Zero Waste and the Incinerator Moratorium
Post on 21-Nov-2014
491 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Sylvia Broude
Execu1ve Director, Toxics Ac1on Center
MASSRECYCLE R3 Conference Plenary Remarks -‐ Zero Waste and the Incinerator Moratorium
Case against li7ing the incinerator moratorium:
• High heat gasifica1on and other forms of staged incinera1on are incinera1on and have similar environmental impacts
• Gasifica1on, plasma arc, and pyrolysis are pollu1ng and threaten public health
• These technologies do not work: they have a history of economic and technological failures
• Gasifica1on competes with recycling • We can solve our waste problem in-‐state without expanding incinera1on
“Disposal of waste carries a significant cost to the economy and the environment, and represents lost opportuni9es.” -‐MassDEP Dra7 Solid Waste Master Plan, 2010
An incinerator is an incinerator is an incinerator
Comparing mass burn and staged incinerators (gasificaIon, plasma arc, pyrolysis)
• Very similar concerns around: types of emissions, impact on zero waste approaches, waste of resources and energy, jobs, climate
• Staged incinerators may have less air emissions than mass burn incinerators (but the same pollutants)
• Staged incinerators would likely have less boRom ash than mass burn incinerators
• Staged incinerators would likely cost more than mass burn, and thus have more financial risk
“Many of the perceived benefits of gasification and pyrolysis over combustion technology proved to be unfounded. These perceptions have arisen mainly from inconsistent comparisons in the absence of quality information.”
The Viability of Advanced Thermal Treatment in the UK, Fichtner Consulting Engineers Limited, 2004, p.4
Staged incineraIon is polluIng and harmful to public health
• Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, and mercury, halogenated hydrocarbons, acid gases, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds such as dioxin and furans
• Nano-particles or ultrafines • Solid, liquid, gaseous releases • Discharges to surface and groundwater that may be highly toxic • Have been accidents and unexpectedly high emissions released in
operating facilities (see examples to follow)
GasificaIon is a polluIng technology
6 -‐ 12
15 -‐ 30
50 -‐ 100
Findings in report on Plasco Energy demonstraIon pilot project:
• They say “there are no air emissions during the conversion of the waste to synthe1c fuel gas,” but during their pilot program 2008-‐2010, they documented:
• 29 non-‐compliant emissions incidents • 13 non-‐compliant spills • Their picture/ar1st’s rendering is misleading,
doesn’t include a smokestack • They only operated 25% of the 1me • They used MSW mixed with “high carbon feed” = plas1c
“Plasco's demonstraIon facility is sIll in what they're calling a "campaign" phase, and hasn't operated in a sustained manner.”
GasificaIon faciliIes have a history of economic and operaIonal failure
No commercial facili,es in the United States have succeeded at using gasifica,on, plasma arc or pyrolysis to generate energy from MSW. Pilots and plants worldwide have been plagued with problems.
This is because of two problems inherent in MSW gasificaIon: 1. Gasifica1on needs a consistent, homogenous material for
feedstock – which garbage is not
2. MSW does not have enough high-‐carbon material to produce energy or fuel – especially if all the paper, cardboard, and plas1c were removed for recycling.
GasificaIon facility closes because of bankruptcy
¨ “The performance record is poor as demonstrated by the continuing problems in operation of Thermoselect and others (billed as Thermodefect by DerSpiegel) together with the failures of high profile projects like SWERF and GEM; the delays with Novera at Dagenham and the lack of development of even the relatively promising plants like Compact Power.”[2]
[2] European Commission (2006). Integrated Pollu1on Preven1on and Control Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incinera1on.
Gasifica1on competes with recycling
• Records from gasifica,on plants and pilots overseas and in North America indicate that industrial waste, plas,cs, or other materials are added to MSW to make fuel or electricity.
A chart of recycling and incinera1on from the five regions of Denmark shows an inverse rela1onship between recycling and incinera1on
Environment Commissioner: “Don’t Burn Recyclable Plas1cs”
“Perhaps Sweden has gone too far down the incinera,on route and is not recovering enough materials by recycling.” -‐ Catarina Ostlund, Swedish Environmental Protec1on Agency.
We won’t have a capacity problem if MassDEP enforces and strengthens exisIng regulaIons
• For waste bans, a history of lack of enforcement – Recently, the South Hadley Board of Health documented viola1ons of waste ban regula1ons by haulers and the landfill operator and complained to DEP.
– DEP issued a no1ce of non-‐compliance but no penalty.
Problems with waste ban compliance: not only limited to the South Hadley landfill • Since August 2009, DEP has issued only 3 financial penal1es
• With approximately 230 waste disposal facili1es in MassachuseRs, in 2010 DEP conducted only 8 waste ban inspec1ons dedicated to waste ban compliance; in 2011 only 5 waste ban inspec1ons, in 2012 only 8.
• Because no ‘ac1on threshold’ for banned material has been established for a garbage truckload, according to the current waste ban compliance guidance, a truck that is 2/3 full of banned material can s1ll pass a waste ban inspec1on. Fortunately, DEP is working to strengthen waste ban regs and enforcement.
Enforcement is also cheaper
• Developing disposal facili1es uses public money. – By 2010, Taunton, MA had reportedly spent at least 5 million dollars on land, consultants, and lawyers to develop a gasifica1on plant that three years later has not been designed or built.
– If garbage gasifica1on plants are allowed, DEP will have to develop regula1ons for facility performance, review proposals and draj permits, hire consultants and monitor facili1es. DEP resources would be beRer spent on waste reduc1on programs.
MassDEP’s own consultant recommended against lijing the
incinerator moratorium • A report by the Tellus Ins1tute, commissioned by MassDEP, advised that MassachuseRs should not pursue gasificaIon in the Solid Waste Master Plan, 2010-‐2020.
• www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priori1es/tellusmmr.pdf, p1.
MassachuseRs can be a leader na1onwide by adop1ng zero waste
• There are ci1es and towns in MassachuseRs that are leading the way at waste reduc1on and recycling: curbside pick-‐up of organics in Hamilton and Wenham, 90% diversion in Nantucket, etc.
• Incinera1on is a bad approach to address the problem of residual waste (material that cannot be reused or recycled)
• Expanding incinera1on is out of step with zero waste, a move in the wrong direc1on
www.toxicsacIon.org
top related