Blowing Smoke Report

7/31/2019 Blowing Smoke Report

1/40

An Industry

BlowIng smoke10 ra wh gaifcai, Pi & Paa Iciai

a n g si

June 2009


2/40

An Industry BlowIng smoke.aiaba.ibi. [email protected].

June 2009

AutHorDavid CipleGlbal Alliace f Iciea Aleaives1958 Uivesiy AveueBekeley, CA 94704510-883-9490 www.gaiaglbal.rg

[email protected]

ContrIButors

Mnica Wilsn, Neil Tangri, Kell Heekin, Ananda Lee Tan, Glbal Alliance fr Incineratr Alternaties;Slia Brde, Tics Actin Center; Bradle Angel, Greenactin fr Health and Enirnmental Jstice;Daid Micke, Ble Ridge Enirnmental Defense Leage; Neil Seldman, Institte fr Lcal Self Reliance;Mike Ewall, Energ Jstice Netwrk; Jane Williams, Califrnia Cmmnities Against Tics;Dr. Mark Mitchell, Cnnectict Calitin fr Enirnmental Jstice; Andrew Hpper, Hsiers fr a SafeEnirnment; Ssie Caplwe, J Ezell, Dr. Rnald Saff, Flridians Against Incineratrs in Disgise;Sheila Drmd, Clean Water Actin; Lnne Pledger, The Sierra Clb Zer Waste Cmmittee.

Co-releAsed By

Ble Ridge Enirnmental Defense Leage www.bredl.rg

Califrnia Cmmnities Against Tics www.stptics.rg

Clean Water Actin www.cleanwateractin.rg

Energ Jstice Netwrk www.energjstice.net

Cnnectict Calitin fr Enirnmental Jstice www.enirnmental-jstice.rg

Glbal Alliance fr Incineratr Alternaties www.n-brn.rg

Greenactin fr Health and Enirnmental Jstice www.greenactin.rg

Tics Actin Center www.ticsactin.rg

Cover PHoto

Stericcle Incineratr, Haw Rier, Nrth Carlina. Pht crtes f Healthcare Witht Harm.

desIgn And PrIntIng

Design Actin Cllectie, CA. Printed n 100% Pst-Cnsmer Waste paper at Cllectie Cpies, MA.

Bth shps are ninized, wrker-wned cperaties.

An part f this reprt can be reprdced and distribted in naltered frm fr nn-cmmercial se with prperacknwledgement.

Glbal Alliance fr Incineratr Alternaties (GAIA). All rights resered.


3/40

Global alliance for incinerator alternatives 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ExECuTIvE SuMMARy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

IntroDUCtIon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

REASoN #1: Harmfl t pblic health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

REASoN #2: Reglatins dnt ensre safet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

REASoN #3: A track recrd plaged b malfnctins, eplsins and sht-dwns . . . . . . . . . .14

REASoN #4: Nt cmpatible with waste preentin, rese, reccling and cmpsting . . . . . . .15

REASoN #5: Epensie and nanciall risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

REASoN #6: Waste-t-energ is a waste f energ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

REASoN #7: Deplete resrces and permanentl damage the natral enirnment . . . . . . . . .21

REASoN #8: Cntribte t climate change and ndermine climate-friendl sltins . . . . . . . .23

REASoN #9: Reqire large inestment, bt create few jbs cmpared t reccling andcmpsting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

REASoN #10: Icieai is avidable ad uecessay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APPENDIx A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

ENDNoTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


4/40

2 an industry blowinG smoke

The term staged incineration reerenced by Fichtner Consult-

ing Engineers (2004)2 is used in this report to reer to gasica-tion, pyrolysis and plasma incineration technologies. All o

these technologies utilize a multi-step process that results in

incineration. The ollowing is a summary o the ten reasons

addressed in this report why gasication, pyrolysis and plasma

incineration are not green solutions as claimed by industry

representatives:

Reason #1: Wh cmprd t cvtil m bur

icirtr, tgd icirtr mit cmprbl lvl

txic mii.

The European Commissions Integrated Pollution Prevention and

Control Reerence Document on the Best Available Technologies orWaste Incinerationound that ...emission levels or releases to

air rom the combustion stage o such [gasication and pyroly-

sis] installations are the same as those established or incinera-

tion installations.3

Overall, identied emissions rom staged incinerators include

particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy

metals, dioxins, sulur dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, car-

bon dioxide and urans.45 Even small amounts o some o these

toxins can be harmul to human health and the environment.

Mercury, or example, is a powerul and widespread neurotoxinthat impairs motor, sensory and cognitive unctions.6 Dioxin is

the most potent carcinogen known to humankindto which

there is no known sae level o exposure.7 Health impacts o

dioxin include cancer,8 disrupted sexual development, birth

deects, immune system damage, behavioral disorders and

altered sex ratios.9 Incineration o municipal solid waste is a

leading human-made source o dioxins in the United States.10

Particularly at high risk o exposure to dioxin and other con-

taminants are workers at incinerators11 and people living near

incinerators,121314 but the toxic impacts o incineration are ar-

reaching: persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as dioxins

and urans travel thousands o miles and accumulate in animalsand humans. Contaminants are also distributed when ood

produced near incinerators is shipped to other communities.15

In all incineration technologies, air pollution control devices are

mainly devices that capture and concentrate the toxic pollut-

ants; they dont eliminate them. By capturing and concentrating

the pollutants, pollutants are transerred to other environmental

media such as fy ash, char, slag, and waste water.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Studes that have cmpehesvely eveed asfcat, pylyss ad plasma -

ceats have ud that they pvde lttle t beeft he cmpaed t mass

bu ceats, hle be a eve ske vestmet.F example, the Fcht-

e Csult Eees ept The Viability of Advanced Thermal Treatment in

the UK cmmssed by the Uted Kdm Evmetal Sevces Ta

2004 states that, May the peceved beefts asfcat ad pylyss ve

cmbust techly pved t be uuded. These pecepts have ase

maly m csstet cmpass the absece qualty mat.1 The

ce mpacts all types ceats ema the same: they ae txc t publc

health, hamul t the ecmy, evmet ad clmate, ad udeme ecycl

ad aste educt pams.


5/40


In many countries, including Canada, France, India, the United

States and United Kingdom, municipalities have rejected

proposals or gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration

technologies because the emissions, economic, and energy ben-

ets claimed by industry representatives have proven to be un-

ounded. As the Palm Beach Postnewspaper reported about the

Geoplasma plasma arc proposal in St. Lucie County, Florida,U.S., The numbers, Commissioner Coward said, were pretty

impressive. He asked or proo. The company couldnt provide

it. The county hired a consultant, who said there is no proo.21

Reason #4: stgd icirti i t cmptibl with

rcyclig; gifcti, pyrlyi d plm icirtr

cmpt r th m fcig d mtril rcyclig

prgrm. Icirti l udrmi rt t miimiz

th prducti txic d urcyclbl mtril.

In order to survive nancially, staged incineration technologies

need a constant supply o both waste and public money in the

orm o long term put or pay contracts. Put or pay incinera-tor contracts require municipalities to pay a predetermined

monthly ee to the incinerator or decades to come, regardless

o whether it makes economic or ecological sense to do so in

the uture. As a result, these contracts destroy the nancial in-

centives or a city to reduce and separate its waste at the source,

and reuse, recycle and compost.

Staged incinerators destroy otherwise recyclable and com-

postable materials. U.S. EPA data shows that approximately

90% o materials disposed in U.S. incinerators and landlls are

recyclable and compostable materials.22 Similarly, even with a

citywide recycling rate at over 70%, the San Francisco Depart-ment o Environment 2006 Waste Characterization Studyound

that two-thirds o the remaining materials that are being dis-

posed o are readily recyclable and compostable materials.23 As

the San Francisco City and County Environment Director said

in a 2009 press release, I we captured everything going to

landll that could have been recycled or composted, wed have a

90 percent recycling rate.24

The high costs and long-term waste contracts o gasication,

pyrolysis and plasma incinerators also undermine eorts to

minimize theproductiono toxic and unrecyclable materials.

The small percentage o materials let over ater maximum

recycling, reuse and compostingcalled residuals are oten

toxic, complex and have low energy value. Staged incineration

is not an appropriate strategy to deal with this portion o the

waste stream. Doing so creates harmul emissions, can acilitate

operational issues, provides little to no energy value, and un-

dermines eorts to minimize waste. A more practical approach

is to cost-eectively and saely contain the small unrecyclable

percentage o the waste, study it, and implement extended

producer responsibility and other regulations and incentives so

Reason #2: emii limit r icirtr (icludig

m bur, gifcti, pyrlyi d plm icirti)

dt ur ty. al, mii rm icirtr r

t murd ufcitly d thu vrll mii lvl

rprtd c b mildig. I dditi, mii limit r

t lwy dqutly rcd.

