstock. However, wet digestion typically results in a loss of
volatile solids from the incoming waste stream, important because it means
lower biogas yields. Wet digestion also consumes more of the energy
generated from biogas (up to 50 percent) to meet greater in-plant energy
needs (water pumping, dewatering) than dry digestion technologies (20 to 30
percent of energy is typically required for in-plant needs).
• Mesophilic vs. Thermophilic: Mesophilic bacteria thrive at relatively lower
temperatures than thermophilic bacteria. As mesophilic digesters operate at a
lower temperature, the required retention time for complete digestion is
longer (15 to 30 days) to generate the same level of organic breakdown. Gas
production is reported to be lower in mesophilic digesters, although the
biological process is considered more stable (more complete). The longer
retention time results in more space requirements and higher costs.
Thermophilic digestion has a higher gas yield and a shorter retention time (12
to 14 days), lower space and equipment-volume requirements, but higher
maintenance requirements and costs.
• One Stage vs. Two Stage: The process of anaerobic digestion proceeds in a
series of biochemical reaction steps. Some AD systems are designed to
accomplish all the reaction steps in a single digestion vessel. Other systems
apportion the biochemical reaction steps into two stages in two separate
vessels. Single stage digestion is a simple design with a longer track record,
and has lower capital costs and technical problems. Two stage systems have
lower digestion retention times as each stage design is optimized. There is a
potentially higher gas yield with two stage systems, but higher capital costs.

A-2
MSW Boiler
Receiving
and Storage Electricity
Steam
Hot Water
MSW Biogas
Preparation
Digester Engine/
Generator
Electricity
Rejects to
Landfill
Digestate
(Compost)
Process Flow for Anaerobic Digestion of MSW

Source: ERM
Anaerobic digestion is most efficient at processing waste types that are highly
biodegradeable. With regard to MSW, the degradeable components most
suitable for AD include food waste, fats/oils/greases, paper, slaughterhouse
renderings, yard leaves and tree prunings. Any or all of those organic
components, if collected separately from the general MSW collection, could be
digested very efficiently. Mixed MSW could also be digested, however, the
process would likely not be as efficient since mixed MSW contains waste
components (plastic, glass, metals, grit) that are not biodegradable. Finally, there
can be both technical and economic incentives for co-digestion of the organic
components of MSW with other highly suitable wastes such as sewage sludge or
animal manure.
Operating Scale
Based on industry data presented subsequently below, MSW anaerobic digestion

technology has been demonstrated worldwide in processing ranging from 20,000
tons per year (TPY) to 240,000 TPY. This is for digestion of source-separated
organic components of MSW. If one assumes that a facility operates 90% of the
days of the year (~ 330 days per year), the processing capacity range is about 60
tons per day (TPD) to 700 TPD for source-separated organic components. The
one known facility that digests mixed MSW (in Israel) has a capacity of 230 TPD.

A-3
There is extensive commercial experience in Europe with anaerobic digestion of
the organic components of MSW, and very limited experience with digestion of
mixed MSW. The only known, large-scale AD facility for mixed MSW operates
in Israel. There have been only limited attempts to date to commercialize MSW
anaerobic digestion in North America. Information was not found to be readily
available summarizing the extent to which MSW anaerobic digestion has been
implemented in Latin America and in Asia. It does not appear that AD has had
commercial application as yet in Latin America.
In Europe, there is a specific impetus for biological treatment of MSW, either via
composting or anaerobic digestion. This is because European legislation has
imposed the “Landfill Directive,” (Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999) that
restricts the landfilling of the organic fraction of MSW unless processed first.
The number of commercial facilities in Europe for digestion of MSW has grown
rapidly since 2000. As shown in the table that follows, there were 127 facilities
for digestion of the organic fraction of MSW operating in 13 European countries
in 2006, processing a total of 4.6 million tonnes per year of MSW. The leading
countries in Europe are Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.
Commercial Facilities in Europe for Anaerobic Digestion of MSW

Country Number of Plants Country Capacity (tonnes/year)
Germany 55 1,250,000
Spain 23 1,800,000
Switzerland 13 130,000
France 6 400,000
Netherlands 5 300,000
Belgium 5 200,000
Italy 5 160,000
Austria 4 70,000
Sweden 3 35,000
Portugal 3 100,000
United Kingdom 2 100,000
Denmark 2 40,000
Poland 1 20,000
Total 127 4,605,000
Reference:
Arsova, L, Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product, Thesis, Columbia
University, New York City, May 2010. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf

A-4
Plant-specific information was found for the MSW anaerobic digestion facilities
operating in Spain, again a world leader in AD for MSW. That information
summarized in the table below, shows an even mix of wet-type versus dry AD
processing in use, with operating capacities ranging from 20,000 tonnes per year
to 240,000 tonnes per year. Many of the leading AD technology suppliers have
installed facilities in Spain.
Commercial Facilities in Spain for Anaerobic Digestion of MSW (2008)
Technology Capacity
Location Feedstock Date Process
Supplier (tonne/year)
Alicante MSW Dranco 30,000 2002 dry
Avila MSW Ros Roca 36,500 2004 wet
Barcelona
MSW Linde/ Strabag 150,000 2002 wet
Ecoparc
Barcelona
MSW Ros Roca 90,000 2005 wet
Ecoparc
Barcelona MSW,
Valorga 240,000 2004
Ecoparc Biowaste
Burgos MSW STRABAG 40,000 2005 wet
Cadiz MSW Valorga 115,000 2001 dry
Gran Canaria MSW Ros Roca 60,000 2004
Jaen MSW Ros Roca 20,000 2004
La Coruña MSW Valorga 182,000 2001 dry
Lanzarote MSW Ros Roca 36,000 2004
Las Dehesas MSW Valorga 195,200 2007
Palma de
MSW, SS Ros Roca 32,000 2004 wet
Mallorca
Rioja Biowaste Kompogas 75,000 2005 dry
Reference:
IEA Bioenergy Agreement, http://www.iea-biogas.net/_content/plant-list/plant-list.html, accessed 15
April 2011.
In North America, two AD facilities processing organic components of MSW

operate in Canada, as shown in the table that follows. There are no known AD
facilities for MSW operating in the U.S.; however one sewage sludge digester at a
wastewater treatment plant in the State of California co-digests organic
components of MSW.

A-5
Commercial Facilities in North America for Anaerobic Digestion of MSW (2010)
Facility Technology Year Feedstock Capacity Process
Defferin Plant Source-separated organic 45,000
BTA 2002 Wet
Toronto, Canada MSW ton/year
Newmarket Plant Canada Source-separated organic 150,000

Wet
Toronto, Canada Composting 2000 MSW ton/year
EBMUD Co-digestion of source-

Not separated organic MSW in 22,000
Oakland California, 2005 Wet
Applicable existing sewage-sludge ton/year
U.S. digester
Reference:
Arsova, L, Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product, Thesis,
Columbia University, New York City, May 2010.
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf
Finally, only one commercial facility has been identified worldwide that
anaerobically digests mixed MSW, as opposed to pre-sorted organic
components1. This is the Arrow Bio facility that has operated in Hiriya, Israel
since 2003, processing 77,000 tons per year of mixed MSW and generating electric
energy from the biogas. The Arrow Bio process uniquely starts by placing
shredded, mixed MSW into slurry, which facilitates removal of recyclable
plastics and metals. The remainder is then anaerobically digested. The digestate
is composted and intended for use as a soil amendment.
MSW Anaerobic Digester and Biogas Energy, Barcelona, Spain

Photo credit: L. Arsova
1 Alternative Resources Inc., September 2004, Phase-I - Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management

A-6
According to a recent survey, referenced in the table below, there were

approximately 15 anaerobic digestion technology vendors of significance in the
global market in 2006. Most of the AD technology vendors are Europe-based;
however, one (APS) is based in the U.S. The seven vendors listed in the table
below collectively account for about 70 percent of the AD capacity in Europe and
80 percent of the operating facilities there. Some of the AD technology
companies participating in the market include: Kompogas (Swiss); Dranco
(Belgian, now OWS); Linde (German, now Strabag); Biopercolat (German); ISKA
(German, now CITEC); Valorga (French); APS (US); Bioconverter (US); Arrowbio
(Israel); BTA (German); Waasa (Finland, now Citec); Linde (German); Entec
(Austria) RosRoca (German); and Hasse.
Market Leaders Worldwide for MSW Anaerobic Digestion Technology (2008)

Installed capacity
AD Technology Supplier Number of plants
(tonne/year)
Kompogas 26 533,500
Valorga 19 2,197,000
Ros Roca 17 541,000
BTA 17 300,500
OWS / DRANCO 15 627,000
Citec / Waasa 13 469,500
Linde / Strabag 11 459,000
Sum total 118 5,127,500
Reference:
Arsova, L, Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product, Thesis,
Columbia University, New York City, May 2010.
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf
There is only one, known commercially experienced vendor of AD technology for processing specifically mixed MSW,
rather than pre-separated organic components. That firm is Arrow Ecology & Engineering, based in Israel, which offers
the Arrow Bio technology.
In many developing countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, the

engineering-construction expertise for developing an MSW anaerobic digestion
project exists within the country’s principal urban center, and development of a
project would be feasible, if the AD technology of an experienced vendor is used.
However, in the least developed countries of the world, the required skills may
not yet exist and the expertise would need to be imported.

