Thursday, February 23, 2012

Cleveland's waste-to-energy proposal is faulty; new source of pollution, risk of emerging technology; flawed process and doesn't seek to use best practices for waste management

The following is information gleaned from research and documents provided by energy and waste consultants, U. S. EPA and other sources pertaining to reviewing the Cleveland Public Power proposed waste-to-energy facility.  The report attempts to layout and explain the problems with the proposed project and the need to focus on waste source reductions, re-use, composting and recycling, before pursuing expensive and risky waste-to-energy technology.  It is broken into four sub-sections:
  1. Non-standard faulty process and project phasing and development.
  2. Best practices in waste management not being pursued first, project driven by waste-to-energy goal.
  3. Proposed thermal gasification technology and scale is considered emerging, with too many risks and costs that could jeopardize CPP's viability.
  4. Pollution, Environmental Justice issues and need for stronger public education and involvement.
A big thanks to the following organizations as well as the numerous citizens and businesses that have been involved for the last several months in researching and verifying the information enclosed - Environmental Health Watch, Earth Day Coalition, Northeast Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action.  Links to the project doceuments and other sources of information are provided in a previous post here.

Major points of research and concerns about CREG Center


Here are some select excerpts (from 22 pages) that convey the summary:















U.S. EPA states Cleveland waste-to-energy project must be regulated as a major source of pollution; City of Cleveland submits revised plans in attempt to be regulated as minor source of pollution.

U.S. EPA asserts Ohio EPA issued Draft Air Permit in violation of Clean Air Act

In the first of two separate communications today, U.S. EPA sent a letter this morning to the Ohio EPA asserting that the review and processing of the City of Cleveland's permit application for a waste-to-energy facility was done incorrectly by allowing the application to be considered under regulations for a “synthetic minor”, or new minor source of pollution as opposed to more stringent regulations for a new major source.



REF: 2/23/12 U.S. EPA letter (Scribd on-line document or PDF download)

The U.S. EPA cites Section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act and stated in their letter that “Cleveland Public Power falls within the listed source category “municipal incinerators capable of charging more than fifty tons of refuse per day”.

The letter goes on to summarize that the permit application will need to be modified and re-evaluated.  They then provide an extensive list of sixteen additional comments and concerns about the project.

The release of the letter today coincides with the closing of the official public comment period for the Draft Air Permit which was released by the Ohio EPA for the project.

Cleveland Public Power announces scaling back of project and lowering emissions to be regulated as a minor source of pollution

In what appears as a direct response or move based on anticipating the U.S. EPA affirmation today, Cleveland Public Power announced a modification to their plans for the project to lower project air pollution.


The City stated today that they’ll be “reducing the number of gasification lines from 4 to 3, enhancing the proposed air pollution control equipment and increasing the facility’s stack height from 175 feet to 200 feet.”  And, that these enhancements will significantly reduce the maximum annual emissions…by an average of more than 25% and also reduce the predicted maximum air quality impact in the nearby neighborhoods by an average of more than 50%.”

REF: 1) Comments re: Draft Air Permit; 2) Final comments [mark-up] of Draft Air Permit; and, 3) Final emissions & Air Qaulity Impact Comparisons [w/modified emission calculations].

It is unclear by these two separate communications today what the next steps in the process for this project will be.  It is possible that due to today’s U.S. EPA’s assertions the Ohio EPA may be required to re-issue a new draft air permit which would then trigger a new public comment period and process of review.  It would appear that the Cleveland Public Power is attempting to modify their initial application and by reducing the scale of the project, hoping to have the current draft air permit modified and approved with no further public comments or public process.

Meanwhile, Cleveland City Council is still holding a piece of legislation, introduced back on November 4th, 2011 that would authorize between $200,000 and $250,000 to hire a consultant to review a Request for Information and Qualifications that the City issued back in September of 2011.

In terms of the estimated $2.0 million project costs to-date - in addition to the internal project development within Cleveland Public Power and the Division of Waste, there have been three separate trips to Japan to view technology of Kinsei Sangyo Co., Ltd;  there have been multiple feasibility studies that have included a review of the recycling pilot project by R. W. Beck (2008); a feasibility study that looked only at the gasification project proposed by Tien, conducted by RNR Consulting Inc. (2009); and, Peter Tien and his company Princeton Environmental Group were awarded a $1.7 million contract (Scope of Work) to conduct and preliminary design for the facility and to prepare and submit the air permit application.  And, then most recently Cleveland City Council has been asked to approve authorization (Ord. 1574-11) of up to $250,000 for an additional consultant as mentioned above.

