More than two years after the deal’s controversial approval, Allentown has terminated its contract with Delta Thermo Energy, ending speculation about whether the company would ever build a proposed waste-to-energy facility in the city.

In a letter dated Sept. 26, Allentown solicitor Jerry Snyder wrote that Bucks County-based Delta Thermo Energy had “consistently failed to advance” plans for a 48,000-square-foot facility on Kline’s Island that would have burned pulverized municipal waste and sewage sludge to generate electricity.

While Delta Thermo received approval for two permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection in May 2014, the company repeatedly failed to meet extended deadlines to acquire financing for the $49 million project, the letter states. It became clear that Delta Thermo could not meet a deadline of Jan. 1, 2016, to complete construction of the plant, according to the letter.

“Under the circumstances, the city has no reasonable alternative than to declare the agreement terminated,” Snyder wrote.

Asked Tuesday if he had a response to the letter, Robert Van Naarden, president of Delta Thermo, said he would have a formal statement in the next several days. He then said he did not know what a reporter was asking about.

“I don’t need to speak to you,” Van Naarden said.

Mayor Ed Pawlowski said he was disappointed that the contract had to be terminated, but it was a financing issue, not a problem with the company’s technology that killed the deal.

“At this point in time, we need to move on,” he said.

From the time it was first discussed in 2010, the proposed plant was a highly contentious issue for members of Allentown City Council and the public. The project was panned by local environmentalists, and the components used in the proposed waste-to-energy process have never been used in combination in the United States.

Developers initially failed to convince council members of the merits of the project. The plan failed after a 3-3 vote in February 2012. One month later, developers managed to sway Councilwoman Cynthia Mota, who cast the deciding vote in favor of the proposal during a raucous March 2012 council meeting attended by more than 400 people.

Since then, Delta Thermo has had difficulty finding private financing for the experimental plan, fueling rumors that it would never be built. The city’s agreement with the company paid for up to $500,000 in consulting fees to explore the project — to be reimbursed if the plant was built — but put the burden of acquiring financing on the company.

In December 2012, Van Naarden told The Morning Call that there was “zero concern” about not finding a financial backer. The city’s letter states otherwise.

Delta Thermo “consistently failed to satisfy the financing requirement” in the agreement, Snyder states in the letter. An initial financing deadline of Jan. 31, 2013, was not met, and multiple extensions were granted, including the most recent extension that expired April 1 of this year.

Shortly before that date, Delta Thermo requested an additional extension for financing, the letter states, but city officials asked for additional assurances that the project could be completed by Jan. 1, 2016. Letters were exchanged throughout the summer between the city and Delta Thermo. In August, city officials denied a request from Delta Thermo for access to the Kline’s Island site to begin preliminary work.

In September, Delta Thermo officials told the city that they were no longer working with their previous financial backer, and planned to have the financing underwritten by Stern Bros. A letter from Stern Bros. to the city stated its “confidence” in financing the project if the deadline were extended to June 1, 2016, according to Snyder’s letter.

Allentown’s garbage contract will be rebid in 2015, Pawlowski said. There was no way the plant was going to be operational in time for that process.

“We provided every opportunity for them to make the deal; there were a number of extensions,” Pawlowski said. “We got to a point where we couldn’t move any further. I have to have some sort of a commitment in place before I bid out this contract in 2015.”

Pawlowski said he is committed to the idea of finding an alternative place for Allentown’s trash. It may still be possible to find another company that could build a waste-to-energy facility in the city, he said.

“I see this as one of the most critical issues for us, and we’re going to work for it,” Pawlowski said. “We’ve set the groundwork and a platform for us to continue to look for technologies for solve our garbage problem.”

The termination of the contract means Allentown will have to eat the nearly $500,000 it spent on consultants to vet the financial and technological aspects of the waste-to-energy plan. Two consultants provided conflicting reports to city officials about the technology needed, one saying he was confident the plan would work, the other stating there were “a number of technological, performance, operating and environmental risks.”

Pawlowski said he didn’t view the money as wasted. The city now has a “template” that can work for a potential contract moving forward, he said.

“I would have been criticized highly if I didn’t bring in the best professionals,” Pawlowski said.

Council Vice President Ray O’Connell, who cast one of the two no votes on the proposal in 2012, said it became clear in recent months that the company was never going to be able to build the facility on time. The city should try to recoup consulting fees, he said.

“My bottom line, No. 1, is that I’m extremely happy that it’s not going to be built,” he said. “No. 2, let’s go after the $500,000 that was spent.”

In addition to public outcry, Delta Thermo’s controversial proposal prompted a failed ballot question in 2013. The question, which would have asked voters if they wanted real-time monitoring of new air-polluting facilities and live disclosure of emissions data, was thrown out by the Lehigh County Board of Elections for lacking DEP approval. The decision was upheld by Lehigh County Court, and an appeal was later dismissed by Commonwealth Court.

Dan Poresky, one of the activists who opposed the plan and helped organize the ballot question, said a group of activists was working on raising $25,000 to pay two attorneys to take further legal action challenging a previous court ruling and the DEP for issuing permits to Delta Thermo. Despite rumors that financing was not in place, organizers did not want to take a chance that the plant would be built, he said.

“The city has been saved both environmentally and financially from a major mistake,” Poresky said when asked about the termination. “This is not the way to handle trash and sewage sludge.”

Councilwoman Jeanette Eichenwald, who voted against the proposal, said Delta Thermo’s proposed technology was unproven and environmentally unsafe. It was not surprising that investors could not be found, she said.

City officials should treat the experience as a lesson, Eichenwald said, and take a closer look at how the city spends money on consultants.

“I’m gratified that this phase of Allentown city life has come to an end,” she said. “I feel vindicated.”

RUBBISH disposal is a lucrative business in urban areas, so much so that we have companies that are eager to propose incinerators to help us deal with the problem.

After all, Japan and Germany are big-time users of this technology, so it has to be good right?

In 2004, the Kuantan Municipal Council built an incinerator for research and development purpose.

That incinerator design consumed about 120 litres of diesel to incinerate only one tonne of waste, due to the high water content of local waste.

That is essentially the difference between Japan and us when it comes to incinerator technology — Japan does not waste good diesel to burn rubbish like we would.

In order to utilise this technology properly, we really need to separate our rubbish first. Otherwise, burning wet rubbish requires adding fuel to the waste and that means we are burning money to dispose of waste.

It should be no problem to force Malaysians to start separating their rubbish, as a provision has been included under the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act for this purpose.

The clause just has not been activated by the Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister.

However, rubbish separation is not just a responsibility for households but markets, restaurants, factories, shopping malls and office towers too.

Most businesses would not have the means to enforce rubbish separation, and there is that tricky issue about being held responsible for the mess if someone decides to dump unsorted rubbish into your wastebin.

This is a headache our Government will have no answer for because there are only so many things laws can deal with.

People’s attitudes need to be changed for rubbish separation to work, and we just do not have that sort of civic consciousness in our society.

So, we have a problem separating rubbish at source but our Government is still keen on incinerators. Will that be a problem?

Well, we already have several incinerators operating in Malaysia — located in Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman, Labuan and Cameron Highlands, to name a few.

According to a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) study on incinerators done in 2013, incinerators “had failed due to faulty design, improper operation, poor maintenance, high diesel usage and waste characteristics, due to high moisture content of 60% to 70%.”

The existing incinerator operators know this is a huge problem and seek to mitigate it by separating the rubbish as best they can.

For example, the Pangkor incinerator operator segregates moist food waste and dispose of it at an adjacent landfill but the process is not perfect as the waste is already mixed by the time it gets to the incinerator.

This in turn causes the burning to be imperfect and smog is released into the air.

