The Great Hypocrisy

By William Turley, Associate Publisher & Editor

Recycling is supposed to be an environmentally enhancing activity. So says governmental entities of all sizes and stripes, as well as virtually all of the so-called environmental organizations. Indeed, this concept has been burned into the brains of the North American general public for years, through public awareness and public outreach programs put on by those entities. And, frankly, the recovery of our resources for at least a second use, if not more, is good for the environment and all those nice warm fuzzies we hear about. That C&D recycling is also usually economic feasible, providing jobs and supplying tax revenues in a green-collar, environmentally friendly industry is a plus. So why is it that sometimes the biggest barrier for some end markets are governmental regulators and the big environmental non-profits? An excellent example of this is for the use of recycled C&D wood as a fuel product. Currently there are two actions that could severely hurt this market.

The first involves two U.S. EPA actions: the proposed definition for solid waste, which includes C&D, and related to that, the proposed 112/129 boiler rules, which has to be revised as a result of a lawsuit lost by the EPA to the Sierra Club that sought to put much tighter restrictions on incineration of wastes, especially for fuel. The Sierra Club, and many of its ilk, don’t like incineration for the creation of power, arguing it adds to air pollution and too many recyclables end up being incinerated that could have gone to better, added-value markets. On the first point, the use of C&D wood saves on greenhouse gases because the wood would have released its GHGs no matter what, if it died in a forest or was used as fuel, while pulling the fossil fuels out of the ground releases GHGs that would have stayed encapsulated with the natural material. On the second point, a large part of the C&D wood steam is not of the quality to do anything with but recover the Btu value of the wood. The only other option is the landfill.

As for the EPA’s definition of C&D, the importance is which boiler type C&D biomass will be allowed to go to. A 112 boiler is easier to permit, while a 129 boiler has far more restrictions. Currently the proposed definition allows only clean wood to go to a 112 boiler, raising strict barriers against any other biomass wood to go to a 129-based incineration. This will severely and negatively affect the C&D biomass market.

The second action is a proposed scope of work from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that would examine all aspects of C&D wood as a fuel product. This subject has been studied to death in the state as a reaction to some proposed C&D biomass power generation facilities. The anti-biomass crowd has whipped up public sentiment against incineration by providing half truths and by using lobbying muscle. The proposed scope from MassDEP purports to be looking at the entire issue. No problem ordinarily, as C&D biomass does provide environmental and economic benefits. However, a consultant will be chosen to perform this work. All of the consultants in the state know this subject and could expect  not be chosen because the DEP feels they are “biased” and can’t be used. Who will that leave to do the work? Neophytes and those organizations disposed against C&D biomass?

The documentation on both of these situations is available from the CMRA, which will comment strongly on both. The hypocrisy comes in because both the environmental agencies and the environmental non-profits claim to support recycling, which they consider environmentally beneficial. But their actions against C&D biomass mean they don’t understand the industry, or even worse, they know this will undermine C&D recycling’s economic underpinning and really don’t care.

William Turley, C&D World Associate Publisher & Editor
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

| More...