First, emissions standards tend not to be based on what is scien-

tically sae or public health, but on what is determined to be

technologically easible or a given source o pollution. As the

U.S. EPA itsel has written, Since EPA could not clearly dene

a sae level o exposure to these cancer-causing pollutants, it

became almost impossible to issue regulations.16 Instead, U.S.

EPA standards were created solely to require emitters to use

the best control technologies already demonstrated by industry

sources.17 As a result, these standards allow or the release o

unsae levels o harmul pollutants such as dioxins, mercury and

lead. Additionally, these inadequate standards only regulate a

handul o the thousands o known pollutants, and do not takeinto account the exposure to multiple chemicals at the same

time. These are called synergistic impacts and have countless

harmul eects on health and the environment. Second, emis-

sions rom incinerators are not measured suciently. The most

dangerous known pollutants, such as dioxin and mercury, are

rarely monitored on a continuous or accurate basis in gaseous,

solid and liquid emissions rom incinerators. Thus overall emis-

sions levels reported can be misleading. Third, emission limits

that do exist are not always adequately enorced. Existing in-

cinerators are sometimes allowed to continue to operate despite

emission limit violations.

Reason #3: Gifcti, pyrlyi d plm icir-tr hv diml trck-rcrd plgud by mlucti,

xpli d hut-dw.

Many operational problems at staged incinerators have proven

costly and dangerous or the communities where such acilities

have been constructed. For example, Thermoselects Karlsruhe,

Germany incineratorone o the largest municipal solid waste

gasication incinerators in the worldwas orced to close down

permanently in 2004 due to years o operational problems and

loses totaling over $400 million Euros.18 Operational problems

included an explosion, cracks in the reactor siding due to tem-

peratures and corrosion, a leaking waste water basin, a leakingsediment basin that held cyanide-contaminated wastewater, and

orced closure ater uncontrolled releases o toxic gases were

discovered.19 Likewise, in 1998, a state-o-the-art pyrolysis

incinerator in Furth, Germany that was processing municipal

solid waste suered a major ailure, resulting in the release o

pyrolysis gas into the air. An entire neighborhood had to be

evacuated, and some residents in the surrounding community

were brought to the hospital or observation.20


6/40


by recycling exceeds that created by landll gases or the

energy harnessed rom thermal conversion technologies.29

Promoters o gasication, pyrolysis and plasma arc incinerators

claim that these technologies have higher energy eciency rates

than mass burn incinerators, but these claims are unounded. In

act, the United Kingdom Fichtner Consulting Engineers reportThe Viability o Advanced Thermal Treatmentound that, The

conversion eciencies or the gasication and pyrolysis tech-

nologies reviewed were generally lower than that achievable by

a modern [mass burn] combustion process.30 Other researchers

and journalists have ound that some staged incineration plants

have not been successul in producing more electricity than

they consume in the process.

The issue o energy ineciency lies with the undamental

nature o staged incineration technologies. First, gasication,

pyrolysis and plasma incinerators oten require pretreatment

processes to prepare the wastes such as shredding and dry-

ing; these processes can consume signicant quantities energy.Second, unlike mass burn incinerators which rely on oxygen to

keep the re burning, the starved-oxygen environments used in

these technologies requires additional input o energy to main-

tain the process. This energy input is generated by the combus-

tion o ossil uels such as natural gas and oil, and by the use o

heat and electricity generated by the incineration process.

Reason #7: Icirtig dicrdd mtril dplt r-

urc d i my c prmtly dmg th turl

virmt.

The large volume o waste disposed in landlls and incinerators

around the world is not sustainable. In the past three decades

alone, one-third o the planets natural resource base has been

consumed.31 Incinerators contribute to the environmental crisis

by cornering large amounts o public money or the purpose o

long-term disposal o diminishing natural resources. Resolving

the environmental crisis requires that municipalities invest in

preventing waste and reusing, recycling and composting materi-

als currently disposed in incinerators and landlls.

It is vital that biodegradable (biomass) materials immediately

cease to be put into landlls, where these materials decompose in

conditions that generate potent greenhouse gas emissions. Like-

wise, incinerating biodegradable and other materials contributesgreenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. For

the health o the climate and the soil, it makes ar more sense to

prevent waste and compost, anaerobically digest or recycle biode-

gradable materials than to incinerate or landll them.

An emerging technology called anaerobic digestion shows

promising signs or saely and sustainably processing source

separated biodegradable discardswhile simultaneously gen-

erating energy. As the 2008 Tellus Institute reportAssessment

that these products and materials are phased out o production

and replaced with sustainable practices.

Reason #5:stgd icirtr r t v mr x-

piv d fcilly riky th m bur icirtr.

The public bears the nancial burden o all types o incinera-

tion. Costs to local governments are high, and communitiesend up paying with tax money and public health costs. Alterna-

tively, recycling and composting make more sense economically

than either incineration or landlling.

Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration are oten even

more expensive and nancially risky than already costly conven-

tional mass burn incinerators. The United Kingdom Fitchtner

Consulting Engineers report The Viability o Advanced Thermal

Treatmentound that, there is no reason to believe that these

technologies [gasication and pyrolysis] are any less expensive

than combustion and it is likely, rom inormation available, that

the more complex processes are signicantly more expensive.25

One example o higher costs are the proposed tipping ee esti-

mates provided by gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerator

companies to Los Angeles County, Caliornia, US in 2005. The

estimated tipping ees are two to our times greater than the

average U.S. incinerator tipping ee.26

Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators also present

nancial risk due to an operational history plagued by mal-

unctions, an inability to produce electricity reliability, regular

shut-downs and explosions. As the European Commission 2006

report concludes, At the time o writing, the additional tech-

nological risk associated with the adoption o gasication andpyrolysis or many wastes, remains signicantly greater than

that or better proven, incineration type thermal treatments.27

Reason #6: Icirtr ifcitly cptur mll

mut rgy by dtryig dimiihig rurc.

Gifcti, pyrlyi d plm icirtr r v l

fcit t grtig lctricity th m bur icirtr.

Incinerator power plants ineciently generate electricity

through the combustion o waste and/or waste gases. In terms

o overall energy benet, it is always preerable to recycle mate-

rials rather than incinerate them. Recycling saves three to ve

times the amount o energy that incinerator power plants gener-ate.28As the 2008 Tellus Institute reportAssessment o Materials

Management Options or the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master

Plan Reviewcommissioned by the Massachusetts Department

o Environmental Protection explains:

Recycling saves energy, reduces raw material extraction, and

has benecial climate impacts by reducing CO2 and other

greenhouse gas emissions. Per ton o waste, the energy saved


7/40


Incinerator companies oten do not count CO2

emissions re-

leased rom biomass combustion and claim that these emissions

are climate neutral. They claim that this is consistent with the

protocol established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC). This is not accurate. The IPCC clearly states

that biomass burning or energy can notbe automatically con-

sidered carbon neutral even i the biomass is harvested sustain-ably.40 The IPCC also clearly states that incinerating biomass is

notCO2

neutral or carbon neutral. Ignoring emissions rom

incinerating biomass ails to account or liecycle releases in

CO2caused when materials are incinerated rather than con-

served, reused, recycled or composted.

Reason #9: all typ icirtr rquir lrg

mut cpitl ivtmt, but thy crt rltivly w

jb wh cmprd t rcyclig d cmptig prgrm.

Recycling industries provide employment benets that ar

outpace that o waste incinerators and landlls. The U.S. EPA

has said that, or every 100 recycling jobs created, just 10jobs were lost in the solid waste industry, and three jobs were

lost in the timber harvesting industry.41 There is no specic job

data or staged incinerator technologies available, but it is likely

that job prospects or these acilities would be similar to mass

burn incinerators. Because incinerators compete with recycling

programs or the same unding and materials, constructing a

gasication, pyrolysis or plasma incinerator can undermine job

creation opportunities.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys U.S. Recycling

Economic Inormation Studyound that recycling industries

already provide more than 1.1 million jobs in the U.S., whichis comparable in size to that o the U.S. auto manuacturing

and machinery manuacturing industries.42 Recycling industries

generate an annual payroll o nearly $37 billion and gross over

$236 billion in annual revenue.43 With a meager 34% national

recycling rate in the U.S., there is great potential or what can

still be achieved or workers and the economy through greater

materials reuse. The quality o recycling jobs is not guaran-

teed. In some locations where worker rights are not protected,

recycling jobs can be unsae and low paying. However, employ-

ment conditions can be signicantly improved when workers

are unionized.

