Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1062.013 2006-2008 March 25, 2008 Dear County Councilperson, Please accept my written testimony in the form of questions h' 4 A& lie 04bposed incinerator for Hilo, Hawaii: (-C" , ~R rCiUiV { ~ < Will Wheelabrator apply for a Minor Polluter Permit @ up to 100 tons ofV &s a year, or will they apply for a Major Polluter Permit at between 100 and 600 tons of VOCs per year? What is the composition of the VOCs from the proposed Wheelabrator Incinerator, and will they primarily contain dioxins? [A dioxide is an oxide consisting of one atom of a metal and two atoms of oxygen (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941)--this sounds like a breathable metal! Dioxin is any of several carcinogenic or teratogenic hydrocarbons that occur as impurities in petroleum-derived herbicides (American Heritage Dictionary, 2001).] Will the proposed incinerator also pollute with lead, cadmium (a neurotoxin, carcinogen, and mutagen), and mercury (a potential neurotoxin), and arsenic (a carcinogen) as some mainland Wheelabrator and other incinerators do? If the plant also emits carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, won't these emissions be masked by volcanic emissions so we don't know where the pollutants are coming from? How will emissions from an incinerator combine with HELCO's and the sulfur dioxide from the volcanic emissions and how will this affect our health? In terms of the danger to humans, the food supply, and water contamination, will we be exposed to high levels of dioxins through breathing these emissions in the air and eating from contaminated produce and fish where the particulate will settle? Can you clarify what the incinerator can and cannot burn? Does it take treated lumber or wet household garbage from fruits and vegetables, toxic chemicals as in paint and batteries, oil, and animal carcasses, fluorescent light fixtures and mercury from dental extractions (a small amount of which can pollute an entire lake)? If not, can you tell me what cannot go into the incinerator and what can? If the sort station takes out the plastics, paper, cardboard, glass, and tin, then just what is the incinerator going to burn? Is going to be tires? Will we be importing tires or any other trash to burn? If we sell the power, what is the incentive to remove recyclables? Once Wheelabrator builds an incinerator, do we have any control over whether and what they burn or import to burn? Is it true they just pay the fines and continue to pollute? Is it true that the better the pollution control scrubbers the more toxic the ash? Isn't there lead in it? Doesn't disposal of the toxic ash then become a major problem in terms of wind blowing it or spills in transport--to say nothing of the workers who handle it? What is Wheelabrator's track record on this? If they just create a separate landfill for it, where will that go and what happens if the barrels rust and open? Has Wheelaborator had any accidents necessitating clean-up, fines, or irreversible contaminations? What fuel powers the incinerator and does the plant have to be kept on and be fed 24 hours a day? Can/will the presently proposed plant be expanded? Can/will it be coupled with a bio-fuels production plant? Is there a future plan for this co-habitation? Does Wheelaborator have a track record of combining these kinds of plants? Comm. No. to `L Ref. To: trans G Ref. Date MAR 2s 2011 Is there any other way to solve this "trash" or refuse problem that is safer for our lovely community, one that unless there is volcanic haze, normally enjoys relatively clean air? Will the communities that receive the volcanic haze, like Kona, also be the victims of the incinerator's pollutants? Aren't the scores of Internet articles that can be obtained by simply typing in Wheelabrator Incinerators, and that detail the air emissions violations and fines as well as leaks from the toxic ash landfills, applicable to this situation here in Hilo? What other options are there out there that other communities without incinerators are finding successful? Is it feasible to require imported packaging that is recyclable or to tax non-recyclables so that will pay for their disposal? Are we willing to pass this kind of law as others have? Wouldn't reduce, reuse, and sort and recycle create more local jobs? Are they feasible options? How will we be able to find out all these answers? If we vote down this proposal now, in the future will we be faced with it again, perhaps in the guise of a cheaper incinerator proposal deal from a new administration? Is there a danger cheaper would mean more pollution? Don't we have to start environmentally sound practices now to avoid this? If this proposal is voted down, wouldn't that mean we need to make a serious commitment to fully understand all implications of trash-as-a-resource and begin to explore and set up a system right now that would explore options like: educating the