Presentación del Dr. Paul Connett en Puerto Rico 2010

Incineration: Incineration: The wrong The wrong solution solution

for Puerto Rico and the for Puerto Rico and the 2121stst Century Century

Paul Connett, PhDPaul Connett, PhDExecutive Director (AEHSP)Executive Director (AEHSP)

AmericanAmericanHealthHealthStudies.oStudies.orgrg

[email protected]

EPA Region II,EPA Region II,

Puerto Rico, Dec 10 2010Puerto Rico, Dec 10 2010

mailto:[email protected]

Part 1Part 1

Part 2Part 2

Part 3Part 3

OUTLINEOUTLINE

1. A few words about Sustainability1. A few words about Sustainability

2. The arguments against 2. The arguments against incinerationincineration

3. The Zero Waste 2020 strategy3. The Zero Waste 2020 strategy

DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT QUESTIONSDIFFERENT QUESTIONS

2020thth CENTURY CENTURY

WASTE WASTE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

“ “ How do we get rid How do we get rid of our waste of our waste

efficiently with efficiently with minimum damage to minimum damage to our health and the our health and the

environment ?”environment ?”

2121stst CENTURY CENTURY

RESOURCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

“ “ How do we handle our How do we handle our discarded resources in discarded resources in

ways which do not ways which do not deprive future deprive future

generations of some, if generations of some, if not all, of their value ?”not all, of their value ?”

DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT QUESTIONSDIFFERENT QUESTIONS

2020thth CENTURY CENTURY

WASTE WASTE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

“ “ How do we get rid How do we get rid of our waste of our waste

efficiently with efficiently with minimum damage to minimum damage to our health and the our health and the

environment ?”environment ?”

2121stst CENTURY CENTURY

RESOURCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

“ “ How do we handle our How do we handle our discarded resources in discarded resources in

ways which do not ways which do not deprive future deprive future

generations of some, if generations of some, if not all, of their value ?”not all, of their value ?”

The key issueThe key issuewas SAFETYwas SAFETY

The key issue isThe key issue isSUSTAINABILIYSUSTAINABILIY

1. A few words about 1. A few words about

sustainabilitysustainability

SustainabilitySustainability We would need We would need FOUR planetsFOUR planets if if

every one consumed as much as every one consumed as much as the average the average AmericanAmerican

We would need We would need TWO planetsTWO planets if if every one consumed as much as every one consumed as much as the average the average EuropeanEuropean

Meanwhile, Meanwhile, India, China etcIndia, China etc. are . are copying our consumption patternscopying our consumption patterns

Something has got to change and Something has got to change and the best place to start is with the best place to start is with wastewaste

Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin

MaterialsMaterials

Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured

itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption

DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials

Solid wasteSolid waste

Air pollutionAir pollution

Water pollutionWater pollution

Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide





ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY

A LINEAR SOCIETYA LINEAR SOCIETY


MaterialsMaterials













GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

A NON-Sustainable systemA NON-Sustainable system


MaterialsMaterials













LANDFILLSLANDFILLS



MaterialsMaterials













INCINERATION INCINERATION


Both landfills and incinerators Both landfills and incinerators represent business as usual – represent business as usual –

NEITHER are sustainableNEITHER are sustainable


MaterialsMaterials














RECYCLING OF MATERIALSRECYCLING OF MATERIALS


MaterialsMaterials














REUSE OF OBJECTSREUSE OF OBJECTS


MaterialsMaterials














COMPOSTINGCOMPOSTING

COMPOSTCOMPOST

Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal WasteMunicipal Waste

A combination of recycling A combination of recycling and compostingand composting -461-461

Incineration generating Incineration generating electrictyelectricty -10-10

Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001

Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal WasteMunicipal Waste

A combination of recycling A combination of recycling and composting and composting is 46 times is 46 times betterbetter

-461-461

at reducing greenhouse at reducing greenhouse gases thangases than X 46X 46Incineration generating Incineration generating electrictyelectricty -10-10

Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001

2. The arguments 2. The arguments

againstagainstincinerationincineration

Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration

1) It is not sustainable1) It is not sustainable

2) It is a poor economic investment. 2) It is a poor economic investment. Most of the money spent will leave Most of the money spent will leave PRPR

Incineration is the MOST expensive Incineration is the MOST expensive way of handling wasteway of handling waste

Incineration is the SECOND MOST Incineration is the SECOND MOST expensive way of producing expensive way of producing electricityelectricity


3) Very few jobs created for very 3) Very few jobs created for very large capital investment and large capital investment and there is very little stimulation of there is very little stimulation of local economylocal economy

An incinerator in Brescia, An incinerator in Brescia, ItalyItaly

The Brescia incinerator The Brescia incinerator cost cost 300,000,000300,000,000 Euro Euro plus another plus another 500,000,000 Euros 500,000,000 Euros in in subsidies and has subsidies and has created just created just 8080 jobs. jobs.

Nova Scotia, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada (video) (video)

50% diversion in 5 years (1995-50% diversion in 5 years (1995-2000). 2000). (Halifax ~ 60%)(Halifax ~ 60%)

10001000 jobs created collecting and jobs created collecting and treating discarded materialstreating discarded materials

Another Another 20002000 jobs created in the jobs created in the industries handling the collected industries handling the collected materialmaterial


4) Incineration is very unpopular 4) Incineration is very unpopular with the publicwith the public

In the US over 300 incinerator In the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated between proposals defeated between 1985-951985-95

No new trash incinerator permitted No new trash incinerator permitted in the US since 1995!in the US since 1995!


5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years 5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or more the monster has to be or more the monster has to be fedfed

Incineration stifles Incineration stifles innovationinnovation

• ““An incinerator needs to be fed An incinerator needs to be fed for about 20 to 30 years and in for about 20 to 30 years and in order to be economic needs an order to be economic needs an enormous input from quite a enormous input from quite a region, so for 20 to 30 years you region, so for 20 to 30 years you stifle innovation, you stifle stifle innovation, you stifle alternatives, just in order to feed alternatives, just in order to feed that monster which you build”that monster which you build”

• Ludwig Kraemer, former Head of EU Waste Ludwig Kraemer, former Head of EU Waste Management, BBC 1 Panorama Documentary Management, BBC 1 Panorama Documentary “Rubbish”“Rubbish”


6) It wastes energy!6) It wastes energy!

Energy Comparison: Energy Comparison: RecyclingRecycling versus versus incinerationincineration (ICF consulting, 2005)(ICF consulting, 2005)

materialmaterial Energy Energy savings from savings from recyclingrecycling

GJ/tonneGJ/tonne

Energy Energy output from output from incinerationincineration

GJ/tonneGJ/tonne

Energy Energy savings savings recycling recycling

versus versus incinerationincineration

NewsprintNewsprint 6.336.33 2.622.62 2.42.4

Fine Fine paperpaper

15.8715.87 2.232.23 7.17.1

CardboarCardboardd

8.568.56 2.312.31 3.73.7

Other paperOther paper 9.499.49 2.252.25 4.24.2

HDPEHDPE 64.2764.27 6.306.30 10.210.2

PETPET 85.1685.16 3.223.22 26.426.4Other Other plasticplastic

52.0952.09 4.764.76 10.910.9


7) It generates a toxic ash - It 7) It generates a toxic ash - It doesn’t get rid of landfillsdoesn’t get rid of landfills

For everyFor every fourfour tons of waste tons of waste burned you getburned you get one ton of ash one ton of ash (or more)(or more)

That nobody wants!That nobody wants!

CHUTE

SECONDARYCHAMBER

TURBINE

BOILER

ELECTRICITY

STEAM

TRASH

BOTTOM ASH FLY ASH

TEMP< 200oC

SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER

FABRIC FILTER

WET SCRUBBER

DE-NOX

ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION

AMMONIAINJECTION

GRATES

For every 4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ashFor every 4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ash

90%90% 10%10%

Covanta Ash Landfill,Covanta Ash Landfill,Haverhill, MassHaverhill, Mass

Covanta Ash Landfill,Covanta Ash Landfill,Haverhill, MassHaverhill, Mass


8) It produces toxic air emissions8) It produces toxic air emissions

AIR EMISSIONS

CO2 + H2O

ACID GASES:HCI, HF, SO2

NOx

TOXIC METALS:Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc

NEW COMPOUNDSNEW COMPOUNDS::

PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCB’sPCB’sETCETC

AIR EMISSIONS

CO2 + H2O

ACID GASES:HCI, HF, SO2

NOx

TOXIC METALS:Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc

NEW COMPOUNDSNEW COMPOUNDS::

PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCB’sPCB’sETCETC

NANONANOPARTICLESPARTICLES

Size of Size of Particle Particle

regulatedregulatedin incineratorin incinerator

emissionsemissionsNANOPARTICLESNANOPARTICLES

STRONG STRONG REGULATIONSREGULATIONS

ADEQUATEADEQUATEMONITORINGMONITORING

TOUGHTOUGHENFORCEMENTENFORCEMENT

Three links to public health protection Three links to public health protection ::

If any link is weak the public is not protected?If any link is weak the public is not protected?


9) Incineration is poorly monitored 9) Incineration is poorly monitored In the US monitoring of dioxins has been In the US monitoring of dioxins has been

a sick jokea sick joke There is no regulation or monitoring of There is no regulation or monitoring of

nanoparticlesnanoparticles

Nanoparticle problemsNanoparticle problems

Not easily captured by air Not easily captured by air pollution control devicespollution control devices

Nanoparticles from incineration Nanoparticles from incineration far more dangerous than other far more dangerous than other nanoparticlesnanoparticles

They travel long distancesThey travel long distances Remain suspended for long Remain suspended for long

periods of timeperiods of time

•We Know that PM10 and We Know that PM10 and PM2.5 cause many health PM2.5 cause many health problemsproblems

• In urban areas both mortality and morbidity increase with particulate levels

•The smaller the particles the worse it gets

PM 10

PM 2,5

BLOODBLOOD

Nano particles are Nano particles are so small theyso small they

can easily crosscan easily cross the lung membranethe lung membrane

Nano PathologyNano Pathology

Once nanoparticles Once nanoparticles have entered the have entered the bloodstream they bloodstream they can easily cross the can easily cross the membranes of membranes of every tissue in the every tissue in the body.body.

Nano PathologyNano Pathology

They can even cross the blood They can even cross the blood brain barrierbrain barrier

Aggregati di PiomboAggregati di Piombo, , BarioBario, , CromoCromo, , FerroFerro e e SilicioSilicio in in CervelloCervello..

www.stefanomontanari.net

http://www.stefanomontanari.net/

Incineration, Incineration, nanoparticles & Healthnanoparticles & Health

Statement of EvidenceStatement of Evidence

Particulate Emissions and Health Particulate Emissions and Health ProposedProposed

Ringaskiddy Waste-to-Energy FacilityRingaskiddy Waste-to-Energy Facility

Professor C. Vyvyan Howard Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath. PhD. FRCPath. June 2009 June 2009

[email protected]@googlemail.com

I have yet to see a documented I have yet to see a documented scientific response to either Cormier’s scientific response to either Cormier’s

paperpaper

oror

Professor Vyvyan Howard’s testimonyProfessor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony

fromfrom

Any regulatory agencyAny regulatory agency

Any incinerator builderAny incinerator builder

or or

Any consultant promoting incinerationAny consultant promoting incineration

Meanwhile, while we are waiting for Meanwhile, while we are waiting for the science, common sense says:the science, common sense says:

Don’t build incinerators in air sheds,Don’t build incinerators in air sheds,

which have already been which have already been compromised by particulate compromised by particulate

pollution, i.e. where respiratory pollution, i.e. where respiratory problems are already high problems are already high

Incineration is the wrong Incineration is the wrong

solution for thesolution for the 21st Century 21st Century

“Even if we made incineration safe we would never make it sensible.It simply does not make sense tospend so much money destroying resources we should be sharing with the future.” (PC)

The modern incinerator isThe modern incinerator is attempting to perfect a bad idea attempting to perfect a bad idea

Our task in the 21st Century is Our task in the 21st Century is not to find better ways to destroy not to find better ways to destroy discarded materialsdiscarded materials

But to stop making packaging and But to stop making packaging and products that have to be products that have to be destroyed!destroyed!

The Waste problem will not be The Waste problem will not be solved with better solved with better technologytechnology

But withBut withBetter Better organizationorganizationBetter Better educationeducationand better and better industrial industrial

designdesign


10) There is a far better alternative 10) There is a far better alternative strategy, which is strategy, which is cheaper, creates more cheaper, creates more jobs and business opportunities, does jobs and business opportunities, does not create a toxic ash and is sustainablenot create a toxic ash and is sustainable..

3. The ZERO WASTE 3. The ZERO WASTE

2020 2020 strategystrategy

ZERO WASTE ZERO WASTE IS A IS A NEWNEW

DIRECTIONDIRECTION

NO to INCINERATORS

NO to LANDFILLS

THE THE BACK ENDBACK END

OF OF WASTEWASTE

MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

NO to INCINERATORS

NO to LANDFILLS

THE THE FRONT ENDFRONT END

OFOFRESOURCERESOURCE

MANAGEMENT,MANAGEMENT,INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL

DESIGNDESIGN&&

POST-CONSUMERISMPOST-CONSUMERISM

THE THE BACK ENDBACK END

OF OF WASTEWASTE

MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

Zero Waste can be Zero Waste can be approached with a series of approached with a series of

simplesimple steps steps

which arewhich arePracticalPracticalCost effective Cost effective andandPolitically acceptablePolitically acceptable

SUMMARYSUMMARY10 steps to Zero Waste10 steps to Zero Waste

SourceSourceSeparationSeparation


Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection


Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting

RecyclingRecycling



RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community

CenterCenter



Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives


CenterCenter





CenterCenter



EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives



CenterCenter



Residual Residual Separation & Separation &

ResearchResearch CenterCenter




CenterCenter





Better Better IndustrialIndustrial

DesignDesign




CenterCenter






DesignDesign


Temporary LandfillTemporary Landfill



CenterCenter






DesignDesign


Temporary LandfillTemporary Landfill 20202020

““The Fantastic 3”The Fantastic 3”

The San Francisco systemThe San Francisco system

Composting plant for San Composting plant for San FranciscoFrancisco

Local farmers are using the Local farmers are using the compost to grow fruit and compost to grow fruit and vegetables for San Franciscovegetables for San Francisco

““The Fantastic 3”The Fantastic 3”

The San Francisco systemThe San Francisco system

at Pier 96

MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIILITYMATERIALS RECOVERY FACIILITY

MATERIALS RECOVERY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYFACILITY

San FranciscoSan Francisco Population = 850,000Population = 850,000 Very little space Very little space 50% waste diverted by 200050% waste diverted by 2000 63% waste diverted by 200463% waste diverted by 2004 70% waste diverted by 200870% waste diverted by 2008 72% waste diverted by 200972% waste diverted by 2009 75% waste diverted by 201075% waste diverted by 2010 GOAL:100% by 2020GOAL:100% by 2020 (or very close!) (or very close!)

ItalyItaly

Over 2000 communities Over 2000 communities in in Italy are achieving over Italy are achieving over 50% diversion 50% diversion using “door using “door to door” collection systemsto door” collection systems

Over 200 communities Over 200 communities achieving over achieving over 70% 70% diversiondiversion

ItalyItaly

Novara Novara - (a city near Turin, - (a city near Turin, population = 100,000) population = 100,000) achieved achieved 70% diversion in 70% diversion in just 18 months!just 18 months!

ItalyItaly

Salerno Salerno (near Naples, pop (near Naples, pop 145,000) 145,000) 18% to 72% 18% to 72% diversion diversion in one year!in one year!

BelgiumBelgium

In Flanders they have In Flanders they have achieved 75% achieved 75% diversion diversion with reuse, with reuse, recycling, composting recycling, composting etc – VERY CREATIVE etc – VERY CREATIVE programsprograms

5. Reuse,5. Reuse,RepairRepair

&&DeconstructionDeconstruction

Reusable itemsReusable items

Value of Los Angeles discarded Value of Los Angeles discarded materialsmaterials

Reuse, Repair & Reuse, Repair & DeconstructionDeconstruction

Urban Ore, Berkeley, CaliforniaUrban Ore, Berkeley, California

Grossing $3 million per yearGrossing $3 million per year 27 full-time well-paid jobs27 full-time well-paid jobs

Urban Ore Urban Ore operating for operating for 30 years30 years

VIDEOS ONLINEVIDEOS ONLINE

Examples of Reuse and Repair Examples of Reuse and Repair Centers from California, Centers from California, Vermont, Nova Scotia and Vermont, Nova Scotia and AustraliaAustralia

AmericanAmericanHealthHealthStudies.orgStudies.org

CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility

MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery

FacilityFacility

1 2 3

ResiduaResiduallFractionFraction

ResiduaResiduallFractionFraction

Reuse Reuse &&

Repair CentersRepair Centers

We have to minimize We have to minimize the residual fraction the residual fraction with…with…1) Waste reduction 1) Waste reduction initiativesinitiatives

6. Waste 6. Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives

IrelandIreland

Government put a Government put a 15 15 cent cent tax on plastic tax on plastic shopping bags shopping bags

reduced use reduced use by 92%by 92% in in one year!one year!