Regions that have made commitments to increase recycling

rather than disposal are realizing tangible benets to their local

economies. For instance, because the state o Caliornia, U.S.,

requires the recycling and reuse o 50 percent o all municipal

solid waste, recycling accounts or 85,000 jobs and generates

$4 billion in salaries and wages.44 Similarly, according to a 2007

Detroit City Council report, a 50 percent recycling rate in

Detroit would likely result in the creation o more than 1,000

new jobs in that city alone.45 Greater public investment in

o Materials Management Options or the Massachusetts Solid

Waste Master Plan Reviewcommissioned by the Massachusetts

Department o Environmental Protection concludes:

The prospects or anaerobic digestion acilities appear to be

more avorable [than gasication and pyrolysis] given the

extensive experience with such acilities in the U.S. or theprocessing o sewage sludge and arm waste and the act that

no signicant human health or environmental impacts have

been cited in the literature. Moreover, since anaerobic diges-

tion is more similar to composting than high-temperate

combustion, its risks are expected to be akin to composting,

which is considered low-risk.32

Reason #8: stgd icirti tchlgi ctribut

t climt chg, d ivtmt i th tchlgi

udrmi truly climt-ridly luti.

In terms o greenhouse gas emissions released per ton o waste

processed, recycling is a much preerable strategy to staged in-cineration. As the ndings o the Tellus Institute report reveal:

On a per ton basis, recycling saves more than seven times

eCO2

33 than landlling, and almost 18 times eCO2

reduc-

tions rom gasication/pyrolysis acilities.34

Mass burn incinerators emit more CO2

per unit o electricity

generated than coal-red power plants.35 Incinerators also emit

indirect greenhouse gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), ni-

trogen oxide (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds

(NMVOCs), and sulur dioxide (SO2).3637 Gasication, py-

rolysis and plasma incinerators are even less ecient generators

o electricity than mass burn incinerators, and require inputs oadditional ossil uel-derived uels and/or electricity to operate,

and energy or the pre-processing o materials. As a result these

incinerators may have an even larger climate ootprint than

conventional mass burn incinerators.

U.S. incinerators are among the top 15 major sources o direct

greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that are listed in the US

EPAs most recent inventory o US greenhouse gas emissions.38

Far greater than the impact o greenhouse gas emissions released

rom incinerators is the liecycle climate impact o incinerating

rather than preventing waste and reusing, recycling or compost-

ing materials. For every item that is incinerated or landlled, anew one must be created rom raw virgin resources rather than

reused materials.

For biodegradable materials, source separation o materials

ollowed by composting and/or anaerobic digestion allows

insignicant ugitive methane releases to the environment, and,

overall, yields ar ewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than

landlls and incinerators.39


8/40


wards achieving Zero Waste. These cities are building recycling

and composting parks, implementing innovative collection

systems, requiring products to be made in ways that are sae

or people in the planet, and creating locally-based green-collar

jobs.A variety o policies, such as Extended Producer Responsi-

bility, Clean Production, packaging taxes, and material- specic

bans (such as plastic bags, styrooam, PCBs, etc.) have proveneective at reducing and eliminating problematic materials in

dierent locales.

Supporting Zero Waste requires ending subsidies or waste proj-

ects such as staged incineration that contaminate environments

and the people who live in them, and instead investing in in-

novative waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs. Besides

saving resources and money, and generating more jobs or local

communities, Zero Waste produces ar less pollution than waste

disposal techniques, including global warming pollution.

reuse rather than disposal o valuable discarded materials could

spark a green economy in countries around the world, restoring

much-needed quality unionized jobs to communities.

Reason #10: Wtig vlubl turl rurc i ici-

rtr d ldfll i vidbl d ucry.

The vast majority o discarded resources can be reused, recycledor composted.46 Residual materials that are too toxic or complex

to recycle can and should be required to be made so that they

are recyclable, built to last, and non-toxic. To do so requires a

commitment to work or what is known as Zero Waste.

Zero Waste means establishing a goal and a plan to invest in

the inrastructure, workorce, and local strategies needed to

eliminate our dependence on incinerators and landlls. Cit-

ies around the world, including Buenos Aires (Argentina),

Canberra (Australia), Oakland (U.S.), Nova Scotia (Canada),

Seattle (U.S.) and others, have already made great progress to-


9/40


However, these technologies are classied as incinerators by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency47 and the European

Union.48 The term staged incineration reerenced by Fichtner

Consulting Engineers (2004)49 is used in this report to reer

to gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration. All o these

technologies utilize a multi-step process that combines high

heat ollowed by combustion. Staged incinerators processing

municipal solid waste (MSW) release dioxins, heavy metals, car-

bon dioxide, and other harmul pollutants into the air, soil and

water.50,51 Many municipalities around the world have rejected

proposals or these technologies because the benets purported

by industry representatives have not been supported by acts.

Other municipalities have invested in these technologies only

to nd that they have been plagued by high costs, operational

ailures, harmul emissions and an inability to reliably produce

electricity.

Studies that have comprehensively reviewed staged incinerators

have ound that they provide little to no benet when comparedto mass burn incinerators, while being an even riskier investment.

For example, the Fichtner Consulting Engineers report The Vi-

ability o Advanced Thermal Treatment in the UKcommissioned

by the United Kingdom Environmental Services Training in

2004 states that, Many o the perceived benets o gasication

and pyrolysis over combustion technology proved to be un-

ounded. These perceptions have arisen mainly rom inconsistent

comparisons in the absence o quality inormation.52

Similarly, the Tellus Institute reportAssessment o Materials

Management Options or the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master


o Environmental Protection in 2008 concludes that, gasica-

tion and pyrolysis acilities are unlikely to play a major role in

MSW management in Massachusetts [U.S.] by 2020 due to

the ollowing issues:

the lack o experience in the U.S. with large-scale alternative

technology acilities successully processing mixed MSW

and generating energy; the long lead times to plan, site, con-

struct, and permit such acilities; the signicant capital costs

required and the loss o solid waste management fexibility

that is associated with the long-term contractual arrange-

ments that such capital-intensive acilities require; and the

relatively small benet with respect to greenhouse gas emis-

sions compared to diversion or landlling.53

In act, this study by the Tellus Institute ound that, On a perton basis, recycling saves more than seven times eCO2 than land-

lling, and almost 18 times eCO2 reductions rom gasication/

pyrolysis acilities.54

The core impacts o all types o incinerators are the same: they

are toxic to public health, harmul to the economy, environ-

ment and climate, and damaging to recycling and waste

reduction programs. This document exposes the reality behind

the myths promoted by the gasication, pyrolysis and plasma

Introduction

A nEw gEnErATion aste ceatscalled asfcat, pylyss adplasma ( plasma ac) ae be ppsed cmmutes aud the ld. Cm-

paes pmt these techles clam that they ca saely, cst-eectvely ad

sustaably tu may deet types mucpal, medcal, dustal ad the

aste mateals t electcty ad uels. May cmpaes s a as t clamthat the techly s ee, pllut-ee, pduces eeable eey

ad s t, act, ceat at all.


10/40


The core impactso all types oincinerators remainthe same: they are

toxic to publichealth, harmulto the economy,environmentand climate,and damaging torecycling and wastereduction programs.

gases and oils to create liquid uels to be combusted in vehicles

or industrial acilities o-site.

The major variations between gasication, pyrolysis and plasma

incineration technologies have to do with the dierent tem-

perature levels used in the processes and the amount o air or

oxygen present. Precise denitions o these technologies are notclearly established and there is a lack o consistency across the

industry in the use o each term. The three processes can be

roughly dened as ollows:

Gifcti: The rapid thermal decomposi-

tion o material by partial oxidation through

the addition o limited amounts o air or

oxygen. Moderate temperatures are typically

above 750 C.

Pyrlyi: The rapid thermal decomposition

o material without the addition o air or

oxygen (although there is inevitably oxygenpresent in the waste materials themselves).

The temperature range is approximately

250700 C.

Plm: The rapid thermal decomposition

o material by partial oxidation through the

addition o limited amounts o air or oxygen.

This technology uses electrical energy and

high heat with temperatures ranging ap-

proximately rom 10004500 C. Plasma is

usually described as being part o a gasica-

tion system.

In general, pyrolysis uses less air or oxygen

in the process and lower temperatures than

gasication. As a result, (in addition to syngas produced) other

byproducts in addition to gases can vary; char and pyrolysis

oil are produced through pyrolysis, rather than bottom ash

produced through gasication. In addition, high temperature

gasication and plasma gasication or plasma arc gasication

can produce a vitried slag residue.

