Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF)
City Council Study Session – April 5, 2022
Purpose
2 SERRF is a clean and responsible
alternative to landfills when
environmental and human health impacts
are considered
• In Long Beach, we manage waste by:
o First, encouraging waste reduction in an effort to
reach zero-waste
o Second, we encourage reuse, in further effort to
reach zero-waste
o Then, we recycle what cannot be reused and for
which recycling is possible
o Finally, for waste that cannot be recycled, we use
it as a fuel source to create local clean energy that
supports an increasing demand for electricity in
our global quest to reduce reliance on fossil fuels
– as opposed to landfill
• Closure of the Palos Verdes landfill in 1980 led to a realization that the City of Long Beach (City) could no longer rely on the export of its municipal solid waste to other communities
• Long Beach developed the SERRF solution, incorporating Waste-To-Energy (WTE) technology, as an environmentally responsible tool for waste management
• The City and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts co-own SERRF under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with a 2/3 to 1/3 spilt between the City and the Sanitation Districts, respectively
• SERRF began commercial operations in July 1988 and is currently operated by Covanta Long Beach Renewable Energy (Covanta)
Background
3 • Multiple scientific studies have shown that WTE offers significant reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) compared to that of landfilling waste • WTE is a critical tool to avoid landfilling waste after reduction, reuse and recycling • WTE avoids the main consequences of landfilling – leaking of toxic chemicals into the ground and the release of methane
• Methane, emitted by landfills, is the second largest contributor to global climate change
• NASA scientists have identified landfills as super-emitters of methane • Landfills don’t measure their emissions, they model them and have been underreporting for years
• Methane is 80x more potent than CO2 over 20 years as a GHG WTE vs Landfilling
4 Scientific Studies - WTE vs Landfilling
5 Berkeley Law (2016) Wasting Opportunities: How to Secure Environmental & Clean Energy Benefits from Municipal Solid Waste Energy Recovery
“Harvesting these leftover materials as solid waste energy sources could provide multiple environmental benefits:
complementing intermittent renewable energy, such as wind and solar, to offset fossil fuel‐based energy sources and associated greenhouse gas emissions; avoiding landfill emissions of methane (a potent greenhouse gas that is 28‐34 times as strong as carbon dioxide over 100 years) by diverting wastes to energy, particularly organic wastes;” https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/climate/waste-to-energy/ CARB
“[C]ombusting waste in the three MSW Thermal facilities in California results in net negative GHG emissions, ranging from -
0.16 to -0.45 MT CO2e per ton of waste disposed, when considering that the waste would otherwise be deposited in landfills resulting in higher emissions.” p.90: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/waste.pdf CalRecycle
“Published LCA studies and best available published direct measurement data support CalRecycle staff’s general conclusions. CalRecycle staff concludes that the three existing California WTE facilities provide net avoided methane emissions over waste otherwise disposed in a California landfill. The net avoided emissions exceed non‐biogenic emissions from burning of the fossil fuel based components such as plastic in the WTE facility.” http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/conversiontechnology/download/CalRecycle_Review_of_WtE_Avoided_Emissions_07032012.pdf •U.S. EPA scientists, in a prominent peer reviewed paper, concluded WTE facilities reduce GHG emissions relative to even those landfills equipped with energy recovery systems
•Many other governmental and nongovernmental organizations have formally recognized WTE for its role in reducing world‐wide GHG emissions including the:
o Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called WTE a “key GHG mitigation technology” o World Economic Forum (WEF) which identified WTE as one of eight renewable energy sources expected to make a significant contribution to a future low carbon energy system o European Union
o Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol
o Voluntary carbon markets
o Third Way and the Center for American Progress
Scientific Studies - WTE vs Landfilling
6 WTE vs Landfilling
7 • There are 75 waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities in the US that process nearly 94,000 tons of municipal
solid waste per day, producing enough energy to
power the equivalent of 2.3 million homes
• WTE operations continue to expand worldwide with
new plants being built in Europe and Asia. More
than 120 WTE facilities have been built around the
world in the past five years
• The European Union mandates aggressive diversion
of organics from landfills and currently exempts
WTE from their cap & trade programs
• Landfilling is almost non-existent in countries such
as Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden,
Germany, Austria, and Finland. In these countries,
WTE plays an important role alongside recycling.
Germany and Austria are also the EU's top recycling
countries
Asset To Our Climate
8 Climate Action
• California’s Environmental Goals
• City Council Adopted Climate Action and Adaption Plan (CAAP) • Recycling
• Air Pollution Control
• Clean Energy Production
•WTE operations reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that otherwise will be generated from longer transportation distances to outside landfills that are currently 30 to 60 miles away •WTE operations reduce the need for landfilling that leads to avoiding landfill emissions of methane (80x the warming power of CO2 over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere)
•Every ton of waste processed in a WTE facility avoids a ton of CO2 equivalent emissions based on 100-year methane global warming potential
California’s Environmental Goals
9 City’s CAAP Goals
10 • The City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) incorporates the continued use of SERRF into the
future
• GHG’s would increase approximately 98,200 MT
CO2e/yr (4% increase) from methane emissions
associated with landfilling the City’s waste vs SERRF
• Trucking the City’s waste to a landfill, instead of using SERRF, adds additional GHG impacts
o Estimated 761,500 additional miles driven annually
which equates to a 2,690 MT CO2e /yr increase
• Additional reductions from other sector(s) would be
required to keep the City’s CAAP in balance
• Other jurisdictions that currently bring waste to
SERRF would see similar increases to their respective
CAAP’s and would need similar other sector(s)
reductions
Recycling
11 • U.S. communities with WTE operations have a higher recycling rate than the national average— with some reaching over 50 percent recycling. The City currently exceeds a 50 percent recycling rate
• In the US, WTE operations recovers more than 700,000 tons of metal each year for recycling – the equivalent amount of steel to build more than seven Golden Gate Bridges
• Each month, an average 750 tons of metal are recycled at SERRF rather than sent to a landfill
• Only so much of our waste stream is practically recyclable. Items like disposable diapers, hybrid materials (paper glued to plastic), medical waste, cannot be recycled
Recycling
12 • WTE operations provide the safe disposal of unused and expired prescription medications preventing drugs from ending up in the wrong hands or polluting public water supplies
• Recycling benefits SERRF by diverting non-combustible materials from SERRF that have minimal fuel value or can cause operational problems
Air Pollution Control
13 •SERRF is equipped with the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) which removes 99% of HCI and 95% of SO2 acid gasses as well as
99.5% of the particulate matter from the gas exhausted
•SERRF has been required to upgrade its pollution control technology over the years as regulations have become more restrictive and new pollution control equipment has been developed
Clean Energy Production
14 •WTE offers a clean source of low-to-zero carbon baseload energy produced through transformation of municipal solid waste within the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan or World Economic Forum standards •WTE has been recognized as renewable in federal law and is defined as renewable in 30 US states (not California) and the European Union
Asset To Our Community
15 Local Impacts
• Provides local, good paying jobs
o Covanta currently employs 60 people at SERRF, 44 of which are IBEW represented personnel
• Supports the local economy through buying goods and services from local businesses
• Reduces transportation and disposal cost of City collected municipal solid waste
About the Facility
16 Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF)
• Location
• Operations
• WTE Process
• Energy Production
• Ash Handling
• Performance
• Financials
SERRF - Location
17 Nearest resident is approximately 1.7 miles away
SERRF - Operations
18 • COST: $108,000,000 (1988)
• CAPACITY: 1,380 tons/day of solid waste
• SERRF is a solid waste management facility
that uses mass burn technology to reduce
the volume of solid waste by about 80%
while recovering electrical energy and
metal
• Source reduction and recycling reduce the
amount of waste managed and reduce
consumption of natural resources and the
environmental damage associated with
such use
SERRF - WTE Process
19 WTE differs from combustors that are classified
as incinerators because of the energy recovery
component. The process of generating electricity
in a WTE facility has seven (7) stages:
1. Solid waste is dumped from refuse trucks into a
large pit/floor
2. A claw on a crane grabs waste and loads it in a
combustion chamber
3. The waste (fuel) is burned, releasing heat
4. The heat turns water into steam in a boiler
5. The high-pressure steam turns the blades of a
turbine generator to produce electricity
6. An air pollution control system removes pollutants
from the combustion gas before it is released
through a stack
7. Ash is collected from the boiler and the air
pollution control system. It is then treated with the
Wes Phix treatment process to ensure the ash is
nonhazardous under California and Federal
regulations
SERRF – GHG’s Avoided (LCA using 20-year GWP of methane) 20 Historic GHG’s Avoided
• Since beginning operations in 1988,
SERRF has avoided over 37 million
tons of CO2e
• This is equivalent to closing 9 coal power
plants for a year
Future GHG’s Avoided
• In the next 20 years, SERRF is
expected to avoid another 19 million
tons of CO2e.
• This equivalent to removing 3.7
million passenger vehicles from the
road for a year
WTE is a GHG mitigating
technology
WTE facilities in the U.S. reduce lifecycle emissions by an average of 1 ton of CO2e per ton of MSW diverted from landfills. This GHG mitigation factor can be refined for a particular facility using the 20- year GWP of methane (instead of the 100-year GWP), the facility specific operating data (2019-2021), and local grid intensity. GHG equivalencies calculated with the US EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
SERRF - Energy Production
21 •On average, SERRF produces 212,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year
•This represents 28% of the annual residential electric load for the City or enough to power 63,600 electric vehicles per year
•SERRF Generated $9.1 million in electricity sales in Fiscal Year (FY) 21
SERRF – Ash Handling
22 • SERRF generates an ash residue composed of the noncombustible material in wastes and materials added for air pollution control, such as activated carbon and lime
• SERRF’s combined ash is tested routinely to confirm that it is nonhazardous per U.S. EPA and California regulations. To comply with those regulations, the ash is regularly tested for toxicity including through the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
• SERRF’s ash has never been determined to be a hazardous waste • Materials derived from ash can be used as secondary raw material, replacing gravel and sand in construction projects
SERRF – Ash Handling
23 • SERRF’s nonhazardous ash is currently being trucked to the El Sobrante landfill in Riverside County (57 Miles)
• The nonhazardous ash then is used as a road base material at the landfill site
• SERRF averages 14 truckloads/day, Monday – Saturday, for ash hauling
•SERRF processed its 15 millionth ton of refuse and sold its 7 millionth megawatt of electricity
•SERRF has reduced the volume of waste entering landfills equal to an area the size of a football field piled 2.5 miles (13,200 ft) high •Processed 385,000 tons of refuse and recycled 9,110 tons of metals that otherwise would have gone to landfills
•Destroyed 17,000 pounds of law enforcement confiscated narcotics each month
•Completed over $11.3 million in facility equipment upgrades SERRF – Performance (FY21)
24 Financials
25 • SERRF is projected to remain solvent under its
current operating contract with Covanta with
enough Budgetary Funds Available to sustain
operations through June 2024.
• SERRF is an enterprise fund and receives no
General Fund dollars for its operations
• If a long-term operations contract is awarded,
SERRF can obtain more lucrative electrical
sales contracts
• Needed equipment repair /replacement will
increase boiler performance allowing for
additional electric and refuse revenues
SERRF Pro Forma
FY22 ETC FY23 Budget FY24 Budget
(Thru June)
Refuse Received (Tons) 400,000 410,000 307,500
Electricity Generated (GW) 200,000 199,670 149,753
Opening SERRF Fund Balance $ 15,335,380 $ 11,833,380 $ 9,941,380 Revenues
Electric Sales $ 9,574,000 $ 9,450,000 $ 7,090,000 SERRF Refuse Fees $ 31,870,000 $ 34,990,000 $ 26,240,000 Pooled Cash Interest $ 92,000 $ 118,000 $ 99,000 SUBTOTAL $ 41,536,000 $ 44,558,000 $ 33,429,000 Expenses
Facility
O & M $ 29,166,000 $ 32,850,000 $ 24,640,000 Ash Hauling & Disposal $ 7,035,000 $ 7,920,000 $ 6,420,000 Capital Improvement $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - One Time Expenses $ 1,742,000 $ - $ - Regulatory $ 2,613,000 $ 2,810,000 $ 2,400,000 Insurance $ 1,644,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,364,000 SUBTOTAL $ 42,950,000 $ 46,130,000 $ 34,824,000 COLB
Personnel $ 520,000 $ 541,000 $ 405,000 Non-Personnel $ 659,000 $ 408,000 $ 318,000 Internal Services $ 159,000 $ 160,000 $ 125,000 Depreciation $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 SUBTOTAL $ 2,088,000 $ 1,859,000 $ 1,598,000
ADJUSTMENTS
SERRF Land Sale $ 1,539,000
ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 11,833,380 $ 9,941,380 $ 6,948,380 Considerations to
• Health
• Emissions
• Vehicle Traffic
Environment
Health
27 • SERRF is located in an industrial area and Health Risk Assessments required by the SCAQMD, using SCAQMD protocols, have shown no health risks to its local residents
• A 2007 National Research Council report states the epidemiological studies suggest there is no association between human health effects and the operation of WTE facilities
• Multiple air quality health risk assessments and health surveillance programs surrounding WTE facilities in the US and globally have determined that there was not a predictive or actual increase in health issues, including for those in vulnerable or sensitive at‐risk populations such as children or the elderly
Health
28 Japanese WTE facility, completed in 1991, integrated into the local community. Public health is a primary driver in their land use considerations.
