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

1. INCINERATIONTO BURN OR NOT TO BURNPresentation to Portfolio Committee03 March 2008

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 land-filling of organic waste in order to reduce methane generation.

6. 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

7. Cement industry locations in SA

8. 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 co-processing • 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 co-processing in order to come up with an informed policy. • This policy development process is almost complete and has been approved by MINTECH.

9. Incineration technology is used for waste management internationally

10. 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

11. 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

12. DIOXINS & FURANS: INCINERATION AND CO-PROCESSING

13. Dioxin & Furan Emissions from various sources

14. 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 co-processing 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

15. Waste Management in the EU

16. RECYCLING, INCINERATION & CO-PROCESSING • 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. CONCLUSION ANDREQUEST 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.

24. Thank You