Category: Zero Waste

Some cities have developed master plans to try to get to zero waste. They know it cannot be done, or can it? Even if they are unsuccessful, it is better for your health and the environment to recycle 70% of your garbage, instead of 45%.

  • Incinerator Misinformation – Pyrolysis & Gasification

    This misinformed effort to pretend that some types of incinerators aren’t incinerators has been laid to rest repeatedly, but the confusion still persists.

    The numbers below in brackets (e.g., [1]) refer to the linked source references at the bottom of this story.

    Most recently, the state of Delaware ruled [1] that a tire pyrolysis proposal [2] IS incineration according to the state’s definition [3], and is thus banned in the state.  (In 2000, Delaware passed a law [4] banning incinerators within 3 miles of a residence, church, school, park, or hospital — which is basically the entire state.)

    Read about this tire pyrolysis incinerator proposal here:

    http://www.greendel.org/2013/08/09/new-castle-de-threatened-by-tire-incinerator/

    One thing that the article, written by an engineer, states is that: ALL burning of solids and liquids involves gasification, simply because solids and liquids don’t burn.  They have to be gasified first.  Combustion is a process that occurs in the “gas phase.”

    U.S. EPA and the European Union’s definitions of incineration include pyrolysis, which I’ve documented at the bottom of this page:

    http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration

    As I’ve also pointed out in presentations, gasification (of which pyrolysis is one type) is just a more expensive and complicated type of incineration.  Gasification and pyrolysis promoters argue that they are not incinerators because they aren’t burning waste directly (they turn it into a gas first, then burn the gas).  If you light a piece of paper on fire, technically it’s the same thing… the paper isn’t burning, but the heat is turning the paper into a gas, which is then what burns (hence the small gap between the paper and the flame).  Gasification and pyrolysis basically just separate this process by putting a pipe in the middle.  This provides opportunities to filter the gas before burning, but that isn’t always done, and the toxins produced don’t disappear if filtered. They are just relocated to solid wastes that go to a landfill, making the landfill more toxic.

    Claims that no dioxins [5] can be formed by pyrolysis are bogus, as they’re based on the false claim that there is no oxygen in the gasification process (step one of the two-step incineration process).  While air is not added to the chamber, there is plenty of oxygen in the waste burned, which is why data from a company planning a huge pyrolysis facility in Indiana shows that 20% of the content of the “syngas” that comes out of the pyrolysis chamber is oxygen atoms (in the form of CO and CO2).  There are plenty of ingredients to make these ultra-toxic dioxins, and they ARE formed readily because pyrolysis operates at the lower temperatures where dioxins are more easily formed… and tires contain a lot of zinc, which is a catalyst for dioxin formation. [6]

    No matter how you cut it, incineration (including pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc) is the most expensive and polluting way to manage waste or to make energy. [7]  Wasting any time and money considering it is folly.

    I see this conversation is turning to jobs.  If cost, jobs, the environment, or property values are the question, the best and worst answers are the same.  The worst answer is any type of incineration.  The best answer on all fronts is a “zero waste” plan.  Here’s a simplified zero-waste hierarchy as I proposed it recently to the state of Maryland in comments [8] on their zero waste plan: Reduce, Reuse, and Source Separate. Separating garbage into the following types:

    Source Separate:

    • Clean Compostables ⇒ Aerobic Composting ⇒ Non-food landscaping/agriculture uses
    • Recycling ⇒ Material Recovery Facility (MRF):
      • Recyclables to Highest-end, Most Local Markets Possible
      • Residuals ⇒ Waste (below)
    • Waste ⇒ “Dirty MRF” (a.k.a. Mechanical / Biological Treatment):
      • Additional Recyclables captured and marketed
      • Residuals ⇒ Anaerobic Digestion ⇒ Digestate to Landfill
    • Special Collections ⇒ e-Waste, Household Hazardous Waste and other special/dangerous materials to proper recycling option

    A more detailed zero waste hierarchy is here: http://www.energyjustice.net/zerowaste/hierarchy

    …and links to other online resources on zero waste (including zero waste plans from other cities, even Austin, TX) can be found here:

    http://www.energyjustice.net/zerowaste/

    The R-Board really ought to work with experts like Dr. Neil Seldman to help develop a zero waste plan and have a variety of businesses collaborate to fulfill the plan instead of expecting one vendor to come along with a magic box and make it all go away.  Look at the track record of any companies like EEP trying to do this and you’ll see that it’s a miserable track record of failed and expensive projects.  Not a single commercial pyrolysis, gasification or plasma arc waste incinerator exists in the U.S.  Ask why…

    Sources:

    [1] http://www.greendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/INCINCERATORBANLETTER.pdf

    [2] http://www.greendel.org/2013/08/09/new-castle-de-threatened-by-tire-incinerator/

    [3] 7 Del.C. §6002(25)  http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc02/

    [4] 7 Del.C. §6003(c)(2)  http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc02/

    [5] http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

    [6] http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/catalysts.html

    [7] See powerpoint and other documentation at http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration

    [8] http://www.energyjustice.net/files/md/ZeroWastePlanComments.pdf

    Mike Ewall, Esq. Founder & Director, Energy Justice Network

  • Zero Waste Stories – It works!

    I have provided links that anyone interested in Zero Waste might want to view. Take a look and learn!

    This is an operational pyrolyzer somewhere in the world. It shows the process for how it is done.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HAx0odJbgM

    This is s video created by residents of Logansport who are fighting the largest proposed pyrolysis incinerator in the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GKz7Vti5no

    A description of how biomass, in this case, wood chips and sawdust, is incinerated in a pyrolyzer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PItlQZC5_-4

    After you see that, read the Letter to the Editor posted on June 21, 2014 in the Gainesville Sun at their website regarding the Gainesville Florida biomass incinerator’s appetite for wood, and how it has devastated the environment.

    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20140621/OPINION02/140619618/1077/opinion?Title=Letters-to-the-Editor-for-June-21-2014

    Capannori, Italy, adopted Zero Waste plan long before it was fashionable. Google “capannori italy zero waste” and an interesting story is revealed. Today, as a result of that community’s actions, over 117 Italian communities have adopted Zero Waste policies, creating jobs, reducing landfill use, while preventing more than 50 new incinerators from being built.

    http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2013/09/the-story-of-capannori-a-zero-waste-champion/

    Urban Ore is a company that implements Zero Waste in Berkley, CA, diverting between 7,000 and 8,000 tons of waste from that city’s landfill. It reuses, recycles, refurbishes, etc., things that normally go into the ground, creating 38 jobs that average over double the minimum wage, while including health coverage for all employees that is fully paid for by the company. They were in Fredericksburg on June 13th, but only one City Council member and no Stafford Board of Supervisor member took the time to learn. I guess it is better to remain ignorant, for plausible deniability purposes.

    www.urbanore.com

    Read the report from the Berkley City Manager to the Mayor and City Council on how they are achieving their zero waste goal, how they have been stuck at 75% diversion since 2010, and their plan remedy that to go much higher.

    http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Auditor/Level_3_-_General/A%202_RPTwithCouncilRpt_Zero%20Waste_Final.pdf

    This link has some interesting data, specifically describing how Delaware regulations require that no incinerator be built within 3 miles of residences, communities, schools, parks, churches, etc. What is within 2 miles of the incinerator site?  Brooke Point High School, Stafford Middle School, Stafford Hospital, Marian Manor (Alzheimer care), the Senior Center. The new Cliff Farm school site is less than 1 mile from that site.

    http://www.greendel.org/2013/08/09/new-castle-de-threatened-by-tire-incinerator/

    And this link describes the full rationale that the State of Delaware used for blocking an incinerator in New Castle, DE.

    http://www.greendelaware.org/http://greendel.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Incinerator-Status-Decision-RenewOil-Energy-Jun2013.pdf

    The Zero Waste Alliance’s motto: Creating a prosperous and inclusive future without waste. See how it can be done.

    http://www.zerowaste.org/

    Zero Waste International Alliance, another great source for how and why.

    http://zwia.org/

    Wikipedia quotes the Zero Waste Alliance: “Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_waste

    Eco-cycle provides a great list of how to deal with discards, an A-Z recycling guide. It also describes the Production-Consumption-Disposal System that most of the world uses, showing why it is broken. They have a great video there as well on zero waste.

    http://www.ecocycle.org/zerowaste

    San Francisco adopted a Zero Waste policy and is well on its way to implementing it by 2020. Go to the city/county website and see what they are doing, and why.

    http://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste

     

  • Letter to the Free Lance-Star

    Thanks to the Free-Lance Star and Ms. Remmers for covering the burgeoning question of waste management that Fredericksburg and Stafford County face. (June 14, 2014) There are critical financial and governance issues for every conservative and tea party, liberal and environmental, citizen and business.