ItalyItaly

Several supermarket Several supermarket chains are providing chains are providing dispensers which allow dispensers which allow customers to refill customers to refill shampooshampoo and and detergentdetergent bottles…bottles…

L’esperienza effecortaL’esperienza effecorta

a cura di Pietro Angelini, a cura di Pietro Angelini,

scio fondatore ed ideatore effecortascio fondatore ed ideatore effecorta

Capannori, 23-01-2010Capannori, 23-01-2010

Effecorta,Effecorta,A food store A food store

in in Capannori, Capannori, Tuscany, Tuscany,

ItalyItaly

60 dispensing systems for 60 dispensing systems for solidssolids

60 taps for liquids60 taps for liquids

We have to minimize We have to minimize the residual fraction the residual fraction with…with…2) Economic incentives2) Economic incentives

7. Economic7. EconomicIncentivesIncentives

1 2 3

““Save as you throw” systemSave as you throw” system

1 2 3

freefree


1 2 3

freefree freefree


1 2 $

freefree freefreeThe lessThe less

you make,you make,the morethe moreyou save!you save!


1 2 $

REWARDREWARDSYSTEMSYSTEM

The lessThe lessyou make,you make,the morethe moreyou save!you save!


ItalyItaly

Villafranco d’AstiVillafranco d’Asti (Piedmont, population (Piedmont, population = 30,000) has = 30,000) has reached reached 85% diversion85% diversion

SpainSpain

Usurbil in Basque Usurbil in Basque CountryCountry

Has gone from Has gone from 28% 28% toto 86% 86% inin 7 months 7 months

Part 2Part 2



FacilityFacility

ResidualsResiduals??

Reuse & RepairReuse & Repair

1 2 $

& Deconstruction& Deconstruction

WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives

8. Residual8. ResidualSeparation &Separation &

ResearchResearchFacilityFacility

RESIDUAL SEPARATION &RESIDUAL SEPARATION & RESEARCH FACILITY RESEARCH FACILITY

1. Built at entrance to landfill1. Built at entrance to landfill 2. No material can enter landfill 2. No material can enter landfill

without it being separated and without it being separated and screenedscreened

3. More material recycled3. More material recycled 4. Toxics removed and identified4. Toxics removed and identified 5. Dirty organics biologically 5. Dirty organics biologically

stabilizedstabilized 6. Non-recyclable materials STUDIED6. Non-recyclable materials STUDIED

MORE TOXICS

RESIDUAL SCREENING FACILITY

MORE RECYCLABLES

DIRTYDIRTYORGANIC ORGANIC FRACTIONFRACTION

INTERIM LANDFILL for non-recyclable and stabilized organic fraction

BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION

This type of facility is This type of facility is currently running in currently running in NOVA SCOTIA, CanadaNOVA SCOTIA, Canada

MORE TOXICS

NON-RECYCLABLE FRACTION

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH& RESEARCH FACILITY

MORE RECYCLABLES

DIRTYDIRTYORGANIC ORGANIC FRACTIONFRACTION

INTERIM LANDFILL

BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION

RESEARCH RESEARCH CENTERCENTER

NON-RECYCABLE MATERIALS

Local Local UniversityUniversity

Or Or Technical CollegeTechnical College

ZERO WASTE ZERO WASTE RESEARCH CENTERRESEARCH CENTER

Zero Waste Research Zero Waste Research CenterCenter

TASKS:TASKS: ImproveImprove capture rate capture rate of recyclables etc. of recyclables etc. Collect best practices on Collect best practices on waste waste

avoidance/reduction measuresavoidance/reduction measures Develop Develop local useslocal uses for some materials for some materials Recommend better industrial Recommend better industrial

designs to industry on designs to industry on packaging and productspackaging and products

The Message to The Message to Industry:Industry:

• If we can’t If we can’t reuse itreuse it, , recycle itrecycle it or or compost itcompost it,,

• Industry shouldn’t be making it Industry shouldn’t be making it

• We need better industrial design for We need better industrial design for the 21st Centurythe 21st Century