There are several major stages which generally occur in the pro-

cesses o gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerator technolo-

gies, which are summarized in the table below. Note that theprocesses or dierent technologie can vary.

incinerator industry and provides ten reasons why staged in-

cineration is not the green solution oten claimed by industry

representatives.

What are gasifcation, pyrolysis and

plasma incinerators?TherearemanydifferenTkinds o incinerator technologies

and many dierent combinations o materi-

al eedstocks that are processed by incinera-

tors. (A list o technologies and eedstocks

are presented in appendix A). This report

ocuses on staged incineration technologies

including gasication, pyrolysis and plasma,

which are utilized to incinerate a variety o

material eedstocks such as municipal solid

waste, medical waste, industrial waste and

biomass. Like mass burn incinerators, gas-ication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators

turn discarded materials into solid byprod-

ucts (such as ash, slag and char), liquid

discharges, and gaseous emissions and heat

which can be used to generate electricity.

There are notable process dierences

between conventional mass burn incinera-

tors and staged incinerators. In basic terms,

while mass burn incinerators combust waste

in one single chamber in an oxygenated

environment, gasication, pyrolysis and

plasma incinerators heat waste materials in

one chamber with limited oxygen present,

and then combust the released waste gases (and char and other

solid byproducts in the case o some staged incinerators) in a

separate chamber.

Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators typically utilize

either a steam or a gas turbine to generate electricity. Steam

powered technologies generate electricity by combusting waste

gases to create heat; using the heat to create steam; and then

using the steam to power a turbine. Gas powered technologies

generate electricity by combusting waste gases in a gas-red

engine, which then directly powers a turbine. In addition tothese processes, some companies claim that they can use waste


11/40


CHART #1: Staged Incineratin Prcesses

sa wa mai-

a a Fc Ppa-

ai(Actiities sch as srting,shredding, blending anddring)

Sme metals can be srted tad sld ecycles

In sme sstems slid char rcke bprdct is cmbstedand/r gasied t prdce elec-tricit (reslts in gases, slidand liqid emissins)

Slids (ash, slag, char) treatedand sent t landll

Wastewater treated and sent tlandll, sewage, and enirn-ment

Wastewater treated and sent tlandll, sewage and enirn-ment

Cntaminants remed frmgases b plltin cntrl ss-tem g t landll

Heat and/r electricit ccledback int sstem as pwersuce

When feasible, electricit sldt grid

Gases emissins releasedint air inclding carbn mn-ide, carbn diide, hdr-gen, particlate matter, latilerganic cmpnds, heametals, diins, slfr diide,hdrchlric acid, mercr, andfuas

Cntaminants remed frmgases and sbstances sed inthe plltin cntrl sstemsent t landll

wa maia Ip

Hai a i

x-pi chab(Gasicatin, prlsis,plasma prcess)

Cai a ci

a a

wa a cbi

ca ciciSteam r gas-pweredubie(Sme staged incineratrshae an additinal stage fcmbstin r gasicatin fslid char/ cke bprdct)

Ai Pi dicGases emissins gthrgh cleaning lters andthen t the smkestack

e IpFssil fel deried energ

e IpFssil fel deried energand electricit generatedfrm waste gas cmbstin

wa Ip

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2

2


12/40


Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration companies otenclaim that their technologies do not have toxic consequences or

communities and the environment. However, studies show that,

when compared to conventional mass burn incinerators, staged

incinerators emit comparable levels o toxic emissions. For ex-

ample, the European Commissions Integrated Pollution Preven-

tion and Control Reerence Document on the Best Available Tech-

nologies or Waste Incinerationound that ...emission levels or

releases to air rom the combustion stage o such [gasication

and pyrolysis] installations are the same as those established or

incineration installations.55 Similarly a 2008 Tellus Institute re-

port commissioned by the Massachusetts Department o Envi-

ronmental Protection ound that, Pyrolysis produces low levelso air emissions containing particulate matter, volatile organic

compounds, heavy metals, dioxins, sulur dioxide, hydrochloric

acid, mercury, and urans. (The types o emissions produced are

similar to those rom conventional incinerators.)56 Moreover,

environmental regulatory agencies anticipate the same catego-

ries o releases rom these types o incinerators.

Studies show that dioxins are created in plasma,57 pyrolysis58,59

and gasication60 incinerators. The 2009 studyComparison

between emissions rom the pyrolysis and combustion o dierent

wastesthat appeared in the Journal o Applied and Analyti-

cal Pyrolysis, ound that pyrolysis incineration can lead to an

increase in total toxicity including dioxin and uran ormation.

The study says, The ormation o PCDD/Fs [dioxin and

urans] is important in both combustion and pyrolysis process-

es. In pyrolysis, there can be a signicant increase o congeners

and/or an increase o the total toxicity due to the redistribution

o the chlorine atoms to the most toxic congeners.61

Similarly, a 1997 study published in the journal Chemosphere

that examined a commercial scale German municipal waste

gasication system operating under pyrolysis conditions, oundthat dioxins and urans were indeed ormed in the process, with

particularly high levels in liquid residues.62 And a 2001 study

published in Chemosphere examined the ormation o dioxins

and urans under pyrolysis conditions and concluded that even

at oxygen concentrations lower than 2 percent, considerable

amounts o highly toxic polychlorinated dioxins and urans

were ormed.63

In the Whitepaper on the Use o Plasma Arc Technology to Treat

Municipal Solid Waste, the Florida Department o Environmen-

tal Protection (in the U.S.)states its concerns about the pollut-

ants that can be ormed by plasma incineration. It says:

There is considerable uncertainty about the quality o the

syngas to be produced by this technologywhen processing

MSW. While the high temperatures can destroy organics,

some undesirablecompounds, like dioxins and urans, can

reorm at temperature ranges between 450 and 850 degrees

Fi chlorine is present.64

Likewise, data rom the Caliornia South Coast Air Quality

Management District ound that the pilot pyrolysis plant in

Romoland, CA emitted signicantly greater concentrations o

dioxins, NOx, volatile organic compounds and particulate mat-

ter (PM10) than the two aging mass burn incinerators in theLos Angeles area.65

Some companies claim that they will process waste to create a gas

or uel that can be combusted o-site to power vehicles or other

industries. Currently, the author knows o no commercial acility

in the world that is successully producing a liquid uel rom

municipal solid waste gasication, pyrolysis or plasma processing.

However, i a uel were to be produced rom such a acility the

health risks could be even greater than acilities where combus-

Reason #1: Gifci, prli plm icirr (lik m br

icirr) cmi ppl virm wi xic ccr-

cig g, liqi li rl.

IndustRy Myth: Gifci, prli plm icirr r

plli-r.

10 Reasons Why GASIFICATION, PYROLYSIS & PLASMAIncineration are Not the Green Solutions Oten Claimed byIndustry Representatives


13/40


tion occurs on site. This is because combustion o gases and/or

uels containing toxins such as dioxin and heavy metals could

occur in o-site industries and vehicles that may be even less

stringently monitored and regulated than incinerators.

Thomas Cahill, an air pollution expert and retired UC Davis

physics proessor cautioned in a 2008 Sacramento Bee newspa-per article about a proposed plasma arc incinerator or Sacra-

mento, CA, that the environmental concerns extend beyond

what comes out o the plant stack to the saety o the gas

produced or sale. Cahill says in the article, When that gas is

sold to be burned, say at a power plant, it could emit ultrane

particles o nickel, lead and other toxic metals that can lodge

deep in the lungs, enter the bloodstream and raise the risk o a

heart attackI you were near a power plant that burned this,

you would be in serious trouble.67

Overall, identied emissions rom staged incinerators include

particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavymetals, dioxins, sulur dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury,

carbon dioxide and urans.68,69 Even small amounts o some o

these toxins can be harmul to human health and the environ-

ment. Mercury, or example, is a powerul and widespread neu-

rotoxin that impairs motor, sensory and cognitive unctions70,

and dioxin is the most potent carcinogen known to human-

kindto which there is no known sae level o exposure.71

Health impacts o dioxin include cancer,72 disrupted sexual

development, birth deects, immune system damage, behavioral

disorders and altered sex ratios.73 Incineration o municipal

solid waste is a leading source o dioxins in the United States.74

Because emissions released rom staged incinerators are compa-

rable to those released rom mass burn incinerators, comparable

long-term health impacts are likely. Studies show the presence

o elevated levels o dioxin in the blood o people living near

mass burn municipal solid waste incinerators, when compared

to the general population.75,76,77 Particularly at high risk o ex-

posure are workers at incinerators. As the Commission on Lie

Sciences o the National Research Council report Incinerators

and Public Health(2000) states:

Studies o workers at municipal solid-waste incinerators

show that workers are at much higher risk or adverse health

eects than individual residents in the surrounding area.

