New York City Bar. Environmental Law Committee. A Public Debate: Is Thermal Treatment of Solid Wastes. Good for New York City?

Transcription

1 New York City Bar Environmental Law Committee A Public Debate: Is Thermal Treatment of Solid Wastes Good for New York City? March 22, 2007 New York City Bar Association Great Hall 42 West 44 th Street, New York, NY Nickolas J. Themelis (njt1@columbia.edu; We are discussing today a very important issue for NYC and also for the rest of the nation. Several years of study of Columbia faculty and nearly two dozens of graduate students and visits and analysis of a large number of landfills, waste-to-energy, other thermal, composting and recycling facilities, in the U.S. and abroad have led to the following conclusions: 1) On a per capita basis, the U.S. generates twice as much municipal solid wastes (MSW) as other highly developed nations, such as the western E.U. nations and Japan. The U.S. is also the world s major landfiller (20% of the global total of 1,250 million tons). Despite efforts to collect some of the biogas generated in landfills, an estimated 45 million tons of methane are emitted to the atmosphere globally. Because of the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, landfills contribute about 5% of the global warming effect. 2) The European Union, Japan, several other nations, and many U.S. communities with a total population of about 30 million have reduced their landfilling by adopting the modern technology of waste-to-energy (WTE), i.e., controlled combustion of about 150 million tons of MSW with recovery of electrical and thermal energy and metals. The initial capital investment for the WTE technology is higher than for landfilling but the revenues from avoided landfilling fees plus the recovery of energy (about 550 kwh/ton of MSW) and metals make WTE very competitive with landfilling. For urban centers like NYC that have no 1

2 landfills and must transport MSW over long distances, WTE is more economic than landfilling. 3) The environmental impacts of WTE are much lower than landfilling. Also, the WTE energy recovery from MSW is several times greater that that at the most developed landfills where biogas is collected. For example, a WTE facility that would combust the 12,000 tons/day of MSW disposed at the Puente Hills landfill of LA would generate 300 MW vs the 50 MW that are generated from captured landfill gas at Puente Hills. 4).Landfilling requires continuing transformation of greenfields to man-made hills of entombed garbage. Modern landfills require about one acre for every 40,000 tons of MSW landfilled and have a lifetime of about 20 years. For example, continuing to landfill four million tons of NYC MSW annually, in one hundred years would require ten thousand acres of greenfields, i.e. the area of four FreshKills. Clearly, landfilling is not sustainable waste management. 5) The principal reason that WTE has not been adopted widely in the U.S. in recent years,is because of public perceptions based on past experience with polluting incinerators. These are nurtured by some environmental organizations who maintain that new WTEs will result in less recycling and, also, will result in environmental injustice. Such claims are refuted by the evidence provided by the communities that use the 88 U.S. WTE facilities and by the nations that have implemented WTE on a large scale. 6) This opposition has been successful in laws and regulations (e.g. free flow of MSW across state borders) and protracted permitting times that discourage new WTEs. Also, political leaders who suggest that WTE should be re-examined, as Mayor Bloomberg and NYC-DOS Commissioner John Doherty did in 2002, are shouted down by well intentioned environmentalists. 7) The simplest and dominant technology for recovering energy from MSW is controlled combustion of as-received non-recyclable wastes. However, in Japan there are several WTEs that use more sophisticated WTE technologies, such as Direct Smelting, the Ebara fluidization process and the Thermoselect Gasification process. These processes have as low or lower emissions than the conventional WTE combustion process but produce a vitrified ash that can be used beneficially outside landfills. 2

