Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0582.046 2004-2006 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: James Weatherford [gardengreen@hawaiiantel.net] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:46 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Environmental Management Committee Comm. 582.45 -COMMENT Attachments: WTERT Meeting, October 19 - 20, 2006, Columbia University, NYC testimony for EMC Nov 14.doc; RichardAnthonyresume oct 2006.doc Please submit the two attached files, together, as testimony for the November 14 meeting of the Environmental Management Committee. Thank you. James Weatherford, Ph.D. P.O. Box 2017 [15-1888 6th Avenue (Hialoa), Hawaiian Paradise Park] Kea'au, Hawaii 96749 808-982-5549 s - - ro Comm. No. $2• Ref. To: v Ref. bate, 14 20~ 11/14/2006 At the request of Mayor Harry Kim, I attended the Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT), Annual Meeting, Columbia University, New York City, October 19 and 20, 2006. Below are my observations from that meeting. A. What did 1 learn? The most valuable information drawn from the presentations was about Waste to Energy (WTE} in Europe. According to several presentations, great strides have been made in improving the environmental performance of WTE in Europe. It was also obvious that WTE in Europe is large scale and metropolitan-based. Furthermore, economic viability of WTE in Europe is substantially dependent on "district heat" production, in addition to electricity generation. The likelihood of environmental problems from WTE in Europe would appear to have been reduced by improvements in pollution control technology. The seriousness of the consequences of air emissions or groundwater contamination (i.e., the nature of the toxins associated with WTE) has not been altered. B. What is my assessment of the presentations? Taken together, the presentations were a selective, rather than a comprehensive, view of WTE. There was a considerable `product orientation' in contrast to a 'market, or customer, orientation.' The presenters were very keen to talk about the attributes of their product, but seemed largely oblivious to the actual needs of their customers. Presentations on specific WTE facilities, and those regarding an overview of the industry, were only about the 'upside' of the product. Most of the scientific research appeared to have been performed well and reported honestly. However, there was no indication that the research would be submitted to peer-review scrutiny and publication -the standard for premium-quality, unbiased research. The questions being asked by the research, and the assumptions made by the researchers, were intended to promote WTE and to dispel doubts, rather than to objectively analyze strengths and weaknesses. This was an annual meeting of an industry group, and the presentations were substantially self-congratulatory. Indeed, one presenter explicitly stated, "...all of us here are proponents of WTE." Among the sponsors of the WTERT Council are Covanta and Wheelabrator. It is not likely that companies depending on WTE for profits will sponsor anything except that which enhances the image of their product. Overall, it would not be credible to claim that the research and the subsequent results presented at the annual meeting are unbiased. James Weatherford, Ph.D. Home telephone 808-982-5549 P.O. Box 2017 Cell telephone: 808-333-0039 Kea'au, Hawaii 96749 Email: gardengreen@hawaiiantel.net C. What is the relationship between recycling and WTE? Many of the presenters, as well as forum moderators, repeatedly asserted that WTE does not diminish recycling opportunities. Furthermore, several claims were made that communities or nations with high recycling rates also had WTE facilities -and vice versa. A small amount of anecdotal data was presented and, without close examination, was declared as "proof" that WTE did not diminish recycling. However, no serious explanation was offered as to the nature of an alleged complementary relationship between WTE and recycling. In out-of-session, one-on-one discussions, others in attendance at the meeting offered that recycling successes in many of the communities with WTE were because those communities were more able or more willing to develop successful recycling programs. While no precise explanation was given for an alleged complementary relationship between WTE and recycling, a few possibilities can be considered: 1) Since the localities of most WTE facilities have high populations, any particular WTE facility might be of a size that does not require a major portion of the total waste stream, thus leaving a considerable amount of material for recycling. 2) The recycling system and market for recyclables could be highly developed such that a wide range of materials are considered "recyclable." 3) Curbside pick up of recyclable materials and/or sorting capacity at WTE sites could increase the portion of the total waste stream that is recycled. Some WTE sites were reported as having capacity to sort materials prior to incineration. 4) The mix of what is recycled could be different from that at a locality without WTE. Several presentations alluded to high rates of metal recovery from WTE facilities. For example, it was confirmed that in Bruscia, Italy very little plastic is recycled, with most of it being burnt in the WTE; and that the WTE facility recovers a considerable amount of metal. 5) Legislation that restricts what may be burnt in a WTE facility, such as exists in some places, would make certain recyclable materials unavailable for burning and therefore certain to be recycled. 6) Legislation that requires responsibility on the part of producers of materials that might become waste can also alter the destiny of materials toward recycling or WTE ("Producer Responsibility" legislation was referred to as being implemented in Sweden). Any one, or combinations, of the above possibilities could work toward reducing competition between WTE and recycling. A better understanding of the relationship between recycling and WTE might be possible with better information for individual WTE sites, including composition of recyclable materials and composition of WTE fuel. Nevertheless, the members of the WTERT seemed to prefer that their assertions and anecdotal information be taken on faith that WTE does not diminish recycling opportunities. 2 D. What was not discussed? There are several issues that would seem to have an important role in WTE, especially as it relates to our situation in Hawaii County. Yet these issues were largely absent from the agenda and presentations. The business of WTE was given very little attention. For example, there were no detailed cost analyses. There was no discussion of innovations in contracting and public-private partnering. Relationships between WTE operators and public utilities were not given consideration. None of the discussions referred to the use of WTE on a scale to meet the needs of relatively small communities. As part of broader discussions, there was mention made of the possibility of rural areas sending materials to WTE facilities in urban areas. The type of solid waste being handled was given only passing mention, except for facilities that were burning sewage sludge. There was no attention given to the composition of the total municipal solid waste stream in the localities served by WTE facilities; nor was there discussion of the composition of the materials going into the WTE facilities. Therefore, by extension, there was no discussion of the composition of materials being recycled in the localities served by WTE facilities. With most of the WTE facilities in the US having operated for several years, if, as claimed, WTE creates no health problems such as bioaccumulation of toxins, then epidemiological research could be used to substantiate industry claims of nil health effects. No such evidence regarding the long-term safety of WTE was presented. Anaerobic digestion as a WTE alternative was not discussed. E. Is WTE appropriate for Hawaii County? Overall, I am confident that a lot has been done to reduce emissions from WTE mass-burn incineration plants. I am not confident that enough has been done to make it acceptable in my community. Beyond the possible emissions risk, I am certain that there is a substantial financial risk for a small community like ours. This risk arises out of two critical points: 1. The facility proposed for Hawaii County would have a capacity of no more than 200 tons per day. This is much smaller than is typical for the newer WTE facilities, especially for those built to create electricity revenue only (some smaller facilities sell steam heat). A smaller facility will cost more per ton than a larger facility. A volume of materials less than what is required to operate the facility at its optimum level will also increase cost per ton. There is great potential for underestimating costs at the outset of the project. 2. A WTE facility in Hilo is expected to require a capital investment of $40 million or more. Such a large financial commitment, and a need to burn as much material as it takes to keep per ton costs low, will inhibit or preclude the County's investment in other alternatives. A WTE facility in Hawaii County would result in a great lack of flexibility in cost saving adaptations to changes in waste stream mix and/or changes in resource markets. 3 Most importantly, given the serious financial risks, and reduced-but-not-eliminated environmental risks, I feel confident that WTE mass burn incineration is not the best our community can do. There are viable and proven cleaner, safer, less costly, and less risky alternatives. F. Waste-to-Energy versus Zero Waste Waste-to-Energy is a financial transaction based on the legal requirements of a contract between the County and a distant, faceless corporation. Assurance for safety is put into a technology and environmental regulations, neither of which does the local community have control over. The technology appears to have been greatly improved and the regulations may be set with the intent of allowing the least possible harm. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in the cases of failure accompanying this report, neither technology nor regulation can offer the community assurance as long as human error and greed are to contend with. Zero Waste is acommunity-centered approach to resource management. Trust and investment are put into the local community. Government leaders work with the local community - households, businesses, schools, and others to improve our own economic well-being and to protect the environmental health of ourselves and our children. Instead of technology from afar and debt for a long time, this alternative is about community capability and local economy. The websites below provide information about how communities are using Zero Waste as a resource management strategy: http //www.ecocycle.orq/ http //www.zerowaste.orct/ http //www productstewardship us/ http //www recvclingprofessionals com/ For further information about resource management as an alternative to waste management, Mr. Rick Anthony will be in Hilo November 14 - 15 to talk about resource management with stakeholders, including interested and active people in the community (Rick's bio accompanies this testimony). He will also be accompanying me to the Environmental Management Committee Meeting on November 14, to give a brief introduction to his work and to answer questions from Council members. James Weatherford, Ph.D. P.O. Box 2017 [15-1888 6l" Avenue, Hawaiian Paradise Park] Kea'au, Hawai'I 96749 4 Richard V. Anthony Resource Management, Specialist 3891 Kendall Street, San Diego, CA 92109 (858) 272 2905 ~ (858) 272 3709 (fax) Ricanthony@aol.com - richardanthonyassociates.com Richard V. Anthony began his career in Public Administration in 1971 as a manager of the California State University Long Beach Recycling Center. He received a MS in Public Administration in 1974. Mr. Anthony has worked as a program manager in the Resource Management, Conservation and Recovery field for more than 35 years. He is an advocate and leader in the area of Zero Waste Systems approaches to Resource Management. He is the principal consultant in San Diego County on Organic Resource Management. In order to get organics out of the landfill San Diego County is working with Farmers and planners to develop best practices for on the farm composting and land application He is the principal consultant for Suffolk Connect on a feasibility study to determine the parameters for a Resource Recovery Park in east England. The project includes a business plan and market outreach program to provide opportunities for trades, construction and demolition and self haul discarded materials generators to recycle and/or compost these materials. He is the consultant to the San Luis Obispo County on the development of their zero waste programs. Mr. Anthony helped San Bernardino County with Waste Reduction and Recycling from July 2001-04, provided Imperial County assistance in preparing their recycling plans. (1999-2000). He was CAO of the San Diego Urban Corps a youth conservation group in 2000. He assisted Del Norte County develop one of the first US zero waste plans in 1998 and the Del Mar Fairgrounds reduce their sewage bill by composting food discards. Mr. Anthony has nearly 20 years of experience working inside County Public Works Agencies as Program Manager for the Fresno (79-87) and San Diego County Public Works Departments (87- 98). He has implemented waste reduction and recycling programs prescribed by the United States and the California Environmental Protection Agencies, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Department of Conservation for private and public clients. Richard Anthony is a founder and member of the Board of Directors of the California Resource Recovery Association, the Grassroots Recycling Network, the Zero Waste International Alliance, the USA National Recycling Coalition (past board member) and Keep California Beautiful (board member). He is Chair of the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Anthony has been published in Recycle Scene, Waste News, Bio- cycle, Recycling Today, Recycling Times and other trade magazines. He has presented papers at National and International Recycling Conferences and has taught classes and lectured on resource conservation and recovery at Universities and Community Colleges throughout the world. He has been on the Scientific Committee for the Academy of Science Recycling conferences for the last two events and presented zero waste workshops in Geneva and Beijing. Education: • B.A. 1969; Political Science (Public Administration), California State University, Long Beach, California; • M.S. 1974; Public Administration, California State University, Long Beach, California. Government Experience: • County of Fresno, Public Works; Solid Waste Program Coordinator 1979-1987) • State of California, Senate Task Force for Solid Waste Management; Recycling Committee Chairman (1987-1989) County of San Diego, Public Works; Principal Solid Waste Program Manager (1987- 1998) • County of Imperial, Waste Reduction and Recycling Consultant (1998-2000 County of San Bernardino Waste Reduction and Recycling Consultant (2001-present) • County of San Luis Obispo's Waste Reduction and Recycling Specialist (1998- present) Private Sector Experience: • Richard Anthony Associates, 1979-present, Principal • Urban Corps of San Diego 2000, Chief Executive Officer • SCS Engineers; Project Scientist (1974-1979) Voluntary Positions: • Board of Directors Grassroots Recycling Network (1996-present) • Board of Directors; California Resource Recovery Association (1975-present) • Board of Directors; Keep California Beautiful (1991- present) • Zero Waste International Alliance (2003) Founding member and Board of Director; National Recycling Coalition (1980-1993) University Experience: • Lecturer; Careers in Waste Management, Public Administration, San Diego State University (1989-1993) Instructor; Solid Waste Management, Environmental Health Department, Fresno State University (1986) Honors: • Recycler of the Year; California Resource Recovery Association 2003 Best Regional Recycling Program; National Recycling Coalition 1993 • Life membership; California Resource Recovery Association 1993 Best Recycling Program; California Department of Conservation 1990 • National Environmental Leader CRRA; National Recycling Coalition 1987 Recycler of the Year; California Resource Recovery Association 1984