A-7
Sustainability
Resource Recovery
Anaerobic digestion of MSW provides an opportunity for substantial resource

recovery. The biogas produced by AD is used as a renewable-energy fuel to
produce electric energy or thermal energy (steam, hot water). The solid residue –
the composted digestate, is marketed as an organic fertilizer or soil amendment
product, substituting for inorganic commercial fertilizer products.
A key issue for the economic and environmental viability of AD is the ability to
market the digestate compost product. Once digestion is complete, the digestate
product remaining is typically 13% to 35% of the weight of the MSW received for
processing2, 3. If the compost can not be marketed, it must be landfilled. There
has been difficulty with marketability of the compost product at some AD
facilities4. The presence of glass shards and metal fragments mixed within the
compost significantly reduces market value. In addition, concerns over
pathogens potentially being present in the compost (e.g., prions) can be a barrier
to marketability. Finally, concerns over toxic pollutants being present in the
compost can discourage potential purchasers of the compost. This would
include pesticides, defoliants, PCBs, and heavy metals. Mixed MSW contains
mercury and the mercury is not destroyed in the AD process. With mixed MSW
as the feedstock, the fate of that mercury is a legitimate question. There would
not be a mercury concern for digestion of source-separated components of MSW
such as food waste, fats/greases, yard leaves and prunings, as they do not
contain elevated levels of mercury.
The key to producing a marketable compost is to monitor the types and sources
of MSW to be digested to make sure they are not contaminated with pathogens
or toxic contaminants. In addition, the MSW must be processed sufficiently prior
to digestion to remove glass, metal, and plastic shards that interfere with the
digestion process and reduce the marketability of the compost.
2Arsova, L, Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product, Thesis, Columbia
University, New York City, May 2010. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf.
3 Alternative Resources Inc., March 2006, Phase 2 - Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies,
4Arsova, L, Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product, Thesis, Columbia

A-8
The process of anaerobic digestion of MSW results in the production of a biogas

comprised of 50% to 60% methane. The biogas has value as a fuel due to its
methane content; however, the biogas has only about half the calorific value
(heat content) of natural gas, which is mostly methane. Biogass from AD is
typically used to fuel a boiler or engine-generator set to generate electric power.
It can also be used to generate thermal energy (steam or hot water).
The energy conversion efficiency for AD is estimated to be in the range of 100 to

245 kW h of electricity generated for each ton of MSW input to the AD process,
or 100 to 245 kW h/ton. This estimate is based on the following data:
• A typical range of 165 to 245 kW h/ton reported in the literature5
• Values of 230 kW h/ton and 124 kW h/ton determined for two specific AD
technologies for processing mixed MSW, Arrow Bio and WRS, respectively6;
and
• Values of 130, 130, and 63 kW h/ton given, respectively, for AD facilities
digesting organic components of MSW at a facility in Canada and two in
Spain7.
The energy conversion efficiency for AD at 100 to 245 kW h/ton is greater than
the energy conversion efficiency for landfill gas energy recovery at 65 kW h/ton.
But, the energy conversion efficiency for AD is much less than for the thermal
technologies, combustion WTE and gasification, which have energy conversion
efficiencies typically in the range of 400 to 600 kW h/ton. The greater energy
conversion efficiency for the thermal technologies is explained by the fact that
AD converts only the biodegradeable fraction of MSW into energy, while with
WTE and gasfication, all components of MSW having fuel value are converted to
energy.
5Bohn, J., May 2010. Food Waste Diversion and Utilization in Humboldt County – Thesis, Humboldt State University,
California
6 Alternative Resources Inc., March 2006, Phase 2 - Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies,
7 Arsova, L, Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product, Thesis, Columbia

A-9
As noted previously, the process of anaerobic digestion generates a biogas

comprised of 50% to 60% methane and the rest mostly carbon dioxide, both
greenhouse gases. However, presuming that the biogas resulting from AD is
combusted for energy recovery, the methane is destroyed. The carbon dioxide
present in the biogas is carbon-neutral when emitted from the combustion
process, as it is biogenic in origin (derived originally from plants that were
recently living).
The process of AD with energy recovery can result in a significant net reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon benefit for AD results from multiple
factors (1) avoiding methane emissions that would result if the MSW were
landfilled, (2) the generation of renewable energy that displaces energy
generated with fossil fuels, (3) replacing commercial fertilizer with compost
fertilizer (greenhouse gas emissions result from mining and manufacturing
activities associated with making commercial fertilizer), and (4) the land
application of the compost product resulting in long-term storage of carbon in
the soil (sequestration).
Importantly, a fundamental concern with the economic and environmental

viability of AD is the ability to market the digestate compost product for
beneficial use. This has been a problem at some commercial AD facilities, as
noted above and as is further discussed in a subsequent section. If the compost
product can not be marketed, it must be landfilled. In that event, there would
likely still be a net greenhouse benefit for AD owing to the generation of
renewable energy that displaces fossil-fuel energy generation, but the benefit
would be reduced.
The greenhouse gas benefit for AD is generally greater than for landfills with
energy recovery because landfills leak methane emissions. This is true for the
digestion of highly biodegradable components of MSW such as food waste. The
greenhouse gas advantage for AD over landfills is less certain, however, for the
digestion of woody feedstocks that are less biodegradable.
The greenhouse gas benefit for AD is also likely greater than for MSW
composting, as composting does not generate renewable energy that displaces
fossil-fuel energy generation8. However, the greenhouse gas benefit for AD is
likely less than with combustion WTE and gasification of MSW, because the
latter technologies convert all of the organic content of MSW to renewable
8 Haight, M., 2005. Assessing the environmental burdens of anaerobic digestion in comparison to alternative options for
managing the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid wastes, Water Science & Technology Vol 52 No 1-2 pp 553–559.

A-10
energy that displaces fossil-fuel energy generation, whereas AD converts only
the fraction that biodegrades rapidly.
Water Resource Use
The organic fraction of MSW contains 15% to 70% water by weight9, and much of
that water leaves the MSW during the process of digestion. Accordingly, AD
processes can yield more water than they consume. Anaerobic digestion
processes of the dry type are a net producer of water. AD processes of the wet
type require process water, but that water, with treatment as necessary, can be
re-used. If not reused, however, it would become a wastewater discharge to the
environment.
The goal of many solid waste managers is to divert as high a fraction of the MSW
from landfill disposal as possible. Landfills are always the final repository of
residual MSW after implementing waste diversion measures: waste
minimization, recycling, and various forms of resource recovery.
Prior to digestion, MSW must be pre-processed mechanically to remove

components that would interfere with the digestion process, or would degrade
the quality of the digestate compost product. Such materials removed would
include glass, metals, plastics, and grit. If suitable, the materials removed would
be recycled, and the recycled fraction is diverted from landfilling. The
remainder, normally a substantial fraction, would be disposed by landfilling and
not diverted. Generally, the fraction of the MSW received for processing that
ends up requiring disposal is 25% to 40% by weight; however, disposal
percentages as high has 70% are reported10. The variation in the reject rate is
explained principally by variation in the purity of the MSW received for
processing. Following pre-processing, the amount of MSW then input to the
digestion process is diverted from landfilling, as it is converted to biogas and
digestate compost product.

A-11
If it is mixed MSW that is being anaerobically digested, then the overall diversion
rate from landfilling for AD is 60% to 75%, since as noted above, 25% to 40% of
the MSW received for processing is residual material that must be landfilled.
However, when the material input for digestion is not mixed MSW, but only
specific separated components such as food waste, then the overall diversion rate
of MSW from landfilling is difficult to estimate, since in that scenario, AD is not
being used to manage the entire amount of post-recycling MSW. Accordingly,
the overall diversion rate would depend on whether companion methods for
further resource recovery from the mixed MSW are being employed, rather than
just landfilling. With AD for specific components of MSW, the overall diversion
rate could range from being an estimated 10% to 25%, to being similar to
combustion WTE and gasification (75% to > 90%).
Land Resource Use
The MSW anaerobic digestion process itself requires only 25% to 50% of the land
area of a thermal technology (combustion WTE or gasification)11 and far less than
a landfill. However, the digestate must be composted in piles or rows prior to
marketing, and that requires substantial additional land area. Overall, an AD
facility and its compost area would likely require about the same or more land as
a combustion WTE or gasification facility, but still less than a landfill.
Air pollutant emissions from AD are associated primarily with emissions from
the combustion of the biogas in a boiler or engine-generator set to produce
energy. The air pollutants emitted include the standard combustion pollutants,
nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. Standard
emission control techniques are applied, as needed, to achieve emission levels
that meet regulatory requirements. In general, the emission levels of most
combustion pollutants, especially carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate matter, are less for combustion of a gaseous fuel (including biogas),
than with combustion of a solid fuel, including MSW. Potential emissions of
mercury are a concern, but emissions of dioxins/furans are not, as discussed
next.
11Alternative Resources Inc., March 2006, Phase 2 - Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies,
prepared for the Economic Development Corp. of the City of New York].