When it comes to incinerators in general, of equal concern is the residual ash from the burning process with possible by-products of toxins depending on what sort of rubbish got burnt (we would not know since rubbish segregation does not happen here). Does our Government have a programme to store and contain such waste in a safe area?

The same UKM study actually notes the following: “research has shown that in communities where incinerator plants are built, its long-term effects come in the form of reproductive dysfunction, neurological damage and other health effects are known to occur at very low exposures to many of the metals, and other pollutants released by incineration facilities.”

Are the authorities and all the proponents for incinerators really sure this sort of technology is suitable for the Klang Valley given the problem we have of even separating and sorting our rubbish?

What do we do when the incinerator has reached its capacity and unable to cater to escalating waste due to population growth?

Do we build more incinerators or do we advocate a sustainable method of reducing waste through Zero Waste Management when the amount of waste is reduced significantly and substantially?

There are private companies that are eager to explore such methods of turning our waste into useful products if they are given the chance.

Example technology includes anaerobic digestion that is a simple, natural breakdown of organic matter, which produces biogas — a fuel that can be burned to produce both heat and electricity — and methane, a substance that can be used as vehicle fuel.

The process produces a by-product called digestate, which can be used as fertiliser as it is rich in nutrients.

Indeed a whole new industry can be spawned from such recycling initiatives, which can be equally lucrative, as the by-products are actually useful.

But such possibilities are being overlooked in favour of implementing incinerator technology where we will be using fuel to burn away the rubbish.

Whatever it is, so long as the process is not looked at in detail and the issues I have highlighted not resolved, our Government can expect to face resistance from each and every resident group where the project is proposed next.

> Mak Khuin Weng cannot afford to send our politicians overseas for ‘lawatan sambil belajar’ trips, so he hopes this article would suffice in terms of his advocacy for recycling.

Authorities unveiled a new mobile incinerator that will be used to destroy unwanted or expired prescription pills in the future.

State Police Lt. Michael Baylous, Putnam Sheriff Steve Deweese and U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin hoisted large orange buckets filled to the brim with a mixed assortment of pills and dumped them, one by one, into the smoking maw of the black incinerator Tuesday afternoon at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

The pills were from the 2.5 tons collected Saturday as part of the National Prescription Drug Take Back Day.

Saturday’s event was the last event sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Goodwin said. The federal agency has conducted take-back days since 2010 because there weren’t any rules on properly disposing of unwanted or expired medications.

The DEA began working toward safe disposal rules after the first take-back day. The final rule was issued this year, allowing DEA-registered hospitals, pharmacies, long-term care facilities and others dealing in pharmaceuticals to modify their registrations to become authorized collection sites, according to the DEA’s website. Law enforcement agencies also may continue collecting pills.

Goodwin said when the events began there were no standalone drop boxes for medications. Now, both Kanawha and Putnam sheriff’s offices operate collection sites in Charleston and Winfield.

“We’ll continue on,” Deweese said. “We’ll support ourselves on it.”

The Putnam Sheriff’s Office collected some 221 pounds of medications in the last event.

Goodwin said the five mobile incinerator units were purchased with funds from the 2004 settlement with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin…

A Mayo Clinic employee is scheduled to make his first appearance in Mower County District Court on Thursday after being charged with killing his two pets and attempting to burn the bodies at the Mayo Clinic incinerator.

Daniel Joseph Carlson, 61, of Grand Meadow, was charged Sept. 10 with two felony counts of overwork/mistreat animals-torture based on an incident that allegedly occurred on Aug. 21.

According to the criminal complaint, an unnamed motorist informed an Olmsted County deputy at 8:18 a.m. Aug. 22 that Carlson, who works at the Mayo Clinic Waste Management Incinerator, had brought in a dog and cat that he’d killed in order to burn the bodies. The motorist claimed that Carlson said he’d “beat the dog to death with a stick and shot the cat” before placing the carcasses in a Mayo Clinic freezer.

