HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Mkt Development Study w Appendices1
Market Development for Clean Wood Waste
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
June 30, 2021
Prepared by:
Al Cairns, Solid Waste Manager
Reviewed by:
Monte Reinders, Public Works Director
Restriction on Disclosure, Use of Data, and Limitations
This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works and their agents. Jefferson County Department of Public
Works does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis,
or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or
relied upon by any Party other than the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Any
such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user.
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4
2.0 SUPPLY ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 4
2.2 Sources and Quantities.............................................................................. 4
2.2.1 New Home Construction ................................................................. 4
2.2.2 Other Sources ................................................................................. 5
2.3 Study Assumptions .................................................................................... 5
3.0 MARKETS ............................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Viable Markets ........................................................................................... 5
3.2 Methodology .............................................................................................. 5
3.3 Demand ..................................................................................................... 6
3.3.1 PTPC .............................................................................................. 6
3.3.2 Agricultural Sector ........................................................................... 6
4.0 DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Hog Fuel Distribution Cost ......................................................................... 6
4.2 Biochar Feedstock Distribution: Cost vs Revenue ..................................... 7
5.0 VALUE ADDED PRODUCT ................................................................................. 8
5.1 Biochar Production .................................................................................... 8
5.2 Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 8
5.3 Capital & Operational Cost vs Revenue..................................................... 8
5.4 Permitting Assessment .............................................................................. 9
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 10
6.1 Methodology ............................................................................................ 10
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction & Cost ......................................... 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 11
APPENDIX A: HOME BUILDER SURVEY ............................................................... 12-20
APPENDIX B: AGRICULTURE PRODUCER SURVEY ........................................... 21-30
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following study on the market development of clean wood waste was conducted
under a Recycling Development Center grant received by the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works (Public Works) from the Washington State Department of
Ecology. The overall goal of the Washington State grant is to develop local markets and
processing for Washington’s recyclable products via transforming or remanufacturing
rather than sending them to landfill for disposal.
An overview of the findings is presented below:
Supply
• The volume of clean wood waste as part of the municipal solid waste stream is
less than necessary to be feasible for market development through the current
solid waste management infrastructure
• Supply for small scale on-farm production is available through three producers
Markets
• Demand for clean wood waste was identified in two markets:
o Hog fuel
o Feedstock for biochar production
Distribution
• Supply of clean wood waste as part of the municipal solid waste stream is less
than necessary to be feasible for distribution to either of the two identified
markets through the current solid waste management infrastructure
• Direct distribution from the three producers to agricultural producers is currently
happening and can be more fully developed with limited investment of Public
Works staff time
Value added product
• Limited feedstock supply makes biochar production by Public Works infeasible
• Small scale biochar production appears to have only limited permitting
requirements
Environmental analysis
• The use of clean wood waste as feedstock for biochar production reduces nearly
twice as much CO2 emissions as landfilling per ton of biomass
• Biochar production is 10 times more expensive than landfilling per ton of CO2
emission reduction
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Jefferson County seeks ways to cost-effectively increase it recycling rate. Distance to
markets for recyclable materials creates a significant barrier to diverting more materials
from landfilling.
Clean wood waste in the form of scrap dimensional lumber from new construction
projects was identified as part of the municipal solid waste stream to have potential for
localized market development. Conversion of the wood waste to biochar was identified
as a transformational process with potential to create a value-added marketable product
with local demand.
2.0 SUPPLY
2.1 Methodology
Public Works developed a questionnaire for local home builders to gauge:
• the volume of material generated (as trailer loads)
• the willingness of home builders to source separate the material
• the willingness to drop the material off in a separate area at either of the two solid
waste facilities
• what level of incentive for source separating in the form of a reduced fee for
disposal would need to be created
• the willingness to deliver to a farm
• the willingness to have a farmer collect the material at the job-site
• the willingness to report volumes removed from the waste stream
• contact information
The survey was distributed to home builders with the assistance of the Jefferson County
Home Builders Association (JCHBA). Only one builder responded to the survey, likely
because the current housing boom leaves builders with little spare time.
The single response is attached as Appendix A.
JCHBA provided Public Works with a list of 6 home builders likely to respond to a phone
solicitation of information and Public Works developed the list to include an additional 6
builders. Half of the builders from this list either responded to phone calls or provided
time on construction sites to answer the survey questions.
2.2 Sources and Quantities
2.2.1 New Home Construction
The single respondent to the e-mailed survey indicated a total annual volume of
material generated of up to 5 trailer loads.
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
5
All 6 respondents to phone or in-person surveys indicated that no scrap dimensional
lumber of any quantity was a component of job-site waste for several reasons, namely:
• Record high lumber prices
• Modern framing techniques that create less waste
• Use by construction crews or job-site neighbors for home heating or campfires
2.2.2 Other Sources
Public Works was able to identify three non-home building sources of clean wood waste
that is presently, or could be, distributed to the agricultural community as feedstock for
biochar production. These sources are from the local production of dimensional lumber
or finished round poles.
