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

2. 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. 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. 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. 5 CLIMATE CHANGE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT  Important link between Waste management and Climate change  Landfills produce methane which is 20 times more powerful than CO 2 as a Greenhouse gas (GHG).  EU has placed restrictions on land- filling of organic waste in order to reduce methane generation.

6. 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 CO 2.  Cement industry accounts for 1% in SA’s 440 Mt/a global CO 2 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. 7 Cement industry locations in SA

8. 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. 9 Incineration technology is used for waste management internationally CountryNo of incineratorsMetric tons of waste per annum Metric tons /annum incinerated Netherlands1339.73.2 Italy50302.8 Germany665211.1 France13035.511.3 Denmark323.62.0 Austria84.91.4 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,

10. 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 CO 2 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. 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. 12 DIOXINS & FURANS: INCINERATION AND CO-PROCESSING

13. 13 Dioxin & Furan Emissions from various sources ProcessesEmissions per year in g TU (toxicity units) *1 199019942000 Metal extraction and processing74022040 Waste Incineration400320,5 Power Stations533 Industrial Incineration Plants2015<10 Domestic Firing Installations2015<10 Traffic104<1 Crematoria42<2 Total emissions, air1,200330<<70 Other sources include : Veld fires, wood stoves, uncontrolled open burning of waste, the Sunday braai,etc

14. 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. 15 Waste Management in the EU Management Option Current level (%) Year 2020 Recycling and Recovery 3642 (increase) Incineration1725 (increase) Land-filling4735 (decrease)

16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 22 IF CO-PROCESSING IS ALLOWED  Mitigation against Climate Change  Reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of substitution of fuel  Further reduction in CO 2 emissions are realized by diverting organics from landfill – reduce methane.  Immediate reduction of 40mg/m 3 (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. 23  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. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

24. 24 Thank You