10. An interim 10. An interim landfill for landfill for biologicallybiologically

stabilized dirty stabilized dirty organic fractionorganic fraction

10. An interim 10. An interim landfill for landfill for biologicallybiologically

stabilized dirty stabilized dirty organic fractionorganic fraction

Iniziative Iniziative RiduzioneRiduzione

rifiutirifiutiRiciclaggioRiciclaggio

Separazione Separazione alla alla

sorgentesorgente

RaccoltaRaccoltaPorta a PortaPorta a Porta

CompostaggioCompostaggio

ResidualResidual Separation &Separation &

ResearchResearchFacilityFacility

BetterBetterIndustrial Industrial

Design Design

IncentiviIncentiviEconomiciEconomici

INTERIM LANDFILLINTERIM LANDFILL20202020

RiutilizzoRiutilizzoRiparazione eRiparazione eCentro per la Centro per la

Comunita’Comunita’

70 - 80%70 - 80% COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITYCOMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY

Iniziative Iniziative RiduzioneRiduzione

rifiutirifiutiRiciclaggioRiciclaggio

Separazione Separazione alla alla

sorgentesorgente

RaccoltaRaccoltaPorta a PortaPorta a Porta

CompostaggioCompostaggio

Separazione Separazione del residuo edel residuo e

Centro diCentro di ricercaricerca

migliore migliore design design

industrialeindustriale

IncentiviIncentiviEconomiciEconomici

INTERIM LANDFILL INTERIM LANDFILL 20202020

RiutilizzoRiutilizzoRiparazione eRiparazione eCentro per la Centro per la

Comunita’Comunita’

70-80%70-80%COMUNITY RESPONSIBILITYCOMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY

20-30%20-30%INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL

RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY

Industrial Industrial ResponsibilityResponsibility

1. 1. Design for sustainabilityDesign for sustainability

2. 2. Clean productionClean production

3. 3. Extended Producer Responsibility Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)(EPR)

(government incentives would help (government incentives would help here)here)

ConclusionsConclusions We do not need mega-landfills or We do not need mega-landfills or

incinerators!incinerators! There is a better alternative There is a better alternative The The ZERO WASTE strategyZERO WASTE strategy is is Better for our health (LESS TOXICS)Better for our health (LESS TOXICS) Better for the economyBetter for the economy,, Better for our children, Better for our children, andand Better for the planet (MORE Better for the planet (MORE

SUSTAINABLE)!SUSTAINABLE)!

Please NotePlease Note

Mass burn incineration only gets Mass burn incineration only gets 75% diversion from landfill.75% diversion from landfill.

For every For every 4 Tons4 Tons of waste of waste burned you get at leastburned you get at least 1 Ton 1 Ton of of Toxic Ash.Toxic Ash.

Round OneRound One

IncinerationIncineration

75% 75% reductionreduction

San San FranciscoFrancisco

75% 75% reductionreduction

IncinerationIncineration

75% 75% reductionreduction25% toxic ash25% toxic ash San San FranciscoFrancisco

75% 75% reductionreduction25% residuals25% residuals

Round TwoRound Two

TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS


TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL

++



++

RESIDUAL RESIDUAL SEPARATIOSEPARATIO

N N FACILITYFACILITY



++



ZERO ZERO WASTEWASTE

RESEARCRESEARCHH

CENTERCENTER



++




RESEARCRESEARCHH

CENTERCENTER

INTERIM LANDFILL INTERIM LANDFILL FOR STABILIZED FOR STABILIZED

“DIRTY”“DIRTY”ORGANIC FRACTIONORGANIC FRACTION



++




RESEARCRESEARCHH

CENTERCENTER



FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGNAND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN


Part 3Part 3


1) It is not sustainable1) It is not sustainable

2) It is a poor economic investment. 2) It is a poor economic investment. Most of the money spent will leave Most of the money spent will leave PRPR

Incineration is the MOST expensive Incineration is the MOST expensive way of handling wasteway of handling waste

Incineration is the SECOND MOST Incineration is the SECOND MOST expensive way of producing expensive way of producing electricityelectricity


3) Very few jobs created for very 3) Very few jobs created for very large capital investment and large capital investment and there is very little stimulation of there is very little stimulation of local economylocal economy


4) Incineration is very unpopular 4) Incineration is very unpopular with the publicwith the public

In the US over 300 incinerator In the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated between proposals defeated between 1985-951985-95

No new trash incinerator permitted No new trash incinerator permitted in the US since 1995!in the US since 1995!


5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years 5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or more the monster has to be or more the monster has to be fedfed


6) It wastes energy!6) It wastes energy!