• Source #1 reported an estimated annual 5 - 7 tons of materials presently being
delivered to a Jefferson County agricultural producer
• Source #2 has an estimated 15 - 20 tons of materials on hand and generates an
estimated annual five tons
• Source #3 generates an estimated annual 7 - 10 tons of material
Total estimated annual material quantities from the 3 sources identified is between 17 to
22 tons.
2.3 Study Assumptions
The investigation into material sources revealed that there was little, if any, source
separated scrap dimensional lumber available as either a marketable raw material or as
feedstock for a value-added biochar product. However, Public Works wanted to identify
capital and operational costs for material processing for either market and for the
purpose of this investigation used an assumed 24 tons of marketable material; the likely
load of a 48-foot container used in municipal solid waste operations.
3.0 MARKETS
3.1 Viable Markets
Viable markets were found for clean wood waste as feedstock in these areas:
1. Port Townsend Paper Corporation for energy generation
2. Local agricultural producers for biochar production
3.2 Methodology
Public Works staff communicated with Port Townsend Paper Corporation (PTPC) by
phone. PTPC indicated that clean wood waste would be accepted by the semi-trailer
load.
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
6
Public Works developed a questionnaire for the local agricultural community to gauge:
• The overall demand for the material (as a percentage of respondents)
• the volume of material desired (as trailer loads)
• the willingness to collect the material at either solid waste handling facility
• the willingness to receive the material at their farm
• the willingness to collect the material at a construction job-site
• the willingness to pay a small fee if made available at either solid waste handling
facility
• the fee amount they would pay for a trailer load
• the willingness to report volumes used
• contact information
The survey was distributed to agricultural producers with the assistance of the Jefferson
County Conservation District with a response from thirty-five of the farmers surveyed.
Responses to the survey are attached as Appendix B.
3.3 Demand
3.3.1 PTPC
PTPC could accommodate all clean wood waste from Jefferson County’s two solid
waste handling facilities.
3.3.2 Agricultural Sector
16 of 35 (45.71%) survey respondents indicated they would like access to clean wood
waste for biochar production. Of those 16 respondents:
• 11 (55%) would want one trailer load per year
• 6 (30%) would want up to five trailer loads per year
• 1 (5%) would want up to ten trailer loads per year
• 2 (10%) would want more than ten trailer loads per year
Survey responses indicate a likely baseline level of demand of 71 trailer loads per year.
Using an assumed weight of .5 ton per single axle trailer load of scrap lumber, this level
of demand would be 35.5 tons per year which outstrips supply, estimated at between 17
and 22 tons.
4.0 DISTRIBUTION
4.1 Hog Fuel Distribution Cost
PTPC, located two miles from the Port Townsend solid waste handling facility, has
indicated that they could receive clean wood waste at no cost by the semi-trailer load.
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
7
Annual costs and revenues for processing and transporting the material to PTPC from
Port Townsend facility were estimated under the following assumptions:
• 1 trailer load (24 tons) of material per year
• 24 hours of labor per year for material handling
• no new material handling equipment would need to be acquired
• the current facility infrastructure would be utilized
• the trailer chassis and container for storage and transport would be rented on a
monthly basis
• transportation would be contracted
• revenue from a $50/ton handling fee
The estimated annual cost is shown in Table 1 below:
Cost Area Estimated Annual Cost
Labor – Material Processing $849
Chassis/Container Rental Fee $6,000
Transportation Fee $500
Less Revenue $1,200
Total Estimated Cost $6,149
Table 1 - Estimated Cost for Hog Fuel Processing and Distribution
4.2 Biochar Feedstock Distribution: Cost vs Revenue
Annual costs for processing and making the material available to the public were
estimated under the following assumptions:
• 24 tons of material per year
• 48 hours of labor per year for material handling/customer service
• no new material handling equipment would need to be acquired
• the current facility infrastructure would be utilized
• no trailer needed for storage
The estimated annual cost is shown in Table 2 below:
Cost Area Estimated Annual Cost
Labor – Material Processing $1,698
Total Estimated Cost $1,698
Table 2 – Estimated Cost for Biochar Feedstock Processing and Distribution
Revenues from material sales were estimated by applying the varying percentage of
response rates to the survey’s suggested per trailer fee level to the assumed twenty-
four tons of material used for the other estimates in the study.
Revenues from tipping fees were estimated at $50/ton.
The estimated annual revenue is shown in Table 3 below:
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
8
Per Trailer
Fee Level
Response Tons Loads Revenue
$5.00 47.06% 11.29 6 $30
$10.00 35.29% 8.47 4 $40
$15.00 11.76% 2.82 1 $15
$20.00 5.88% 1.41 1 $20
Sales revenue $105
Tipping Fee revenue $1,200
Total Annual Revenue $1,305
Table 3 – Estimated Annual Revenue from Biochar Feedstock Sales & Tipping Fees
Annual program cost less revenue is estimated to be $393.00
5.0 VALUE ADDED PRODUCT
5.1 Biochar Production
On-site biochar production was considered as a means of converting clean wood to a
marketable, value-added product. An annual material volume of twenty-four tons was
used for these considerations.
5.2 Infrastructure
Public Works conferred with two regional experts on kiln type selection and chose a
flame cap-type of biochar production method based on material type and dimension,
fictional annual volume and regulatory requirements. The kilns would be fabricated
from a 500-gallon propane tank with a 37” diameter and 119” length. The tank would be
cut in half down its length to produce two kilns. This would facilitate approximately 67
cubic feet of feedstock if both kilns were used at once.
2 each 275-gallon capacity UBC totes would be used in char production; one for
quenching water to stop the pyrrolic process and one for producing a slurry for charging
the raw char with nutrients and minerals.
Water supply for production and fire safety is available on site and a suitable cement
slab could be utilized. Spent water disposal is available at the adjacent biosolids
composting facility at a current fee of $0.135 per gallon.
5.3 Capital & Operational Cost vs Revenue
Capital and operational costs estimates are based on the flowing assumptions:
• A used, locally sourced propane tank would be used for kiln construction
• County labor would be used in the fabrication of the kilns
• Used IBC totes would be procured locally
• Material management and char production would require .25 FTE
• 2,200 gallons of water used per year
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
9
Initial Capital and first year operational costs are estimated in Table 4 below:
Table 4 – Capital and Operational Cost Estimate
Revenue estimates are based on sales by volume which required an estimate of the
yield of char from 24 tons of feedstock and converting to cubic yards. The density of
char is highly variable depending on feedstock and ranges from 135 to 540 lbs. per
cubic yard. Using this range of density, 24 tons of feedstock could produce between 15
and 62 cubic yards of char.
A midpoint of the range of potential biochar volume of 24 cubic yards was used for
revenue forecasting. A sale price of $300.00 per cubic yard was used to be consistent
with sales of raw (non-inoculated) char sales from char produced as a by-product of
energy production at PTPC.
Potential annual revenue from the conversion of clean wood waste to activated char
was estimated at $7,200.00. The difference between operational costs and annual
revenue (Net Cost) would be $10,620.00.
5.4 Permitting Assessment
The solid waste handling facility where a biochar production plant would be located falls
under an operating permit issued by the local health jurisdiction – Jefferson County
Public Health. In discussions with Jefferson County Public Health staff, a biochar plant
processing 250 cubic yards or less than 25 tons of feedstock would likely be exempted
from permit conditions.
Public Works solicited feedback from the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA)
on likely permit conditions. ORCAA has not issued a permit for biochar production to
date but indicated that they are analyzing different commercially produced kilns and
processes presently.
The permit threshold is 1 million BTU’s per hour. In the interest of a practical
application of this threshold in consideration of Public Works’ study, ORCAA staff
suggested as a rough approximation that a volume of biomass measuring 4’X4’X5’ (80
cubic feet) might produce 1 million BTU’s per hour. A kiln size of 67 cubic feet, as
estimated, may fall under the permit threshold.
Without a formal request for review with the necessary details of proposed plant design
and process, neither Jefferson County Public Health or the Olympic Region Clean Air
Cost Area Item Estimated Cost
Capital Kilns, Totes, Pumps, etc. $5,000
Capital Labor - Fabrication $2,696
Operations Labor – Material Management/Char
Production
$17,523
Operations Water Disposal Fee $297
Total 1st Year Cost $25,516
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
10
Agency could offer more than the helpful parameters that such a proposal would be
considered within.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Methodology
Public Works used the Environmental Protection Agency’s Waste Reduction Model
(WARM) Version 15 to determine the comparative green house gas emission reductions
from landfilling vs conversion to biochar of the 22 tons of waste dimensional lumber
identified as being at the upper end of material being produced by 3 sources in
Jefferson County.
The WARM calculator measures greenhouse gas emissions in Metric Tons of CO2
(MTCO2E). Warm factors offsets to MTCO2E from landfills that capture methane gas for
energy production, as does the Roosevelt Regional Landfill that Jefferson County
utilizes.
WARM also factors for the difference between various methods of waste management
of MTCO2E caused by material transportation.
For this comparative analysis, landfill management was assigned 350 miles and biochar
production was assigned 30 miles, or roughly the furthest transportation leg to or from
the solid waste handling facility within the county.
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction & Cost
Owing to the capture of methane for energy production, the Roosevelt Regional Landfill
would reduce CO2 emissions by 20.31 metric tons if 22 tons of dimensional lumber was
landfilled there.
By contrast, 55.85 metric tons of CO2 emissions would be reduced if the same amount
of material was converted to biochar.
The difference between the two methods of waste management is 38.23 MTCO2E.
A comparison of these 2 waste management methods based on the cost per MTCO2E
reduced is provided in Table 5 below:
Table 5 – Comparison of Costs for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Method Operational
Cost/Ton
MTCO2E
Reduction
Cost per MTCO2
Reduced
Biochar Production $3,709 55.85 $66.40
Landfill $132 20.31 $6.49
Jefferson County Public Works Market Development of Clean Wood Waste
11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A centralized system for the collection and processing of clean wood waste does not
appear to be economically viable nor the most cost-effective way to remove this
material from the waste stream. Therefore, Public Works recommends a decentralized
and localized system of material exchange between the producers of clean wood waste
and the agricultural community that wishes to utilize the material for biochar production.
This exchange is presently happening between one producer and a farmer through the
coordination of Public Works staff. Public Works recommends that staff time be
allocated to further such coordination and exchange of materials and to measure this
exchange for inclusion in the County’s annual recycling report.
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q1 How many trailer loads worth of scrap dimensional lumber do you think
you create in an average year?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Up to 5
5 - 10
11 - 15
15 - 20
Over 20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Up to 5
5 - 10
11 - 15
15 - 20
Over 20
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
12
100.00%1
0.00%0
Q2 Would you be willing to separate the scrap dimensional lumber from
other jobsite materials?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
13
100.00%1
0.00%0
Q3 Would you be willing to drop off the separated material at a designated
site at the Jefferson County Transfer Station (Port Townsend)for a reduced
fee?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
14
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q4 Would you be willing to drop off the separated material at a designated
site at the Quilcene Drop Box Facility for a reduced fee?
Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 0
!No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
15
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q5 If the fee for disposal of clean wood waste were reduced from the
current disposal rate for garbage, what would be a fair fee for a trailer
load?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Up to $50
Up to $75
Up to $100
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Up to $50
Up to $75
Up to $100
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
16
0.00%0
100.00%1
Q6 Would you be willing to drop off the separated material at a farm?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
17
100.00%1
0.00%0
Q7 Would you be willing to have a farmer collect the separated material at
your job site?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
18
100.00%1
0.00%0
Q8 If we start a program to keep scrap lumber out of the landfill, would you
be willing to give Public Works an estimated number of loads you created
in a year to get an idea of how we did as a whole?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
19
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%1
100.00%1
Q9 If we start a program for keeping wood scraps out of the landfill, do you
want us to let you know? If you do, please let us know how to reach you.
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
Appendix A: Home Builders Survey
20
45.71%16
54.29%19
Q1 Would you want access to clean scrap dimensional lumber left over
from new construction projects in Jefferson County for use in biochar
production?
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 35
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
21
55.00%11
30.00%6
5.00%1
10.00%2
Q2 How many trailer loads of material would you want in a given year?
Answered: 20 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 20
1
Up to 5
Up to 10
More than 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1
Up to 5
Up to 10
More than 10
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
22
37.04%10
62.96%17
Q3 Would you be willing to load and haul the material yourself at a
designated site at the Jefferson County Transfer Station located off Jacob
Miller Rd.?
Answered: 27 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 27
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
23
26.92%7
73.08%19
Q4 Would you be willing to load and haul the material yourself at a
designated site at the Quilcene Drop Box Facility?
Answered: 26 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 26
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
24
73.08%19
26.92%7
Q5 Would you be willing to accept the material at your farm if it was
delivered to you?
Answered: 26 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 26
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
25
23.08%6
76.92%20
Q6 Would you be willing to collect the material at a construction jobsite?
Answered: 26 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 26
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
26
59.26%16
40.74%11
Q7 Would you be willing to pay a small handling fee if the material was
made available to you at a County facility?
Answered: 27 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 27
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
27
47.06%8
35.29%6
11.76%2
5.88%1
0.00%0
Q8 If you would be willing to pay a handling fee at a County facility, how
much would you be willing to pay for a trailer load?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 18
TOTAL 17
$5
$10
$15
$20
More than $20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
$5
$10
$15
$20
More than $20
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
28
79.17%19
20.83%5
Q9 Would you be willing to share with Public Works the number of loads
you used in a year so that Public Works could estimate the amount of
wood kept out of a landfill?
Answered: 24 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 24
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
29
100.00%11
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%11
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%11
90.91%10
Q10 May we contact you if you would like to be notified of available scrap
wood?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 24
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
Appendix B Agricultural Survey
30