UPDATE 2/27/2012 -- The City of Cleveland's Department of Public Utilities issued a contract default  letter to Peter Tien of Princeton Environmental Group that gives him 10 working days to correct deficiencies in his $1.5 million contract for preliminary design and permit application work.

Considering the changes Cleveland Public Power (CPP) has announced today regarding the number of gasifiers/furnaces (they’ve reduced the number from four, two-batch gasifiers (8) and one furnace (4) to three, two-batch gasifiers (6) and one furnace (3); we should expect to receive additional information regarding the amount of waste that is being proposed to be gasified/combusted.  Prior to today’s announcement the amount was approximately 560 tons per day or approximately one-half of the average daily tonnage of waste processed daily by the City.  In addition, we should expect to get updates on potential cost re-calculations and it was anticipated that CPP would be releasing additional information this week on financing operations for the estimated $180 to $300 million project.

Also affected from today’s announcements is likely the amount of power that would be generated from the facility.  The project was initially planned to generate 20 MW of power and then it was downsized to a project 15 MW of power.  It has also been estimated that the facility itself would require 5 MW of power to operate.

Thanks to Congressman Dennis Kucinich for his work in prompting the U.S. EPA's action today as well as the following organizations that have been leading the opposition to the proposed facility as well as the being the major proponents for a more common sense approach to adopting best practices in waste management that create more jobs and are less risky -- Environmental Health Watch, Earth Day Coalition, Northeast Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action, and too all of the residents in the community that have been involved as well!



Congressman Kucinich's Press Conference at Cleveland's Ridge Road Transfer Station, site of the proposed waste-to-energy facility - 2.23.2012



Wednesday, January 18, 2012

White Paper on Waste Processing Technologies - highlights of risks associated with GASIFICATION as an emerging technology

REF:


Meeting the Future: Evaluating the Potential of Waste
Processing Technologies to Contribute to the Solid
Waste Authority’s System
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida
Prepared by:
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 
8550 Arlington Blvd, Suite 304
Fairfax, VA  22031
September 2, 2009


Found an interesting and what appears to be a very useful report (Sept. 2009) that reviews waste management technology for the Palm Beach County FL. 
Even though the information from this white paper was developed over 2-years ago, it marks the same time that Ivan Henderson, Commissioner of CPP lead the trip to Asia to explore emerging technologies (
Aug. 2009).  Some of the information may have become slightly outdated, but nonetheless, the most interesting factoids and statements are presented below:

(See further excerpts and references to useful PowerPoint slides here)

Note: CPP has yet to explain how this project, that has been estimated to cost between $180 and $300 million, will be financed.
----------------------------------------------------

Gasification Facilities in operation worldwide:  Seven (7) plants with this technology are currently operating in Japan, with at least two of them firing MSW.  The largest of these plants in Kurashibi has a reported furnace size of 185 TPD, with three units of this size.  Their largest facility fires up to 555 (Metric) TPD of MSW.  There are 20 smaller facilities in Europe and Asia.  Most of them are relatively small (less than 10 tons per day), with none designed for more than 70 tons per day throughput. Since 1996, no new greenfield commercial plant has been implemented.

Reliability: Pyrolysis and gasification systems have limited MSW operating history on which to rely and, although they may have fewer moving parts and appear to be simpler in operation than other systems, they do not have sufficient experience to draw conclusions for reliability of operation.  

Environmental/Air: Several gasification/pyrolysis systems show the gas generated driving a  gas turbine, which could be part of a combined cycle system.  This would increase efficiency; however,
turbine manufacturers are reluctant to guarantee performance on units fueled by syngas  from MSW.

Costs and Revenue Streams: The only technologies with dependable estimates for capital and operating costs, based on long experience in the  U.S., are the proven mass-burn/waterwall, mass-burn/modular and RDF/dedicated boiler technologies. All of the others have cost estimates that are speculative, theoretical, or market driven.  Unless a vendor’s cost proposals are backed by substantial guarantees of performance, they cannot be considered reliable.  

Conclusions:
3. [in assessing the use of emerging technologies]...[including] gasification without on-site energy production.  If…[Cleveland] pursues the use of these technologies, it must be prepared to manage the considerable risks involved, including commercialization risks, scale-up risks, performance risks, construction and operating cost risks and environmental compliance risks.

4. Accessing these technologies is best done through a competitive public procurement and negotiation process that requests proposals from contractors that are able to provide a facility and services with appropriate financial guarantees to deliver the permitting, design, construction, start-up and acceptance testing, and long-term commercial operations under performance-based full-service contracting arrangements. 