A-12
As with most combustion processes, the combustion of biogas produced by

anaerobic digestion of MSW results in trace emissions of dioxins/furans.
Significant emissions of dioxins/furans are not expected with combustion of the
biogas as the precursor compounds necessary for formation of dioxins/furans
are not prevalent in the biogas. Emissions of dioxins/furans from AD biogas
combustion are likely similar to emissions from landfill gas combustion.
Emissions of dioxins/furans from AD biogas combustion are likely to be at levels
much lower than the uncontrolled emissions from combustion WTE technology,
and likely lower than the controlled emissions from WTE technology. The
emissions of dioxins/furans from combustion of AD biogas are likely similar to
or lower than the controlled emissions from thermal gasification or pyrolysis of
MSW.
As noted above, mixed MSW contains mercury and the mercury is not destroyed
in the AD process. If mixed MSW is the feedstock for digestion, the fate of that
mercury in the mixed MSW is a legitimate question. There would not be a
mercury concern for digestion of source-separated components of MSW such as
food waste, fats/greases, yard leaves and prunings, as they normally do not
contain elevated levels of mercury. When mixed MSW is being digested, if the
mercury present in the MSW were to volatilize during the digestion process and
enter the biogas, then mercury emissions to the atmosphere would result when
the biogas is combusted. If, however, most of the mercury present in the MSW
ends up in the digestate, not the biogas, there would not be a significant emission
of mercury to the air when the biogas is combusted, but the mercury could
become a potential contamination issue for use of the digestate as a compost
product. It is also possible that the mercury present in MSW ends up in the
process water. If the process water from the digestion process and from the de-
watering of digestate were discharged, that discharge may contain mercury. No
information was found in this study addressing the fate of mercury present in
MSW when mixed MSW is digested, and specifically, whether there is significant
mercury emitted during biogas combustion or present in digestate compost. The
fate of mercury during digestion of mixed MSW appears to be an open question
that merits research.

A-13
Odor
There is a potential for odor nuisance with anaerobic digestion of MSW and odor
problems have resulted in the curtailment of operations at some operating
facilities12. The principal sources of odor with digestion of MSW are the
mechanical pre-processing of the MSW prior to digestion, and at the other end of
the process, the open-air composting of digestate in rows or piles. While the
biogas produced by digestion contains the strong odorant, hydrogen sulfide, the
digestion takes place in a closed vessel. As long as there are no significant leaks
of biogas, then the biogas would not be a significant odor source.
Odors associated with pre-processing the MSW can be effectively controlled by

storing and pre-processing the MSW within enclosed structures, and applying
odor control equipment to the building’s ventilation air exhaust.
Odor control during composting of the digestate can be very challenging as the
composting operation is usually open-air and is spread out over a large land
area. Most important in preventing odors during composting is to prevent
biodegradation of the compost in the absence of oxygen; i.e., anaerobic
degradation, which forms strong odorants. Prevention of anaerobic conditions is
achieved by turning the compost piles periodically to introduce air and by
preventing the pooling of storm water under or near the compost piles. As there
is a significant potential for odor generation with AD, the most effective
mitigation strategy is to allow an adequate buffer distance between the AD
facility and the nearest odor-sensitive land uses.
As noted above, some AD processes are a net producer of water. Other types of
AD processes use water in the process, but much of that water would be recycled
and reused. To the extent the process water is not reused, it could become a
wastewater discharge. Normally, AD processes would find beneficial uses for
the water produced, and there would be little process water discharge.
The process of curing (composting) the digestate in open rows or piles creates a
potential for contaminated storm water runoff. Accordingly, storm water runoff
may require treatment to remove particulate matter and biological oxygen
demand (BOD) prior to discharge to the environment.

A-14
As noted above, with mixed MSW digestion, AD generates a solid residue

requiring landfilling that is 25% to 40% of the weight of the MSW received for
processing. This is about the same as for composting, but greater than the solid
waste generation rates for thermal treatment (WTE and gasification).
Safety Hazards
The safety hazards of potential concern for AD facilities would include the
following:
• Fires on waste delivery trucks and within the waste storage area.
• Fires in the digestate piles or rows during composting of the digestate
outdoors.
• Risks of potentially-fatal fires and explosions from biogas leaks, especially in
confined spaces
• Risk of asphyxia from exposure to leaking biogas in confined spaces
• Risk of exposure to molds that can grow in the digestate during composting,
such as Aspergillus fumigatus, which causes respiratory disease in susceptible
individuals.
While these are all safety hazards for workers at an AD facility, the truck-related
safety hazard would likely extend significantly to the public offsite.
Anaerobic digestion technology for MSW has a high capital cost, expressed as
cost per ton of MSW processed. Capital cost data for AD is available, based on a
survey of capital costs compiled for some 20 MSW digestion facilities13. The
capital cost for AD is in the range of $200 to $600 per ton of MSW processed, for a
corresponding range of facility capacities of 22,000 to 110,000 tons per year. For a
facility operating 90% of the days in a year (~330 days), this corresponds to a
range of $66,000 to $198,000 per ton per day (TPD) of processing capacity, or
$66,000 to $198,000/TPD of MSW input. This suggests that AD, especially at
13California Integrated Waste Management Board, March 2008. Current Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Used for
Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste, prepared by Rapport J. et al., University of California, Davis.

A-15
small scale, can have a capital cost per ton of MSW processed that is comparable
to combustion WTE or gasification.
The same survey cited above found operating costs for AD to be in the range of
$20/ton of MSW processed to $50/ton, again with the higher costs being
associated with smaller-scale facilities. The smaller-scale AD facilities can have
an operating cost per ton of MSW processed similar to that of combustion WTE
(~ $40/ton).
Operation of the MSW pre-processing equipment to achieve a quality feedstock

for digestion requires properly trained personnel, as it is crucial to produce a
feedstock of adequate purity for digestion. In addition, specially trained
personnel are required for operating the digestion and energy generation
equipment. Adequately trained personnel are available in many developing
countries, including the large cities of Latin America and Asia. In lesser
developed countries of the world, however, and in very rural areas of more
developed countries, adequately trained personnel for proper operation may not
exist.
Public Acceptance
Anaerobic digestion of MSW is a biological process and is not “waste

combustion.” Opponents of thermal processes such as combustion WTE and
gasification are likely to be more accepting of a biological process such as AD or
composting. In addition, AD does not have the stigma historically associated
with landfills, another type of biological process.
While the concept of AD should find public support, that initial support for an
AD project can rapidly turn to determined opposition over the issue of odor. As
noted above, AD technology has a significant potential to create offsite odor
impacts. Also as noted above, repeated incidents of odor nuisance have resulted
in curtailment of operations at MSW digestion facilities. Although odor control
methods are essential at AD facilities, the best means for ensuring continued
public support is to site the AD facility a substantial distance from the nearest
odor-sensitive land uses.

A-16
Annex 5:
Composting
ANNEX 5 — COMPOSTING
Composting is an aerobic biological process in which organic wastes are

metabolized by microorganisms that thrive in the presence of air (oxygen).
During the process of composting, the temperature and pH of the material
increase, destroying most common pathogens, and carbon dioxide and water are
liberated to the air. The resulting compost (humus) can be used as a soil
amendment or a fertilizer. A variation of composting is the addition of worms to
the material during the composting process (vermiculture), to aid in digestion of
the material. Vermiculture produces a high quality compost. Regarding methane
emissions, composting, an aerobic process, does not emit methane, whereas
anaerobic digestion does.
Modern systems for MSW composting include windrow and static-pile designs
which require large tracts of land. There are vertical systems that require less
land. The types of composting technologies are further described below;
however, the basic steps of a modern composting process are as follow:
1. MSW is received. Mechanical equipment as well as hand-picking are used to
separate inert materials – glass, plastic, metal, grit, from the compostable
organic components of MSW. Inert materials are either recycled or landfilled,
as appropriate.
2. Magnets and screens remove additional non-compostable materials.
3. The remaining compostable material enters the composting process where
temperature, moisture and oxygen are carefully controlled to maximize the
rate of decomposition.
4. The composted material is then screened one more time.
5. The final step is curing (further composting) in piles or rows, which takes
from one to six months, and produces a nutrient-rich compost product.

A-1
Source Credit: Pollution Issues, accessed 23 April 2011 at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YHFf7-
8ItHIJ:www.pollutionissues.com/CoEa/Composting.html+flow+diagram+composting&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source
=www.google.com
There are three basic types of composting systems used to compost MSW:
windrow, aerated static-pile, and in-vessel. These are described below.
Windrow Composting – The MSW is piled into long rows, either outdoors, under
roof, or indoors. The rows are periodically turned to inject air and to adjust the
moisture content and temperature. To maintain the proper ratio of carbon to
nitrogen in the material needed for efficient composting, a bulking agent such as
wood chips is sometimes added. Windrow composting is intended for large-
volume operations and requires a substantial amount of land.
Aerated Static Pile Composting – The MSW is placed in windrows or piles atop a
system of perforated piping used to inject air into the material in a controlled
manner. The material is not physically turned. The windrows/piles can be
outdoors, under roof or indoors. Some systems place the material in closed
vessels for aeration, often called tunnel composting. Aerated Static Pile systems
can achieve rapid biodegradation and are used for large-volume operations, but
have also been applied to smaller scale composting operations.
In-Vessel Composting – This type of composting is highly engineered, “industrial”

composting, applied to high-volume operations, particularly when odorous
materials such as manures and sewage sludge (biosolids) are composted. These
systems are ideal for co-composting MSW with biosolids. With this type of
system, the materials are placed in an enclosed reactor vessel (e.g., tank), and air
injection is constantly optimized. Temperature and moisture conditions are
monitored and adjusted. If the vessel systems described above as aerated static
pile systems are well-covered, they effectively become in-vessel composting.

