Cleveland's proposal to gasify waste - risks, communications, transparency and environmental justice

The following posts are related to the proposed Municipal Solid Waste – to – Energy proposal, recently dubbed the CREG Center by the City of Cleveland municipal electric company, Cleveland Public Power.

• [Excerpts] White Paper on Waste Processing Technologies - highlights of risks associated with GASIFICATION as an emerging technology
  
  

  REF:
  
  Meeting the Future: Evaluating the Potential of WasteProcessing Technologies to Contribute to the SolidWaste Authority’s SystemSolid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Floridahttp://www.swa.org/pdf/SWAPBC_White_Paper_9-2-09.pdf

  Prepared by: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 8550 Arlington Blvd, Suite 304Fairfax, VA  22031September 2, 2009
   

  Found an interesting and what appears to be a very useful report (Sept. 2009) that reviews waste management technology for the Palm Beach County FL.

  Even though the information from this white paper was developed over 2-years ago, it marks the same time that Ivan Henderson, Commissioner of CPP lead the trip to Asia to explore emerging technologies (Aug. 2009).  Some of the information may have become slightly outdated, but nonetheless, the most interesting factoids and statements are presented below:

  (See further excerpts and references to useful PowerPoint slides here)

  Note: CPP has yet to explain how this project, that has been estimated to cost between $180 and $300 million, will be financed.

  See full post here.

  
   
• Sources of Information regarding the City of Cleveland CREG Center Proposal
  
  Here are the major sources of information available on-line pertaining to the project:
   
  
  • Cleveland Public Power (CPP) CREG Center site
  • CPP Air Permit Application
  • EPA Draft Air Permit for proposed project
  • Initial EPA Public Hearing Notice for Jan. 9th 2012 Public Hearing, NOTE: City of Cleveland has requested Ohio EPA to extend Public Comment period an additional 30-days to February 23rd, 2012. (Spanish version)
  • Earth Day Coalition Clean Air site
  • Ohio Citizen Action Cleveland Incinerator site
  • Estimated maximum emissions as stated in the CPP application for air permit operating at 72.24% heat input
  • Max Mercury Emissions CPP Facility vs Actual Reported Mercury Emiss...from Operating Power Plants 2010
  • Max Potential Total PM (F+C) Emissions CPP Facility vs. Actual Tota... 2009
  • Research on Gasification - Excerpts from work conducted by Gershman... pertaining to energy technologies. 
  • Public Comment submitted by Claude Lawrence Cornett, Jr.
    
    
    

• CPP Announces meeting on gasification facility, provides no meaningful data on emissions
  
  See the initial Public Hearing Announcement from the EPA for the one and only Public Comment Hearing held on January 9th.  NOTE that the City of Cleveland has requested from Ohio EPA a 30-day extension of the Official Public Comment Period from January to February 23rd.  See the original announcement for where and how to submit comment.
  
  The CPP statement, linked here, see specific text regarding emissions, is an insult to the process.  CPP has applied for an Air Permit to operate a gasification facility.  I find it incredulous that while their Draft Air Permit is being reviewed for public comment (closing 2/2012), that CPP cannot communicate clearly what the emissions are estimated to be; what they’ve actually stated within their permit application. 
  
  Instead, under no less a heading of “ Understanding the impact”, CPP states 
  
  “...if we don’t allow mercury and other toxins into the gasification process, we will not have mercury and other toxins coming out of the gasification process.”
  
  In fact, here is a listing of the emissions listed for the facility, per CPP’s  EPA Permit Application using a 72.24% utilization of heat input:
  
  See full post with list of emissions here as well as information on the EPA's Policies on Environmental Justice.