Transcript dioxins & furans

INCINERATION
TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN
Presentation to Portfolio Committee
03 March 2008
1
INTRODUCTION
 Some NGO’s and community members requested
incineration and recovery of waste from energy to be
explicitly banned in the Waste Bill on account of,
inter alia, the following:
– The formation of dioxins and furans and resultant health
impacts.
– Effect of incineration and co-processing on recycling.
– Non-existent Laboratory capacity to measure dioxins and
furans
– Toxicity of residues from incineration
– Government’s inability to monitor and enforce standards
and permit conditions.
– Impacts of currently high levels of cement dust on
communities adjacent to cement plants / kilns.
2
BACKGROUND
 In the 1970’s – 80’s emissions from incinerators were high in
relation to current emissions and there was little understanding
of the effects of emissions on human health during this time.
 International emission standards for incineration are extremely
low, with technologies for further reduction continuously being
developed and explored.
 Internationally incineration as a waste management technology
is on the increase, contrary to submissions made by NGO’s.
 In developing countries the co-processing of waste in cement
production is rapidly increasing.
 Internationally NGO’s no longer oppose co-processing of
hazardous waste
3
In South Africa general waste and 90% organic
hazardous waste is land-filled in about 1000
landfill sites.
Landfills contribute > 2 % of greenhouse gas
emissions in SA annually
4
CLIMATE CHANGE AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Important link between Waste
management and Climate change
Landfills produce methane which is 20
times more powerful than CO2 as a
Greenhouse gas (GHG).
EU has placed restrictions on landfilling of organic waste in order to
reduce methane generation.
5
CLIMATE CHANGE AND
CEMENT INDUSTRY
 Cement industry in SA produces 4 million
tons per annum of clinker, which contributes
4 million tons per annum of CO2.
 Cement industry accounts for 1% in SA’s 440
Mt/a global CO2 emissions.
 Cement making is an energy & resource
intensive process which consumes 200-300
million tons of coal per annum – makes
cement industry a large contributor to global
warming
6
Cement industry locations in SA
7
DEAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS AND CEMENT INDUSTRY
 For the past 12 months DEAT has been working on a policy on:
 Incineration of hazardous waste (as a treatment solution for
hazardous waste management)
 Use of selected general and hazardous waste as a
substitute for fuel in cement kilns, alternatively termed coprocessing
 Cement companies had to undertake the EIA process for the
use of waste as fuel substitute.
 The lack of national policy produced inconsistent EIA decisions
by provinces, resulting in unhappiness in cement industry.
 DEAT undertook extensive research into incineration and coprocessing in order to come up with an informed policy.
 This policy development process is almost complete and has
been approved by MINTECH.
8
Incineration technology is used for waste
management internationally
Country
No of incinerators
Metric tons of waste
per annum
Metric tons /annum
incinerated
Netherlands
13
39.7
3.2
Italy
50
30
2.8
Germany
66
52
11.1
France
130
35.5
11.3
Denmark
32
3.6
2.0
Austria
8
4.9
1.4
Incineration technology is used in: Finland, Sweden, UK, Belgium, Spain, USA,
Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Poland, Taiwan,
South Korea, Singapore, China, Switzerland, Norway,
9
Co-processing
 Since early 70’s Alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR’s) have been
used in cement industry
 Some kilns in SA are already using AFR’s (spent pot-liners, ash, slag)
 Since been demonstrated that performance of cement plants is not
impaired by co-processing
 Cement kilns can destroy organic hazardous wastes in a safe and
sound manner
 Co-processing presents opportunity to substitute fossil fuels by
alternative fuels, thereby reducing overall output of thermal CO2 and
conserving non-renewable fossil energy.
 Co-processing presents a cheaper treatment option than land-filling or
dedicated incineration for waste and will reduce costs of cement
production
 Co-processing is practised internationally: Brazil, Vietnam, Egypt, El
Savador, Sri-Lanka, Thailand & Philipines, Venezuella, China.
 In Norway, co-processing is the only option for hazardous waste and
has been for 25 years
 France, Germany and most EU countries make use of cement kiln
technology for hazardous waste management
10
Co-processing of hazardous waste in cement kilns can make
substantial savings in raw material and coal usage and can
treat approx. 99% of organic waste currently being land-filled
in SA
11
DIOXINS & FURANS: INCINERATION AND
CO-PROCESSING
12
Dioxin & Furan Emissions from various
sources
Processes
Emissions per year in g TU
(toxicity units) *1
1990
1994
2000
Metal extraction and processing
740
220
40
Waste Incineration
400
32
0,5
Power Stations
5
3
3
Industrial Incineration Plants
20
15
<10
Domestic Firing Installations
20
15
<10
Traffic
10
4
<1
Crematoria
4
2
<2
Total emissions, air
1,200
330
<<70
Other sources include : Veld fires, wood stoves, uncontrolled open burning of
waste, the Sunday braai,etc
13
Dioxins & Furans: What we know
today
 The effects of dioxins and furans are now known and have
been considered when drawing up emission standards for
sound operation of incinerators and cement kilns coprocessing hazardous wastes
 Stockholm Convention requires reductions or elimination of
POP’s
 World Business Council conducted a study in 2006 on POP’s
emissions from cement industry, which showed:
 Most modern cement kilns can meet emission standard
(0.1ng TEQ/Nm3)
 Co-processing of alternative fuels and raw materials does
not affect emission of POP’s
14
Waste Management in the EU
Management
Option
Current level
(%)
Year 2020
Recycling and
Recovery
36
42 (increase)
Incineration
17
25 (increase)
Land-filling
47
35 (decrease)
15
RECYCLING, INCINERATION & COPROCESSING
 The figures demonstrate that even in countries where large
amounts of the waste stream are recycled and these rates will
increase, incineration still fulfils a waste management function.
 There’s a saturation point for industry to absorb recyclables .
 The move away from landfill has been a specific goal in the EU,
dedicated legislation namely the “waste directive” has been
passed to completely move away from land-filling of organic
waste, for both environmental as well as climate change
considerations.
 DEAT is continuously exploring ways of diverting specific
waste streams away from land-fill to other uses
16
TYRE RECYCLING: Presently in SA there are limited waste management
options for Tyres – tyres cannot be compacted so they take up a lot of space in
landfills – The tyre industry is proposing a waste management plan using kilns
17
Laboratory Capacity & Toxic Residues
from incineration
 Laboratory capacity currently does not exist because
there is no demand.
 Demand for dioxin testing laboratories will increase if
incineration is allowed– Dept of Science and Technology
already supportive of funding the establishment of an
accredited lab.
 Residues from incineration must be disposed off in High
Hazardous landfills. The 90% reduction in volume due to
incineration solves the problem of large volume of
hazardous waste (99%)going to landfills.
 Methane gas production is also reduced because the
residues have a very low organic load so generation of
methane will be eliminated.
18
Government’s ability to enforce
standards and permit conditions
 Even though the Waste hierarchy is the
overarching in the Waste Bill, not much has
been done to provide alternatives to land-filling.
 Alternatives will drive overall improvement in
capacity.
 Green Scorpions have had resounding success
in a very short space of time
 Green Scorpions have shut down two
commercial incinerators in the last 3 years,
owing to permit violations.
 capacity will be built over time
19
IF INCINERATION IS ALLOWED
 Achieve 90% reduction in volume of waste
 Can use heat generated through incineration to
power generators for electricity production.
 Mitigation against climate change
 Dioxin and Furan emissions control will be enhanced
- in SA incineration is the only process in which the
dioxin and furan emissions are currently controlled
through legislation
 Waste hierarchy upheld - Energy recovery and
incineration are higher in the waste hierarchy than
land-filling.
20
IF INCINERATION IS BANNED
 Allowing continuation of increased emissions from
landfills- more emission are released from landfill
than incineration (this includes dioxins and furans)
 Disallowing safe treatment of pathological waste Incineration is the preferred option for the safe
disposal & treatment of pathological waste in the
health care waste stream.
 Disallowing cremation - The definition of incineration
includes cremation.
 Closing opportunity to reduce coal input in energy
generating power stations
21
IF CO-PROCESSING IS ALLOWED
 Mitigation against Climate Change
 Reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of substitution of fuel
 Further reduction in CO2 emissions are realized by diverting organics from
landfill – reduce methane.
 Immediate reduction of 40mg/m3 (33%) of cement dust realized in two
years if proposed emission standards are applied for co-processing in
cement kilns.
 Proposed emission standards for co-processing cement kilns are
aligned to international best practice
 Environmental performance of cement industry will improve –
proposed emission standards are a big improvement to current
standards
 New job opportunities through new blending platform industry that
will be created.
 DEAT will be able to identify & prioritize waste streams for diversion to
recycling or other forms of reuse or treatment since hazardous waste
will be taken care of
22
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST TO
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
 Incineration & co-processing
 Can be managed in SA
 Presents a n important opportunity for hazardous waste
management
 Can reduce fossil fuel usage
 Can create new jobs
 Represent a shift up the waste hierarchy
 Therefore Portfolio Committee is requested to:
 Support the regulated use of incineration as an option for
consideration for the treatment of waste in SA
 Support the use of cement kilns for AFR co-processing and
the treatment of hazardous waste as a viable waste
management option in SA.
 Do not support banning incineration and use of alternative
fuels in Waste Bill.
23
Thank You
24