Emissions
29 •SERRF has been successfully operating for nearly 34 years in the most regulated air basin in the United States
•SERRF’s emissions are monitored continuously and must comply the rules, regulations, and permits issued by the SCAQMD and EPA.
These regulations are continually being upgraded and changed as new technology is developed
•SERRF’s emissions are measured both through routine stack tests (performed at least once a year) and through continuous emissions monitors (CEMS)
Emissions
30 •CEMS monitor SERRF’s emissions continuously for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), opacity, and carbon dioxide and/or oxygen. SERRF operators monitor these parameters real-time and adjust as needed to ensure proper operation and compliance
•Other regulated pollutants are checked through a rigorous stack testing program performed by a regulator‐approved third‐party •Over the last two years, SERRF’s emission were out of compliance
0.06% of its operating time due to equipment malfunction(s), which are allowed under SCAQMD regulations
Emissions
31 Emissions
32 SERRF is a very small contributor to
overall emissions in the South Coast Air
Basin Counties*
• The facility emits 0.2% (or less) of the Air Basin's NOx, SO2, PM10, and CO emissions
• Mobile sources are, by far, the largest contributor to air emissions, representing 84% of NOx, 41% of SO2
emissions, and 92% of CO
• For all of 2021, SERRF emitted 0.003 lb of dioxins,
comparable to the approximate dioxin emissions of a
150-acre forest fire. In 2021 alone, nearly 2.6 million acres burned in CA.
• An inventory of dioxin emission sources in the U.S.
quantitatively showed that the emissions contribution
from all WTE facilities (i.e., compared to controlled
industrial dioxin emissions) is 0.54%
* Based on the CARB Criteria Pollutant Emission Inventory Data for the 2017 base year.
Where available, the facility’s 2017 emissions were replaced with the reported 2021 emissions.
Emissions
33 • Refuse trucks can only enter SERRF between the hours of 6:00 AM - 6:00 PM, Monday thru Saturday
• Average of 165 trucks use SERRF daily and 50% of those are CNG powered. All City refuse trucks are CNG or LNG powered (34% less emissions vs diesel over the total life cycle) • Ash hauling averages 14 truckloads/day, none drive through any Long Beach/Los Angeles residential areas
• For the 2020 calendar year, trucks utilized for SERRF’s operations accounted for 0.53% of the vehicles in the combined Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles traffic area* Vehicle Traffic
34 Container Terminal Non-Container Terminal SERRF Total Truck Calls Truck Calls Trucks Trucks
POLB 3,685,465 317,139 44,937 4,047,541
POLA 3,903,349 585,120 4,488,469
Totals 7,588,814 902,259 44,937 8,491,073
* Does not include passenger cars, or other non-port activity vehicles
The Future
35 Considerations
• Current Challenges
• Proposed AB 1857 Legislation
• SERRF’s Future
• Next Steps
• SERRF has been operating for nearly 34 years and is at a pivotal moment where in order to ensure operation for the next 30-years, significant capital investment is required
• HDR Engineering, Inc’s (HDR) condition assessment study completed in 2018 indicated $12.9 million capital investment needed to continue operations through 2024 (completed in FY 21) and up to $66.3 million additional capital investment to continue long term operation through 2039 • Current operations agreement with Covanta ends on June 30, 2024 • Current SERRF Fund pro forma projections indicate the facility solvent through at least June 2024, however operational sustainability is at risk if projected facility performance, electrical revenues, and anticipated tip fees are not realized
Current Challenges
36 •The regional waste market is facing upward pressure in landfill prices and uncertainty in long-term landfill availability (further impacted by the closing of the Puente Hills landfill in 2013)
•Orange County landfills are rumored to be shut off to LA county trash at the beginning of 2025
•If SERRF’s operations were to cease, the City would have no option but to ship its municipal solid waste greater distances resulting in a significant increase to the City’s disposal costs and GHG emissions •The City and the State of California have significant organics diversion goals without the infrastructure to meet them Current Challenges
37 Proposed AB 1857 Legislation
38 •The February 8, 2022 proposed AB 1857 legislation removes the current waste diversion credit for jurisdictions that deliver their municipal solid waste to existing WTE facilities in California •The diversion credit was created as part of AB 939 (the Recycling Law) that was passed in 1989
•The AB 939 diversion credit was crafted by CalRecycle to not financially penalize WTE facilities that took action to implement an accepted solid waste management strategy and furthered recycling goals •CalRecycle also recognized the benefits of WTE versus landfilling and desired to encourage the continued use of SERRF
•How does the AB 939 diversion credit work?