In the past, incinerator workers have been exposed to high

concentrations o dioxins and toxic metals, particularly lead,

cadmium, and mercury.78

But high levels o dioxins are also ound in ood and dairy

products produced near incinerators, demonstrating that the

toxic impacts o incineration are as ar-reaching as the ship-

ment o that ood to other communities. This is o particular

concern because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

has ound that eating oods such as bee, poultry, sh, milk and

dairy products is the primary source o dioxin exposure.79 These

known pollutants are also not the only cause or concern; there

are also many unidentied and unregulated compounds in

incinerator emissions.

It is also important to consider that in all incineration technolo-gies, air pollution control devices are mainly devices that cap-

ture and concentrate the toxic pollutants; they dont eliminate

them. By capturing and concentrating the pollutants, pollutants

are transerred to other environmental media such as fy ash,

char, slag, and waste water. As Dr. Jorge Emmanuel explains in

the lm Pyrolysis and Gasication as Health Care Waste Manage-

ment Technologies, In one pyrolysis system I examined in the

late 1990s or example, I ound that some o the air emissions

were actually coming out with the waste water through the sew-

er system, so stack tests were not at all representative o all the

air emissions coming out o that particular pyrolysis system.80

Some gasication, pyrolysis and plasma companies claim that

all byproducts are inert and can be saely used or commercial

purposes such as roadbed construction. However, there is con-

siderable uncertainty about the saety o using solid and liquid

residues or commercial purposes due to their high concentra-

tion o toxins; rather, it is likely that these residues must be

landlled. The Florida Department o Environmental Protec-

tion addresses the issue o contaminants in slag produced by

plasma incineration in its Whitepaper on the Use o Plasma Arc

tABle 1: Mass brn s. prlsis: Ls Angeles Sth Cast Air Qalit Management District lbs/tnmnicipal slid waste feed66

PaIes ra Pi Icia-

i

ma B Iciai Aa

(ia)

Co 0.22 0.45

nox 1.60 1.78Sox 0.01 0.04

voC 0.35 0.04

PM10 0.05 0.0046

Diins/Frans 3.6810-8 1.8510-8


14/40


devices, and they travel long distances, penetrate deep into the

lungs, and can carry neurotoxic metals into the brain.87

Some companies claim that they will avoid harmul emissions

by only incinerating clean-burning materials like wood waste

or biomass. However, wood waste oten contains hard-to-detect

contaminants such as pesticides, preservatives, lead paint,copper, creosote and chlorine. Incineration o these materi-

als can result in emissions including dioxins, urans and lead.

Furthermore, economic pressures can encourage incinerator

operators to mix waste materials like tires and plastics into what

is promoted as clean and organic eedstocks, causing increased

levels o air pollution. This is especially true when cleaner uel

sources become short in supply or are less nancially protable

to the plant. For example, in a 2008 Sacramento Bee newspaper

article the assistant city manager o Sacramento, Caliornia,

U.S., Marty Hanneman, is quoted speaking about the eco-

nomic pressure to process toxic materials in a plasma arc acility

proposed or Sacramento. He says o the company U.S. Science& Technology that, They are going to have to look at elec-

tronic waste, tires and medical wastes so that they can charge a

higher ee to put it into the system.88

O particular concern in the United States is a loophole in

ederal regulations that allows or so-called biomass boilers to

incinerate up to 35 tons per day o municipal solid waste with-

out being designated an incinerator and regulated under stricter

incinerator emissions limits.89

Saety related to explosions and systems ailures is another

area o concern. Explosions can be caused by the leakage o

combustible gases rom treatment chambers. Corrosion, tarcontamination o generators, and uel blockages are examples

o other engineering issues o concern. In 1998, or example, a

state-o-the-art pyrolysis incinerator in Furth, Germany that

was processing municipal solid waste suered a major ailure,

resulting in the release o pyrolysis gas into the air. An entire

neighborhood had to be evacuated, and some residents in

the surrounding community were brought to the hospital or

observation.90

In another example o operational dangers, prior to being

shut down in 2004, the Thermoselect gasication incinera-

tor in Karlsruhe, Germany, experienced operational problems

including an explosion, cracks in the reactor siding due to

temperatures and corrosion, a leaking waste water basin, a leak-

ing sediment basin that held cyanide-contaminated wastewater,

and orced closure ater uncontrolled releases o toxic gases were

discovered.91 Likewise, the U.S. ederal court case Peat, Inc. v.

Vanguard Research Inc., cited in the U.S. state o Indiana that

While undergoing Phase I testing in January o 1999, the

plasma energy system designed by PEAT experienced an explo-

sion which blew an 80-pound door o the incinerator. The

ollowing month Peats plasma operation was cancelled.92

Technology to Treat Municipal Solid Waste:

There is considerable uncertainty about the quality o the

slag to be produced by this technology when processing

MSW. There is very little leaching data on this material or

MSW. One leaching TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leach-

ing Procedure) test by PyroGenesis suggests arsenic andcadmium may leach above the groundwater standards. This

may adversely impact the benecial use o this material.81

A 1998 review o pyrolysis systems by the Center or the

Analysis and Dissemination o Demonstrated Energy Technolo-

gies (CADDET), a UK research group, raises concerns about

residues rom pyrolysis and gasication processes:

The various gasication and pyrolysis technologies have the

potential or solid and liquid residues rom several process

stages. Many developers claim these materials are not resi-

dues requiring disposal but are products which can be used.

However in many cases such claims remain to be substanti-ated and any comparison o various waste treatment options

should consider releases to air, water and land.82

CADDET also paid particular attention to liquid residues:

The sources o liquid residues rom [mass burn combus-

tion] plant are boiler blow-down and wet scrubbing systems,

when used or fue gas cleaning. Whilst these sources remain

or gasication and pyrolysis systems using steam cycles or

wet scrubbers, these technologies can also produce liquid

residues as a result o the reduction o organic matter. Such

residues have the potential to be highly toxic and so require

treatment. Any releases o liquid residues into the environ-ment should thereore be careully considered.83

In the case o pyrolysis incinerators, toxic pollutants such as

heavy metals and dioxin are actually consolidated in the solid

char byproduct. Fichtner (2004) explains,

It is true that low temperature pyrolysis plants will tend to

volatilise less o certain pollutants into the fue gas resulting

in lower emissions. This benet should be weighed against

more pollutants in the pyrolysis residues that have to be

landlled and signicantly lower energy eciency due to

the unconverted carbon in the residue.84

In addition, studies about particles called ultra-nes or nano-

particles reveal increased cause or concern about incinerator

emissions o dioxin and other toxins.85 Ultra-nes are particles

rom any element or byproduct (including PCBs, dioxins and

urans) that are smaller in size than what is currently regulated

or monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Ultra-ne particles can be lethal to humans in many ways

including as a cause o cancer, heart attacks, strokes, asthma,

and pulmonary disease, among others.86 Because o their small

size, ultra-nes are dicult to capture with air pollution control


15/40


Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma companies oten claim that

their technologies are regulated to standards that ensure that

they are sae. However, this is not true:

emii limit dt ur ty. Emissions standards tendnot to be based on what is scientically sae or public health,

but on what is determined to be technologically easible or a

given source o pollution. As the U.S. EPA itsel has written,

Since EPA could not clearly dene a sae level o exposure to

these cancer-causing pollutants, it became almost impossible to

issue regulations.93 Instead, U.S. EPA standards were created

solely to require emitters to use the best control technologies

already demonstrated by industry sources.94 As a result, these

standards allow or the release o unsae levels o harmul pol-

lutants such as dioxins, mercury and lead. Additionally, these

aulty standards also only regulate a handul o the thousands o

known pollutants, and do not take into account the exposure tomultiple chemicals at the same time. These are called synergis-

tic impacts and have countless harmul eects on health and

the environment.

emii murmt r iufcit d t mild-

ig. The most dangerous known pollutants, such as dioxin

and mercury, are rarely monitored on a continuous basis in

gaseous, solid and liquid emissions rom incinerators which is

the only way to accurately estimate environmental exposure to

these emissions. Toxic emissions vary widely based on changes

in waste stream eedstock, stack temperature, and other shit-

ing operating conditions, thus occasional monitoring is not

adequate or assessing overall emissions levels. I an incinera-

tor is in a country that monitors emissions, it is common or

incinerators to only be subject to one or two dioxin stack tests

per year, each consisting o a six-hour sample, rather than con-

tinuous monitoring, which would be more appropriate. As the

Commission on Lie Sciences o the National Research Council

report Incinerators and Public Health (2000) states:

Typically, emissions data have been collected rom incinera-tion acilities during only a small raction o the total number

o incinerator operating hours and generally do not include

data during startup, shutdown, and upset conditions.95

These tests are rarely, i ever, conducted during the peak periods

or dioxins creation and release (during start-up and shut-down

periods, and periods o upset conditions).96,97 Furthermore, the

U.S. EPA does not eectively regulate toxins in ash and the liq-

uids discharged rom incinerators, nor does the U.S. EPA even

monitor ultrane particles that contain pollutants such as heavy

metals, PCBs, dioxins and urans. Thus overall emissions levels

reported can be misleading.

emii limit r t lwy dqutly rcd. Exist-

ing incinerators are sometimes allowed to continue to operate

despite emission limit violations. For example, between 1990

and 2000, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

allowed the Integrated Environmental Systems (IES) medical

waste incinerator in Oakland, Caliornia, U.S. to keep operat-

ing despite more than 250 citations or air quality violations.98

By IESs own admission, the plants emissions-control sys-

tem, designed to capture gases such as dioxin, ailed 34 times

between 1996 and 2001.99 Similarly, at the ederal level in the

U.S., a 2007 a ederal judge ruled that the U.S. EPA had been

unlawully reclassiying certain incinerators under less stringentboiler emission limits,100 allowing these incinerators to avoid

the more stringent incinerator emission limits on mercury, lead,

arsenic, dioxins, and other highly toxic pollutants.

Reason #2: emii limi r icirr (iclig m br,

gifci, prli plm iciri) r . emii

rm icirr r l mr fcil vrll mii

lvl rpr c b milig. I ii, mii limi r lw

ql rc.


rgl r r r .


16/40


or proo. The company couldnt provide it. The county hired a

consultant, who said there is no proo.107

Similarly, the plasma arc gasication incinerator in Richland,

Washington, U.S., owned and operated by the Allied Technol-

ogy Group (ATG), was closed in 2001 beore ever operating at

ull capacity due to operational and nancial problems.108 ATG

led or bankruptcy and terminated most o its 120 Richland

workers.109 During its brie tenure the incinerator routinely shut

down because o problems with emissions equipment leading

to a large buildup o untreated waste.110 As Greenaction or

Health and Environmental Justice discovered, the plasma arc

medical waste incinerator in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S. operated

by Asian Pacic Environmental Technology had to be shut

down or a period o approximately eight months between

August 2004 and April 2005 because o reractory damage111

and electrode112 issues to the plasma arc equipment. And the

gasication company Brightstar Environmental was dissolved

by its parent company ater its only incinerator closed. The

acility, located in Australia, was plagued by operational ailure

and emissions problems, although it was reerred to as model

o achievement by other companies around the world or

years.113,114,115 By the time the acility closed in April o 2004 it

had lost at least $134 million U.S.116

Likewise, the Ze-Gen pilot gasication incinerator in New

Bedord, Massachusetts, U.S. suered rom operational ailures

requiring it to be shut down or months ater its rst day o

operation. According to the Massachusetts Department o En-

vironmental Protection, this acility was ofine rom July 2007

until March 2008117 and had been unsuccessul in processing

wood chips and construction and demolition materials.118 Ater

months o not operating, Ze-Gen shited to wood pellets as

the eedstock or the acility, similar to what people use in theirhome stoves.119 In January 2009 a Ze-Gen company representa-

tive conrmed that the acility had once again gone o-line.120

(See Reason #1 or other examples o malunctions, explosions

and shutdowns.)

System ailures can have a dramatic impact on the saety and

operating costs o these incinerators, and increase the nancial

burden to host communities.

In many countries, including Canada, France, India, the United

States and United Kingdom, municipalities have rejected pro-

posals or gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration tech-

nologies because the emissions, economic, and energy benets

claimed by industry representatives have proven to be unound-

ed. As the Fichtner Consulting Engineers report The Viability

o Advanced Thermal Treatment in the UKstates: Many o the

perceived benets o gasication and pyrolysis over combustion

technology proved to be unounded. These perceptions havearisen mainly rom inconsistent comparisons in the absence o

quality inormation.101

For example, The City o Los Angeles Bureau o Sanitation Report

(June 2009) recommends that Interstate Waste Technologies

proposal or a gasication acility and Plasco Energy Groups

proposal or a plasma gasication acilitythe only staged

incineration technologies evaluated in the reportare not

viable or the city o Los Angeles, U.S.102 and do not warrant

urther evaluation.103 In particular, the report states that Plasco

Energy Groups plasma gasication acilities have:

not been able to continuously operate on MSW [munici-pal solid waste] and have encountered shutdowns to address

engineering design issues During a site visit, the acility

was non-operational, and could not be started ater several

attempts by the operators.104

There have been many operational problems with staged incin-

erators that have been constructed. Thermoselects Karlsruhe,

Germany incineratorone o the largest municipal solid waste

gasication incinerators in the worldwas orced to close down

permanently in 2004 due to years o operational problems and

loses totaling over $400 million Euros.105

The plasma-arc incinerator in Utashinai, Japan also has sueredrom operational problems, and one o the two lines has been

regularly down or maintenance.106 This didnt stop the com-

pany Geoplasma rom making claims to county commissioners

in St. Lucie, Florida, U.S. that the plasma arc technology is

commercially sae and proven. As the Palm Beach Postnewspa-

per explained about this Geoplasma proposal, The numbers,

Commissioner Coward said, were pretty impressive. He asked

Reason #3: Gifci, prli plm icirr v iml

rck-rcr plg b mlci, xpli -w.


prill prv.


17/40


likely need or long-term contracts to ensure an adequate

eedstock waste stream may limit the uture fexibility o

the states [Massachusetts, U.S.] overall materials manage-

ment eorts. That is, locking in the use o waste or energy

production may orestall potential additional recycling or

composting in the uture, something theMA Solid Waste Master Plan has heretoore

explicitly avoided.122

scd, tgd icirtr d rcyclr

cmpt r th m mtril. The vast

majority o materials that are trashed in

incinerators and landlls are recyclable and

compostable materials. As detailed in the

pie graph below, recyclable and compostable

materials including paper and paperboard,

ood scraps and yard waste, plastics, metals,

glass and wood account or nearly 90% o

what is currently disposed in U.S. incinera-tors and landlls.123 Similarly, even with a

citywide recycling rate at over 70%, the San

Francisco Department o Environment 2006

Waste Characterization Studyound that

two-thirds o the remaining materials that

are being disposed o are readily recyclable

and compostable materials.124 As the San

Francisco City and County Environment

Director said in a 2009 press release, I

we captured everything going to landll that could have been

recycled or composted, wed have a 90 percent recycling rate.125

Real world economics demand that incinerators produce and

sell electricity as a source o revenue. As a result, incinerator

operators seek materials that are ecient to incinerate or the

purpose o producing electricity. Many o the most cost-

eective materials to recycle, like paper, cardboard and certain

plastics, are also materials that incinerate most eciently or

generating electricity. For each ton o paper, cardboard or

plastic that we incinerate, one ton less is available to recycle

or compost. Incinerators require a constant supply o waste

Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration companies claim

that their technologies and recycling are compatible. However,

staged incinerators and recycling programs are not compat-

ible; they compete or the same materials and nancing. Staged

incineration is also not an appropriate strategy to deal with

the relatively small unrecyclable portion o thewaste stream. Doing so creates harmul emis-

sions, can acilitate operational issues, provides

little to no energy value, and undermines eorts

to minimize waste.

Firt, tgd icirtr d rcyclr

cmpt r th m udig i th rm

ubidi d muicipl ctrct. Gasica-

tion, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators have

inrastructure and operational costs that meet

or exceed that o mass burn incinerators.121 In

order to survive nancially, staged incineration

technologies need a constant supply o both

waste and public money in the orm o long

term put or pay contracts. Put or pay incin-

erator contracts require municipalities to pay a

predetermined monthly ee to the incinerator

or decades to come, regardless o whether it

makes economic or ecological sense to do so in

the uture. As a result, these contracts destroy

the nancial incentives or a city to reduce and

separate its waste at the source, and reuse, re-

cycle and compost. In a world o limited nancial resources, by

cornering large sums o public money and subsidies, incinerator

contracts create an unequal and unavorable economic market

or recycling industries to compete. This can impede the growth

o otherwise viable recycling programs or decades to come (see

Reality #5 or example). As the Tellus Institute report states in

the case o the state o Massachusetts, U.S.:

Similar to the situation or WTE (waste to energy) incin-

erators, the capital requirements or building alternative

technology acilities [gasication and pyrolysis] and their

Reason #4: sg iciri i cmpibl wi rcclig; gifci,

prli plm icirr cmp r m fcig mril

rcclig prgrm. Iciri l rmi r miimiz

prci xic rcclbl mril.


cmpibl wi rcclig.

