Tulsa, OK Chooses Incineration Over Composting

- by Jar­rel Wade, August 6, 2014, Tul­sa World

Trash board mem­bers vot­ed Tues­day to begin the process of seek­ing bids for con­trac­tors to pick up curb­side green waste and take it to the city’s burn plant.

The recent­ly intro­duced plan from the Tul­sa Author­i­ty for Recov­ery of Ener­gy is to send green waste to the city’s burn plant per­ma­nent­ly, essen­tial­ly end­ing Tulsa’s curb­side green-waste pro­gram as it was orig­i­nal­ly promised.

The TARE board vote autho­rizes staff to invite bids from con­trac­tors for board eval­u­a­tion and pos­si­ble accep­tance at future meetings.

The vote fol­lowed dis­cus­sion about sev­er­al con­trac­tu­al oblig­a­tions that hin­dered imple­men­ta­tion of the new plan.

TARE offi­cials have said their goals are to keep costs low, keep the sys­tem envi­ron­men­tal­ly respon­si­ble and make the trash sys­tem sim­ple for customers.

One prob­lem is that the city would be forced to con­tin­ue requir­ing that green waste be put in clear plas­tic bags even though it like­ly would go in the same trucks to the same loca­tion as trash.

The con­tract with the city’s haulers, NeW­So­lu­tions, requires that green waste be in a sep­a­rate waste stream, TARE attor­ney Stephen Schuller said.

“Com­pet­i­tive bid­ders could bring a law­suit on such a fun­da­men­tal change,” he said.

Anoth­er prob­lem dis­cussed was TARE’s inabil­i­ty to seek bids for con­trac­tors to take the green waste to the city’s green-waste facil­i­ty, which some board mem­bers had request­ed for price comparison.

Schuller said a con­tract between the board and the burn plant man­dates that all green waste — if tak­en by a TARE con­trac­tor — go to the burn plant, owned by Cov­an­ta Energy.

Because the city, not a TARE con­trac­tor, has picked up green waste since the pro­gram began, it could take the yard trim­mings elsewhere.

How­ev­er, since the pro­gram began in Octo­ber 2012, it hasn’t.

Green waste has gone to the city’s burn plant instead of to the green-waste site because of prob­lems pro­cess­ing the plas­tic bags.

Tuesday’s meet­ing also focused on a pre­sen­ta­tion from Cov­an­ta Ener­gy spokesman Matt New­man about the burn plants’ emis­sions being well under Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency limits.

New­man said the burn plant is a net reduc­er of green­house gas­es, while sep­a­rate gas­es that lead to haz­ardous ozone are kept to a minimum.

The burn plant accounts for 0.2 per­cent of Tulsa’s nitro­gen oxide emis­sions — a pre­cur­sor to ozone, he said.

In terms of emis­sions, New­man said, the burn plant is much bet­ter than a land­fill and is com­pet­i­tive with a green-waste site.

“If you go to a mulch or a com­post­ing site, it depends on the tech­nol­o­gy that you employ,” New­man said regard­ing which option is bet­ter for the environment.

Michael Pat­ton, exec­u­tive direc­tor of Tulsa’s Met­ro­pol­i­tan Envi­ron­men­tal Trust, said meet­ing EPA reg­u­la­tions on emis­sions is not the same as recy­cling green waste when it comes to being green.

“Green­house gas­es are not an issue for Tul­sa. Ozone is,” he said.

Tul­sa has had exces­sive ozone pol­lu­tion since at least 1990, when alerts began for the city.

July 23 was Tulsa’s first Ozone Alert day of 2014.

Offi­cials declared four alert days in 2013; 21 in 2012; and 25 in 2011.

Pat­ton told TARE board mem­bers they should recon­sid­er plans to send green waste to the burn plant rather than pur­sue com­post ideas.

“If we can reduce NOx (Nitro­gen Oxide) in any way pos­si­ble, includ­ing by avoid­ing burn­ing green waste, I think Tul­sa wins,” he said.