Waste-to-fuel co. being hampered by state Ecology dept.

The Washington state department of Ecology is impeding Green Power Inc., which claims a technology to turn municipal waste into high-grade fuel. The company is appealing the shut-down order saying that the cited regulation is irrelevant because their process does not involve incineration.

A Sept. 28 rebuttal by the WA Ecology dept. is posted following this story.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2009

Green Power Inc's pilot plant in Pasco, WA

GPI's process turns municipal waste to usable fuel

Extracting fuel off the distillation column.

Green Power Inc. (GPI) of Washington State claims to have a technology that efficiently converts dry municipal waste into high-grade fuel, breaking down the large particles into petrol hydrocarbons via a patented catalytic process that allegedly speeds up what nature takes millions of years to do into just a few minutes. But on Aug. 5, 2009, the privately-held company was ordered to shut down their 100 ton/day pilot plant by the state's Ecology department who have charged them with non-compliance with their emissions regulations.

CEO, Michael Spitzauer, says that the regulations that the Ecology department wants them to follow (subpart AAAA of 40 CFR 60) are not relevant because their plant is not an incinerator. The temperatures involved in their process are relatively low, do not involve oxygen, and thus do not fall under the rubric of "incineration." And if they went through the hoops required for the "incineration" stipulations, it would set a precedence for both the other plants they have under contract to build as well as for the fuel that is produced by the process.

The Ecology department instructed GPI to go to the Federal Government. Because the GPI process is new, the Federal government apparently does not yet have a classification that fits in their emissions regulations, and would thus have to create a new classification -- a process that could take years.

Spitzauer said he has issued an open invitation the Ecology department to come and test their production prototype plant, to see that it produces no toxins, other than the high-grade fuels, whose handling is already understood by today's fuel infrastructure. He said that the enforcement officers who have come by have told him, "Don't stop, the world needs this."

On Sept. 9, GPI filed an appeal to the Ecology department's shut-down order. Presently the fines would be huge if GPI continued operation of their plant, so it is in idle mode.

In March of 2008, GPI completed their production prototype that is said to be capable of processing 100 tons of municipal and other waste per day in a low heat and low pressure, proprietary catalytic system, converting the feedstock into high grade fuel, including diesel, kerosene, and fuel oil; as well as electricity and an asphalt component. The system was built without any Government subsidies and is said to operate to expectations. Even the U.S. Military is intrigued and is presently testing the system

GPI is also presently building systems for overseas customers in India, Europe, Vietnam, Middle East and Asia and is negotiating with Russia, South America and Canada. Spitzauer said he does not want to give up on the U.S. market, believing that we need domestically produced fuel to increase our national security and energy independence.

"We could have 'Back-to-the-Future'-like technology today," said Spitzauer, bemoaning the politics that are getting in the way. "By allowing our system to be implemented in the U.S., we can also stop spending billions in grant money trying to find what we already have."

The system is ready for third party testing, but can't complete that while in the ordered shut down. GPI has invested $35 million in this pilot project in Pasco, and over $100 million in process development. The pilot plant was built to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of GPI's Catalytic pressure-less DePolymerization (CDP) process for converting residual organic materials, including municipal waste and by-products from forestry and agriculture, into synthetic liquid fuels including diesel and kerosene. The CDP process entails feeding an organic feedstock into a reactor in the presence of a catalyst, hydrated lime, and working oil, and then heating the feedstock in a manner that converts the organic material into fluids that are sent to a distillation column where the liquid fuels -- diesel, kerosene, fuel oil and naphtha -- are distilled and then piped to storage tanks.

In their appeal document, GPI gave the following timeline of compliance events:

On Feb. 11, 2008, Green Power submitted an NOC Application to the Washington Department of Ecology. Green Power proposed to operate its pilot plant in Pasco to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of its CDP process. [...] Green Power also proposed to use a small portion of the fuel

On Feb. 29, 2008, Green Power submitted an addendum to its NOC Application [...]

On May 20, 2008 Ecology sent a letter to Green Power that for the first time asserted taht Green Power's proposed turbine generator is subject to [AAAA], even though Green Power's NOC application, submitted in Feb. 2008, included an analysis of why Green Power's system is not subject to these regulations.

