Problems continue to arise for Dynamis Energy as its efforts
to push forward with plans for a $70 million gasification facility on the site
of the Ada County landfill near Boise, Idaho begin to look more like a daytime
drama than a serious discussion.
A newly-formed organization called the Idaho Citizens for a
Safe Environment and a Transparent Government sent a formal letter on Monday to
Dynamis listing 20 questions it would like to have addressed in the
presentation to the Hidden Springs Town Association on June 21st.
Drafted by the Law Office of Andrew T. Schoppe, the questions cover the gamut
of issues ranging from the RFP timeline to traffic patterns and intellectual
property rights.
 |
| Local government officials debate over Dynamis Energy's proposed project. (KSAW-TV). |
While many of the questions are valid, the tactic of
peppering an opponent with questions to put him on the defensive is one taken
straight from the pages of the Sierra Club playbook. The lengthy list of
questions, some of which have already been answered by Commissioner Sharon
Ullman, creates perceptional damage and steals focus away from the main issues.
This effective strategy puts Dynamis between a rock and a
hard place. Opponents ask for confidential data knowing it won’t be released
but hoping it will make the company look as if its hiding something. The
waste-to-energy company hasn’t been the only victim of these attacks: outgoing
Commissioner Ullman lost last month’s election amid accusations that resulted
because of her support of the project.
But before you pull out the Kleenex for Dynamis, realize
that the company has brought some of this on itself. While most projects that
use the first commercial installation of a technology face opposition from
activists, Dynamis’s disregard for the thoughts and feelings of the surrounding
community make it an easy target. Little
has been done by the company to educate the general population on the project
and the technology, giving its opponents a chance to swoop in with altered
facts and misinformation. Top executives have had brusque encounters with the
community at public hearings, almost inviting people to vilify them.
While Dynamis is correct that it’s the government officials
and environmental agencies like the DEQ that will ultimately decide if the
project moves forward, its attitude could prove to be its Achilles Heel. We
remind you of the project at the University of Montana (see A Tale of Two Cities) and offer the story as a warning to Dynamis of how effective a mob of
angry citizens can be.
BETTER BTU: Both
sides have behaved so badly we’d like to send them back to kindergarten for a
refresher on playing nice. Dynamis better get its act together and make an
effort to get the people of Ada County on board. On the other hand, we can’t
help but notice the irony of an organization that uses the phrase “transparent
government” in its title and creates smoke and mirrors itself to detract from
the key issues.
Further Reading:
Comissioner Sharon Ullman answers some of the questions that
were directed to Dynamis in her blog entry, dated Apr. 30: Sharon Ullman's Blog
Idaho
DEQ Resumes Review of Permit for Dynamis – Idaho Statesman, June 14,
2012
Other Better BTU Blog Posts on Dynamis:
Project Update: Local Energy Company Becomes Latest Stumbling Block for Dynamis (July 31, 2012)
Better BTU Project Update: Dynamis Energy (May 14, 2012)
Dynamis Energy:Oh the Places You'll Go (Mar. 29, 2012)
Other Better BTU Blog Posts on Dynamis:
Project Update: Local Energy Company Becomes Latest Stumbling Block for Dynamis (July 31, 2012)
Better BTU Project Update: Dynamis Energy (May 14, 2012)
Dynamis Energy:Oh the Places You'll Go (Mar. 29, 2012)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA big part of the problem has been Dynamis' simply lying in public and on the record about its planned emissions. The public has been told 'near zero emissions' or the 'air from our stack will be similar to the air in the atmosphere' or 'all dioxin will be destroyed by the high temperatures of the combustion chamber', dioxin less than one family burn barrel, etc.
ReplyDeleteCompare that to their Idaho DEQ application: 96 (but not > 100?) annual tons NOx, dioxin over Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold but with very little data from 1993, hand-waving 'conservative reductions' of mercury emissions due to recycling by Ada County (but no discussion of how this may increase dioxins), and very questionable rates of sulfur from the now up to 60 tons daily tires.