As the SanFrancisco Cityand CountyEnvironmentDirector said in a2009 press release,I we captured

everything going tolandfll that couldhave been recycledor composted, wedhave a 90 percentrecycling rate.


18/40


commissioned by the Massachusetts Department o Environ-

mental Protection explains:

In considering alternative processing technologies gasica-

tion, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion it is important

to note that a signicant raction o the undiverted waste

stream (well over one million tons [in Massachusetts, USA],comprising nes and residuals, other C&D and non-MSW,

and glass) is largely inert material and not appropriate or

processing in these acilities.126

Second, treating products containing toxic materials at high

temperatures can create even more harmul toxins like dioxin.

Many communities that host trash incinerators become a mag-

net or harmul waste in the region, oten while subsidizing the

cost o neighboring communities waste disposal.In Detroit,

USA, or example, residents o the city pay over $170 per ton

o materials disposed at the Detroit incinerator while neighbor-

ing communities pay only $10.45 per ton o materials that they

send to the incinerator. 127

Third, the high costs and long-term waste contracts o gasica-

tion, pyrolysis and plasma incineration run counter to eorts to

minimize theproductiono toxic and unrecyclable materials. By

requiring long-term disposal o discarded materials, incinera-

tor contracts provide an incentive to continually generate waste

materials and products that are designed or disposal, rather

than designed to minimize waste. A more practical approach is

to cost-eectively and saely contain the small unrecyclable per-

centage o the waste, study it, and implement regulations and

incentives so that these products and materials are phased out

o production and replaced with sustainable practices. Thereare many successul examples o what are called Extended Pro-

ducer Responsibility (EPR) programs and policies, which work

to minimize the production o toxic, wasteul and dicult to

recycle materials.128 Staged incineration necessitates long-term

extraction and destruction o valuable natural resources, and

the emission o toxins into the air, soil and water. A ar more

sustainable alternative is to invest in innovative technologies,

policies and practices that ensure that products are designed to

be sae, recyclable and reusable.

in order to generate electricity. Shutting down an incinerator

even momentarily can be costly, and some o the most danger-

ous emissions such as dioxins and urans are oten generated

in higher concentrations by incinerators during the shut-down

and start-up periods. Thus, in order to operate eciently andeconomically, incinerators constantly consume otherwise recy-

clable materials.

Third, tgd icirti i t cmptibl with triti

trtgi tht miimiz wt dipl. As discussed above,

the vast majority o materials currently disposed in landlls

and incinerators are recyclable and compostable materials.

Unortunately, a small raction o our waste stream (oten called

residual materials) is too toxic or complex to cost-eectively

recycle. Examples o these materials include certain electronic

and appliance wastes, batteries, pesticides, compressed wood,

and complex packaging such as Tetrapaks. These materials

pose a real challenge or any community working to minimize

disposal. However, incineration is not a sensible strategy or

dealing with these materials or three main reasons:

First, these materials have low Btu energy value or are too

complex to eectively process in staged incinerators. Processing

residual materials in staged incinerators can acilitate opera-

tional problems and provide little to no energy value. As the

2008 Tellus Institute reportAssessment o Materials Management

Options or the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review

Materials Dispsed in u.S. Incineratrs andLandlls (Srce: uS EPA)


19/40


Reason #5: sg icirr c b v mr xpiv fcill

rik m br icirr.

IndustRy Myth: Gifci, prli plm icirr r wi

ivm.

In addition to the examples o operational problems described

elsewhere in this report, the plasma arc incinerator in Utasha-

nai, Japan provides another illustration o nancial risk. As the

only commercial plasma arc incinerator processing munici-

pal solid waste anywhere in the world, this acility has been

economically unsuccessul. In 2007 Nature Magazineound

that despite its promise [plasma arc] has not yet turned trash

to gold and that this plasma arc incinerator, has struggled to

make ends meet since opening in 2002.134

Overall, the long-term nancial burden o staged incineration

technologies is uncertain at best. The Florida Department o

Environmental Protection explains in its Whitepaper on the Use

o Plasma Arc Technology to Treat Municipal Solid Wastethat,

The economics or this technology are not well known. Clearly

i the available power or export cannot be sold at a reasonable

rate then the viability o a project may be hindered.135

The Economics o Incineration:

All types o incinerators are generally unded in three ways: (1)public nancing and subsidies (such as tax credits); (2) pay-

ments that the municipality makes to the incinerator per ton o

garbage, or otherwise by contractual agreement, called tipping

ees; (3) sales o energy generated rom incinerating waste.

Subsidies are important or the nancial viability o incinerators

because mixed garbage is a very inecient energy source, and

incineration is by ar the most expensive waste management op-

The public bears the nancial burden o all types o incinera-

tion. Costs to local governments are high, and communities

end up paying with tax money and public health costs. Alterna-

tively, recycling and composting make more sense economically

than either incineration or landlling.

Proponents o gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incineration

oten make promises o economic benet or host communi-

ties. However, these incinerators can be even more expensive

and nancially risky than already costly conventional mass burnincinerators. The United Kingdom Fitchtner Consulting Engi-

neers report The Viability o Advanced Thermal Treatmentound

that, there is no reason to believe that these technologies

[gasication and pyrolysis] are any less expensive than combus-

tion and it is likely, rom inormation available, that the more

complex processes are signicantly more expensive.129

One example o higher costs are the proposed tipping ee esti-

mates provided by gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerator

companies to Los Angeles County, Caliornia, US in 2005,

shown in Table 1. The estimated tipping ees are two to our

times greater than the average U.S. incinerator tipping ee.

Similarly, the U.S. Department o Deense estimates that capi-

tal costs or plasma and pyrolysis or treating chemical weapons

waste are equal to or greater than the cost o state-o-the-art

mass burn incinerators and that the operational and mainte-

nance costs could be 15 to 20 percent higher than that o a

mass burn incinerator.132

Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators also present

nancial risk due to an operational

history plagued by malunctions, an in-

ability to produce electricity reliability,

regular shut-downs, and even explo-sions. As the European Commission

2006 report concludes, At the time

o writing, the additional technologi-

cal risk associated with the adoption

o gasication and pyrolysis or many

wastes, remains signicantly greater

than that or better proven, incinera-

tion type thermal treatments.133

Table 1: Estimated tipping fees and capital csts presented b cmpa-nies t Ls Angeles Cnt (uS) in 2005130 cmpared t the aerageincineratr tip fee in the uS in 2004131

Cpa t p a tippi $/

Ebara 70 $289

Interstate Waste Technlgies (Ther-mselect)

300 $186

Geplasma 100 $172

Aerage u.S. Incineratr tipping fee /a $61.64


20/40


paid over $1 billion to build and operate the incinerator over a

20 year period. Detroit currently pays a ee o $156 per ton o

garbage burned at the incinerator, to cover the incinerators op-

erating expenses and debts an amount more than ve times

as much as other cities in the region pay to send their waste

to the incinerator. The Ann Arbor Ecology Center estimates

that Detroit could have saved over $55 million in just oneyear (2003) i it had never built the incinerator. This misuse o

taxpayer money to subsidize an incinerator has impacted other

under-unded Detroit services like public schools, housing,

health acilities and transportation.139 These economic impacts

are not unusual or communities that host incinerators.

The capital costs per ton or incinerators have increased over

time, even while controlling or infation and depreciation.140

One reason or this is the cost associated with changing air

emissions regulations or incinerators. For example, the spike in

costs or incinerators in the U.S. rom 1993-1995 was possibly

due to implementation o air pollution control regulationsmade in 1991.141

Future regulatory uncertainty is particularly important when

considering the costs o building a new incinerator. Two

lawsuits won in 2007 against the U.S. EPA will require that

incinerator emission limits be strengthened within coming

years.142,143 This may result in increased costs down the road or

incinerator operators, and there is uncertainty about what these

costs will be as the new regulations are not yet established. In

addition, the air pollution control devices and other measures

that incinerators will be required to implement will not be

known until the new regulations are in place. There is also the

urther risk that a new incinerator will not be able to meet airemission regulations in the uture, regardless o investments

made now or later in pollution control devices. This can prove

economically devastating or a community that has already

invested large sums o capital, or that is tied to a long-term

incinerator contract.