public, requiring recycling, instituting curbside recycling, aggressive sorting, and discovering the best reuse options? Will we do this? Are you presently discovering any viable answers? Are there any success stories out there in any other communities who have solved the toxic incinerator--landfill nightmares? Do you have any information on these successes? Don't incinerators that need refuse "fuel" to produce power, have a track record across the Midwest of abandoning recycling in favor of mixed trash going straight to incineration: could this happen here or are there built-in controls in the contract? How can we see the contract? Doesn't it just seem wrong to burn the trash and then breathe it and eat the toxins? Wouldn't that be very, very bad for us? Do I oppose the incinerator? Yes. But I also appreciate everything that is being done to try to address the refuse situation. I know it is a conundrum of great magnitude and I don't mean to belittle these efforts. Thank you; I really hope that you can find solutions that preserve our environment while simultaneously solving this trash situation that we are forced to contribute to unwittingly through the present in-place societal structures. Many of us want to help, we are willing to make the extra effort, and we are willing to help educate those who are now presently dumping all their refuse straight into the landfill. If there are really viable options for what we now consider trash to become a resource, can we figure out how we can o it--cooperatively and quick?! Sandy B High S ool English & Drama Teacher PO Box 109271 Hilo, 721 1-800-384-7456 compnance: wneelaorator raps 1o ray a 1 uo,a,+Y ror nmtsslon v Solanons ar tsucxs t-ounry Snemeralor rage i or 1 Wheelabrator Falls to Pay $106,849 for Emission Violations at Bucks County Incinerator NORRISTOWN (Feb. 23) Environmental Protection Regional Director Joseph A. Feola today announced that Wheelabrator Falls Inc. will pay a $106,849 civil penalty for numerous air emission and monitoring violations at its municipal waste incinerator in Falls Township, Bucks County. "We found that Wheelabrator had violated at least one permit condition every quarter since April 1999, with some quarterly reports documenting as many as 15 separate violations," Feola said. "Our air program will be working closely with this company in an effort to improve future, operations at this incinerator." Facilities such as large-scale incinerators are required to use continuous emission monitors to document if permit limits are being met, submitting this information to DEP on a quarterly basis. Wheelabrator has continuous emission monitors connected to the two municipal waste combustors operated at this location. Violations noted in monitoring reports from April 1999 through September 2003 included exceedances of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrochloric acid emissions. The facility also exceeded combustion and exhaust gas temperature limits in addition to exceeding visible air contaminant or opacity limits. Under terms of a Feb. 10 consent assessment document, Waste Management has 15 days to pay this civil penalty to the Commonwealth's Clean Air Fund, a fund comprised of permit fees and air penalties used to finance air quality improvements within Pennsylvania. For more information on air quality issues, visit DEP's Web site at www.dep.state.pa.us, Keyword: "DEP Air Quality." Content Last Modified on 3/8/2006 1:41:34 PM http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/compliance/ewp/view.asp?a=3&q=490843 3/25/2008 rage t 01 4 This is a printer-friendly version of an article from the Concord Monitor at http:llw .concordmonitor.com. Alin,m' ~ $5' *"sr,-' ems.. _ s x~ - _ . x s,• _ _ X Subscribe today for the hard copy • of the • Monitor. i Article published Nov 29, 2005 Penacook Font size: >A A Incinerator included in the'Dirty Dozen' t2j Print article Anti-pollution group takes aim at plant OE-mail this to a friern By CHELSEA CONABOY 0 Letter to editor Monitor staff Nov 29, 2005 Increased emissions at its Penacook trash incinerator have earned Wheelabrator Technologies a spot among the top Mv~0m Q polluters in New England, according to the Toxics Action Center, a group dedicated to fighting polluters. $hQ The center announced its ninth annual "Dirty Dozen Awards" yesterday. Wheelabrator was chosen for increases in emissions of lead, mercury and a carcinogenic dioxin since 2000. ofpicture _ . Another "award" went to the Concord Regional Solid tlusyea acv Waste/Resource Recovery Cooperative for its proposal to build RA a oar faVO' a landfill on 295 acres along the Merrimack River in Canterbury that opponents say would threaten the recently restored health Concord of the river, be an eyesore and disrupt nearby residences. A panel of 12 environmental activists and public health specialists picked the most egregious polluters from 29 nominations submitted by local watchdog groups. Two seacoast