Since Carlson lives in Grand Meadow, the incident report was forwarded to the Mower County Sheriff’s Office on Aug. 25 for investigation; Sheriff Terese Amazi has expressed frustration that Olmsted County shared the incident with local media prior to sending her office the report in question.

During the ensuing investigation, Carlson told a Mower County deputy that he’d “had enough” with his pets urinating in his house and shot them both outside his home on Aug. 21. The cat had been experiencing “medical issues” for about a year and he’d been unable to house train his 5-year-old poodle, according to the criminal complaint.

Carlson told authorities that he put the dead animals in the incinerator’s freezer storage area. The deputy seized the animal’s bodies, which were stored in a black garbage bag, from the freezer as evidence.

On Aug. 26, the Austin Veterinary Clinic examined the dead animals. According to the criminal complaint, a single bullet wound was observed on each, but there was no other damage. The vet disposed of the bodies.

The Mayo Clinic released the following statement Tuesday on Carlson: “Mayo Clinic is aware of the charges and is fully cooperating with law enforcement. We cannot provide further comment on private, personnel issues, or issues involving legal proceedings in progress.”

If convicted, Carlson faces a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $5,000 fine for each charge.

The United States is days away from settling the critical question of how hospitals should handle and dispose of medical waste from Ebola patients, a government official said on Wednesday.

Experts have warned that conflicting U.S. regulations over how such waste should be transported could make it very difficult for U.S. hospitals to safely care for patients with Ebola, a messy disease that causes diarrhea, vomiting and in some cases, bleeding from the eyes and ears.

Safely handling such waste presents a dual challenge for regulators, who want to both prevent the accidental spread of the deadly disease and avert any deliberate attempts to use it as a bioweapon.

Most U.S. hospitals are not equipped with incinerators or large sterilizers called autoclaves that could accommodate the large amounts of soiled linens, contaminated syringes and virus-spattered protective gear generated from the care of an Ebola patient, said Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Public Health Committee.

Sterilizing Ebola waste before it is transported is important not only to protect waste haulers but to guard against someone using the waste “for nefarious purposes,” said Sean Kaufman, ‎president of Behavioral-Based Improvement Solutions, an Atlanta-based biosafety firm. “It’s not just a safety issue,” he said.

The matter, which was first reported by Reuters last month, may pose a significant challenge for Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, which is now treating the first Ebola patient to be diagnosed on U.S. soil.

Duchin said he is not aware of whether the hospital has its own incinerator or large autoclave, but if it does not, “they are going to have to find a temporary solution for managing infectious waste. That puts the hospital in a very difficult situation.”

Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, which oversees dangerous shipments, said her agency is “working on how we can clarify even further for hospitals, for the public, what the appropriate transportation should be.”

Another official said that news could come within days.

The issue centers on guidance over handling Ebola-contaminated waste. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises hospitals to treat items infected with the Ebola virus in leak-proof containers and discard them as they would other biohazards that fall into the category of “regulated medical waste.”

But the DOT deems Ebola a Category A infectious agent, meaning it is capable of killing people and animals, and not “regulated medical waste,” a category in which pathogens are not capable of causing harm.

Waste management contractors who normally handle hazardous hospital waste say they cannot legally haul the material, which leaves hospitals stuck without a way to dispose of the waste.

Already the issue has created problems. When Emory University Hospital in Atlanta was preparing to care for two U.S. missionaries infected with Ebola in West Africa in its high-security biocontainment unit, their waste hauler, Stericycle, initially refused to handle it.

Bags of Ebola waste quickly began piling up until the hospital worked out the issues with the help of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said the waste management problem has not been resolved yet, but he has said previously that the CDC is meeting with officials at the DOT to resolve the matter.

Duchin said he has heard that the discussion “has been elevated at the fed to decision makers who can solve the problem.”

A DOT official said the CDC and DOT will likely issue joint guidance by next week.