In addition, incineration has also been linked to decreasing

property values. In the study, The Eect o an Incinerator

Siting on Housing Appreciation Rates published in theJournal

o Urban Economics, authors Kiel and McClaine nd that the

presence o an incinerator begins to have an eect on property

values even beore it begins operation, and that it continues todrive down prices or years. According to this study, apprecia-

tion rates are aected as early as the construction stage o the

incinerator, and the adjustment continues several years ater the

acility has begun operation. Over the seven-year period o the

incinerator operation studied, the average eect observed led

to prprty vlu mr th 20% lwr than they otherwise

would have been.144

tion.136 Incinerators cost tens to hundreds o millions o dollars

to build and maintain. Expensive monthly contracts and the

need or a constant fow o trash binds communities in a cycle

o disposal and debt that can last or decades.137

For example, the town o Sanord, Maine, U.S., received a bill

in 2009 or $109,000 rom the waste to energy incinerationparent company Casella Waste because it had underproduced

trash or a local incinerator to which it was contractually obli-

gated to send 10,500 tons o waste each year. As an editorial in

the Biddeord / Saco Journal Tribune explains:

According to a report by Sta Writer Tammy Wells, Sanord

has been underproducing trash or consumption by the

Maine Energy Recovery Company in Biddeord. The town

is contractually held to 10,500 tons, a mark it hasnt hit

in years. So, instead o a at-a-boy rom Casella, Sanord

received a bill or $109,000. According to Maine Energy

General Manager, Sanord isnt alone. Numerous commu-

nities within the Maine Energy system did not meet theirquotas, and received letters saying as much.138

Incinerators undermine oten less expensive reuse, recycling

and composting options, and cheaper disposal options such

as landlling, by cornering public unding through put-or-

pay contracts. These long-term (oten 20-30 year) contracts

guarantee that the incinerator will receive public dollars or

years to come regardless o whether or not waste is sent to the

incinerator. This provides a perverse incentive or municipalities

to continue to send materials to be incinerated, even when it is

more aordable and sensible to recycle them. To provide a met-

aphor, it is as i host communities or incinerators have signed along-term non-negotiable 20-year lease or a feet o expensive

gas-guzzling Hummer Sport Utility Vehicles. As petroleum

prices rise and climate change becomes a reality, these commu-

nities do not have the ability to switch to the new generation o

more aordable and uel ecient electric hybrid vehicles; they

have already bought into an impractical and environmentally

unsustainable long-term investment.

Incinerators oten prove to be more o a nancial burden or

the host community than at rst glance. Incinerator contracts

sometimes place the uture nancial risk o their product on

the public, rather than investors, through liability clauses that

require cities to pay or unoreseen operating costs down the

road. Operating an incinerator also incurs many other costs

including the expense o disposing ash, slag and wastewater, and

preprocessing waste (such as drying and shredding) beore it is

put into the incinerator.

For example, the municipal solid waste incinerator in Detroit,

Michigan, U.S., has been an economic disaster or the city.By

the end o the contract in 2009, Detroit taxpayers will have


21/40


While incinerator advocates describe their installations as re-

source recovery, waste-to-energy (WTE) acilities, or con-

version technologies, incinerators are more aptly labeled waste

o energy (WOE) acilities. In terms o overall energy benet,

it is always preerable to recycle materials rather than incinerate

them. As the 2008 Tellus Institute reportAssessment o Materi-als Management Options or the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master


o Environmental Protection explains:

Recycling saves energy, reduces raw material extraction, and

has benecial climate impacts by reducing CO2 and other

greenhouse gas emissions. Per ton o waste, the energy saved

by recycling exceeds that created by landll gases or the

energy harnessed rom thermal conversion technologies.145

In act, recycling saves three to ve times the

amount o energy that incinerator power plants

generate.146

When a ton o oce paper is incin-erated, or example, it generates about 8,200

megajoules; when this same ton is recycled, it

saves about 35,200 megajoules. Thus recycling

oce paper saves our times more energy than

the amount generated by burning it.147

Why does recycling save so much more energy

than incinerators generate? The reason is that

when a product is incinerated rather than

recycled, new raw virgin resources must be ex-

tracted rom the earth, processed, manuactured

and transported to replace the product that has

been destroyed. At each step, energy is wasted.

First, when a product is incinerated rather than recycled, energy

is wasted extracting virgin resources such as minerals and

timber rom the earth. Second, energy is wasted during the pro-

cessing and manuacturing o virgin resources. Because recycled

materials require ar less processing than virgin materials, the

amount o energy needed to create products rom virgin materi-

als ar exceeds the energy needed to produce products rom

recycled materials. Third, since virgin material sources oten lie

ar rom sites o manuacture and end-use, they require more

transportation, another waste o energy.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognizes

that production rom virgin materials uses signicantly more

energy and releases signicantly more greenhouse gases thanproduction rom recycled materials:

Waste management policies can reduce industrial sector

GHG emissions by reducing energy use through the re-use

o products (e.g., o rellable bottles) and the use o recycled

materials in industrial production processes. Recycled

materials signicantly reduce the specic energy consump-

tion o the production o paper, glass, steel, aluminum and

magnesium.148

Given that most materials can be recycled

many timesthereby avoiding the extrac-

tion o new resources many times overthe

energy saving benets o recycling increase

exponentially.

To illustrate the vast quantities o energy

that are lost through disposal, consider

plastic bottle disposal in the U.S. Each

day in the U.S. 60 million water bottles

are wasted in incinerators and landlls.149

The annual liecycle ossil uel ootprint o

bottled water consumption and disposal in

the U.S. is equivalent to 50 million barrels o

oilenough to run 3 million cars or one year.150 Much o thisenergy can be conserved by recycling rather than incinerating or

landlling the plastic bottles. O course, the most energy e-

cient option is to minimize the amount o one-time-use plastic

bottles that are used in the rstplace.

The environmental and energy benets o recycling are signi-

cant. In the U.S., or example, about one-third o all house-

hold materials discarded are recycled. Even this relatively low

recycling rate conserves the equivalent o approximately 11.9

Reason #6: Icirr ifcil cpr mll m rg

b rig imiiig rrc. Gifci, prli plm

icirr r v l fci grig lcrici m br

icirr.

IndustRy Myth: Gifci, prli plm icirr rlibl

prc rwbl rg.

In terms o overallenergy beneft,it is always

preerable torecycle materialsrather thanincinerate them.


22/40


23/40


Incinerators contribute to the environmental crisis by cornering

large amounts o public money or the purpose o long-term

disposal o diminishing natural resources. Resolving the envi-

ronmental crisis requires that we invest in preventing waste and

reusing, recycling and composting materials currently disposed

in incinerators and landlls.

Gasication, pyrolysis and plasma incinerator companies oten

claim that incinerating waste is a sustainable energy source.

However, the large volume o waste disposed in landlls and in-cinerators around the world is not sustainable. In the past three

decades alone, one-third o the planets natural resource base

has been consumed.158 The United Nations 2005 Millennium

Assessment Report concluded that approximately 60% o

the earths ecosystem services examined (including resh water,

capture sheries, air and water purication, and the regulation

o regional and local climate, natural hazards, and pests) are

being substantially degraded or used unsustainably at an ac-

celerating rate.159 The report ound that the harmul eects o

the degradation o ecosystem services...are being borne dispro-

portionately by the poor, are contributing to growing inequities

and disparities across groups o people, and are sometimes theprincipal actor causing poverty and social confict.160 In addi-

tion, the report details the trend o global deorestation stating

that, The global area o orest systems has been reduced by one

hal over the past three centuries. Forests have eectively disap-

peared in 25 countries, and another 29 have lost more than

90% o their orest cover.161

Casting an eye at the worlds largest consumer, the U.S. rep-

resents only 5 percent o the world population, but consumes

30 percent o the worlds resources162 and creates 30 percent o

the worlds waste.163 On average, each U.S. resident sends three

pounds o garbage to incinerators and landlls or disposal

daily.164 The vast majority o this garbage is reusable materials

such as paper, aluminum, and plastic.

Municipal waste materials represent only the tip o a very big

iceberg. For every ull can o garbage that is put on the curb

or disposal, about 71 cans ull o waste are produced during

manuacturing, mining, oil and gas exploration, agriculture,

coal combustion, and other activities related to the manuacture

and transport o products.165

Only one percent o the total amount o materials that fow

through our economy is still in use six months ater its sale in

North America.166 That means 99 percent o what we dig, drill,

chop down, process, ship, deliver, and buy is wasted within six

months.167 As resources around the world

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	prohibidoincinerar
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Blowing Smoke Report

Documents