facilities, the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant and the Peirce Island Sewage Treatment Plant in Portsmouth, also were named, making New Hampshire the worst offender in the region. Wheelabratofs incinerator in Claremont received the award last year. This year, the Mink Hills Center, a group focused on sustainability, nominated the Penacook facility. The incinerator partners with the Concord regional cooperative to collect the trash of 27 communities and burns it to create energy sold to Public Service of New Hampshire. At a press conference yesterday, Mink Hills Director Tony Caplan said the facility's emission levels have climbed to "unacceptably dangerous levels" in recent years, despite emissions reductions technologies adde to the plant. http://www.coneordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20051129&Category=REPOSITORY&ArtN... 3/25/2008 Page 2 of 4 Caplan said emissions reports that Wheelabrator made to the state show mercury emissions doubled between the year 2000 and 2003 to 24 pounds a year. Lead emissions jumped from 12 pounds to 119 pounds per year. Mercury and lead are shown to cause neurological defects in fetuses and small children when consumed. Emissions of dioxin TCDD, a carcinogen and the most toxic of the 75 chemicals in the dioxin family, rose from 0.000153 pounds to .00293 pounds, a nearly 2,000 percent increase in the same tirr period. Test results e-mailed to the Monitor yesterday from officials with the Department of Environmental Services were slightly different. Mercury counts were the same, but the state didn't test for lead or dioxins in 2000. Lead increased to 119 pounds in 2003, but dropped to 8.9 pounds last year. Craig Wright of the Air Resources Division said variations that great are not abnormal in stack tests. Total dioxins got up to .00416 pounds in 2003, but that number dropped to .00281 last year. Frank Ferraro, Wheelabrator's vice president for public policy, said the statistics given by the Toxics Action Center were selective and didn't show that, even with fluctuations, the facility has remained below national standards. The award was "a swing and a miss," he said. "They're way off-base with this." Burning vs. recycling Ferraro said the amount of trash burned has remained the same -about 500 tons a day - since 2000. Changes in emissions are caused by changes in the content of the trash. Mercury emissions, for example, are determined by how many fluorescent light bulbs, home thermostats or old bottles of liquid mercury that dentists once used to make amalgam fillings may be burned. Ferraro said he was surprised that the facility was targeted by the group. With its stack scrubbers, fabric filters and a carbon injection system used to catch mercury emissions, "the Concord facility is such an exceptionally clean facility," he said. Caplan said there have been no new incinerators built in the United States in the last 15 years. "The economics aren't right," he said. "The health impacts are most certainly dead wrong." While Ferraro said waste incineration and recycling programs are compatible, some at the press conference yesterday called them competing efforts and said that, as long as the incinerators need the waste as fuel, recycling programs can't thrive. "Recycling reuses resources; Incineration destroys them," said Jackie Elliot, organizational director for Citizens Leading for Environmental Action and Responsibility. Elliot and other presenters called for legislators to pay more attention to what happens to their trash and to develop a more innovative approach than incineration or burial. Caplan said he wants to a see a "recycling shopping mall" developed to handle the region's waste with businesses on-site that can turn the trash into new products. Landfill plan criticized The group planned to note the Concord regional cooperative at a press conference this morning. http://www.coneordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20051129&Category=REPOSITORY&ArtN... 3/25/2008 rage s oz 4 The cooperative plans to put a landfill on land that sits between the Merrimack River and Interstate 93 in Canterbury. Cooperative Director Jim Presher said the site was the most suitable for the project out of the 91 considered. The cooperative's only landfill now is one in Franklin where it stores hazardous ash from waste incineration c Wheelabrator. The cooperative's disposal contract with Wheelabrator expires in 2009. The two groups are negotiating a possible extension to 2014 or 2019. That could delay landfill plans, but the cooperative is still working through its state application. Presher said the new landfill will be double-lined and storm water will be directed away from the trash. "Any water that contacts rubbish or otherwise is completely separated from the groundwater,"he said. Lindsey Hodel, community organizer with Toxics Action Center, said that even lined landfills are likely to leaf and the potential