o A jurisdiction can deliver up to 10% of its annual municipal solid waste generation to a WTE facility and receive recycling credit for that waste Example – If a jurisdiction generates 100,000 tons/yr of waste, that jurisdiction can send 10,000 tons to a WTE facility and receive 100% recycling credit for that waste. The credit is capped at 10%. If a jurisdiction delivers above 10% of their annual generation, they do not receive any recycling credit for the amount over the 10% cap
•148 different local jurisdictions currently bring their municipal solid waste to SERRF for the AB 939 diversion credit, and they account for approximately 50% of the waste tonnage processed annually at SERRF
Proposed AB 1857 Legislation
39 •The proposed AB 1857 does nothing to reduce landfilling or increase recycling or organics diversion. In fact, it will increase landfill disposal •The proposed AB 1857 is based on inaccurate data and
misrepresentations of WTE operations
•The proposed AB 1857 pushes a Zero Waste Plan that is an excellent aspirational goal, but a challenging and sometimes impossible one given current manufacturing and industrial processes
•LA County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force is opposing AB 1857 unless it is amended Proposed AB 1857 Legislation
40 • Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) also opposes AB 1857. RCRC is an association of 39 rural California counties and the RCRC Board of Directors is comprised of elected supervisors from each of those member counties • AB 1857 passed out of Natural Resources Committee on March 22nd and is now sitting in the Appropriations Committee. Likely will not move until sometime mid-May and then would be considered by the whole Assembly. • Staff recommends opposing the proposed AB 1857 legislation due to the detrimental impacts to:
o GHG emissions
o SERRF’s current and future operations
o Additional trucks traveling through communities previously not impacted o Offering no practical solution besides additional landfilling Proposed AB 1857 Legislation
41 •City Staff is now engaged in a formal study with HDR regarding assessing the future opportunities for SERRF
•HDR Study
o Scope is to develop project concepts and procure a potential new developer/operator for SERRF
o 2-year contract with 3 potential one-year extensions
o $250,000 study ($500,000 contract value)
o Study goals are to identify technically environmental and economically viable options for the future of SERRF including organic waste processing in compliance with AB 1383
SERRF’s Future
42 •Potential HDR Study Outcomes
o New long-term (20 years+) contract for SERRF including the development of an organic waste facility at SERRF
o New short to medium-term (5–10 years) operations contract for SERRF including the development of an organic waste facility at SERRF o No viable proposals are received and other options need to be explored •Desired Outcome
o Advanced technology at SERRF that improves operations and environmental controls
o New organic waste facility at SERRF in compliance with AB 1383 o Significant improvements in waste reduction, recycling, reduced SERRF throughput, and no landfilling
SERRF’s Future
43 • City Staff and HDR have held a kick-off meeting and have met with potential organics and WTE developers and operators
• HDR is currently outlining options for organics processing and the future of SERRF which are expected to be key elements in the development of an RFP • The current schedule contemplates issuing an RFP to prospective WTE and organics operators/waste management technology companies in the July- September 2022 timeframe
• Council input anticipated:
o Prior to RFP issuance (late April/May 2022)
o After proposals are reviewed and ranked (December 2022/January 2023) o Consideration of new contract (1st or 2nd quarter 2023) SERRF’s Future
44 •Until a different alternative to landfilling is available for residual waste, staff recommends continuing current SERRF operations and seeking solutions for the future of SERRF
•Staff recommends opposing the proposed AB 1857 legislation due to the detrimental impacts to:
o GHG emissions
o SERRF’s current and future operations
o Additional trucks traveling through communities previously not impacted o Offering no practical solution besides additional landfilling •Continue to research additional organic options and exploring the future of municipal solid waste
Next Steps
45 Thank you