7) It generates a toxic ash - It 7) It generates a toxic ash - It doesn’t get rid of landfillsdoesn’t get rid of landfills

For everyFor every fourfour tons of waste tons of waste burned you getburned you get one ton of ash one ton of ash (or more)(or more)

That nobody wants!That nobody wants!


8) It produces toxic air emissions8) It produces toxic air emissions

I have yet to see a documented I have yet to see a documented scientific response to either Cormier’s scientific response to either Cormier’s

paperpaper

oror

Professor Vyvyan Howard’s testimonyProfessor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony

fromfrom

Any regulatory agencyAny regulatory agency

Any incinerator builderAny incinerator builder

or or

Any consultant promoting incinerationAny consultant promoting incineration


9) Incineration is poorly monitored 9) Incineration is poorly monitored In the US monitoring of dioxins has been In the US monitoring of dioxins has been

a sick jokea sick joke There is no regulation or monitoring of There is no regulation or monitoring of

nanoparticlesnanoparticles


10) There is a far better alternative 10) There is a far better alternative strategy, which is strategy, which is cheaper, creates more cheaper, creates more jobs and business opportunities, does jobs and business opportunities, does not create a toxic ash and is sustainablenot create a toxic ash and is sustainable..



CenterCenter






DesignDesign


Temporary LandfillTemporary Landfill 20202020


++




RESEARCRESEARCHH

CENTERCENTER



FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGNAND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN


On Jan 23, 2010 On Jan 23, 2010 Capannori launched Capannori launched itsitsRifiuti Zero Research Rifiuti Zero Research CenterCenter Rossano Ercolini Rossano Ercolini [email protected]

338-28-66-215338-28-66-215



FacilityFacility Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch

CenterCenterMaximizeMaximize

Capture rateCapture rateReuse & RepairReuse & Repair

1 2 $



Maximize Maximize Capture Capture

raterate



FacilityFacility Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch

CenterCenterDirectory ofDirectory of

Best PracticesBest PracticesReuse & RepairReuse & Repair

1 2 $



DirectoryDirectory of Best of Best

PracticesPractices



FacilityFacility

Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch

CenterCenter


1 2 $



Find local usesFind local uses for some for some materialsmaterials



FacilityFacility


CenterCenter


1 2 $



RecommendRecommendBetterBetter

Industrial Industrial designdesign



FacilityFacility


CenterCenter


1 2 $



ResearchResearchFor CleanFor CleanProductionProduction

FRAZIONE RESIDUA - - Capannori Porta a Capannori Porta a PortaPorta

1.1. Tessili e cuoloTessili e cuolo 16.52 %16.52 %

2.2. PannoliniPannolini 13.95 %13.95 %

3.3. Materiale organico da cucinaMateriale organico da cucina 10.56 %10.56 %

4.4. Altra plastica: non imballoAltra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %9.98 %

5.5. Imballaggi cellulosici Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiatipoliaccopiati

8.05 %8.05 %

6.6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plasticaplastica

7.45 %7.45 %

7.7. Imballaggi flessibili in plasticaImballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 %6.81 %

8.8. Materiale organico da Materiale organico da giardinogiardino

4.64 %4.64 %

9. 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non (non bottiglie)bottiglie)

3.23 %3.23 %

1100

Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)Giornali (quotidiani e riviste) 2.54 %2.54 %

• FRAZIONE RESIDUA – – CapannoriCapannori

2.54 %Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)10

3.23 %Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie)

9.

4.64 %Materiale organico da giardino8.

6.81 %Imballaggi flessibili in plastica7.

7.45 %Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica

6.

8.05 %Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati

5.

9.98 %Altra plastica: non imballo4.

10.56 %Materiale organico da cucina3.

13.95 %Pannolini2.

16.52 %Tessili e cuoio1.

Questa e’ l’analisi del Questa e’ l’analisi del 17%17% che rimane dopo la che rimane dopo la

separazione dell’ separazione dell’ 83%83% del materiale del materiale

raccolto porta a portaraccolto porta a porta




9.




6.


5.



13.95 %Pannolini2.





Find local Find local uses?uses?




9.




6.


5.



13.95 %Pannolini2.





Find local Find local uses?uses?Recommend better Recommend better

designdesign




9.




6.


5.



13.95 %Pannolini2.





Find local Find local uses?uses?Recommend better Recommend better

designdesignEducatioEducationn

Business

Presentación del Dr. Paul Connett en Puerto Rico 2010