for erosion on property so close to the river amplifies that danger. "The proposed landfill is a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem," she said in a statement. Hodel said the group will try to deliver the "Dirty Dozen Awards"in person. Recipients include a blueberry freezer in Ellsworth, Maine, noted for aerial pesticide spraying, a fabric dyeing factory in Alton, R.I., that emit hydrogen sulfide, two Massachusetts landfills and a launderer in Vermont who made the list for contaminatin private and municipal water sources. New Hampshire's prominence is evidence of two things, Hodel said in an interview yesterday. It shows that the state has active citizens groups monitoring their communities. It also shows that regulations on solid waste management here are less stringent than in neighboring states. As a result, Hodel said, New Hampshire has become a dumping ground for New England. End of article By CHELSEA CONABOY Monitor staff This article is: 847 days old. Print article 0 Send to friend 0 Letter to editor http://www.coneordmonitor. com/apps/pbes.dll/article?Date=20051129&Category=REPOSITORY&ArtN... 3/25/2008 COMMUNITY HEALTH ACTION Community Stories Citizens Leading for Environmental Action and Responsibility Claremont,NH Jackie Elliott CLEAR Claremont, NH 03743 jcelliott44(rDearthl ink. net none Health Problems: several in question Industry: Wheelabrator WTE incinerator I have lived in Claremont for more than 30 years and I personally have been involved in the Whe incinerator issue for about 5 years after learning about the endo/dioxin/incineration connection. I incinerator has been burning trash for electricity for 17 years and has been the topic of consider, controversy. The history of the facility records many instances of non-compliance with the state-required Title Pollution Permit Application standards. Quarterly Excess Emissions Reports filed with the New I- Department of Environmental Services Air Resources Division (NHDES-ARD) show emissions v every quarter from 1987 until 2002. Wheelabrator's own reporting records indicate that tons of mercury and lead have been dumped community and the surrounding area, as well as dioxins and other toxins. We hear anecdotally o health problems in the community including cancers, immune disorders, learning disorders, birth asthma, unusual respiratory diseases, MS - to name a few. Our local hospital states that our cou experience mortality rates from respiratory disease at twice the state rate in the 45-64 age group We have recently been through the public hearing process on the draft of the Title V Permit. Let( New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Air Resources Division is that the permit be forthcoming at the end of the month with Findings of Fact being issued by the director of the I As a result of the public hearings around the Title V Air Pollution Permit and public pressure, Nei Department of Health and Human Services has begun an examination of existing health data. O concern is the dangers inherent with waste incineration. During the permit public hearings CLEA specific requests for a health registry to assess and track the possible health effects from inciner Claremont population. We want this to be part of the permit requirements. Our Wheelabrator incinerator is currently considered a small waste combustor (no more than 251 day) which allows it to operate with less stringent emissions controls and standards. Because of reporting, self-policing regulatory environment Wheelabrator asserts that they are in full compliar strongly argued against that in our oral and written comments at the permit hearings. Generally, officials have tried to ignore the realities of the situation and have allowed citizens to bear the re! addressing issues. There is currently no official political will to take a pro-active stance against tt despite our efforts to educate our officials on the dangers of incineration. We recognized the need to have an "indigenous group" working on the problem of the incinerato years ago we "loosely organized" ourselves under the banner of Citizens Leading for Environme and Responsibility (CLEAR). We stay in touch with each other primarily via e-mail, hammer out c for the different steps along the way and do what we can at any given point in the process of per making appeals to local and state officials. We have put together an e-mail list of contacts that w the Wheelabrator permitting issues. We use it as well to put out general information on incinerati and alternatives and to alert people to important public meetings around the issue. We have given testimony before legislative committees and with the help of one of our state legit filed a bill seeking to develop policy to phase out and eliminate persistent bioaccumulative toxins Wheelabrator releases many of these known poisons. One of our members is also a state legisla been involved for several years with efforts of Center for