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