3 8) As long as we continue to landfill combustible and putrescible materials, which the E.U. is phasing out by law after 2015, we should do our best to collect and utilize as much landfill gas as possible and also try to minimize the impact of landfilling on the land, as is done in modern landfills. Jack D. Lauber (P.E., D.E.E.) NYS DEC (retired), engineering consultant and Research Associate of Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University Some environmental organizations reject waste-to-energy and the use of the biofraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable fuel. This rejection of WTE as a complementary means for integrated waste management results in the continuance of our wasteful, polluting, landfills. In the 1980s there was a real fear of toxic emissions from solid waste incinerators. Dioxins, heavy metals and other toxics were emitted from the incinerators of the past that were improperly controlled. The same was true for other high temperature operations such as coalfired power plants, steel plants and metal recycling plants. I began my environmental career in NYC in 1962, and opposed the permitting of polluting apartment house incinerators. Later, I closed down several polluting MSW incinerators when I was at the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.(3) I fought for better air pollution control equipment and BACT standards to control toxic emissions from waste incinerators. I am proud to have worked with Dr. Aaron Teller, former Dean of Cooper Union, in advocating dry scrubbing,(5) activated carbon injection, and fabric filter solutions for controlling dioxin and mercury emissions. These are now state-of-the art technology and, under the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations of the EPA have been implemented by the WTE industry nationwide. We now have modern, very high efficiency 99.9% combustion, and Air Pollution Control systems that result in negligible dioxin and other emissions.(12,15,19) In fact, particulate emissions from the hundred thousand diesel trucks that transport NYC solid wastes to distant states are several times higher than if these wastes were combusted in modern WTEs in or near NYC. There are also dioxin emissions from diesel trucks that haven t been fully studied. 3

4 Even with modern landfill gas collection systems, as much as 40-50% of the landfill gas is emitted to the atmosphere as a landfill cell is built up to its final height. Landfill methane emissions are an important contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming because methane is 21 times as potent a GHG than carbon dioxide. Transportation emissions from diesel trucks are toxic, with carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, (PAHs) posing health risks of hundreds per million in urban areas, compared to about 1 in a million health risks for multistage BACT controlled WTE facilities. Toxic volatile organic compounds from landfills leak toxins into the air. Other chemicals such as household hazardous and illicit hazardous wastes can reform into toxics like vinyl chloride gas, and other chemicals that can cause liners to fail, and potentially pollute ground water. Organic wastes should not be landfilled. For the foreseeable future, we cannot recycle everything. Japan and Europe generate much less wastes per person than the U.S. and do their utmost to recycle as much as possible. Still they rely on waste-to-energy to take care of their non-recyclable wastes and also provide electricity and district heating to their people. Specifically, plastic recycling is a problem. After much effort, less than 15% of the U.S. plastic wastes anywhere- are being recycled, not for lack of good will but because of practical reasons. Non-recyclable plastics are derived from petroleum and, since they cannot be recycled, they should be used as fuel and not landfilled in some converted greenfield. Regrettably, New York State does not recognize the bio-fraction of MSW as a renewable fuel because of wrongly placed environmental opposition to waste-to-energy. Waste-to-energy is not only controlled combustion, but any thermal treatment process that can convert solid wastes either to energy or to gas or liquid fuels.(23) We should be converting waste that cannot be economically or practically recycled to valuable alternate fuels, as is now being done in Europe and Japan; and is being proposed in California, who already has aggressive landfill diversion and waste recycling programs, to recover energy and to reduce reliance on carbon rich fuels. We must reduce our reliance on foreign fuels from troublesome nations. A ton of MSW is equal to about a barrel of oil. NYC which experienced electric power shortages last summer in Queens, can save hundreds of million dollars a year by using clean and safe waste-to- 4

5 energy systems, that could provide electricity to about a quarter of a million additional homes. We shouldn t put waste fuel into the ground. WTE is part of an important alternate energy strategy for our nation. Zero waste is an admirable goal for the present and the future generations. We should efficiently redesign our products to minimize wastes and encourage more recycling. However, zero waste disposal to polluting landfills is a more realistic goal now. Robin Davidov, Executive Director, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority authority@nmwda.org In the mid 1970 s, the Federal government distributed grants to several cities for the construction of new waste management technologies. The Federal government intended the grants to promote technologies which couldn t be privately financed due to the experimental and unproven nature of the systems. Baltimore City was one of the grant recipients. The Monsanto Company had developed a pyrolysis system on a small scale, and wanted to prove its worth in a large metropolitan city. The Pyrolysis Plant was scaled up and constructed on a City owned site on the main approach way to downtown, adjacent to I-95. By 1979, the Pyrolysis Plant was dubbed the Paralysis Plant by angry neighbors in South Baltimore who were fed up with the frequent shut downs, emissions and odors from the trash storage silo and plant. Baltimore City was running out of landfill space. City officials learned that incinerators in Europe were very successful, clean and modern and always located in areas of concentrated population. The City had a district heating system that could benefit from steam produced at a successful facility. A trip to Europe proved this to be true. But the neighbors of South Baltimore had to be convinced. Slide presentations of the European Facilities were shown at many community meetings. Traffic issues were discussed, along with job opportunities and environmental emissions. Fortunately, there were 10 years of data from the European plants. 5