Health, Environment and Justice and h; input and benefit from counsel of their organizers. Tom is a busy legislator and also holds down a full-time position in social services that has him v Our other member, Judy is a brilliant and talented writer who has a real heart for the people. Jud prolific writers and make concerted efforts to inform the public via the local editorial page. We he active with protests, signs and the like at pivotal points along the way. Perhaps CLEAR's biggest accomplishment has been to keep the public informed and to keep thi headlines a fair amount of the time. We were able to engender enough public pressure to dose t ash landfill that sits on the opposite border of the town from the incinerator. We do think we cons a "force to be reckoned with." As a result of the recent public hearings for the Title V Air Pollutior are hopeful that the Findings of Fact from the NHDES-ARD will require stricter standards for the do believe we have put them in a spot where they have to offer some justification for their decisic permit. An outstanding issue is baseline testing of soil and milk from local dairy farms that was done at t a citizen before the incinerator went online in 1987. Throughout the 17-year permitting process c this citizen has returned to NHDES-ARD asking them to follow through on the stated commitmer follow-up testing every two years. This has never been done. CLEAR recently became aware of testing and report and is working with this citizen to pressure the state to fulfill their commitment. Back Unionleader.com Upper Valley doctors call Wheelabrator incinerator health risk By MARK HAYWARD New Hampshire Union Leader Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 Arbirty-five members of the medical staff at Valley Regional Hospital in Claremont have called the Wheelabrator incinerator an "unacceptable risk" for area residents, and want the trasb-buming power plant shut down next year. Get Mission Calendar Just For Involved Statement of Events Fun Associates Projects/// Spotlight CN+VA IIgMRforP B!r41C"eA"P Incinerator Home Incinerator GuidebookWaste-to-evergy incinerators sue Incinerator Articles over regulation Health Concerns Checklist By Martin Finucane - Associated Press writer Herald News: 10/6/99 The state has tightened restrictions on mercury emissions from waste- to-energy incinerators to keep the toxic chemical from raining down on lakes and streams and poisoning fish. But the industry is claiming in a federal lawsuit that the new rules could choke off incinerators. The Integrated Waste Services Association filed the lawsuit last month, along with Ogden Martin Systems of Haverhill Inc. and Wheelabrator Millbury Inc., two of the state's six major trash incinerator companies. The industry group argues that the standards imposed by the state, which are tougher than federal standards, are "arbitrary and capricious". The state Department of Environmental Protection has "ignored the requirement that the standard be achievable," said Maria Zannes, president of IWSA. "unlike every other state and the federal government, Massachusetts chose to ignore the limits of the technology we're putting in place and instead set an arbitrary standard," she said. She said the DEP had made an "arbitrary political decision to appease a small group" of environmentalists. But DEP spokesman Rick Lombardi said, "We think it's reasonable and we think it's achievable." Environmental activists called for the state to vigorously defend the tough standards. John McNabb, solid waste policy director for CleanWater Action, said the lawsuit was an "outrage " as well as "baseless and hypocritical." Federal standards call for mercury contamination in incinerator smoke to be limited to 80 micrograms of mercury per dry standard cubic meter. As an alternative, incinerator companies can demonstrate that they are reducing total mercury in the smoke by 85%. The state standard reduces the allowable mercury emissions to 28 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter and eliminates the option for companies to alternatively show they reduced mercury by 85%. Environmentalists said the 85% rule was a "loophole." But Zannes said the industry had installed, at great expense, carbon injection technology to clean smokestack emissions. And that kind of system, she argued, can remove about 85% of mercury that's in the emission stream. "We've certainly been more than responsive to concerns about getting mercury out of the stack....But there's a limit to what carbon injection can do," she said, suggesting it couldn't achieve the state's 28-microgram standard. The industry is also crying foul about a state requirement that it implement a materials separation plan. The general idea of a materials separation plan is to separate out of the waste stream items that contain mercury, such as fluorescent lights, batteries, mercury vapor bulbs and electronic devices. But the industry said the state