Incineration Repackaged 

STEPHEN LESTER / Everyone's Backyard Summer 2002

Grassroots groups have been very successful in defeating incinerator proposals. Since 1997, only two trash incinerators have been built in the U.S. (Dearborn, Michigan in 2000 and Anahuac, Texas in 2002). Groups have been successful because they organized and got the word out about what incineration really means for communities: toxic emissions and residual ash, high construction costs, and the destruction of valuable resources. And they have successfully promoted the alternatives to burning waste: recycling, composting, and recovering waste components.

The incinerator industry has, in fact, learned something from the successes of grassroots community groups: If they want to build incinerators, they're going to have to come up with new ways to spin them. So what we're seeing are all sorts of "new" ideas and proposals.

The hottest area of activity is in plants designed to produce energy. In the aftermath of the California energy crisis and the 9-11 terrorists attacks, strong sentiments to reduce our dependence on foreign oil have resulted in a rash of proposals to build energy-generating plants that don't rely on oil. Many of these plants are referred to as "green energy" or "eco-energy" projects. Some are called "renewable energy" projects. To a lesser extent, we are seeing an old favorite—waste-to-energy plants.

Waste-to-energy projects are especially devious because there are legislative efforts in Massachusetts and at the national level to define garbage incinerators as a source of "renewable" energy. If these efforts are successful, the most common incinerator used to bum household garbage—the mass burn incinerator—will be included with solar and wind projects as renewable energy sources!

These new proposals have several common characteristics: they are being put forward to solve the solid waste "crisis"; they are being sold as an alternative to incineration; and many recover energy. While these plants are not technically incinerators, they cause many of the same pollution problems. The old rule still applies: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck.

BIOMASS CONVERSION

One of the most popular renewable energy projects is the "energy from biomass" proposal. Biomass traditionally refers to fuels derived from wood, agriculture and food processing waste or from crops grown specifically to produce electricity. However, in this new wave of non-incineration proposals, we're seeing a variation that involves converting household trash into a biomass-like fuel. These projects generally entail collecting household garbage at the curb, with out source separation or recycling, and then removing metals, glass, plastic and other waste items that am not conducive to biomass processing. The remaining waste, consisting largely of mixed paper, food, wood and yard waste, is then run through a "biomass" conversion process that generates a fuel product .

Some proposals are designed to generate ethanol for sale. The concern here is purity of the ethanol product. Historically, bioconversion processes have been used mostly with agricultural waste streams that are more uniform in composition, have higher cellulose content and fewer material handling problems than municipal solid waste streams. It is not at all clear that this new application can produce a high quality ethanol product that can be marketed, especially given the range of contaminants present in household garbage.

The more common fuel product proposed with most biomass plants is called "refuse derived fuel" or RDF. In this instance, the biomass waste is converted into pellets that are sold as fuel to be burned in incinerators or boilers to recover energy In these cases, you still have toxic emissions and residual ash contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins, though at slightly lower levels than in a mass burn incinerator.

This process has not been used with municipal solid waste on other than a small pilot scale and it is likely that the costs have been underestimated, perhaps substantially. But the major problem with this process is that it would destroy vast quantities of materials that could be either recycled or composted.

PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION

Two other technologies being promoted as clean alternatives to typical trash incinerators are pyrolysis and gasification. Pyrolysis is a thermal destruction process that burns waste in the absence of oxygen. A plasma arc is often used to generate the heat at high temperatures. This process produces a mixture of gases, liquids and solids, some of which will include toxic chemicals depending on the make-up of the original waste mixtures. With household trash, the emissions and solid residuals can be expected to include heavy metals, dioxins, and other contaminants typically found when household trash is burned.

Gasification is a similar thermal destruction process, only in this case small amounts of oxygen are present during the heating process, which also occurs at high temperatures. In this process, often called "starved-air gasification," a gaseous mixture is produced that will again include toxic chemicals depending on the make-up of the original waste mixture. If household trash is gasified, emissions will again include heavy metals, dioxins, and other contaminants.

Both of these technologies are considered to be in the developmental stage with regard to their application to household trash. As a practical matter, the health and environmental concerns that these processes raise seem no different than if the waste were burned in a traditional incinerator. With both of these systems, toxic gases are formed during the treatment process that are similar to those found during the combustion of household trash in a traditional incinerator and are released out a stack. Some—but not all—of these emissions may be captured by pollution control equipment. With pyrolysis, solid residue remaining after the treatment may contain toxic chemicals similar to those found in ash from traditional incineration.

CO-GENERATION PLANTS

Co-generation is the production of heat and electricity by the same energy plant. In a conventional power plant, coal, oil, or natural gas are burned at high temperatures to generate steam. The pressure from the steam turns a turbine that produces electricity. Only about 30 percent of the energy of the original fuel is converted to steam pressure in this process. The rest is wasted. In a co-generation plant, the excess heat is captured as low temperature steam is given off by the turbines. This steam can be used to generate heat but cannot be transmitted very far. It is used mostly for nearby factories such as pulp and paper mills that require low temperature heat for their production lines or for space heating in buildings.

The new wave of proposals include co-generation plants that bum fuels other than coal, oil, or natural gas. Some proposals are for burning "biomass" such as wood waste, agricultural waste, peat moss and a variety of other wastes, including household garbage that has been converted into "biomass" as described above. While these plants may generate less sulfur oxides or greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, depending on the fuel burned, they are still incinerators that generate emissions, some of which will include toxic chemicals, depending on the makeup of the fuel that is burned. With household trash, the emissions and solid residuals can be expected to include heavy metals, dioxins, and other contaminants.

LIMITATIONS OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

Most, but not all, incinerators and waste burners have air pollution control equipment that is designed to remove different pollutants generated during the combustion process. Electrostatic precipitators remove large particulates, scrubbers remove acid gases, baghouse or fabric filters remove small particles, and activated charcoal beds remove volatile gases. None of these or any other air pollution control equipment is capable of removing 100 percent of the pollutants present in the emissions of an incinerator or waste burner. In fact, no matter what air pollution controls are used, some toxic chemicals will be released into the community. This is very important since many pollutants generated by incinerators and waste burners are carcinogenic and produce health effects even at very low levels.

RECYCLING VS INCINERATION

One of the most serious problems with these new technologies is that they compete with waste reduction, recycling, and composting programs for materials. As much as 80 percent of solid waste can either be recycled and composted, or incinerated-but not both. It's an either/or proposition. If you build an incinerator, you foreclose your recycling and composting options for the lifetime of the incinerator (usually 20 years or more). Conversely, if you develop a successful recycling and composting program, you'll likely starve the incinerator by diverting trash. This is why many incinerator companies require guarantees on the amount of waste a community must send to an incinerator.

Recycling not only reduces waste; it conserves energy, preserves natural resources, and reduces pollution. Raw materials processing, such as wood pulping, is extremely energy-intensive, and both the generation of energy and the production process itself produce toxic pollution. Reprocessing materials uses only a fraction of the energy needed in primary production and creates much less pollution.

CONCLUSION

Biomass conversion, pyrolysis, and gasification—like all incineration—are doomed technologies. These processes generate hazardous emissions and toxic ash or residue, are very expensive, compete with recycling programs, and destroy valuable resources. They will not succeed as long as an organized citizenry refuses to accept these impacts on their communities.

Trust your instincts. Take a close look at any proposed technology and ask hard questions, such as the ones provided in the box. If the vendors can't-or won't-provide you with written answers to these and other questions, then step back and ask yourself why It's usually either because they don't have the information or because they know you won't like the answers.

QUESTIONS TO ASK

1. How does the process work?

2. What waste products, air emissions, or residues are produced during the process? Have these emissions/residues been tested? If so, can you provide a copy of the results? How are these waste products/emissions managed?

3. What new waste products, if any, are produced during the process? If new products are formed, has their toxicity been tested? Can you provide a copy of any testing that has been done?

4. What wastes can or cannot be treated by this process? On what type of waste does this system work best?

5. How much waste can be processed at any one time by the system?

6. What is the backup plan for managing the buildup of garbage when the system is not working either because of mechanical breakdowns or routine maintenance?

7. Has the process been used in communities before? Where? If so, what was the result? Has a plant ever been built and operated at the proposed size? If so, where?

8. What will be done with the end-product materials? What's the nature of the market for the end-product(s)? What is the plan to address the buildup of end-product if the market should collapse or slump?

9. Will this process interfere with recycling efforts?

RESOURCES

1. Waste Gasification, Impacts on the Environment and Public Health, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Apri 1, 2002. Available from BREDL, PO Box 88, Glendale Springs, NC 28629, (336) 982-26921 or on the web at www.bredl.org.

2. Learning Not to Burn, A Primer for Citizens on Alternatives to Burning Hazardous Waste, Chemical Weapons Working Group and Citizens' Environmental Coalition, June, 2002. Available from CEC at 425 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 200, Buffalo, NY 14222, (716) 885-6848 or on the web at www.kodakstoxiccolors.org.

3. Non-Incineration Medical Waste Technologies, A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members, Health Care Without Harm, August 2001. Available from HCWH, 1755 S Street, NW, Suite 6B, Washington, DC 20009, (202) 234-0091.

4. How to Shut Down an Incinerator-A Toolkit, Health Care Without Harm, 2000. Available from HCWH, 1755 S Street, NW, Suite 6B, Washington, DC 20009, (202) 234-0091 or on the web at www.noharm.org.

5. "Municipal Waste Incineration: A Poor Solution For The Twenty First Century" presentation by Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY at the 4⁴h Annual International Waste-to-Energy Management Conference, November 24-25, 1998, Amsterdam.

6. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives/ Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance (GAZA), 782 5'h Street, Berkeley, CA. 94710, gaia@nobum.org, FAX: (510) 883-0928.

Everyone's Backyard is published by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice. 150 S. Washington St., Suite 300, PO Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040. www.chej.org