U.S. DOE supports the use of MSW to produce energy, low rates and our stolen future

["Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>]

Members of the Dioxin-List,

"The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports the use of MSW [municipal
solid waste] to produce energy.  MSW can be converted to energy in two 
ways. One involves the direct burning of MSW to produce steam and 
electricity. The second converts MSW into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) by 
reducing the size of the MSW and separating metals, glass, and other 
inorganic materials. RDF can be densified or mixed with binders to form 
fuel pellets."

"As part of a program sponsored by DOE's Office of Industrial 
Technologies, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory participated in a 
cooperative research and development agreement to examine combustion of 
binder-enhanced, densified refuse-derived fuel (b-d RDF) pellets with 
coal...The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 allow the combustion of up to 
30% MSW in coal plants.  The results of this project will facilitate 
commercialization of the combustion technology."
 http://www.oit.doe.gov/Access/commercial_tech/10093194.html

According to Waste Age [Nov., 1992], a publication of the North American
Waste Management Association, mixed municipal solid waste has an energy 
value of 5,000 to 5,200 Btu's/lb.; RDF has 5,700 to 6,200. As a 
comparison, lignite coal [the filthiest and most ash producing of the 
basic fossil fuels other than garbage], has an energy value of 6,900 
Btu/lb.; Bituminous Coal is 9,000 -14,500 Btu/lb.; fuel oil #6, 17,410 to 
18,990; Natural Gas [which produces zero ash and less toxic emissions 
than any other fossil or fossil-derived fuel] contains 21,800 Btu/lb.
[Waste Age lists as the source: 'IWSA. 1992; Anthony Licata, 1992; 
O'Leary. Walsh and Cross, 1987; GBB, 1985; H. Lanier Hickman, 1983; 
Babcock and Wilcox, 1978.]
 
The U.S. DOE [under Presidents Bush and Clinton] claims that by burning
trash, "made from fossil-fuels, we are 'displacing fossil-fuel-based 
energy sources', while 'improving' the environment by reducing the amount 
of solid wastes that must be landfilled."  Of course, DOE and incinerator 
proponents are totally ignoring not only the energy value index, the 
created mountains of hazardous ash in Broward County, Florida; the ash 
that is to be recycled as ashpalt in Maine, as well as Tennessee, and
Pennsylvania. (dioxin-L); in Oregon, ash is spread as fertilizer over 
farm landland.  Compared with ground coffee in a coffee maker, ash 
creates a far more potent brew of toxic leachate than raw garbage.  This 
leachate contaminates not only ground water, but surface waters, attaches 
to soil/dust and builds up through the food chain in far greater 
quantities than raw trash in a landfill.  Toxic metals accumulate in 
flesh/bone; dioxins and other persistent organic pollutants accumulate in 
fat of dairy, eggs, animals and fish.  All is ignored by DOE.

Recall, Chemical Week Executive Edition; July 12, 1996; Volume 1, Number 
34.  Note, especially:  1) "U.S. CALLS FOR CO2 CUT...THE U.S. GOVERNMENT 
HAS OUTRAGED ENERGY-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES by calling for an international 
agreement to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other 
greenhouse gases. In a clear policy shift, the U.S.--the world's largest 
emitter of greenhouse gases and not previously an advocate of curbing 
them--says it now intends to lead moves to prevent global warming." 
The waste industry says they can reduce global warming by burning garbage 
as a fuel.

And, 2) "CMA Lauds Long-Awaited Schaefer Bill, but Passage is Unlikely."
Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer (CO) introduced legislation mandating
"competition in the 'retail electricity supply' market by the end of 
2000--a move that CMA estimates could save the energy-intensive chemical 
industry $600 million/year."  Schaefer, who chairs the House Commerce 
Committee's Energy & Power subcommittee, proposes that states implement 
retail competition. The bill would also repeal two federal laws 
regulating power companies--the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy and 
Holding Company Acts--and require that all generators of electricity 
employ renewable energy sources for at least 2% of their power output.#
http://www.chemweek.com/tools/EE/wwwexecutivefolder/EXEC0718.html#5

Does this mean that all generators of electricity will be required to
burn "waste for energy" --tires, plastics, RDF, computers, automobile 
fluff or other precursors of dioxins--for at least 2% of their power 
outlet?  What ever happened to unfunded mandates?  Does unfunded mandates 
mean no air pollution controls? 

In the Senate version, S. 1317 of the PUBLIC UTILITIES HOLDING 
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF: `THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY ACT OF 1996' 
says that the purpose of the Act is to eliminate unnecessary regulation 
through repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, while 
facilitating effective State and Federal rate regulation, by assuring 
access to holding company system books and records that are relevant to 
setting utility rates.

"The bill reported by the Committee has two purposes: the legislation 
would repeal PUHCA, streamlining regulation and eliminating unnecessary
duplication, thus facilitating competition in the energy industry. PUHCA
no longer serves its original purpose of restructuring the energy 
industry and protecting investors and consumers from holding company 
abuses. The nature of the utility industry has changed, the state and 
federal governments have implemented regulatory controls, and Congress 
has enacted federal energy laws and federal securities laws--all of which 
more than adequately protect consumers and utility rate payers. In light 
of these developments, PUHCA has become obsolete."
 
Louisiana U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston testified at the hearing on 
the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995 before the Senate 
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, June 6, 1996. He also 
testified that without PUHCA repeal "efforts by the States to implement 
'retail competition,' such as those in New York, California, Rhode 
Island, New Hampshire and others, will be frustrated."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/1?cp104:./temp/~cp104fJnK:e10362:

A publication of Work on Waste USA, Waste Not #369 & #370, reported:
"ILLINOIS..THE REPEAL OF THE RETAIL RATE LAW..ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
ANTI-INCINERATOR CAMPAIGNS IN THE U.S.A."  Among the press releases on 
the internet are: 'Governor Signs Retail Rate Law Repeal - FOR IMMEDIATE 
RELEASE March 14, 1996.  GOVERNOR REPEALS LAW THAT EXPOSED TAXPAYERS TO 
PROVIDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIES TO INCINERATOR DEVELOPERS..'  
 [http://www.state.il.us/GOV/PRESS/REPEALPR.HTM]  and, 
'ILLINOIS REPEAL WASTE-TO-ENERGY SUBSIDY-- Illinois Governor Edgar called
for the repeal of the retail rate law in his state of the state address. 
The House and Senate concurred one day later. The retail rate law was 
passed in 1987 to encourage energy-from-waste projects, but opponents 
estimated the subsidy for one plant as worth $24/ton. In November 1995, 
an Illinois Sierra Club study asserted that the 5 cent/kWh subsidy 
probably was a good idea when it was drafted, but is inappropriate now.'
[Source: Resource Recovery Report. Volume XX, No. 4, Feb. 1996]
http://www.fs.fed.us/outernet/fpl/documnts/nltr/nltr0496.htm

The energy intensive chemical industry uses natural gas, oil and coal to 
make plastics, pesticides and other solvents, dyes and pigments, etc.  
Toxic heavy metals, especially lead, cadmium and mercury are added as 
stabilizers, colorants, and bacteriacides.   All of which create 
oceans of hazardous waste.  The U.S. government, under the heading of the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Field Test Laboratory Building 
[FTLB] is using everything from "microorganisms to mounds of 
trash...unseen and unwanted resources to make valuable chemicals, fuels, 
and electricity. The FTLB contains 41 laboratories where a wide range of 
research activities are conducted to help U.S. industry use renewable 
resources and waste productively."     
http://www.nrel.gov/lab/pao/ftlb.html

The terms: 'alternative' and 'renewable' fuels may mean clean solar, 
wind, hydro to the some environment organizations, but they also mean
co-generation: the blending of wastes (household/other hazardous) with 
waste motor oil to be sold as a cheap fuel for energy in cement kilns and 
other industrial boilers; municipal solid waste mixed with coal for 
utility boilers; toxic and other legally hazardous wastes burned in 
industrial boilers for energy recovery to save the chemical industry 
money which is also not regulated.  All are more polluting than coal, 
oil, and natural gas.  By recycling, these sources are not covered by 
the toxic release inventory and most are not required to have any 
pollution controls; all have inadequate pollution controls to protect 
public health and the environment and some are unregulated.  All are an 
uncontrolled source of dioxins and other products of incomplete 
combustion, lead, cadmium, mercury and other toxic heavy metals.  DOE 
apparently supports industries stealing our children's future by 
spreading poisons over the earth and calling it 'environmental 
protection' because this waste is not in landfills.  And, Congress is 
funding this practice, along with clean solar, hydro, geothermal, and 
wind power under the label of renewable/alternative energies in fiscal 
year 1997 to save money for their benefactors and enhance OUR STOLEN 
FUTURE.

Susan K. Snow