6 The City got together with Baltimore County, Harford County and Anne Arundel County and asked the State legislature to create the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, with the mission to replace the Pyrolysis Plant with a functioning waste-to-energy facility. The Authority conducted procurement, and selected Wheelabrator-Frye to design, build, own and operate the facility. Wheelabrator contributed 20% of the equity, and the Authority sold revenue bonds for the balance of construction costs. Baltimore City and County signed up for half of the capacity under a 20 year agreement. The remaining capacity was marketed to the commercial sector by Wheelabrator. Was there community opposition? Once the new facility, traffic concerns and architectural concerns were addressed with the community, general acceptance was achieved. After the Facility opened, there were no complaints with the exception of some minor traffic issues which were corrected. Environmental group opposition? Interestingly, in 1984 the National Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund which had initially opposed, the proposed facility for the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York City, accepted the Brooklyn Navy Yard facility with the condition that the facility include the most current air pollution control systems, and the City implemented a comprehensive recycling program.(1) Compatibility with Recycling? Both Baltimore City and Baltimore County have comprehensive, curbside and drop-off recycling programs. Baltimore County has the second highest recycling rate in the State. Harford County has the highest recycling rate, and it also has a waste-to-energy facility which began operations in The BRESCO plant opened in It has been operating successfully ever since. The facility combusts about 2,000 tons per day and generates 60 MW of electricity and steam. In a congested electricity area such as Baltimore City, the energy is increasingly valuable, providing increasing revenues to the facility and much needed reliable power to residents and businesses. Environmental Justice Issues? The Facility site is a prominent landmark, located between the two major gateways to the Inner Harbor area of the City. The Ravens Stadium is located to the North, and the Community of Westport to the South. 6

7 Employment? BRESCO employs 68 people, with salaries between $18-$32/hour for operations and maintenance staff. Forty percent of the employees have been on staff for more than 15 years. BRESCO has earned the VPP STAR rating by OSHA, which is held by only 2% of all industrial facilities in the United States. Permit Compliance? Permit compliance is excellent, and far better than the conventional fossil fuel plants in the State. Ash Management? Ferrous metal is removed from the ash residue. The remaining material (10% by volume of the original trash) is recycled as daily cover at the City s landfill. The lime residue from the pollution control system causes the ash to set up and provide an excellent barrier for vector and fire control. By all measures the BRESCO facility is a success. The year that the Ravens played in the Super Bowl, the BALTIMORE letters on the stack were proudly painted purple. If there is an ironic twist to this story it is this: Every day thousands of tons of trash travel down I-95 from New York and New Jersey, past BRESCO, to landfills in Virginia consuming huge quantities imported oil, and worse leaving behind in our neighborhoods, highly toxic diesel emissions. We would prefer that you keep your trash at home. James D. Warner, Executive Director, Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, 1299 Harrisburg Pike, Lancaster, PA (717) jwarner@lcswma.org Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is a mere 150 miles and 2.5 hours from New York City. We re famous as a weekend vacation destination to see the Amish. We are considered a relatively conservative community, a community that is generally very slow to accept major changes. However, we are also a community that tends to abhor wastefulness and looks to do something good at the end of a product cycle. It is these values that led our county to adopt a truly integrated system of solid waste management in the late 1980 s and implement that system in the early 1990 s. While it is clearly recognized that Lancaster County and New York City are two very different population centers, with vastly different solid waste issues, I believe NYC is uniquely positioned to reap vast benefits of WTE, same as Lancaster County has but for different reasons. 7

8 Like most communities that have established WTE facilities, our populace was initially skeptical, and uncertain. They feared the facility would create pollution that would degrade their health, and their general quality of life. They feared the facility would damage the reputation of Lancaster County as the garden spot of the east coast a community with a thriving agricultural business that provides some of the best vegetables, poultry and dairy products produced in the United States. However, the community also felt strongly that it was their responsibility to manage their solid waste in their own community with a goal to minimize landfilling to preserve its farmland. Implementing an integrated system that included aggressive recycling and WTE were the methods chosen to achieve that goal. Now more than 15 years after the implementation of this program, we can clearly quantify the results of these efforts. Each year, we calculate the effectiveness of our integrated system by determining our landfill space savings through implementation of recycling and WTE. In 2006, we lessened our dependence on landfilling by 90% as opposed to the purely landfill only. waste management practice of 20 years ago. As a result, our current landfill is projected to last until the year Without recycling and WTE over the past 15 years, our current landfill would have been full in August of Therefore, in addition to all of the environmental benefits of recycling and renewable energy recovery, this integrated approach is providing a 19 year landfill life dividend back to our community. Unfortunately, we often hear that WTE competes with, or is detrimental to, the progress of recycling. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. Since the inception of WTE, our countywide recycling rate has grown from 14% to the current rate of 39%, representing an increase of 148,000 tons recovered annually. In fact, our WTE facility compliments our curbside programs. If a steel can fails to be placed curbside, it will be recovered on the back end of our WTE ferrous recovery system. But more importantly, this system recovers for recycling many household items that are not accepted in a curbside program but are 100% recyclable.items such as tools, eating utensils, paint cans, oil filters, and countless more. These items typically represent 2% of all the waste materials delivered to a WTE facility and they have a current value of $185 per ton. In 2006, our WTE facility recovered 6300 tons of 8

9 this metal generating over $700,000 in revenue. Why would anybody want to landfill this material? I have taken many groups of people though our WTE facility. During these tours, people always ask about emissions. Of course, the USEPA has mandated emission limits which ensures that ALL WTE facilities in the US operate at limits which are safe from a human health and environmental perspective. Our facility operates actually substantially below those limits. We love showing visitors our emission data to let them decide for themselves if they are satisfied with the environmental performance of the facility. At the conclusion of these tours, the most commonly asked question is why aren t there more communities with one of these? People are fascinated and pleased when they see their trash being converted to clean energy, metal removed for recycling and only a small pile of inert ash remaining. During the sixteen years the WTE facility has served Lancaster County, it has generated enough renewable electricity to power every home in the county for a period of two years and has recovered almost 100,000 tons of ferrous metal for recycling. An additional benefit that WTE has provided has been disposal cost stability. WTE facilities are extremely reliable and costs are very predictable since procurement of these facilities is usually done under minimum 20 year financing and operating agreements. Additionally, long term agreements can be negotiated for energy sales and waste supply. The average tipping fee in Lancaster County is actually LESS than it was 10 years ago. New York City should begin to consider the appropriateness of consuming land in other communities as their means of managing waste. Such a reliance on far-away landfill capacity is laden with risks. I know firsthand that in Pennsylvania the current regulatory climate is VERY hostile to permitting new capacity, especially for sites that import most of their waste from out-of-state clients. Eventually, NYC waste will need to be shipped further and further and disposal arrangements will be subjected to political pressures, creating both long term disposal and cost uncertainty. New York City needs to start looking at their solid waste as a resource. First, recycle all the material that makes sense, and you will still have more than 70% of your waste to manage on a daily basis. Zero waste sounds like a laudable goal, but there is NO credible evidence that is can work in an entire community, let alone a city the size of New York. NYC needs to make 9

10 some tough, realistic decisions that can have a meaningful beneficial impact to the future of the City. Make your solid waste an asset, rather than the huge liability it currently is. People all across the United States are becoming more sensitive to energy issues. NO city in America has more incentive to help themselves and our country obtain energy independence from the instability of the Middle East than NYC. Yet, NYC is exporting the energy equivalent of 26,000 barrels of oil a day to distant landfills. There is no doubt that NYC is the best city in the world. It has brilliant people, and the resources to incorporate a waste management system that supplies the city the energy it needs with an available and renewable resource that it is currently wasting. WTE is the perfect fit for an urban community where landfills are not practical, energy consumption is high and suitable waste material for fuel is abundant. In conclusion, it really comes down to a matter of how you wish to be perceived: Does NYC wish to be progressive, creative and mindful of its resources by implementing Waste-TO-Energy? Or does NYC wish to continue with the current, unpopular, unsustainable plan of disposing of its solid waste in distant landfills, and thus being a community that operates a system that is a Waste-OF-Energy? 10

11 11

12 12