A-2
Finally, vermiculture, the addition of worms to the composting material to aid
digestion, produces an aesthetically desirable compost product. However, the
incoming MSW must be relatively pure as the worms can not endure significant
exposure to contaminants. Vermiculture is labor-intensive, so it is normally only
economic on the small, local-community scale of up to several tons per day.
Composting is most efficient at processing waste types that are highly

biodegradeable. With regard to MSW, the degradeable components most
suitable for composting include food waste, fats/oils/greases, paper,
slaughterhouse renderings, yard leaves, and garden waste. Any or all of those
organic components, if collected separately from the general MSW collection,
could be composted very efficiently. Mixed MSW can also be composted
however, the process is likely not as efficient since mixed MSW contains waste
components (plastic, glass, metals, grit) that are not biodegradable. Finally, there
can be both technical and economic incentives for co-composting the organic
components of MSW with other highly suitable wastes such as sewage sludge or
animal manure.
Operating Scale
The commercial implementation of MSW composting worldwide is addressed in

a subsequent section below. From that assessment, the smallest scale MSW
composting is backyard composting of food waste and yard waste. Municipal
scale systems for mixed MSW composting have been commercially
demonstrated for processing capacities from 2,000 to 90,000 tons per year, with
one at 260,000 tons. The demonstrated operating capacities are approximately
similar for systems that compost source-separated components of MSW such as
food waste. If one assumes that a facility operates 90% of the days of the year (~
330 days per year), the processing capacity range is from 6 tons per day (TPD) to
over 270TPD, but have been as large as 790 TPD.

A-3
MSW Composting in the State of California, U.S.
Source: City of San Jose, California (U.S.), November 2008, Final Report - Appendix E:
Conversion Technologies and Facilities for the Integrated Waste Management Zero Waste
Strategic Plan Development, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
MSW composting is commercially demonstrated in Europe, the U.S. and Canada,

and in a number of countries in Latin America.
In Europe, there is a specific impetus for biological treatment of MSW, either via
composting or anaerobic digestion. This is because European legislation has
imposed the “Landfill Directive,” (Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999) that
restricts the landfilling of the organic fraction of MSW unless processed first.
Composting is now commercially established in some European countries. Italy
and Austria are the leaders, with 20 and 15 facilities, respectively1. In some
regions, the MSW is composted prior to landfilling, simply to comply with the
legislation. In other regions, however, the compost is land applied or used as a
fuel for energy recovery.
In the U.S., it is reported2 that there are thousands of municipal composting

facilities for composting leaves and lawn/garden waste. These range in scale
from very small to 50,000 tons per year. There are approximately 16 facilities
1Steiner, M., 2011. MBT in Europe, published in Waste Management World

2Environmental Business International (EBI), 2006. “Report 214 - Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery, EBI,
San Diego, California, U.S.

A-4
that compost mixed MSW, and there are likely 200 composting facilities
nationally for composting food waste, often co-composting with yard waste
added as a bulking agent.
The table below shows twelve composting facilities in the U.S. that process (or did
process) mixed MSW. Some of the facilities co-composted waste water treatment
sludge (biosolids). The processing capacities range from 3,000 to 94,000 tons per
year. MSW composting facilities use different composting systems, with many using
a rotary drum processor at the front of the process.
Mixed MSW Composting Facilities in the United States

Ownership/ Capacity
Location State System
Operator (tons MSW/year)
Enclosed ASP (Ag
Gilroy CA Private/Z-Best 92,400
Bag)
In vessel (SV
Mariposa County CA Municipal 19,800
Composter/ECS)
Rotating
drum/aerated
Cobb County GA Municipal 66,000
windrow
(Bedminster)
Rotating
drum/aerated
Municipal/WeCare
Marlborough MA windrow 34,000
Environmental
(Bedminster with
Allu turner)
Rotating
drum/aerated
Nantucket MA Municipal 25,575
windrow
(Bedminster)
Truman MN Municipal In-vessel (OTVD) 21,450
In-vessel (SV
West Yellowstone MT Municipal 3,000
Composter-ECS)
Rotating
West Wendover NV Municipal drum/aerated 8,250
windrow
Rotating drum
w/agitated bays
Delaware County NY Municipal 24,000
(Conporec/IPS-
Siemens)
Municipal/Norton
Medina OH Windrow 14,850
Environmental
Rotating
Rapid City SD Municipal drum/agitated bays 59,400
(Daro/IPS-Siemens
Rotating
Columbia County WI Municipal 24,750
drum/windrows
Reference:
Ulloa, P, 2008. “Overview of Food Waste Composting in the U.S.” Internal Report, Earth Engineering Center, Columbia
University, July 2008.

A-5
In the U.S., there were 30 municipalities reported in 2008 to havecomposting
facilities that process source-separated components of MSW organics (SSO) such
as food waste, many co-composting with yard waste3. Information on twelve of
the facilities is presented in the table that follows. Their capacities range from
17,000 to 264,000 tons of source-separated organic MSW (including yard
trimmings) processed annually.
Composting Facilities in the United States for Source-Separated Components of MSW

Capacity
Facility Location State System
(tons MSW/year)
Versa aerated bags;
Z-Best Composting Gilroy CA 74,2501
windrow
Allied Newby Green Mountain
San Jose CA 16,5001
Island Tech in-vessel
Community
Recycling & Lamont CA Windrow 264,0002
Resource Recovery
Grover
Modesto CA Windrow 69,0003
Environmental
Jepson Prairie
Vacaville CA Ag-Bag; windrow 45,0003
Composting Facility
Mackinac Island
Mackinac Island MI Aerated static pile 8364
Facility
Resource Recovery Versa aerated bags;
Empire Township MN 6305
Technologies windrow
Creekside Organic Green Mountain
Materials Hutchinson MN Tech in-vessel; 6135
Processing Facility windrow
Swift County Benson MN Windrow 2,0005
Western Lake
Superior Sanitary Duluth MN Windrow 245
District
Gore Cover
Cedar Grove
Maple Valley WA System/ Aerated 40,0006
Composting
static pile
Gore Cover
Cedar Grove
Everett WA System/ Aerated 50,0007
Composting
static pile
Reference:
Ulloa, P, 2008. “Overview of Food Waste Composting in the U.S.” Internal Report, Earth Engineering Center,
Columbia University, July 2008
3Ulloa, P, 2008. “Overview of Food Waste Composting in the U.S.” Internal Report, Earth Engineering Center, Columbia
University, July 2008.

A-6
In Latin America, composting of the organic components of MSW has been
demonstrated commercially in a number of countries. That experience, however,
has been limited mostly to small scale facilities. Interestingly, composting using
worms (vermiculture) has been carried out at many small-scale facilities.
It is reported that composting in Latin America in general has been hampered by

high costs and difficulties in marketing the compost product4.
While information on organic MSW composting was not available for most Latin
American countries, information was found for three countries, Columbia,
Ecuador, and Mexico, as summarized in the table that follows:
MSW Composting in Columbia, Ecuador, and Mexico
Number of Capacity
Country Composting Type(s) Reference
Facilities (tons/year)
Columbia 30 28 – 2,300 Standard Composting, Worms, Both 1
Small scale, but one

Ecuador 12 Standard Composting 2
at 1,500
Mexico 60 24 – 3,300 Standard Composting, Worms, Both 3

1Aprovechamiento De Los Residuos Sólidos Orgánicos En Colombia, Gladys Jaramillo Henao, Liliana María Zapata Márquez, silvia
maría puerta echeverri,Universidad de Antioquia, Tesis 2008.
2 Compost Projects Evaluation in Ecuador, Fundación Natura - REPAMAR - CEPIS - G.T.Z., Quito, Marzo de 1998, Coordinación
General: Margarita Campos, Realización: Saskya Lugo, Colaboración: Udo Gitscher,

http://www.bvsde.paho.org/eswww/repamar/gtzproye/compost/compost.html
3Manual de Compostaje Municipal,Tratamiento de residuos sólidos urbanos, Marcos A. Rodríguez y Ana Córdova, Secretaria de
Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Septiembre de 2006, México
Some of the leading vendors of MSW composting systems serving the market in
the Americas include Bedminster, Christiaens Group, Conporec, Engineered
Compost Systems, Herhof, and Z-Best, as well as Engineered Compost Systems,
Gore Cover Systems, Green Mountain Technologies, Natur-Tech, Polyflex,
Transform, VCU, and Versa.
4 Pan American Health Organization, 2005. Report on the Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in
Latin America and the Caribbean.

A-7
Sufficient capability exists within most developing countries to implement MSW
composting; however, in the least developed countries, specialized assistance
from outside specialists in composting may be needed to ensure proper design
and construction of the composting facility.
Sustainability
Resource Recovery
Composting of MSW provides an opportunity for resource recovery, because the

compost product is marketed as an organic fertilizer or soil amendment product,
substituting for inorganic commercial fertilizer products.
A key issue for the economic and environmental viability of MSW composting is
the ability to market the compost product. If the compost can not be marketed, it
must be landfilled. There has been difficulty with marketability of the compost
product at some composting facilities, especially for mixed MSW, owing to lack
of markets. The presence of glass shards and metal fragments mixed within the
compost significantly reduce market value. In addition, concerns over pathogens
potentially being present in the compost (e.g., prions) can be a barrier to
marketability. Finally, concerns over toxic pollutants being present in the
compost can discourage potential purchasers of the compost. This would
include pesticides, defoliants, PCBs, and heavy metals. Mixed MSW contains
mercury and the mercury is not destroyed in the compost process. With mixed
MSW as the feedstock, the fate of that mercury is a legitimate question. There
would not be a mercury concern for composting of source-separated components
of MSW such as food waste, fats/greases, yard leaves and prunings, as they do
not contain elevated levels of mercury.
The key to producing a marketable compost is to monitor the types and sources
of MSW to be digested to make sure they are not contaminated with pathogens
or toxic contaminants. In addition, mixed MSW must be processed sufficiently
prior to digestion to remove glass, metal, and plastic shards that interfere with
the digestion process and reduce the marketability of the compost.
Composting does not generate energy.

A-8
Although the biological process of composting results in emissions of carbon

dioxide, a greenhouse gas, that emission is carbon-neutral because it is biogenic
in origin (derived originally from plants). The process of composting MSW can
result in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon benefit for
composting results from two principal factors (1) reducing landfilling and
associated methane emissions and (2) the land application of the compost
product resulting in long-term storage of carbon in the soil (sequestration).
Importantly, a fundamental concern with the economic and environmental

viability of composting is the ability to market the compost product for beneficial
use. As noted previously, this has been a problem at some commercial compost
facilities. If the compost product can not be marketed, then it must be landfilled.
In addition, in some European countries, MSW is composted, simply as a
required biological stabilization step prior to landfilling, and there is not an
intent to market the compost. In any event, if the compost is landfilled rather
than land-applied, then the greenhouse gas benefits for composting are only
partially realized.
Comparing the greenhouse gas profiles for composting versus landfilling,

anaerobic digestion, and the thermal processing technologies (combustion WTE
and gasification) is not straightforward, as the results can be very sensitive to
case-specific circumstances in which the technologies are applied. The
greenhouse gas benefit for composting is intuitively greater than for landfills,
likely even if the landfill recovers energy, because even the best controlled
landfills leak substantial methane emissions. However, the greenhouse gas
benefit for composting is likely less than for anaerobic digestion of MSW,
because composting, unlike AD, does not generate renewable energy that
displaces fossil-fuel energy generation5.
Similarly, the greenhouse gas benefit for composting of MSW is intuitively likely
to be less than with combustion WTE and gasification of MSW, because the latter
technologies convert all of the organic content of MSW to renewable energy that
displaces fossil-fuel energy generation, whereas digestion converts only the
fraction that biodegrades rapidly. However, these intuitive assessments may or
may not be true. An assessment by US Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) reported that, within the significant uncertainties in comparing the
greenhouse gas profiles for composting and combustion WTE, the profiles are
similar. US EPA also stated that the greenhouse gas profile for composting is
5 Haight, M., 2005. Assessing the environmental burdens of anaerobic digestion in comparison to alternative options for
managing the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid wastes, Water Science & Technology Vol 52 No 1-2 pp 553–559.

A-9
better than for landfilling when food waste is composted, but worse than for
landfilling for composting of woody materials6.
Clearly, there is considerable uncertainty regarding how the greenhouse gas

profile for MSW composting compares with any and all of the alternative
methods for MSW processing.
Water Resource Use
MSW composting facilities do not require use of water in significant quantities.
The goal of many solid waste managers is to divert as high a fraction of the MSW
from landfill disposal as possible. Landfills are always the final repository of
residual MSW after implementing waste diversion measures: waste
minimization, recycling, and various forms of resource recovery.
Prior to composting, MSW must be pre-processed to remove components that

would interfere with the composting process, or would degrade the quality of
the compost product. Such materials removed would include glass, metals,
plastics, and grit. If suitable, the materials removed would be recycled, and the
recycled fraction is diverted from landfilling. The remainder, normally a
substantial fraction, would be disposed by landfilling and not diverted. In the
course of preparing the present study, little reliable information was found for
mixed MSW composting on the waste diversion rate from landfilling.
Accordingly, the diversion rate determined elsewhere in this study for anaerobic
digestion of MSW is considered representative, as similar pre-processing of the
MSW received is required. On this basis, with mixed MSW composting, the
fraction of the MSW received for processing that ends up requiring disposal is
25% to 40% by weight; however, much higher disposal percentages are
sometimes experienced. The variation in the reject rate is explained principally
by variation in the purity of the MSW received for processing. Following pre-
processing, the amount of MSW input to the composting process is diverted from
landfilling, as it is converted to compost product.
If it is mixed MSW that is being composted, then the overall diversion rate from
landfilling for MSW composting is 60% to 75%, since as noted above, 25% to 40%
of the MSW received for processing is residual material that must be landfilled.
In some cases, the diversion rate can be substantially less than this range.
6 U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006. Solid Waste Management And Greenhouse Gases -- A Life-Cycle
Assessment of Emissions and Sinks (3rd Edition), September 2006.

A-10
When the material input for composting is not mixed MSW, but only specific
separated components such as food waste and yard leaves/prunings, then the
overall diversion rate of MSW from landfilling is difficult to estimate, since in
that scenario, composting is not being used to manage the entire amount of post-
recycling MSW. Accordingly, the overall diversion rate would depend on
whether or not companion methods for further resource recovery from mixed
MSW are being employed. With composting for specific components of MSW,
the overall diversion rate could range from an estimated 10% to 25% with no
companion resource recovery, to being 75% to >90% if companion techniques
such as WTE and gasification are also used.
Land Resource Use
An MSW compost facility would likely require about the same land as a
combustion WTE or gasification facility if in-vessel composting, more land
otherwise, and about the same amount of land as an MSW anaerobic digestion
facility, but less than a landfill.
There are no air pollutant emissions associated with the composting of MSW,
except for emissions of dust during the handling of input MSW and the compost
product.
Composting does not have emissions of dioxins/furans, as there is no

combustion involved.
As noted above, mixed MSW contains mercury and the mercury is not destroyed
in the composting process. If mixed MSW is the feedstock for composting, the
fate of that mercury is a legitimate question. There would not be a mercury
concern for composting of source-separated components of MSW such as food
waste, fats/greases, yard leaves and prunings, as they do not contain elevated
levels of mercury. When mixed MSW is being composted, some of the mercury
present in the MSW may volatilize to the air during the composting process.
However, mercury present in the input MSW may end up in the compost and
could become a potential contamination issue for marketing and use of the
compost. Mercury contamination of MSW compost has been the subject of a
number of studies and compost quality standards have been set in some

A-11
countries to limit the permissible levels of mercury and other contaminants in the
compost. The fate of mercury during composting of mixed MSW does not yet
appear to be a settled issue, and accordingly, merits continued further research.
Odor
The principal sources of odor with composting of MSW are the mechanical pre-
processing of the MSW prior to composting, and at the other end of the process,
the open-air composting of compost in rows or piles. Odors associated with pre-
processing the MSW can be effectively controlled by storing and pre-processing
the MSW within enclosed structures, and applying odor control equipment to
the building’s ventilation air exhaust.
Odor control during composting operations can be very challenging if the

composting operation is open-air and spread out over a large land area.
Conducting composting within an enclosed vessel or structure is effective in
containing odors, especially if odor controls are applied to the ventilation air
exhaust. Most important in preventing odors during composting is to prevent
pockets of biodegradation from occurring in the absence of oxygen; i.e.,
anaerobic degradation, which forms strong odorants. Prevention of anaerobic
conditions is achieved by keeping the compost well-aerated, and if outdoors, by
preventing the pooling of storm water under or near the compost piles. As there
is a significant potential for odor generation with composting, the most effective
mitigation strategy is to allow an adequate buffer distance between the
composting facility and the nearest odor-sensitive land uses.
MSW composting processes typically do not use significant process water; hence,
there would be not process waste water discharge.
If aspects of the composting process take place outdoors, this creates a potential
for contaminated storm water runoff. Accordingly, storm water runoff may
require treatment to remove particulate matter and biological oxygen demand
(BOD) prior to discharge to the environment.
As noted above, with mixed MSW composting, this generates a solid residue
requiring landfilling that is estimated to be 25% to 40% of the weight of the MSW
received for processing. This solid waste generation is about the same as for
anaerobic digestion, but greater than the solid waste generation rates for thermal
treatment (WTE and gasification).

A-12
Safety Hazards
The safety hazards of potential concern for compost facilities would include the
following:
• Fires on waste delivery trucks and within the waste storage area.
• Compost fires in compost piles or rows. For example, an MSW composting
facility in the U.S. processing 250 TPD of MSW in Sevierville, Tennessee
burned to the ground in 20077.
• Risk of exposure to molds that can grow in the compost, such as Aspergillus
fumigatus, which causes respiratory disease in susceptible individuals.
• Increased traffic hazard from waste delivery trucks and compost trucks
While these are all safety hazards for workers at an composting facility, the
truck-related safety hazard would likely extend significantly to the public offsite.
This study found no comprehensive compilations of cost information for MSW

composting technology. The City of New York surveyed the economics of four
MSW composting facilities operating in the U.S. and Canada, as reference
facilities for planning a potential facility in New York City8.
The reference facilities composted principally MSW, but three co-composted

smaller quantities of waste water sewage sludge (biosolids). The MSW
processing capacities of three facilities ranged from 150 to 300 tons per day (TPD)
of combined input material, and the fourth can process 825 TPD of MSW plus
380 TPD of biosolids. Based on data in that survey, capital costs for these four
MSW composting facilities have been calculated here to be in the approximate
range of $200 to $300 per ton of MSW/biosolids processed, which presuming the
facilities operate 90% of the days of a year (~330 days), corresponds to a range of
$70,000 to $110,000 per TPD of design capacity. This is believed to be
representative of capital costs for MSW composting in the U.S.
7 BioCycle Magazine, November 2007. Vol. 48, No. 11, p. 22

8 NYC MSW Composting Report, January 2004. Department of Sanitation, City of New York, U.S.

A-13
In the New York City survey above, the operating costs for three of the four
facilities ranged from $70 to $90 per ton, and the cost for the fourth facility was
reported at $27 per ton. An academic study of MSW composting in 19969
reported operating costs to be $23 to $30 per ton for five MSW composting
facilities in the U.S. and ~ $50 per ton for two facilities. Those costs today would
be somewhat higher.
An MSW composting facility in the U.S. (Sevierville, Tennessee) processing 250

TPD of MSW and 50 TPD of municipal waste water sludge (biosolids) had
reported operating costs of $25 per ton in 200710.
The limited data above on operating costs for MSW composting show disparity,
ranging from $25 per ton to $90 per ton; however, most are in the $20 to $50 per
ton range. It is possible that the $90 per ton costs included debt service as well as
actual operating costs. Based on a more robust economics data base available for
anaerobic digestion of MSW, operating costs for that technology were
determined elsewhere in this study to be in the range of $20 to $50 per ton of
MSW processed. It is doubtful that operating costs for composting of MSW
would be greater than for digestion of MSW. For the present study, operating
costs in the range of $20 to $50 per ton are considered representative for MSW
composting.
Proper operation of an MSW composting facility requires training; however,

because operating requirements are not complex, trainable personnel can likely
be found in all locations of a developing country. Composting facilities
operating in Latin America have had operating difficulties (e.g., poor compost
quality) owing to lack of adequate operator training.
Public Acceptance
Composting is a “low-technology” biological process that entails no combustion.

Opponents of thermal processes such as combustion WTE and gasification are
likely to be more accepting of a biological process such as composting or
anaerobic digestion. In addition, composting does not have the stigma
historically associated with landfills, another type of biological process.
9 Renkow, M. et al., 1996. Municipal Solid Waste Composting: Does It Make Economic Sense?, North Carolina State
University, North Carolina, U.S.

10 BioCycle Magazine, November 2007. Vol. 48, No. 11, p. 22

A-14
While the concept of composting should find public support, that initial support
for a composting project can rapidly turn to determined opposition over the
issue of odor. As noted above, composting technology has the potential to create
offsite odor impacts. Although proper composting techniques can be effective at
preventing odorous emissions, the best means for ensuring continued public
support is to site the composting facility a substantial distance from the nearest
odor-sensitive land uses.

A-15
Annex 6:
Waste-Derived-Fuel
Production, an Alternative
Technology
ANNEX 6 — WASTE-DERIVED-FUEL (WDF) PRODUCTION, AN
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
In this annex, a demonstrated alternative to traditional waste-to-energy (WTE) is

profiled, as it has potential economic advantages for application in Latin
American countries. This alternative technology will be referred to here as
Waste-Derived-Fuel (WDF) Production.
This technology is similar to traditional combustion WTE described in Annex 2,

except that there is a decoupling of the main processing steps, as illustrated in
the graphic below. With this alternative approach, mixed MSW is mechanically
processed into WDF under municipal auspices, then the WDF is transported to a
third party’s facility in the same region for combustion and conversion into
energy. So, the municipality produces the WDF and a third party then
accomplishes the waste-to-energy conversion.
Waste Processed
Into WDF
WDF Production (Municipality) and WTE Combustion (Third-Party Facility)
Source: ERM

A-1
This two step process is further described below.
Step 1: WDF Production (Municipal Responsibility)

• Mixed solid waste is mechanically processed into a refined, shredded or
pelletized, waste-derived fuel (“WDF”), using shredders, grinders, trommels,
and screens, as was described for combustion WTE technology in Annex 2. In
these standard mechanical processing systems, the MSW is processed dry, as
received. An alternative technology for converting MSW into WDF is
Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT). This process subjects the MSW to
moisture and heat, as well as to the mechanical processing steps. The moist
heat treatment is similar to the autoclaving process commonly used to treat
medical waste. The moist heat treatment of MSW increases the efficiency with
which MSW components can be separated from the MSW for recycling or use
as WDF. MHT processes, however, are more costly and are more complex to
operate. Only a few MHT systems operate commercially worldwide to
process MSW.
Step 2: WDF Co-Combustion (Third-Party Responsibility)

• The WDF is taken by truck or rail to an existing coal-fueled power plant,
cement kiln, or waste-fueled industrial boiler. The WDF can replace up to
10% to 15% of the coal normally used as fuel at a coal-fueled power plant or
industrial boiler. It can displace a portion of the coal used at a cement kiln. It
is also possible that a local industrial facility may consider installing a
dedicated, WDF-fueled boiler to save on fuel costs.
• The coal power plant, cement kiln, or industrial boiler must be located in the
local area, because longer-distance transport of the WDF is normally not
economic.
• A crucial feasibility issue, the coal power plant, cement kiln, or industrial
boiler must have modern emissions control equipment, similar to that used
by modern, traditional WTE facilities, as described in Annex 2.
For WDF production facilities, the commercially-feasible size (capacity) range

would be consistent with the feasible capacities of traditional combustion WTE
facilities in commercial operation around the world. As detailed in Annex 2, the
economic viability of WTE depends on economies of scale in most locales.
Accordingly, WTE units in the U.S. are rarely less than 100TPD in capacity, and
units in the 200 to 700 TPD range are most common. Smaller capacity units have
been economic in regions of Europe.

A-2
The production of WDF under municipal auspices and its subsequent

combustion for energy recovery by third parties has been practiced in the U.S.
and Europe for about 30 years, and is well demonstrated to be commercially
viable. That said, most WTE facilities operating in the U.S. today do not use this
model, but rather, are stand-alone, self-contained WTE facilities.
There are numerous suppliers of traditional Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

systems for processing MSW in order to simultaneously recover recyclable
materials and produce WDF. Many of these suppliers are summarized in the
following table for the traditional, dry systems.
Companies that Supply Systems and Equipment for Production of WDF

Turnkey Systems Commercial Experience
Company Company Location
Offered Claimed by Company
CP Manufacturing, Inc. Based in U.S. (California) • Mixed-waste MRF for • 300 MRFs supplied worldwide
(Subsidiary of IMS WDF production • 40 MRFs supplied in U.S.,
Group) • Materials separation including in the Northeast U.S.
from C&D waste • MRFs supplied in Puerto Rico and
Bermuda
BHS – Bulk Handling Based in U.S.(Oregon) • Mixed-waste MRF for • Advanced MRFs in U.S. in states of
Systems WDF production; CA, WI, and TX
advanced system
• Materials separation
from C&D waste
RRT Design & Based in U.S. (New • Mixed-waste MRF for • Not an equipment manufacturer;
Construction (RRT) York) WDF production; rather, a system integrator,
advanced system working like an EPC contractor.
• Materials separation • 60 MRFs in 20 U.S. states,
from C&D waste including in the Northeast U.S.
• Developed some of the first MRFs
built in the U.S.
• Was the leading turnkey MRF
supplier in the U.S. during the
1990’s. Only limited market
participation since, however.
Current viability of RRT would
need to be determined. Nat Egosi,
President, is the Principal to speak
with.
Sherbrook OEM Based in Canada • Mixed-waste MRF for • Company claims an operating
(Quebec) WDF production; MRF, but does not state location or
advanced system details.
Bollegraff Based in Netherlands • Known principally for • Has extensive clean-MRF

A-3
Companies that Supply Systems and Equipment for Production of WDF
Turnkey Systems Commercial Experience
Company Company Location
Offered Claimed by Company
(Sells their equipment in “clean MRF’ systems commercial experience in Europe;
the U.S. through Van • Claims to sell mixed- has supplied equipment in U.S. for
Dyke Baler, a prominent waste MRF systems MRFs. But, little publicly available
U.S. vendor of baling information on extent of
equipment.) commercial experience with
mixed-waste MRFs in Europe or
U.S.
Machinex Based in Canada • Mixed-waste MRF for • Not an equipment manufacturer;
(Quebec) WDF production; rather, a system integrator,
advanced system working like an EPC contractor.
• Claims MRFs in U.S. states of IA
and CA
Enterprise Company Based in U.S. (California) • Mixed-waste MRF for • Commercial experience not readily
WDF production; available.
advanced system
While the MHT systems (moist heat plus mechanical) for processing MSW have
had little deployment to date worldwide, some of the suppliers of MHT systems
are summarized in the table that follows.
Companies that Supply MHT Systems for Production of WDF

Company Turnkey Systems Commercial Experience Claimed
Company
Location Offered by Company
Enpure/Tempico • Enpure based in • Mixed-waste autoclave • Pilot Tempico plant operated in U.S.
(Enpure is the U.S. U.S. (California) (Rotoclave) and MRF for (Birmingham, AL)
licensee for the • Tempico based recycling and WDF • 350,000 TPY Tempico facility began
Tempico process) in U.S. (biomass) production operation in Jan 2010 at Gateshead,
(Alabama) U.K. (Graphite Resources was project
developer.)
Sterecycle • Based in U.K. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Demonstration plant in U.S. in state
(Sterecycle Process) and MRF for recycling of NV
and biomass fiber • 100,000 TPY commercial plant since
production for use in land 2008 in Rotherham, Yorkshire, U.K.;
regeneration plans to expand to 240,000 TPY.
• But, NOTE: In early January 2011, the
pressurized autoclave exploded,
killing a worker.
Cleantech Biofuels • Based in U.S. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Website claims 600 TPD commercial
and MRF for recycling facility in Australia since 2007, but
and WDF (biomass) U.S. SEC filing (Sep 2010) explicitly
production says no commercial facilities yet.
Bouldin • Based in U.S. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Demonstration plant in U.S. in state
Corp/WasteAway and MRF for recycling of NV
Services and biomass fiber • Commercial plant claimed in Aruba
(WasteAway Process) production for since 2009.

A-4
Companies that Supply MHT Systems for Production of WDF
Company Turnkey Systems Commercial Experience Claimed
Company
Location Offered by Company
manufacture of extruded
lumber
CR3 – Comprehensive • Based in U.S. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Demonstration plant in U.S. (Salinas,
Resources Recovery and MRF for recycling CA)
and Reuse and biomass fuel • No commercial plants claimed
production
Vantage Waste • Based in U.S. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Permits obtained in 2010 to build
Processor and MRF for recycling plant in U.S. in state of TX
and fiber production for
conversion to ethanol
Estech (subsidiary of • Based in U.S. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Selected for a project in Wakefield
Babcock International) and MRF for recycling District of the U.K. Not constructed
and biomass fuel as of Dec 2010.
production
BioProducts • Based in U.S. • Mixed-waste autoclave • Operated a demonstration plant in
International and MRF for recycling U.S. (Anaheim, CA) in 2007-2008.
and biomass fuel
production
Prestige Thermal • Based in South • Mixed-waste autoclave • Claims a pilot plant at Bridgend, U.K.
Africa and MRF for recycling
and biomass fuel
production
Sustainability
For the overall system of WDF production (municipal) and waste-to-energy

conversion (by a third-party), the sustainability profile with regard to resource
recovery, energy efficiency, carbon profile, and waste diversion from landfill
would be essentially the same as presented in Annex 2 for combustion WTE.
The sustainability profile for land resource consumption and water use would be
better, as the WDF production alternative entails using an existing, third-party
facility to convert the WDF to energy, rather than new land development and
new water use.
For the overall system of WDF production (municipal) and WTE conversion (by
third-party), the environmental impacts with regard to air quality,
dioxin/mercury emissions, odor impacts, wastewater discharge, and solid waste
production would be essentially the same as presented in Annex 2 for
combustion WTE.

A-5
At a WDF production facility, odors associated with processing the MSW can be
effectively controlled by storing and processing the MSW within enclosed
structures, and applying odor control equipment to the building’s ventilation air
exhaust.
Safety hazards for the WDF production alternative would also be essentially the
same as presented in Annex 2 for combustion WTE.
Economics
Regarding capital costs, the US Department of Energy recently estimated1 an

expected capital cost of US $105 million for a large WDF production facility
(3,200 TPD capacity), which translates to ~$100 per ton of annual processing
capacity, if one assumes the facility operates 90% of the hours in a year (~ 330
days). Due to economies of scale, the capital cost for WDF production is likely to
be somewhat higher for facilities of smaller scale.
Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) that recover recyclable materials use

processing equipment that is similar to that used by WDF production facilities.
A recent national survey of MRFs operating nationally in the U.S.2 reported
capital costs in 2006 ranging from $36,000 to $42,000 for each ton-per-day of
design processing capacity. This equates to a range of $110 to $130 per annual
ton of processing capacity, presuming a facility operates 90% of the days in a
year (~ 330 days).
Based on the above information, the capital cost for a WDF production facility is
estimated to range from $100 per annual ton of processing capacity to $130/ton.
Key point: the capital cost for WDF production of $100/ton to $130/ton is
dramatically less expensive than the range of capital costs for a stand-alone WTE
facility, noted in Annex 2 to be $450/ton to $750/ton. With the WDF production
alternative, the third party that combusts the WDF to recover energy absorbs the
high capital cost for the power production equipment.
The national survey cited above found typical operating costs for MRFs
nationally in the U.S. to range from $46/ton to $56/ton for MRFs above 100 TPD
in processing capacity, although the operating cost was much higher for the
smallest of MRFs (6 TPD capacity) at over $200/ton.
1 U.S. Department of Energy, March 2010. “Design Case Summary: Production of Mixed Alcohols from Municipal Solid
Waste via Gasification.”
2 Pinellas County Utilities (Florida, U.S.), September 2009. Materials Recovery Feasibility Study.

A-6
Operating requirements for WDF production by a municipality are far less

complex than for a complete WTE facility. Proper operation of a WDF
production facility does require skills and training; however, at a level far less
specialized than for operation of a WTE facility, which is technically complex
power plant. With the WDF production alternative, the specialized skill sets
needed to operate a WTE facility are not the responsibility of the municipality,
but rather, are the responsibility of the third-party facility at which the WDF
would be converted to energy.
Public Acceptance
In some parts of the U.S., combustion WTE generates public opposition, based on
concerns about air emissions and WTE competing with recycling. While
opposition to WTE is less in countries outside the U.S., some potential for
opposition exists in any location. With the alternative of WDF production, the
basis for public opposition is reduced, as the facility that would combust the
WDF to recover energy would normally already exist.

A-7
Annex 7:
Waste-to-Liquid Fuel, an
Emergency Technology
ANNEX 7 — WASTE-TO-LIQUID FUEL, AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
In this annex, an emerging technology is profiled that converts MSW into liquid
transportation fuels or chemicals.
An emerging technology for MSW processing is the conversion of MSW to liquid

transportation fuels such as ethanol or synthetic diesel fuel, or to chemicals such as
methanol or naptha. While there are as yet no waste-to-liquid fuels facilities operating
commercially anywhere in the world, a number of developers have implemented plans
to develop such commercial facilities in Canada and the U.S., and the first such
commercial facility is under construction in Canada (Edmonton, Alberta). There are a
number of different processes that could be used to convert MSW into liquid
fuels/chemicals. These include processes such as acid hydrolysis and enzymatic
hydrolysis, as well as thermal depolymerization, and thermal or plasma gasification
combined with a chemical process. While all of these processes are undergoing
development and testing for conversion of MSW to liquid fuels, the approach that
appears to be farthest along towards general commercialization at this time entails
thermal gasification of the MSW, followed by conversion of the gas to liquid fuel via a
catalytic chemical process. Accordingly, the focus of this assessment will be on
gasification-based processes for conversion of MSW to liquid fuels and chemicals. The
basic process for gasification-based conversion of MSW to liquid fuels/chemicals is
depicted in the figure that follows:
MSW
Pre-Processing
MSW Catalytic Conversion of
Gasification Syngas to Liquid Fuel
Fuel Refining
Syngas
Cleaning
Syngas
Simplified Process Schematic for Gasification Waste-to-Liquid Fuels
Source: ERM

A-1
As shown in the figure, the first step in the waste conversion process is to process the
MSWinto a more refined, waste-derived feedstock. This is done using mechanical
equipment that sorts, screens, and sizes the MSW to yield a feedstock material that is
more homogeneous in composition, size, and density than the waste from which it is
made. The feedstock is typically comprised principally of fiber (paper, wood, and food
residues) and plastics residues. In some processes, this feedstock is formed into dense
pellets.
In the second step of the waste conversion process, the feedstock is fed to a gasifier, a
closed vessel within which heat is generated that converts the feedstock into a synthetic
gas. Typically, thermal or plasma-type gasifiers are used, of the types described more
fully in Annex 3 for MSW gasification technologies. The feedstock does not combust in
the gasification process. The synthetic gas (syngas) produced is rich in hydrogen and
carbon (as carbon monoxide), which makes the syngas highly suitable for subsequent
conversion to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The syngas produced by the gasifier, however,
also contains unwanted constituents. These include gases such water vapor that reduce
the energy value of the syngas; constituents such as tars, ash, and sulfur that can
inactivate the subsequent process for producing liquid fuels; and environmental
contaminants such as sulfur and heavy metals. Accordingly, the gasification step of the
process must be followed by effective syngas cleaning.
In the next step, the clean syngas undergoes a chemical reaction using the Fischer-
Tropsch (F-T) Process. The F-T process is a long-established process that uses a metal
catalyst, typically cobalt or iron, to meld the hydrogen and carbon present in the syngas
into liquid hydrocarbon fuels (e.g., synthetic diesel fuel, ethanol, butanol) or chemicals
(e.g., methanol, naptha). The F-T process was used extensively in Germany in the
1940’s to produce liquid fuel from gasification of coal, and by South Africa to do the
same from the 1950’s to present. The liquid fuels produced by the F-T process are
subjected to standard refinery processes (e.g., hydrocracking) to yield high-quality
liquid fuels and chemicals. Again, it is essential for the syngas to be well-cleaned prior
to its introduction to the F-T process for conversion to liquid fuels. For example,
excessive tars and ash in the syngas can physically coat or plug the F-T catalyst,
reducing its operating efficiency and service life, and even small amounts of sulfur and
certain other elements can render the catalyst inactive.
The size (capacity) of waste-to-liquid fuels facilities is typically expressed as the number
of tons per day (TPD) of MSW or WDF that can be processed, and also as the number of
gallons per year of liquid-fuel production, expressed as millions of gallons per year
(Mgy). As there are currently no commercial waste-to-liquid fuels facility operating
anywhere in the world, the range of viable processing capacities is unknown. It is
anticipated that the first commercial-scale facilities will have capacities similar to the
small- to medium-capacity MSW gasification facilities that currently operate in Europe

A-2
in Japan. That range is on the order of 80 to 600 tons per day (TPD) of MSW processing
capacity, and likely 2 to 20 Mgy of fuel production.
As noted, there are no commercial-scale facilities operating anywhere in the world

today that convert MSW to liquid fuels or chemicals. However, a number of developers
have announced plans to develop commercial facilities in Canada and the U.S., and the
first such commercial facility is under construction in Canada (Edmonton, Alberta).
That $70 million facility will convert 100,000 TPY of post-recycling MSW to 10 Mgy of
ethanol. Enerkem also recently began initial development activities for a $250 million
waste-to-ethanol facility in the U.S. (Pontotoc, Mississippi) that would have twice the
production capacity of the Edmonton plant.
Sou
Depiction of the 100,000-TPY Enerkem Waste-to-Ethanol Facility in
Construction in Canada (Edmonton, Alberta)
Source: Enerkem
Besides Enerkem, discussed above, there are other development companies, most based
in North America, that have announced intent to enter the gasification waste-to-liquid
fuels market, for example, Fulcrum Bioenergy and Cello Energy. There are also
development companies working to commercialize the other types of processes for
waste-to-liquid fuels, such as hydrolysis and thermal depolymerization.

A-3
Sustainability
For gasification waste-to-liquid fuels technology, the sustainability profiles with regard
to resource recovery, energy efficiency, greenhouse gases, land resource requirements
and waste diversion from landfill would be approximately similar to the profile
presented in Annex 3 for gasification of MSW with energy recovery. Regarding water
use, the gasification-based processes for waste-to-liquid fuels are typically net
producers of water.
A key sustainabilty advantage for waste-to-liquid fuels technologies is that they

produce a liquid transportation fuel or a chemical that replaces petroleum-based fuels
and chemicals. Combustion of the liquid fuels in vehicle engines represents renewable
energy, in proportion to the biogenic content of the MSW feedstock from which the fuel
is made (typically, about 50% biogenic). Accordingly, use of the liquid fuel instead of
petroleum-derived fuel results in an important reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding emissions to the air, there will be dust emissions from the MSW pre-
processing equipment that will require control. The gasifier is a closed system, without
emissions to the air. The syngas produced by the gasifier is not emitted or burned, but
rather, is converted by the F-T process to liquid fuel or chemicals. Operation of the F-T
process, however, can result in the production of a by-product fuel gas (tail gas) that
would typically be used onsite as fuel for an engine-generator set, boiler, or process
heater. Emissions of air pollutants will result from the combustion of the tail gas. The
pollutants emitted and their control, including emissions of dioxin and mercury, would
be similar to those described in Annex 3 for gasification of MSW with energy recovery.
The liquid fuel, when combusted in vehicle engines, would produce tailpipe emissions.
However, because the liquid fuel is very low in sulfur, the tailpipe emissions or sulfur
dioxide, specifically, would be less than with use of conventional diesel fuel.
The scrubbing equipment used to clean the syngas in the waste-to-liquid fuels process
can require substantial water. Normally, most of that scrubber water is recycled;
however, there would be some wastewater discharge. The F-T catalytic process actually
generates water, making the entire facility a net water producer.
The generation of disposable solid waste by the gasification waste-to-liquid fuels

process would be similar to that described in Annex 3 for gasification of MSW with
energy recovery.

A-4
Odor control during waste mechanical pre-processing is achieved using the same
methods as described in Annex 6 for technology involving the production of waste-
derived fuel (WDF). The remainder of the waste-to-liquid fuels process is a closed
system, so there is little potential for odor emissions. Importantly, however, potential
leaks of raw (pre-cleaning) syngas to the atmosphere could result in offsite odor
nuisance, since the raw syngas contains the powerful odorant, hydrogen sulfide.
The safety hazards specific to gasification waste-to-liquid fuel facilities would include
the following:
• During MSW pre-processing, there is an explosion risk if explosive materials (e.g.,
gas tank) are mixed with the waste that is being mechanically processed.
• Risk of injury/death from explosion of leaking syngas
• Risk of asphyxia from exposure to leaking syngas that builds up in confined spaces
• With conversion of MSW to liquid fuel, there is risk of fuel-related fires.
While these are all safety hazards for workers at a MSW gasification facility, only the
truck-related safety hazard would likely extend significantly to the public off site.
Economics
As there are no waste-to-liquid fuels facilities in commercial operation as yet, there is no

reliable information on the capital and operating costs for this technology. It is
estimated that the capital and operating costs may be very approximately similar to the
costs given in Annex 3 for MSW gasification with energy recovery.
Waste-to-liquid fuels is an emerging technology without a commercial track record as

yet. In addition, it is a technologically complex process. Considering these factors, the
technical and economic risks are very high for implementing the first commercial
facilities, whether in developed or developing countries. Accordingly, if a waste-to-
liquid fuels project is undertaken in Latin America, it would be highly advisable for the
entire project development, ownership, and operation to be by the private sector. At
this juncture, the economic and technical risks are too high for public-sector investment
or operation.

A-5
Gasification of MSW and conversion of the syngas to liquid fuels or chemicals is a very
complex process. Operation requires highly specialized skills and training. It is
doubtful that the required specialized skills would be available in most regions of Latin
America, except possibly in the capital cities of the most industrialized countries.
Accordingly, a gasification waste-to-liquid fuels facility in Latin America would likely
require specialized, private-sector operators.
Public Acceptance
In some parts of the U.S., combustion WTE generates public opposition, based on
concerns about air emissions and WTE competing with recycling. While opposition to
WTE is less in countries outside the U.S., some potential for opposition exists in any
location. With the alternative of waste-to-liquid fuels technology, the basis for public
opposition is reduced, as the there is no waste combustion involved and the focus is on
producing liquid fuels, not onsite energy.

A-6

ESW0 P1250 An 0 Emissions 00 Final 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESW0 P1250 An 0 Emissions 00 Final 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESW0 P1250 An 0 Emissions 00 Final 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

Viability of Current and Emerging Technologies for

Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emissions

The World Bank Washington, DC

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

The World Bank

Viability of Current and

Implications on Dioxin and

ERM Project: 0130996

World Bank Vendor ID Number: 125432

Environmental Resources Management

The World Bank

Viability of Current and

Implications on Dioxin and

ERM Project: 0130996

World Bank Vendor ID Number: 125432

José A. Hernández, P.E.

David Minott, QEP, CCM

Javier Quintana, PhD, PE

2 BACKGROUND ON WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND

3 CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN LATIN

4 EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR WASTE

4.1 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES, OPERATING CAPACITIES, AND

4.2 SUSTAINABILITY ATTRIBUTES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES 21

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES 25

4.4 MSW TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS 32

5 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY IN LATIN AMERICAN

5.1 LARGEST CITIES, STRONGER MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY 40

5.2 SMALLER CITES, LIMITED MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY 41

5.3 RURAL AREAS, LITTLE MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CAPACITY 42

5.4 LAND-CONSTRAINED REGIONS 42

5.5 REMOTE AREAS (PRIMITIVE ECONOMIES) 43

Substantial progress in adopting modern waste management practices has

Commercially Demonstrated Technologies:

Alternative Demonstrated Technology:

Each of these technologies is described in Table 1, along with summary

Regarding the sustainability attributes above, the specific sustainability

Resource Recovery - the recovery of energy (e.g., electricity, steam or hot

Greenhouse Gas Emissions -the extent to which the technology causes a

Regarding the environmental attributes above, the specific attributes

Air Pollutant Emissions, including combustion-related emissions, as well as

Process Wastewater Discharge - the amount of process wastewater requiring

Storm Water Discharge – the potential for the technology to create

Not shown in Table 2 is the emerging technology for conversion of MSW

Following evaluation of the technologies as summarized in Table 2, the

Small WTE Facility in Martinique MSW Gasification at Small Scale in U.K.

For the assessments of waste management, technology attributes, and

Thermal Processes (High Heat)

Operating Capacity Costs Sustainability Air Pollutant Emissions

Most Gasify Gasify Gasify Gasify

Gasify Gasify WDF WDF

WDF Landfill Compost Landfill

AD WDF WTE Gasify Gasify

The largest-population cities, typically, capital cities

Small, medium, and some large cities

Rural developed areas and very small cities

Regions with special land constraints

Remote primitive areas, tribal

Modern waste-management policy follows a hierarchy of preferred waste