Sources of Information regarding the City of Cleveland CREG Center Proposal

Here are the major sources of information available on-line pertaining to the project:

UPDATED Friday, 1/20/2012

NOTE that the Ohio EPA has confirmed the extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft Air Permit to the close-of-business, Thursday, February 23rd, 2012.

Send comments to the Cleveland Division of Air Quality, 75 Erieview Plaza, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH, 44114, Attn: David Hearne. CPP Ridge Road Permit #PO107767; Facility ID 1318008750.  Comments sent by email to: DHearne@city.cleveland.oh.us

Three additional meetings will be held by the City of Cleveland to Explain the proposed CREG Center and to take questions and comments from the public (see schedule below), and an additional meeting is being considered specifically for the Hispanic Community.

  • Thursday, January 26th @ Zelma George Recreation Center,
    3155 MLK Jr Blvd., 6:00 -9:00 p.m.
  • Wednesday, February 8th – Cudell Recreation Center,
    10013 Detroit Ave., 6:00 -9:00 p.m.
  • Thursday, February 9th – Harvard Community Services Center,
    18240 Harvard Ave., 6:00 -9:00 p.m.

Information and resources:


CPP Announces meeting on gasification facility, provides no meaningful data on emissions

NOTICE -- Cleveland Public Power has announced a meeting to be held regarding the proposed Gasification-Municipal Solid Waste-to Energy facility being proposed for the Ridge Road Transfer Station.  The meeting is scheduled to be held at the Estabrook Recreation Center, 4125 Fulton Road, at 6:00 pm, Thursday, January 23rd, 2012.

See the initial Public Hearing Announcement from the EPA for the one and only Public Comment Hearing held on January 9th.  NOTE that the City of Cleveland has requested from Ohio EPA a 30-day extension of the Official Public Comment Period from January to February 23rd.  See the original announcement for where and how to submit comment.

The CPP statement, linked here, see specific text regarding emissions, is an insult to the process.  CPP has applied for an Air Permit to operate a gasification facility.  I find it incredulous that while their Draft Air Permit is being reviewed for public comment (closing 2/2012), that CPP cannot communicate clearly what the emissions are estimated to be; what they’ve actually stated within their permit application.

Instead, under no less a heading of “ Understanding the impact”, CPP states

...if we don’t allow mercury and other toxins into the gasification process, we will not have mercury and other toxins coming out of the gasification process.

In fact, here is a listing of the emissions listed for the facility, per CPP’s  EPA Permit Application using a 72.24% utilization of heat input:

  1. Particulate PM(F+C) 78.75 Tons per year
  2. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); 78.75 Tons per year
  3. Nitric oxide & nitrogen dioxide NOx; 194.31 Tons per year
  4. Carbon monoxide (CO); 87.95 Tons per year
  5. Volatile organic compounds (VOC ); 26.59 Tons per year
  6. Hyposulfurous acid (H2SO2); 7.36 Tons per year
  7. Lead (Pb); 500 Pounds per year
  8. Ammonia; 16.36 Tons per year
  9. Hydrogen chloride (HCI); 6.55 Tons per year
  10. Dioxin; 1.27 E-5 Tons per year
  11. Cadmium (Cd); 26 Pounds per year
  12. Mercury (Hg); 260 Pounds per year
  13. Hydrogen fluoride (HF) 1,260 Pounds per year

REF: http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=10745

Let's have a serious discussion of the impacts of these emissions on the people living in our Cleveland neighborhoods and not greenwash this project as panacea to our waste management and energy generation challenges.

As the Council representative of Ward 14, I represent a population of approximately 24,000 people for which our neighborhoods are directly down-wind from the proposed facility, 2 miles North.  The neighborhoods are recognized as low-income and are made up of a population that is between 30% and 44% Hispanic minority.

It is important to note that in consulting with representatives from the EPA Region 5 Office, they have confirmed that the communities to be impacted by the proposed project qualify as Environmental Justice areas of concern, due to the prevalence of low-income and minority (Hispanic) residents who are disproportionately impacted by asthma and other debilitating health conditions related to poor air quality in the City at present.

REF:
     See references to Environmental Justice in “Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2003” and “Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities is Integral to Agency’s Mission. December 2001”.
     “…while incidence of asthma is average for Hispanics in general, Puerto Ricans are about…as likely to be diagnosed with asthma than non-Hispanic whites, and about 1 in 5 Puerto Rican children are diagnosed with asthma, compared to 1 in 10 Hispanic children overall, and 1 in 13 non-Hispanic White children…” ("Profiles of Latino Health," 2009). 2011 Latino Community Report, Ohio Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs.