Municipal Waste Management Policy (ctd)

Well done to the ESRI for owning up to the error that had been made and for revising its report accordingly. Given the integrity and professionalism consistently exhibited by the ESRI staff, I am not surprised. However, in the “land of the buck stops nowhere” it is a refreshing, if solitary, example of accountability and responsiveness.

Quite apart from the continuing headache for the Minister, it does raise two important matters.

First, it is unfortunate that the ESRI is partly funded directly by public funds and partly by revenue from the provision of consulting and research services. This study was commissioned (and paid for) by Dublin City Council. There is a public perception – that is, perhaps, not without some justification – that “independent” consultants succumb to “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. I hasten to add that I am not alleging this against the ESRI in this case, but, in my experience, many consulting firms may not be as fastidious as the ESRI with the facts, evidence and analysis. It is also the case that clients craft the terms of reference to ensure that the consultants retained are prevented from conducting a full investigation of the issues, ostensibly, being addressed. Not surprisingly, more often than not, clients get the answer they want.

It would be far better if the ESRI were “unbundled” into a public policy research institute completely funded from the public purse and a separate commercial consulting and research business. I believe this dual-funding arrangement restricts its ability to investigate fully a number of important policy areas and this would remove the shackles. It would also draw a distinction between analysis conducted independently in the public interest and work performed in response to a ToR, at least partially, crafted by external clients or external funders of research projects.

Secondly, the public slanging match between the Minister’s consultants and the ESRI is unedifying and professionally demeaning – even if it provides some entertainment for the wilfully underinformed media. It would be far better if a Dail or Oireachtas Committee were empowered to conduct open hearings on this matter, to allow the Minister and his consultant to put its case and Dublin City Council and the ESRI to put theirs, to allow rebuttal and counter rebuttal, to call on other expertise as required, to make an assessment and to present its decisison which would be binding on government. This is just another example of an overmighty executive being temporarily hindered by unwelcome analysis.

And to complicate matters there are allegations, perhaps not without some credence, that the Minister is being influenced by the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) Brigade in his constituency. This raises the issue of the propriety of ministers retaining their parliamentary seats while being charged to decide policy in the public interest. Many other parliamentary democracies require ministers on appointment to relinquish their seats.

This “incident” raises some important questions about the role of the ESRI, the role of parliament and the propriety of ministers retaining seats in parliament that have relevance across the entire range of public policy.

Paul’s point about the ESRI funding model is peripheral to the Poolbeg controversy, which stands to be resolved on the merits of the case. But his point is important – the funding model is ad hoc, and not a satisfactory long-term arrangement.

@Richard,

Your elegant and economic use of the English language sometimes challenges us lesser mortals. Are you suggesting that the soundness of the conclusions and recommendations advanced in some/many/all? ESRI reports is compromised by the funding model?

Hearings by an Oireachtas Committee, with a built-in Government majority, rarely, if ever, deliver a decision that contradicts a Ministerial or Government policy decision. And, even if they do, they have no power to enforce this decision. These Committees are creatures of the party whips – and ultimately under the control of the governing party whips – and are designed neither to hold government to account nor to exercise any restaint on its actions. They symbolise, most starkly, the almost total impotence of the Oireachtas.

@Colm,

I agree the point is peripheral in this instance, but I’m pleased you recognise its importance in a broader context. And I wish (see above) I could share your confidence that this matter will be “resolved on the merits of the case”. In addition to the impotence of the Oireachtas, the conflict the Minister confronts between the demands of some of his constituents and his duty to act in the public interest adds another twist.

@Richard,

Many thanks for this clarification. In my view, it appears to confirm the requirement for unsponsored, but publicly funded, wide-ranging and unconstrained public policy research provided either by the Institute – reconstituted appropriately – or by some other body. It also appears to confirm the requirement to empower Oireachtas Committees to consider such research, to hear evidence from other parties and to issue binding decisions that will guide or amend the formulation of policy. In this way, any bias that might exist will be exposed.

I expect that Colm McCarthy, in BSN mode, might not welcome additional public funding for the Institute or to resource Oireachtas Committees appropriately, but it would require only limited slimming of the currently sprawling quangocracy to free up the resources and it would be the most effective and efficient means of charting a sensible and democratically-supported course out of the current economic and financial debacle – and of preventing a future repetition.

The Greens are as good as other political groups at jumping on passing bandwagons.

Pro-science on climate change; anti-science on GM foods and abject cowards on the choice between nuclear power and fossil fuels, the Irish variety have
never challenged their electorate.

My mother used to say, expect nothing and you shall not be disappointed, but when you present yourself as apart from the fumblers in the greasy till and their cronyism but in power you behave as their carbon copy, then prepare for ignominy and contempt.

@Paul Hunt
Fully agreed.

@David O’Donnell
I said the following on the previous thread in response to an incinerator opponent who wanted to invest in developing new MBT technology and it remains my view:

“Incineration is proven. Our public service’s record when it tries to innovate is terrible. However, when you warn that the incinerator could turn into another Terminal 2 I could well believe that. If I were to be cynical [I’ll amend that to realistic] I would say that the country is going to choose an excessively costly solution whatever happens. It’s a matter of choosing the least excessively costly one.

The ESRI are focused on minimising cost. The government is, as is its right, taking more factors into account. If the government is honest about wanting to choose the costlier option I have no objection.”

Costs for the incinerator will have to be ruthlessly controlled if it is built. I believe it will not be built – or at least not on the scale originally envisioned. Though it should be the cheaper option this is now a political issue. If the public and the government do not want the incinerator built then, providing they are willing to accept the resulting probably higher costs (including any hit from cancelling/amending the Covanta deal) it will not be built, or built on a smaller scale. If MBT is not proven and with the possiblity of fines from the EU it would be prudent to ensure that we have AN incinerator – even if happily it is in conjunction with MBT – or else we must seek a derogation while we try to develop MBT.

I suspect that the debate will now widen to include not just this incinerator but the prospects for MBT and the future management of national waste.

It’s the integrity of those who analyse the data and compile the reports that’s important, not who is funding it. To take a simplistic example, Colm McCarthy was appointed by the Minister for Finance and paid out of the public pursue for compiling the Snip II report, whose contents surely horrified several members of the government. But anyone who tried to question his professionalism in the way he approached his task or what he delivered at the end of it didn’t get very far. In the end, opinions are all well and good, but facts are facts.

On the waste management issue, politics override facts. Incineration is unacceptable to the Greens. The DCC project is doubly unacceptable because of its location. The Cabinet Statement supporting the Minister’s actions got lost in the maelstrom leading up to the resignation of the Minister for Defence a few days later; but it’s evident that what happens to Poolbeg is critical to this government remaining intact.

@Veronica
John Gormley is in a political situation so awkward even I feel sorry for him, although his reaction to the ESRI’s report was inexcusable (also I continue to utterly despise his party for their part in a discredited government). Gormley lead local opposition to the incinerator (complete with sticker) and hit Michael McDowell over the head repeatedly for being in cabinet and not stopping it. He has now trapped himself in a political incinerator of his own making – and the temperature is rising all the time. However, he has access to the bottomless cheque book and the massive power that comes from being the lynchpin of the government. With this super sized carrot and mega stick I expect him to escape from being the first thing to be burnt off by the incinerator.

@Richard
Arthurstown and Balleally are closing down this year so it will be going to alternative private waste disposal until 2012-13. By this time greenstar, panda, access, etc. will have gained a foothold in the dublin market and DCC will still be paying N or N tonnes. We need to look at the contract and see if there is any ‘outs’.

@Sam
I do read the papers but I know next to nothing about MBT – which is why I thought there should be a wider debate and Oireachtas hearings (although the Hangargate hearing gives me little confidence). I also know little about the economics of waste management. I am happy to learn therefore:

“MBT is proven by the way. Its very low tech but labour intensive but nothing magical that need proving (has anyone sat down and proven that swallows can fly).”

as from reading this post by yourself(?) on the last thread (Feb 7, 7:07 PM) I was unsure about how reliable and proven the technology is:

“@ j daly. You are correct that there are issues to be resolved with regard the stabilisation of MBT ‘unders’ but at least two facilities are producing very stabile product. I know the EPA are currently doing a lot of work on the issue at the moment and I know that the senior people in the EPA in charge of formulating the guidance docs etc are very positive re MBT from the small quantity of plant currently producing product.”

To me unless Gormley can get Covanta to walk away he would be best off agreeing to build at least a smaller incinerator because of:
1. Costs of getting out of contract.
2. EU Fines from not meeting landfill targets.
3. Crash MBT program to meet target could also be very costly – even if it did meet target – especially as will take time to get running.

MBT sounds like E Voting – an idea whose time will come but could be a disaster in the present due to faulty equipment. Are you 100% confident in the technology and how much more cheap/expensive is it? Your enigmatic second line about swallows has me worried!

@David O’Donnell
I agree. It is intensely political. Joe Curtin should apologise. Internet warfare can get heated (I’m Exhibit A) but if anyone knows him please ask him to do so as it would be to his credit. I DON’T think lawyers should get involved. I am often tempted to have the entire NAMA lobby jailed due to the damage they are causing but spinning is not illegal and public debate has been warped enough in Ireland by canon law.

@Richard Tol
My current opinion is that we need AN incinerator. I am wondering though if incineration is still cheaper/more reliable than MBT? Because of the three factors I mentioned in my earlier post this would not affect the decision to go ahead with the incinerator now. Likewise I believe in the absence of evidence to the contrary that Dublin City Council are not pyromaniacs so incineration was the cheapest reliable technology at the time the decision was made. This may be awkward if it isn’t still the cheapest proven technology so I will not press you on it, especially as the issue is now so political. As I say it wouldn’t affect whether incineration is the right choice on economic grounds given where we are.

@JC
That is a gracious apology and I hope that the matter can be left there.

@Richard Tol
That’s fair enough.

@All
My own opinion would be that a large incinerator – if not perhaps on the original scale – is inevitable. Hopefully it will become as accepted a local landmark as the Vienna incinerator.

@Oliver Vandt:
“Hopefully it will become as accepted a local landmark as the Vienna incinerator.”

Or the Poolbeg chimneys, soon (I understand) to be no longer with us.

Mind you, pretty well anything you built at Poolbeg, west of the wall, would be an improvement to the local landscape.

bjg

@Brian J Goggin
They would be missed.

@Richard and Oliver
Forget about the environment and the landfill directive. The EPA are capping BMW waste to landfill so landfill directive will be met and both landfill and incineration will be regulated appropriately by the EPA.
The issue there for is the economics (appropriate for this forum).

Forget about incineration vs other technologies. It is all about the cost of the contract.

How can any of us make a judgement on this issue until we know what DCC are comitting to in the contract?

If DCC re-tendered the disposal of this waste what would the cost be given the hugely changed market.

I fear this is a bubble price deal just like the new airport terminal. I have no problem with terminals, so long as they are not over sized and over priced.

.

@Oliver
Likewise I believe in the absence of evidence to the contrary that Dublin City Council are not pyromaniacs so incineration was the cheapest reliable technology at the time the decision was made.

Unfortunately for DCC there is direct evidence that the figures were ‘massaged’ (to use the words of McKechnie J) to produce a particular outcome. In 1997 DCC had ‘prejudged’ the outcome in favour of incineration and MBT never had a chance.

The evidence can be found in the 1997 analysis “Technical Studies & Dublin Waste Model”. The following outputs from incineration are listed on page 56 but the costs were omitted:

o Slags
o Flyash
o Fluegas
o Wastewater

Typical costs for these would be:

1. Slags (Bottom ash)
Never costed – DCC propose a daft notion that this ash is to be exported from Poolbeg for ‘recycling’ in the UK or Denmark. The huge cost of transporting the bottom ash was omitted from the model. We were not allowed discuss this aspect at the oral hearings into the incinerator.

The UK recycles about 50% of bottom ash but this will now fall because the Highways Agency in October banned the use of bottom ash aggregates in road contracts following an explosion which injured workers.

The likelihood is that the ash will be land filled at whatever gate fee applies to landfill plus a potential landfill levy. In the UK the levy is currently £ 2.50 for inert material but HM Treasury has proposed to increase this to £ 72 per tonne for active material. Bottom ash is an active material because of the heavy metal content.

2. Fly ash
The original model omitted the cost of disposal – about € 10 per tonne of waste burned based on research from the original MCCK waste strategy study. Again the cost of transport was omitted.

3. Cost of CO2
Paul Gorecki’s revised ESRI report puts the cost of CO2 from incineration at € 5.60 per tonne of waste burned.

The authors of the original model, MCCK, left out the cost of disposing of these expensive products of incineration. These omissions make nonsense of the analysis and we know from Mr P J Rudden that the model has not been revisited since 1997.

These omissions from the model are so egregious that it confirms our opinion that DCC had ‘prejudged’ the outcome and produced a set of figures to suit incineration.

Incineration was not then, and is not now, the ‘cheapest reliable technology’.

A properly costed comparison of MBT v incineration should be conducted with input from all sides.
– – – –
J & V

What good will incinerating BMW waste do? It won’t make it disappear, that’s for sure. You will not reduce its volume by much. In order to burn it, surely you will have to add something to get it to burn, otherwise it’s trying to make a fire with old soggy teabags? All these things must surely have an impact on the economics?

The calorific value of food waste is around 4 Kj / g. This is a quarter of that of paper. Is this really enough to dry the material and achieve a safe incinerating temperature of 700 or 800 Degrees c? It is really hard for me to believe there would be any excess energy to use for power generation and I do not think any incinerator manufacturer would ever claim such a thing.

It will not necessarily generate net energy. It depends on the mix and types of waste you put in it. A teabags-only incinerating plant would not generate energy, for instance, because you would have to add fuel to the fire. A tetra-pack-only incinerating plant definitely would produce energy. The problem I am pointing to is that no account has been taken of the degree to which high-calorific-value fuels have been removed from domestic waste.

The economics of any energy-generating project depend on the quality of the fuel. What the contract says about the calorific value of the inputs – i.e., how well the waste has to burn to avoid paying a penalty has to make a big difference to whether a proposed incinerator is economically attractive or not.

@Richard
That’s water under the bridge.

Not so. We are only now getting to grips with all the costs which DCC have been obfuscating.

The costs omitted by them so far include:

1 Cost of Bottom Ash
2 Cost of Fly Ash
3 CO2 cost
4 Clients Representative cost
5 Land purchase
6 Community Gain fund
7 Efficiency loss through burning sewage sludge
8 Parasitic use of electricity

We used the EfW model found in Table 11.5 on p 260 of the EPA MBT Synthesis report to re-assess the true economic cost of the Poolbeg incinerator.
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/waste/name,25535,en.html

Full workings available to anyone – just ask.

The revised gate fee is now 122 euros per tonne.

This is higher than the cost of MBT.

This is not water under the bridge. Some of these corrections to the original business case have come to hand only in the last few weeks.

If we don’t analyse the economic cost then who will? It certainly won’t be Covanta or DCC.

– – –
J & V

The various statements about incineration and its effectiveness in dealing with the residual waste arisings from Greater Dublin are noteworthy. The issue about recycling and separation of the inerts and salvageable materials are also valid. None the less after the ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES have been tested the final arbiter is COST and AFFORDABILITY.

So with regards to the Environmental Issues first. Incineration is alleged to be Environmentally Acceptable and Proven.

If the first part of this statement was true then why is it that every few years after an event new Legislation is enacted to rectify past inadequacies? Surely the test of Environmentally Acceptable has to be capable of meeting current Legislation and Foreseen New Legislation. So what is Foreseen and what is New Legislation?

We already know that Ireland like the rest of European Union is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on POPS (Persistent Organic Pollutants) control. This means that any and all processing plants in Ireland must control their emissions to the air and the land. Incineration does not eliminate POPS for even after controls there are escapes. And one area where this is blatantly uncontrolled is in Dioxins and similar compounds.

The EPA in the USA has declared that Dioxins are the most dangerous and harmful substances known to humans. They can be ingested through many pathways to humans. The effects on human foetuses and infant growth is as yet not fully understood, but upon ingesting they are absorbed into the very DNA of humans whereupon the natural cycle of multiplication of the in-built DNA chains means that within a space of 2 years (from inside the womb to a 15 month-old infant) the multiplication of Dioxins can be many tens or even hundreds of millions. So whilst their is a so-called ”acceptable” dose rate for humans please be reminded that it is not the same for pregnant mothers and infants. But you ask why is Dioxin liberated from Incineration facilities more dangerous than others? The answer here is simple, it is continuous and it is airborne and distributed and concentrated down-wind of such a facility. There are no safe limits for Dioxins in the atmosphere.

Under already accepted Legislation any incineration plant has to control the emission of Particulates to the size of PM10 (the legislation was enacted within the last two years.) This is after the response bid given for the Ringsend Incineration project. The costs for attenuating this are not unsubstantial, and from comparisons elsewhere may cost in excess of €100 million.

In an address recently published Dublin Corporation reluctantly had it drawn from them that provision to manage the residues (Hearth Ash/Clinker and Flue Ash) all of which is Toxic had not been catered for. Who is paying for the €100 million secure LandFill site? Your correspondents here record that this is an ongoing cost that is only forecast to be €130-00 per tonne. If that is correct and the residues are 15% of the original 600,000 tonnes per annum that would be €7,800,000 per year. However recalling that such charges elsewhere in Europe .exceed €200-00 per tonne can we assume that this is real?

Incineration is Proven Technology? Surely someone does not understand the logic of Proven and Experimental. Incineration Plants have been built and work but the outcome of the process is hardly a proven issue. Converting a Raw Material to a series of Wasted Gases and Solids whereupon there are no further uses is not the best proven example of waste management. In fact it is the treatment of last resort after all other systems have been viewed and tested for viability. Too many people hide behind the issue of Proven and BPEO (Best Practical Environmental Option) or BATNEEC (Best Available Technology Not Exceeding Excessive Cost) knowing full well that there are other systems around that offer Better Environmental Accountability as well as being Affordable. To be both at the same time is better still! And so it is. The UK/Dutch/Americans have developed a process for converting the Biomass to make the Biofuel Ethanol at a capital cost that would (i) be less than half that for Incineration (ii) not produce any emissions because the process is a wet based one, (iii) not require upgrading after a few years (iv) not entail having to increase Gate Fees for Treatment above €35-00 per tonne and after a period of say 5 to 7 years dispose of any treatment costs whatsoever. Possible? Real? Of course it is otherwise why would they be building plants in the UK Netherlands Israel VietNam Kentucky China Guam and elsewhere.

Wake up everyone Incineration is old hat outdated and an expensive mill stone of costs that hang around you for ever. Break out of this mould and get the Government out of their conviction that it is a done deal. It is not and need not.