    The article contained an important typo. Urban Ore handles 7,000 to 8,000 tons per year, not 7 to 8 tons per year. 93% is sold, 5% recycled, 2% goes to landfill.

    There are many factors that will determine the best way to manage the landfill.

    The county has 30-50 years left of very low cost landfill capacity. There is no emergency of any kind. By implementing state-of–the-art local/regional government and business policies, the 30 years can be doubled or tripled. Many cities and counties across the US have reached 50% + levels of recycling, creating thousands of jobs that pay well and have health insurance.

    If you have an incinerator you must have a landfill. The ash (concentrated toxic material), the by-pass waste (waste that cannot fit in the incinerator), and waste that has to be land filled when the plant is down for maintenance must go somewhere.

    Conservative political theory, as promulgated by Edmund Burke, says an elected official should do today what the constituency will want done ten years hence.

    Promoting a sold waste management approach that uses complex risky technology, offered by a company that has never done it before, while using a governmental process that bars alternatives, is hardly conservative, tea party, liberal, or environmental. It will generate a financial albatross that will burden generations of residents with big government regulations and big corporate partners.  This is why the tea party dominated Carroll County, MD Board of Commissions cancelled a garbage incineration project after careful financial impact analysis.

    Sincerely,

    Neil Seldman

    Seldman is a solid waste and economic development analyst for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC. He is an advisor to Stafford Citizens for Open Government, Fredericksburg, VA.

    http://www.freelancestar.com/2014-06-20/articles/38847/letter-stafford-nowhere-near-landfill-capacity/

  • Op Ed in the Free Lance-Star

    Don’t make county an incinerator guinea pig.

    Date published: 6/12/2014

    ON MAY 27, the Free Lance-Star pub- lished an article by Vanessa Remmers titled “Landfill Facing $228K Shortfall.”

    Current landfill revenue does not cover operational costs nor fund an expansion reserve. Why? Mismanagement and poor planning. The members of the Rappahannock Regional Solid Waste Management Board (R-Board) have done almost nothing to prevent the revenue shortfall, and over the last few years have actually caused landfill revenue to decrease.

    The landfill is subdivided into cells. Simply put, each cell requires a hole with a non-porous liner that meets environmental regulations. A new cell, opened in fall of 2013, is expected to be filled by December 2015. At the May 21 R-Board meeting, Keith Dayton, deputy county administrator, replied to R-Board Chairman Paul Milde’s question, stating that the R-Board needed to act immediately to prevent a December 2015 landfill shutdown.

    The Stafford Board of Supervisors stated it would not subsidize the operational shortfall. R-Board staff recommended options to increase revenue, but most were denied by the R-Board. How did we get to this point?

    Haulers pay “tipping fees” to dump garbage. These fees, set by the R-Board, are the second lowest in the region and do not meet the cost to process the garbage. Large-volume haulers receive additional discounts, reducing revenue way below operating costs.

    Tipping fees had been charged by the ton, but the R-Board changed that to by-the-truckload. Haulers can overload trucks and save money, again, lowering revenue below costs.

    For individuals bringing waste into the landfill, there are no decals to identify where the garbage is from. A decal and $3 charge at the gate would raise more than $1 million, eliminate the entire shortfall and provide a surplus to fund a new cell reserve.

    Recycling revenue is down, and closing all three local recycling centers reduced recycling. Stafford’s recyclables are not adequately pre-sorted. Companies that take the landfill’s recyclables to sell get mixed loads. Some recyclables are far less profitable to recycle, and so wholesalers pay significantly less or even reject the delivery, if they are mixed in. Hence, reduced revenue.

    The landfill methane gas recovery system generates electricity and revenue, but leaky pipes allowed methane to escape, causing lower revenue.

    The R-Board made these policy decisions despite knowing that they would decrease revenue, and cause operational funding shortfalls and no money for new cells. The R-Board could have eliminated the shortfall and funded the reserve. Failure to do so benefits private companies at the expense of taxpayers.

