Proposals for new facilities in the U.S. have failed when authorities investigated

North American Power Company Pyrolysis Proposal, Chowchilla, CA—pyrolysis:

Company claimed no hazardous emissions; eventually withdrew permit when asked to back up claim with data.

Alameda Power and Telecom (APT), Alameda, CA—gasification:

APT spent over $500,000 hiring consultants, who assured city officials that gasification would have no emissions and that residents would no longer have to recycle. The Board expressed reservations because of unverifiable data and excluded emerging technologies from further consideration.

Neoteric Environmental Technologies and International Environmental Solutions, Romoland, CA—pyrolysis:

Pilot project using MSW was found by South Coast Air Quality Management District to emit more dioxins, NOx, VOCs, and particulate matter than the two exiting large municipal solid waste incinerators in the Los Angeles area.

Plastic Energy LLC, Hanford, CA—catalytic cracking:

Claimed no emissions; received permits in 2002; in 2004, when challenged, company admitted toxic emissions, admitted previously claimed data did not exist; announced project would be temporarily suspended; have not reapplied for permits.

Global Energy Resources, Sierra Vista, Arizona—plasma:

Claimed no emissions, said they owned and operated similar facilities; when challenged admitted there would be some emissions and it became clear that the company had never operated a similar facility; dropped proposal but is pursuing new locations.

InEnTec Medical Services, Red Bluff, CA—plasma:

Tehama County Air Pollution control District issued permits for facility in 2004 but rescinded permits in 2005 based on a number of findings. Company had claimed there would be “pollution free” but their own test on pilot showed dioxin and other pollutants.

Recent developments

Geoplasma, St.Lucie County, FL—plasma:

This company claimed it would process 3,000 tons of trash per day, but after the County hired a consultant who said there was no proof of the company’s claims regarding very low emissions, the company scaled back their proposal to 200 tons per day. At this writing (October 2008), the County says they will consider a new proposal.

Adaptive ARC, Santa Cruz County, CA—plasma:

In November, 2008, the Santa Cruz Public Works Department ended negations with this company because of doubts about their proposal’s feasibility and air emissions claims.

U.S. Science & Technology, Sacramento, CA—plasma

Sacramento City Council members say that lack of details from the company has “sent up a red flag.” A vote of the Council regarding a contract will take place on Dec.9, 2008. The chief proponent on the Council agrees that the vetting process was “done wrong.”

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website crafted by Ben of dowen.me.uk and Josh Dowen, Only Solutions LLP © 2011 UK Without Incineration Network We wish to thank famfamfam.com and OpenClipArt.org for many of the images we have used Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha