INCINERATION TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN Presentation

INCINERATION TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN Presentation to Portfolio Committee 03 March 2008 1

INTRODUCTION Ø 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 Ø 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. Ø International emission standards for incineration are extremely low, with technologies for further reduction continuously being developed and explored. Ø Internationally incineration as a waste management technology is on the increase, contrary to submissions made by NGO’s. Ø In developing countries the co-processing of waste in cement production is rapidly increasing. Ø 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 Ø Important link between Waste management and Climate change Ø Landfills produce methane which is 20 times more powerful than CO 2 as a Greenhouse gas (GHG). Ø EU has placed restrictions on landfilling of organic waste in order to reduce methane generation. 5

CLIMATE CHANGE AND CEMENT INDUSTRY Ø Cement industry in SA produces 4 million tons per annum of clinker, which contributes 4 million tons per annum of CO 2. Ø Cement industry accounts for 1% in SA’s 440 Mt/a global CO 2 emissions. Ø 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 Ø For the past 12 months DEAT has been working on a policy on: Ø Incineration of hazardous waste (as a treatment solution for hazardous waste management) Ø Use of selected general and hazardous waste as a substitute for fuel in cement kilns, alternatively termed co-processing Ø Cement companies had to undertake the EIA process for the use of waste as fuel substitute. Ø The lack of national policy produced inconsistent EIA decisions by provinces, resulting in unhappiness in cement industry. Ø DEAT undertook extensive research into incineration and coprocessing in order to come up with an informed policy. Ø 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 Ø Since early 70’s Alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR’s) have been used in cement industry Ø Some kilns in SA are already using AFR’s (spent pot-liners, ash, slag) Ø Since been demonstrated that performance of cement plants is not impaired by co-processing Ø Cement kilns can destroy organic hazardous wastes in a safe and sound manner Ø Co-processing presents opportunity to substitute fossil fuels by alternative fuels, thereby reducing overall output of thermal CO 2 and conserving non-renewable fossil energy. Ø Co-processing presents a cheaper treatment option than land-filling or dedicated incineration for waste and will reduce costs of cement production Ø Co-processing is practised internationally: Brazil, Vietnam, Egypt, El Savador, Sri-Lanka, Thailand & Philipines, Venezuella, China. Ø In Norway, co-processing is the only option for hazardous waste and has been for 25 years Ø 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 Ø 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 co-processing hazardous wastes Ø Stockholm Convention requires reductions or elimination of POP’s Ø World Business Council conducted a study in 2006 on POP’s emissions from cement industry, which showed: Ø Most modern cement kilns can meet emission standard (0. 1 ng TEQ/Nm 3) Ø 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 Ø 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. Ø There’s a saturation point for industry to absorb recyclables. Ø 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. Ø 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 Ø Laboratory capacity currently does not exist because there is no demand. Ø 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. Ø 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. Ø 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 Ø Even though the Waste hierarchy is the overarching in the Waste Bill, not much has been done to provide alternatives to land-filling. Ø Alternatives will drive overall improvement in capacity. Ø Green Scorpions have had resounding success in a very short space of time Ø Green Scorpions have shut down two commercial incinerators in the last 3 years, owing to permit violations. Ø capacity will be built over time 19

IF INCINERATION IS ALLOWED Ø Achieve 90% reduction in volume of waste Ø Can use heat generated through incineration to power generators for electricity production. Ø Mitigation against climate change Ø 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 Ø Waste hierarchy upheld - Energy recovery and incineration are higher in the waste hierarchy than land-filling. 20

IF INCINERATION IS BANNED Ø Allowing continuation of increased emissions from landfills- more emission are released from landfill than incineration (this includes dioxins and furans) Ø 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. Ø Disallowing cremation - The definition of incineration includes cremation. Ø Closing opportunity to reduce coal input in energy generating power stations 21

IF CO-PROCESSING IS ALLOWED Ø Mitigation against Climate Change Ø Reduction in CO 2 emissions as a result of substitution of fuel Ø Further reduction in CO 2 emissions are realized by diverting organics from landfill – reduce methane. Ø Immediate reduction of 40 mg/m 3 (33%) of cement dust realized in two years if proposed emission standards are applied for co-processing in cement kilns. Ø Proposed emission standards for co-processing cement kilns are aligned to international best practice Ø Environmental performance of cement industry will improve – proposed emission standards are a big improvement to current standards Ø New job opportunities through new blending platform industry that will be created. Ø 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 Ø Incineration & co-processing Ø Can be managed in SA Ø Presents a n important opportunity for hazardous waste management Ø Can reduce fossil fuel usage Ø Can create new jobs Ø Represent a shift up the waste hierarchy Ø Therefore Portfolio Committee is requested to: Ø Support the regulated use of incineration as an option for consideration for the treatment of waste in SA Ø Support the use of cement kilns for AFR co-processing and the treatment of hazardous waste as a viable waste management option in SA. Ø Do not support banning incineration and use of alternative fuels in Waste Bill. 23

Thank You 24