    Make no mistake about it, Request for Proposals 85144, issued May 30, is intended to convert landfill operations to an incinerator-based solution, owned and operated by private industry. The R-Board knowingly created a revenue shortfall, changed the permit process to eliminate public scrutiny, and continuously berates opponents saying that we lie to the public. Stating that the landfill will shut down is a blatant attempt to cause panic and ram an incinerator down our throats.

    Ponder these:

    • The landfill’s commercial garbage has increased this year by 26 percent, but billable tonnage increased only 11 percent; last year, commercial tonnage increased 18 percent, but billable tonnage only 3 percent; so, more garbage is dumped for less revenue.

    Tire tonnage is down by 64 percent from FY 2013, which was down another 35 percent from FY 2012; this two-year downward trend coincides with a proposed tire-burning incinerator, where tires would be burned for free. Is it possible they are being stockpiled in anticipation of free disposal? The incinerator awarded in 2013 was commercially viable only if it burned an unlimited amount of tires.

    Even if an incinerator is built, the landfill will still need to open another cell, as no incinerator can be built, permitted and made operational before the December 2015 landfill closing deadline. Where will the money come from?

    The crisis is real, but manufactured. We need to implement policies that are environmentally sound, do not cause health risks, are sustainable and which handle all our jurisdiction’s garbage in a cost-effective manner.

    No incinerator has been built in the U.S. in the past several decades, despite more than 100 industry-driven attempts to do so. No incinerator built with the thermal technologies listed in the RFP has successfully performed anywhere in the U.S.

    Let’s not make Stafford and Fredericksburg the incinerator guinea pig or the tire-burning capital of the U.S.

    Bill Johnson has been a Stafford resident since 1998.
    Will Landfill Planning Doom Stafford and Fredericksburg to an Incinerator?

    On May 27, 2014, the Free Lance-Star published an article by Vanessa Remmers titled “Landfill Facing $228K Shortfall”.

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2014/062014/06122014/839703

    Current landfill revenue does not cover operational costs nor fund an expansion reserve. Why? Mismanagement and poor planning. The members of the Rappahannock Regional Solid Waste Management Board (R-Board) have done almost nothing to prevent the revenue shortfall, and over the last few years have actually caused landfill revenue to decrease.

    The landfill is subdivided into cells. Simply put, each cell requires a hole with a non-porous liner that meets environmental regulations. A new cell, opened in Fall 2013, is expected to be filled by December 2015. At the May 21, 2014 R-Board meeting, Mr. Keith Dayton, Deputy County Administrator, replied to R-Board Chairman, Mr. Paul Milde’s question, stating that the R-Board needed to act immediately to prevent a December 2015 landfill shutdown.

    The Stafford Board of Supervisors (BOS) stated it would not subsidize the operational shortfall. R-Board staff recommended options to increase revenue, but most were denied. How did we get to this point?

    • Haulers pay “tipping fees” to dump garbage. These fees, set by R-Board, are the second lowest in the Region and do not meet the cost to process the garbage. Large-volume haulers receive additional discounts, reducing revenue way below operating costs.
    • Tipping fees had been charged by the ton, but the R-Board changed that to by-the-truckload. Haulers can overload trucks and save money, again, lowering revenue below costs.
    • For individuals bringing waste into the landfill, there are no decals to identify where the garage is from. A decal and $3 charge at the gate would raise over $1 Million, eliminate the entire shortfall, and provide a surplus to fund a new cell reserve.
    • Recycling revenue is down, and closing all 3 local recycling centers reduced recycling. Stafford’s recyclables are not adequately pre-sorted. Companies that take the landfill’s recyclables to sell, get mixed loads. Some recyclables are far less profitable to recycle, and so wholesalers pay significantly less or even reject the delivery, if they are mixed in. Hence, reduced revenue.
    • The landfill methane gas recovery system generates electricity and revenue, but leaky pipes allowed methane to escape, causing lower revenue.

    The R-Board made these policy decisions despite knowing that they would decrease revenue, causing operational funding shortfalls and no money for new cells. The R-Board could have eliminated the shortfall and funded the reserve. Failure to do so benefits private companies at the expense of taxpayers.

    Make no mistake about it, Request for Proposals (RFP) # 85144, issued May 30th, is intended to convert landfill operations to an incinerator-based solution, owned and operated by private industry. The R-Board knowingly created a revenue shortfall, changed the permit process to eliminate public scrutiny, and continuously berates opponents saying that we lie to the public. Stating that the landfill will shut down is a blatant attempt to cause panic and ram an incinerator down our throats.

    Ponder these:

    • The landfill’s commercial garbage has increased this year by 26%, but billable tonnage increased only 11%; last year, commercial tonnage increased 18% but billable tonnage only 3%; so, more garbage is dumped for less revenue.
    • Tire tonnage is down by 64% from FY 2013, which was down another 35% from FY 2012; this 2-year downward trend coincides with a proposed tire-burning incinerator, where tires would be burned for free. Is it possible they are being stockpiled in anticipation of free disposal? The incinerator awarded in 2013 was only commercially viable if it burned an unlimited amount of tires.
    • Even if an incinerator is built, the landfill will still need to open another cell, as no incinerator can be built, permitted, and made operational before the December 2015 landfill closing deadline. Where will the money come from?

    The crisis is real, but manufactured. We need to implement policies that are environmentally sound, do not cause health risks, are sustainable, and which handle all our jurisdiction’s garbage in a cost-effective manner.

    No incinerator has been built in the US in the past several decades, despite over 100 industry-driven attempts to do so. No incinerator built with the thermal technologies listed in the RFP has successfully performed anywhere in the US.

    Let’s not make Stafford and Fredericksburg the incinerator guinea pig or the tire burning capital of the US.

  • Urban Ore

    Urban Ore is a reuse and recycling enterprise based in Berkeley, CA that traces its origin to the tip face of the old Berkeley dump from where Urban Ore recovered its initial tools and capital as the basis for the multi million dollar enterprise operated by 65 workers and occupying a unique site on 3 acres in downtown Berkeley, CA. Urban Ore provides quality used building materials, household furnishing, with its 200,000 square foot warehouse for its immediate customers. It has also become a supply train for scores of additional reuse stores throughout the SF Bay Area.

    Urban Ore is a private business with a track record of community service that dates to its origins. Van Deventer and Knapp lead the fight in the early l980s to keep garbage incineration out of the region. The Berkeley Burn Papers, l982, informed citizens and small businesses well beyond the Bay Area. Over 300 planned garbage incinerators were defeated by grass roots campaigns inspired by the work of urban Ore and neighboring recycling enterprise, Santa Rosa Community Recycling Center that produced Garbage Incineration the False Panacea.

    Van Deventer and Knapp have also served as intellectual and policy leaders within the recycling and economic development movement from which the zero waste movement emerged in the l990s. Knapp travelled to Australia and brought back word of initial zero waste efforts in Canberra. Zero Wealth has become the new paradigm for grass roots citizen and small business activists.

    Urban Ore developed the 12 category (and sub cluster) source separation system, which has become the basis for contemporary zero waste plans. Urban Ore participated in the first zero waste plan in the US, for Del Norte County, CA. Urban Ore graphics have been used in numerous plans for resource recovery facilities. Van Deventer and Knapp are at the center of policy discussions on Extended producer responsibility. They were principal contributors to the Berkeley Zero Waste Commission revised that self-serving EPR formula put forward by global corporations. The Berkeley City Council and the Global Recycling Council of the California Resource Recovery Association have adopted their principles of government control over EPR. Urban Ore published The EPR trilogy following a national conference on EPR held by the Illinois Recycling Association in 2012.

    Urban Ore worked with ILSR to establish the Recycling Archives Project, now housed at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

  • Is the Incinerator inevitable?

    Will Landfill Planning Doom Stafford and Fredericksburg to an Incinerator?

    On May 27, 2014, the Free Lance-Star published an article by Vanessa Remmers titled “Landfill Facing $228K Shortfall”.

    Current landfill revenue does not cover operational costs nor fund an expansion reserve. Why? Mismanagement and poor planning. The members of the Rappahannock Regional Solid Waste Management Board (R-Board) have done almost nothing to prevent the revenue shortfall, and over the last few years have actually caused landfill revenue to decrease.

    The landfill is subdivided into cells. Simply put, each cell requires a hole with a non-porous liner that meets environmental regulations. A new cell, opened in Fall 2013, is expected to be filled by December 2015. At the May 21, 2014 R-Board meeting, Mr. Keith Dayton, Deputy County Administrator, replied to R-Board Chairman, Mr. Paul Milde’s question, stating that the R-Board needed to act immediately to prevent a December 2015 landfill shutdown.

    The Stafford Board of Supervisors (BOS) stated it would not subsidize the operational shortfall. R-Board staff recommended options to increase revenue, but most were denied by the R-Board. How did we get to this point?

    • Haulers pay “tipping fees” to dump garbage. These fees, set by the R-Board, are the second lowest in the Region and do not meet the cost to process the garbage. Large-volume haulers receive additional discounts, reducing revenue way below operating costs.
    • Tipping fees had been charged by the ton, but the R-Board changed that to by-the-truckload. Haulers can overload trucks and save money, again, lowering revenue below costs.
    • For individuals bringing waste into the landfill, there are no decals to identify where the garage is from. A decal and $3 charge at the gate would raise over $1 Million, eliminate the entire shortfall, and provide a surplus to fund a new cell reserve.
    • Recycling revenue is down, and closing all 3 local recycling centers reduced recycling. Stafford’s recyclables are not adequately pre-sorted. Companies that take the landfill’s recyclables to sell, get mixed loads. Some recyclables are far less profitable to recycle, and so wholesalers pay significantly less or even reject the delivery, if they are mixed in. Hence, reduced revenue.
    • The landfill methane gas recovery system generates electricity and revenue, but leaky pipes allowed methane to escape, causing lower revenue.

    The R-Board made these policy decisions despite knowing that they would decrease revenue, and cause operational funding shortfalls and no money for new cells. The R-Board could have eliminated the shortfall and funded the reserve. Failure to do so benefits private companies at the expense of taxpayers.

    Make no mistake about it, Request for Proposals (RFP) # 85144, issued May 30th, is intended to convert landfill operations to an incinerator-based solution, owned and operated by private industry. The R-Board knowingly created a revenue shortfall, changed the permit process to eliminate public scrutiny, and continuously berates opponents saying that we lie to the public. Stating that the landfill will shut down is a blatant attempt to cause panic and ram an incinerator down our throats.

    Ponder these:

    • The landfill’s commercial garbage has increased this year by 26%, but billable tonnage increased only 11%; last year, commercial tonnage increased 18% but billable tonnage only 3%; so, more garbage is dumped for less revenue.
    • Tire tonnage is down by 64% from FY 2013, which was down another 35% from FY 2012; this 2-year downward trend coincides with a proposed tire-burning incinerator, where tires would be burned for free. Is it possible they are being stockpiled in anticipation of free disposal? The incinerator awarded in 2013 was only commercially viable if it burned an unlimited amount of tires.
    • Even if an incinerator is built, the landfill will still need to open another cell, as no incinerator can be built, permitted, and made operational before the December 2015 landfill closing deadline. Where will the money come from?

    The crisis is real, but manufactured. We need to implement policies that are environmentally sound, do not cause health risks, are sustainable, and which handle all our jurisdiction’s garbage in a cost-effective manner.

    No incinerator has been built in the US in the past several decades, despite over 100 industry-driven attempts to do so. No incinerator built with the thermal technologies listed in the RFP has successfully performed anywhere in the US.

    Let’s not make Stafford and Fredericksburg the incinerator guinea pig or the tire burning capital of the US.

  • R-Board Meeting 5/21 – Correction of Comments made by Some R-Board members

    At today’s meeting, the R-Board discussed moving forward with the RFP to award a contract to some as-yet-unknown company. After the Public Presentations, some statements were made by Board members that need correcting.

    An example: Mr. Milde stated that nowhere in the RFP are incinerators mentioned, and so, by opponents using the word “incinerator”, we are incorrect and misleading the public. However, look on page 16 of the RFP and you will see a table that mentions pyrolysis, gasification, and other technologies that are defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as “incinerators”. Simply not mentioning the word incinerator in the RFP doesn’t negate the fact that pyrolysis/etc.-based systems are incinerators. No matter how many times this specious argument is brought up, it is still incorrect; award of this RFP could result in an incinerator(s) being built.

    This is part of an on-going attempt to hide the true nature of the effort that the R-Board is heading towards – an incinerator at the Eskimo Hill Road landfill.