In response to Ecology's letter, Green Power's representatives met with Ecology representatives on May 29, 2008 to further explain the CDP system in detail, and also explained taht Green Power could not understand how the CDP process could be subject to the Subpart AAAA standards [...]

On June 2, 2008, Ecology sent a second letter outlining its position.

Green Power responded with a detailed response addressing the applicability questions, to which Ecology has not responded.

The appeal then concludes: "Ecology's failure to respond to Green Power's analysis demonstrates that it is acting with knowledge that its actions are unlawful and in excess of lawful authority, within the meaning of RCW 64.40.020."

# # #

SOURCES:

Michael Spitzauer

GPI Appeal

email correspondence with Seth Preston, Communications Manager, Air Quality and Toxics Cleanup Programs, Washington Department of Ecology

Comments

Feel free to view/post comments at our Examiner.com version of this story.

On Sept. 28, 2009, we received the following statement from Jani Gilbert, Communications Manager, Ecology, Eastern Region, 4601 N. Monroe St., Spokane, WA 99205. (509) 329-3495. It is published here verbatim:

Setting the record straight on Green Power Inc.’s air pollution permit violations
By Stu Clark, Air Quality Program Manager

While Sterling Allan’s Sept. 22, 2009 article, “Waste-to-fuel co. being hampered by state Ecology Dept.,” was interesting and informative, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) would like to correct some errors in the facts that were given to Mr. Allan.

Ecology is charged by Washington state law with protecting the public and future generations from being harmed by air, water and land pollution. In order to do that, we must know precisely how new industries plan to operate, what pollution they create and how they will control it, Only with that detailed knowledge can we assess whether the public is being protected or not. After multiple requests, Green Power has repeatedly failed to provide this vital information.

Emissions from Green Power’s operation depend on the design of their pollution control systems and the type of feedstock they use. The municipal waste feedstock proposed by Green Power could potentially result in emissions of high potency carcinogens such as dioxins and furans. Green Power refused to disclose to Ecology the information necessary to determine what emissions would be released from the reactor or from the synthetic fuel when it was combusted.

State law requires an air quality “notice of construction” permit from the Department of Ecology before construction is allowed to begin. Green Power applied for the required air quality permit in February 2008, eight months after the company began construction of the synthetic fuel reactor.

After reviewing the application, Ecology informed Green Power that the technology they were proposing to use to control air emissions would not meet state air quality standards. Between February and July 2008, Ecology requested more information on the design of Green Power’s proposed air pollution control system and on its emissions but Green Power failed to (adequately?) respond.

The article states that Ecology did not respond to Green Power’s letter about the applicability of the law. On the contrary, Ecology sent Green Power letters on both July 3 and July 15, 2008, again outlining the company’s options and asking for a face to face meeting. Ecology did not hear from Green Power until we again requested a meeting in Spring 2009 upon reports that the reactor was operating.

After being clearly notified of the requirements in the Spring and Summer of 2008, Green Power continued construction in knowing violation of state law.

Ecology believes the federal regulations Mr. Allan cites in his article are appropriate in this case. Informally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed. In order for Green Power to get a valid air quality permit, the company will need to comply with these federal regulations. However, the regulations apply to incinerators and Mr. Spitzauer does not want the facility to be called an incinerator. Because these are federal regulations, we invited Green Power to ask EPA to perform a formal “applicability determination” if the company does not agree with our determination.

Ecology is not in the business of testing industrial equipment. Green Power has a duty to demonstrate what its emissions are and standard protocols exist for them to do that. Green Power’s management is aware of these protocols. Ecology has a duty to obtain all of the information necessary to determine if the facility is safe for the people living in the Tri-City vicinity. Without it, we cannot allow Green Power to operate.

Green Power must comply with applicable laws and regulations. Ecology must have adequate information so that we can work together in good faith to get Green Power the permit it needs to operate.

* * * *

Waste-to-fuel co. being hampered by state Ecology dept.

Comments

ECOLOGY Rebuttal

See also