Charleston County Should Stop Rush to Gasification

Reprinted courtesy of the Post and Courier

BY STARR HAZARD and ANGELA JONES

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

At the July 12 County Council meeting, council members deservedly patted themselves on the back for progress made in handling the county's trash.  Two years ago at the urging of residents, the council formed a citizen 'Green Ribbon' committee and brought in an outside expert that helped them arrive at a plan to save millions of dollars by closing the North Charleston incinerator, take steps to meet a 40 percent recycling rate and identify additional disposal options to relieve pressure on the Bee's Ferry landfill.

In the short time since that 2009 decision, the county has doubled its recycling rate to 20 percent through simple efforts to increase composting, while setting plans to pilot a new, cost-effective and convenient curbside recycling program among other steps.

Having invested in this forward-looking plan, the council now stands on the verge of committing the county to an unproven technology that would seriously undermine recycling efforts under way.

With no public consultation and only cursory understanding of the technology, the council is considering entering into contract negotiations that would lead to the construction of a new, multi-million dollar 'gasification' plant to handle the county's waste.  Council is on the verge of making a rash decision that could saddle the county with an expensive, white elephant of a facility.

Gasification is a complex and unproven technology that exposes trash to extreme heat, producing a gas that is used to generate electricity.  There are, however, four crucial points that should give the council pause.

First, after two decades of study by large cities and state governments from California to Florida, no functioning gasification plants have been built to handle municipal trash in the country beyond a handful of small demonstration facilities.

Moreover, these existing facilities have experienced cost overruns, malfunctions and other technical problems that have forced them off line for extended periods of time.

Second, investing in a gasification plant would divert much-needed financing for the further development of recycling programs that create six to ten times the number of jobs per tonnage of waste than waste incineration or new thermal treatment processes.

Gasification technology is dependent on the same materials that the county recycling program is otherwise collecting.  A gasification plant could be expected to contractually commit the county to supplying a guaranteed quantity of these materials, with the potential for penalties if we recycle too much.

Third, though presented as a clean source of energy, gasification still involves the cooking of trash at high temperatures and the release into the air of toxic pollutants.

Even the most advanced waste incineration facilities, including gasifiers, have smokestacks and there will still be pollutants discharged into the surrounding community.  A portion of these air pollutants simply gets converted to toxic ash that still needs to be disposed of in landfills.

Where does the council intend to build this facility and what will be the impact on the surrounding neighborhood?

Fourth, though county attorney Joe Dawson was directed by the council to give a presentation at the September meeting on alternative technology proposals received from four different companies, there is concern that the council will be asked at its August meeting to pursue a sole source contract with Energy City.

To be clear, these concerns about gasification are based on the experience of other communities, municipal and state governments, and not on any information presented by the county.

The truth is, we don't know what the financial, environmental or community health impacts will be because the council has shared no information and has not held a single public discussion or study session.  There is no indication that the council has consulted independent experts.

If the council wishes to pursue gasification or similar technologies, it has an obligation to consult the community.  The first step should be to reactivate and task the citizen-led Green Ribbon committee with investigating the benefits and risks of the proposal.

We should not be diverting county resources from the county waste plan developed by Kessler Consulting.  Kessler's analysis showed that easily achievable recycling goals hold the greatest promise to reduce taxpayer costs, while doing more to conserve resources and protect our environment.

Why would we abandon two years of planning on a tried, tested and proven recycling strategy, in order to gamble on an unproven and risky technology that few others have been willing to pursue?

We urge Charleston residents to ask this question of its council representatives before Thursday's meeting on solid waste.

Starr Hazard is chair of the Robert Lunz Group Sierra Club.

Angela Jones is the club's conservation chair.