    Mr. Howe, in his parting message, stated that we should go ahead with the RFP, as something has to be done. That is true; something does have to be done, but an incinerator is not the answer. Simple steps can make a difference. Create a standard fee that covers the true cost of issuing decals and using the landfill; that raises revenue and ensures that people from out of our jurisdiction don’t use our landfill for free. Raise the tipping fees to accurately reflect landfill costs. Stop the practice of charging by the truckload, and return to what used to be Stafford Policies of charging by the ton; that raises revenue. It seems like, over the past few years, the Board is making changes to eliminate revenue sources, and that is causing the revenue shortfall, and is setting the stage for an incinerator as the savior.

    Mr. Howe also used oft-repeated, and incorrect logic that goes like this: because the US only contributes 18-20% of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it doesn’t make much sense to do it. It won’t have a big effect on climate change. Actually, it will have a really good effect for the US economy and the environment. It would make the US the leader in handling garbage, in low emission and environmentally-friendly ways, something that India and China are now beginning to understand the need for. And if we half those emissions because we have moved into more environmentally benign technologies for energy, we will be innovation and technology leaders for the time when fossil fuels are no longer available or economically viable. Not to mention the actual, and real positive effect it will have on the environment.

    This is an oft-used attempt to ignore the impact of climate change on Virginians. When the military tells you it is a security risk to naval bases in Virginia, it is serious, believable, and true.

    Mr. Milde and Mr. Dayton discussed, at length, Zero Waste. By putting out a contract for consulting services, the Board recognized and admitted that none of the Board members were qualified to evaluate the proposals, because they didn’t understand the technologies well enough. I do applaud them for starting to find out what it really is. But, if anyone wants to know about Zero Waste, go to www.StopTheStaffordIncinerator.com and find out what Zero Waste means. There are lots of references, reading materials, and links to experts that actually know, understand, and set up and operate under Zero Waste Plans. Zero Waste is a goal, not a guarantee, but it is environmentally friendly, unlike incinerators. It also doesn’t create the health problems that incinerators will.

    There is 30-50 years life left in the landfill. Just because the Board doesn’t have an answer to current budgetary problems doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And failure to properly plan for something that is known to be inevitable, almost borders on dereliction of duty. Using the drop-dead date of 12/15 for the current landfill cell to be full, only points out that the Board didn’t plan very well. Multiple proposals to cover the funding gap have been proposed by staff members and virtually all were turned down. Why? Because of a fixation on an incinerator?

    It seems strange that the actions of the R-Board have caused the landfill to lose revenue and not have sufficient operational funds, and then want to solve that problem by becoming the first place in the US to build a polluting incinerator in several decades.

    Thirty years in the future, it would be good if we didn’t leave the landfill a toxic site for those people alive then to deal with. We have already set a good example by the current operations of the landfill, recycling 50% of what comes in. Why not go for 75%, then higher? Let’s not make the success of the current landfill operations only a memory that becomes a nightmare, by building an incinerator.

    More reused garbage means less goes into the landfill; simple, really. Zero Waste is not a curse word, nor something that can be ignored, if the Board is really interested in serving its constituents. It is the only sustainable approach that doesn’t harm the environment while creating small business jobs. I know, that is not very inviting to large companies, and adopting that approach might reduce the chances of future campaign contributions from large waste-disposal companies. But the chances of disasters are lessened, greenhouse gases are not emitted, and waste water doesn’t get contaminated.

  • Smithsonian Magazine – Plastic Bottles

    This article talks about an innovative bottle that can be eaten. But, it also discusses the extent of the plastic bottle problem in today’s oceans. About 1.5 million barrels of crude oil are used annually to manufacture plastic bottles, according to a 2007 resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. They often end up in the ocean; there are roughly more than 46,000 pieces of floating plastic trash for every square mile, according to a report by the United Nations. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/Heres-A-Water-Bottle-You-Can-Actually-Eat-180951185/#Vd0tPXD0D3GMH7Lb.99

  • U.S. – Brazil Joint Initiative on Urban Sustainability

    http://www.epa.gov/jius/policy/policy.html

    This branch of the EPA has created a website that lists successful policies in cities that are currently implementing Zero Waste methods of waste management. It includes resources on financing Zero Waste implementation. Zero Waste is working, and here are the tools to make it happen.

     

  • Building Zero Waste Communities – Start here

    http://www.ecocycle.org/zero-waste-global

    This site is a gold mine of definitions, strategies, and entrepreneurial opportunities for instituting zero waste communities. Do you want 90% waste recovery? Do you want profitable waste management methods? This is the place to start!