If Dynamis had been clear about these issues from the beginning at least we might trust that we have an honest partner that could be engaged in a rational debate. Instead, we are not sure if even they know what they intend or what the consequences of their actions may be. We have a recently expanded landfill with a life of 80-90 years. We hardly need to rush into a very questionable project just to grab stimulus dollars. Or is there another reason?
Dynamis is going to set back sincere WTE years, at least in this area.
Your concern is a valid one and since Dynamis hasn't offered up an explanation, let's talk about it here. Many companies list emissions ratings just under what is the accepted level on their application, when in reality the planned emissions will be much lower. This is done for a few reasons. First, it gives them some wiggle room. Emissions numbers can be predicted based on formulas but since every project is a little different it's hard to be 100% accurate. If Dynamis' emissions numbers end up being a little higher than what it had listed on its application, they would be out of compliance with the air permit and subject to being shut down, even if they were still well under the legal limit.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, dioxins get destroyed at temperatures higher than 1200 degrees and most companies closely guard the secrets to its technology. Listing exact temperatures may give competitors an idea of how its technology works (and since all of these documents are of public record anyone can read them). Where Dynamis has failed the community is in its communication (see a recurring theme here?). Explaining why the numbers in the application are different than what the company has been telling you would save you all a lot of worry.
The real issue boils down to whether you trust the DEQs emissions restrictions. Some environmentalists feel the levels aren't strict enough while other companies say it is over-conservative. We feel that emissions levels are pretty stringent, and rightly so. With the exception of cities like LA and NYC, air quality has risen in America over the last decade and its likely that the pollution from cars in town does more harm than a facility will.
Thanks for your response. It is good to have a real discussion with someone from the industry.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that Dynamis is overstating its expected emissions. However, when these values are just below triggers (2% under 100 tons per year NOx), which would, if exceeded, force use of best available technology on their above threshold dioxin emissions via the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program of the New Source Review, Clean Air Act, we might also suspect that this is an attempt to avoid using 'best available technology.'
Second, as I am sure you are aware, destruction of dioxins is only half the story, as 'de novo' synthesis occurs as the emissions cool. I assume this is the source of Dynamis dioxin/furan emissions. I think you need to be careful when making that statement about dioxin destruction. If you have an opinion on the effectiveness of emission cooling strategies to prevent de novo synthesis I'd like to hear it, and whether WTE plants have been using it successfully in this country or abroad.
Third, please have a look at Dynamis' data for dioxin/furan emissions. We can talk about generalities forever but let's have a look at the data:
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste-mgmt-remediation/solid-waste/dynamis-waste-to-energy-project.aspx
See bottom of page spreadsheet: Dynamis Energy Source Test Information and Emission Factor Calculations, dioxin/furans sheet.
I see three, possibly four samples that vary 100X in total dioxins, and a thousand fold in TCDD, the most toxic dioxin congener. Would any conscientious engineer simply average these widely varying averages to predict future emissions? I think they would collect more data, or conservatively use the high value. Have a closer look. The second most toxic furan congener is missing. This does not inspire confidence. Note that these congeners seem to be improperly named: is this a cut and paste error? Note also that these values are from 1993.At best this is sloppy, at worst it reflects basic competence.
I certainly would hope that we are not about to build a plant that would rival Boise's auto emissions in scale. The 96 tons NOx is equivalent to perhaps adding one hundred thousand new cars to the inversion prone valley, but new cars do a good job at NOx reducing emissions, so maybe 10,000 cars of what people think of when it comes to smog and cars. But remember, we were sold this plant based on 'near zero' emissions , with emissions 'similar to the air in the atmosphere', and such-- we were promised some sort of new technology that may or may not exist, but it doesn't seem to exist at Dynamis.
DEQ in Idaho is hampered by legislation that makes it essentially impossible to assess impact of mercury or dioxin -- so ironically, these emissions are not modeled, while other much less dangerous emissions such as NOx and sulfur dioxide are. So we have no look at ambient impacts, no assessment of co-contributing sources, only a requirement of emission concentration below EPA's national New Source Performance Standards. It seems odd that a state like Idaho would make it very difficult to have local control over emissions. While this may make a conducive permitting environment, it doesn't engender trust.
We've seen (smelled) problems with the landfill, and we saw how the permitting process works for facilities way over emission limits (H2S): increase permit 15 fold as the solution to the problem and continue as before. We have no reason to think that if Dynamis turns out to be worse, rather than better than expected, Idaho DEQ would force good behavior.
Thanks for discussing this. I think that second to reducing waste, it makes sense to consider all the possibilities for generating energy from waste. But there are a lot of angry people now who are in no mood for starting a new discussion.
You are correct that the potential for de-nova synthesis of dioxins and furans is a reason for concern. Most of our members are advocates for high-temperature pyrolysis units for just that reason. There are a few technologies that are coming onto the market and we're excited to see the difference.
ReplyDeleteAs I'm sure you are aware, any material that has chlorine in it has the POTENTIAL to create dioxins and furans -- even a washed hamburger patty on a backyard grill. The issue is the levels and the impact. The current allowable limits on dioxins and furans are very low and have been established that way for public safety. We looked into the links you provided and agree that they are quite dated. While the variability does initially raise eyebrows, when your focus on the numbers (amount of dioxins created) are at such small increments, the percentage variability is likely to be large.
We think the most important questions are:
1. Will the plant meet the DEQ limits on dioxins and furans?
2. Do you trust the DEQ to determine the right limits?
We feel that the DEQ and EPA do set appropriate limits and if people feel that the limits are not good enough, their problem is really more with DEQ than with Dynamis.
That being said, we think that Dynamis could ease concerns and provide comfort through continuous monitoring. We've been impressed with the online reporting and emission transparency of the WTE facilities in Maryland:
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/swstmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/solidwaste/facilities/rrf_env.asp
If a technology meets the limits, it should be allowed to operate. If not, it shouldn't.
On a project like this that has had such a large amount of public discourse, we'd strongly recommend continuous monitoring as the best local safeguard. If Dynamis can't maintain the stringent DEQ levels, it would be very public and the facility would then be shut down.
Thanks for your involvement in this discussion!
That's just it better BTU, dynamis is doing everything possible to avoid any emissions monitoring at all. At almost every instance and level this company's behavior has been nothing but suspicious and devious.
ReplyDeleteThe DEQ should be able to make annual testing a requirement. Without AP 42 emission factors, annual testing is in order and DEQ should have the authority to make it a provision of the permit.
ReplyDeleteWe'd really like to see Dynamis offer it to the community as well. If the company offered annual testing, do you think detractors would then support the project?
Your quote:
ReplyDeleteThe lengthy list of questions, some of which have already been answered by Commissioner Sharon Ullman, creates perceptional damage and steals focus away from the main issues.
Is wrong, and this is exactly why many Ada County residents are concerned about this project.
First and foremost, these questions have not been answered, and it is not a Sierra Club tactic to legitimately inquire about the potential affects this WTE plant will have on local environmental quality. Company representatives must be held responsible to receive and answer questions from the public. Dynamis has been offered many opportunities to address these issues in civic forums, and regretfully they have either A) failed to make an appearance or B) held meetings in which the public was prohibited from asking questions.
Secondly, there is no perceptional damage in this situation. The fact that an elected representative of the people is answering questions that should be in the purview of the company only adds to concern that this deal transpired behind closed doors, without public input and without public comment. An elected official cannot wear two hats and serve the public while playing as a company spokesperson. That elected official can convince her constituents why she voted for the project, but thus far, her public explanation has been little more than self-aggrandizing defense tactics. This is one of many reason I joined the majority and voted this particular commissioner out of public office.
Dear AdaCountyResident,
ReplyDeleteWe like to keep this forum civil without accusations as we are merely trying to promote education and debate on waste-to-energy projects.
If you will refer to the link we provided to the post on Sharon Ullman's blog that we referred to in the articles, some of the questions addressed in the five-page letter sent to Dynamis Energy have been addressed. One such example is why the county did not get a performance bond from Dynamis. A few of the other questions have answers on record from Dynamis saying that it can't release internal numbers or documents, such as those from G.W. Beck, which isn't unusual and asking for them again only perpetuates the image that Dynamis is being uncooperative - which we believe was one of the major goals of the letter.
That said, we absolutely wish that Dynamis had chosen to approach the entire project differently. We'd love to see FAQ sheets on its website and public forums where residents can ask questions. We understand that it can be scary to have one of the first plants (and I agree that Lloyd Mahaffrey has been oddly silent about the status of the plant in Italy) but the fact that this isn't a new technology and that it has passed checks with the DEQ is a really good sign.
We are not necessarily supporters of Dynamis as much as we are just supporters of the development of waste-to-energy as an alternative to landfilling and we think it works best when combined with aggressive recycling campaigns. Thus far, what we've seen from Dynamis is legit but we continue to monitor the company and project because a bad project hurts us all - as an industry and members of this planet.
We enjoy feedback from local residents and hope you'll continue to share your thoughts as the project continues.
Oh, also...forgot to mention. That picture you posted has nothing to do with county government leaders who have decision-makng power over the Dynamis project (debate or otherwise). That's a photo of Idaho's embattled local lawmaker, former state Sen. John McGee. Read more here: http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2012/08/22/john-mcgees-jailhouse-photo-album-take-3
ReplyDeleteAdaCountyResident,
ReplyDeleteWe pulled it off a tv news story that had the same caption as we used. Regardless, we don't think that has much to do with the argument we made here about the issues. We answered your questions and accusations above. If you would like to continue a discussion on the issues, we'll be happy to oblige.
Problems continue to arise for Dynamis Energy as its efforts to push forward with plans for a $70 million gasification facility on the site of the Ada County landfill near Boise, Idaho begin to look more like a daytime drama... www.schoolanduniversity.com
ReplyDeleteVIRUS REMOVAL
ReplyDeleteIs Your Computer Sluggish or Plagued With a Virus? – If So you Need Online Tech Repairs
As a leader in online computer repair, Online Tech Repairs Inc has the experience to deliver professional system optimization and virus removal.Headquartered in Great Neck, New York our certified technicians have been providing online computer repair and virus removal for customers around the world since 2004.
Our three step system is easy to use; and provides you a safe, unobtrusive, and cost effective alternative to your computer service needs. By using state-of-the-art technology our computer experts can diagnose, and repair your computer system through the internet, no matter where you are.
Our technician will guide you through the installation of Online Tech Repair Inc secure software. This software allows your dedicated computer expert to see and operate your computer just as if he was in the room with you. That means you don't have to unplug everything and bring it to our shop, or have a stranger tramping through your home.
From our remote location the Online Tech Repairs.com expert can handle any computer issue you want addressed, like:
• - System Optimization
• - How it works Software Installations or Upgrades
• - How it works Virus Removal
• - How it works Home Network Set-ups
Just to name a few.
If you are unsure of what the problem may be, that is okay. We can run a complete diagnostic on your system and fix the problems we encounter. When we are done our software is removed; leaving you with a safe, secure and properly functioning system. The whole process usually takes less than an hour. You probably couldn't even get your computer to your local repair shop that fast!
Call us now for a FREE COMPUTER DIAGONISTIC using DISCOUNT CODE (otr214424@gmail.com) on +1-914-613-3786 or chat with us on www.onlinetechrepairs.com.