regulation was too vague on what such a plan would be. And Zannes said the government should take responsibility for getting mercury out of the waste stream. "What we are objecting to is the state imposing their responsibility on us. Their responsibility is to implement programs to get mercury out of the waste stream. They're saying,"You do it," she said. The four incinerators that are subject to the regulations are in Springfield, Saugus, Rochester and North Andover, Lombardi said. Massachusetts incinerators emit about 4,570 pounds of mercury per year, Lombardi said. Experts say it takes only a small fraction of a teaspoon to contaminate a 20-acre pond. Candidates take stand on city's future, incinerator Herald News Staff%9/9/99 (article not in entirety) About 20 candidates in the upcoming elections had a chance to voice their opinions on various issues Wednesday night at a forum principally sponsored by the environmental group Green Futures. The program entitled "Election 99: Creating a Livable City," was attended by about 50 voters at the Elks Hall. Issues on which candidates spoke were the focus of a community forum, entitled "The livable City: A Vision for Fall River." held last April. Topics included clean air, open space, clean water, neighborhoods, education, the downtown area, historic preservation, community health and economic development. The city's closed incinerator was a hot topic among candidates. The remainder of the article included each candidates statements concerning the incinerator, including criticism about the Mayor's proposal to regionalize the incinerator, and about the issues listed above. For a complete copy of this article email: info(Moreenfutures. ora Incinerator foes, councilors face off by Monica Allen - New Bedford Standard Times:5/25/99 A group of 10 environmentalist activists and a minister gathered on Rodman Street yesterday to demand that the city and the state shut down the trash incinerator that continues to violate state health standards. The activists spoke to the media as white smoke billowed steadily from the incinerator behind them and an odor of garbage wafted in the air. Barely had they outlined their concerns about the incinerator when City Councilor Alfredo P. Alves challenged members of the group, saying it would be costly to shut down the incinerator, which burns 150 tons of city trash each day. He called the activists a group of "alarmists" who are out to scare the public. "If we were to close the incinerator today it would cost the taxpayers 4 to 5 million dollars," he said. Mr. Alves also challenged the group on its charge that the city is going to spend $55 million on a new trash incinerator that will pollute the air even more. "No one in city government is going to spend millions to pollute the air." Mr. Alves said. Linda Plante, the mother of two children replied, "You're polluting the air; the smoke is proof of that." Although the protesters have no scientific study that shows the white smoke from the incinerator causes children to develop asthma. lead poisoning or leukemia, they say the air tests combined with anecdotal information of sick children should be enough to shut the plant down. The incinerator spews levels of lead and cadmium that the state considers unsafe for humans, according to air tests taken over the last four years. Lead can delay mental development in children. It also damages kidneys and nervous systems in people of all ages. Cadmium has also been linked to kidney damage. The citizen's groups and the Boston-based Toxics Action Center also oppose the city's plan to expand the incinerator. The city is studying whether to invest $55 million to build a 600-ton-per-day trash-to- energy facility at the same site. James Hornsby, pastor of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, said it took him years to become concerned about the effects of the incinerator on the health of local people. But he is now convinced that the trash burning contributes to lead poisoning among children in the neighborhoods around the plant. "I have held children with lead poisoning," he said. "I know this is a tragedy. I have baptized a child with lead poisoning." "What we need to do is say stop, close it down and after a time period get out of the incineration business." Jean LaPointe, who lives on Augusta Street near the incinerator, said she keeps her 10-year-old daughter in the house many afternoons because the smell of the smoke is so foul in her back yard. "It's got such a raunchy odor to it, it must be poisonous," she said. She also blames her daughter's persistent cough on the plant's billowing emission. James F. McIntyre, a retired Somerset police captain, told the gathering that he believes the incinerator also contributes to high levels of brain and central nervous system cancers in the city. Quoting from a state Department of Public Health report for the period 1982 to 1993, Mr. McIntyre said the city is one of three communities that have elevated levels of these two cancers. The other two communities are Acton and Brookline. "We're paying a greater price now with our children's health," said Mr. McIntyre, the founder of We Love Children, a group that gives parents of children suffering from cancer and other diseases money for transportation to hospitals in Boston and out of state. Mr. McIntyre disagreed with Councilor Alves about who was an alarmist. "We're paying a greater price today for the health of our children than we would be paying to shut down this incinerator. Ninety-nine percent of the money paying for the care of these children comes out of taxpayer money. And it's far more than $5 million a year in medical treatment. We'll rent a bus to take you to Boston to the hospitals to see children who are suffering," he told the city councilor. As the rally broke up, another city councilor faced off against a citizen, again defending the incinerator. "There are incinerators operating at a high level and we have to bring our incinerator up to that level," said City Councilor Patricia A. Casey. "We're going to have curbside separation," she added. The city proposed that residents pull out metal products from their trash in an effort to cut down the heavy metal emissions. City workers hand sorted the trash during the week in January when the air emissions were tested. But even with this removal of metal products, the emissions contained high levels of lead and cadmium. Priscilla Brightman said she did not believe city residents would properly sort out metals. Fail River consistently has one of the lowest rates of recycling in the state. The owner of a number of apartment houses, Ms. Brightman said she doubted even her tenants would do this sorting. And even with sorting, Ms. Brightman said the incinerator "would always spew stuff in the air." David Johnson, the deputy regional director of DEP, said the state would take no action on the incinerator until it has verified the recent air tests taken in January. "Then we can make an informed decision," he said. "the preliminary data indicates some improvements," he said. But the results continue to show violations of state standards for cadmium and lead, state officials confirmed Friday. "We need to find out how close we are to meeting state standards and whether we can make some improvements by doing some curbside sorting measures," he said. "Our goal is to get the facility operating within guidelines." Reacting to the health concerns of the residents, Mr. Johnson urged them to bring this information to the state health department. "That's something we want to know about," he said. Back to too Anematlves to incineration vreenpeaee mtemauonai rage 1 vi J Greenoeace Alternatives to incineration Alternatives to the waste mountain created by current waste strategies. Enlarge Image Municipal and hospital waste incinerators are the largest dioxin sources in industrial countries. PVC plastic is probably the most significant source of dioxin generating chlorine in these incinerators. Alternatives I Waste management alternatives Medical waste I Hospital products Disinfection Autoclaving Cost benefits of autoclaving I Microwave disinfection I superheated steam j Hazardous waste I Toxic use reduction I Cement kilns Municipal and hospital waste incinerators are the largest dioxin sources in industrial countries. PVC plastic is probably the most significant source of dioxin generating chlorine in these incinerators. Incinerators that burn hazardous waste from industry are also point sources of dioxin. Strategies to prevent generating incineratable waste streams currently exist by: • Toxic use reduction planning within industries; • Waste reduction and alternative forms of sterilisation in hospitals; and • Efficient reduction, recycling and compost actions at community level for household waste. Incinerators and cement kilns that burn hazardous waste will never solve toxic waste problems. A clean production approach, which substitutes safe materials and processes to stop the generation of hazardous waste in the first place, is needed. Alternatives to municipal waste incineration Municipal and biomedical waste incinerators, are the largest dioxin sources in industrial countries, according to the US EPA. Although it only accounts for approximately 0.5 percent of municipal waste by weight, PVC provides over 50 percent of available chlorine - the element essential to dioxin formation. According to the majority of incineration studies, when all other factors are held constant, there is a direct correlation between input of PVC and output of dioxin. For this reason the Danish government policy is to avoid the presence of PVC in incinerators. "Cleaner production is as much about attitudes, approaches and management as it is about technology. This is why it is called cleaner production and not cleaner technology." Cleaner Production in the Mediterranean Region, 1995. http://www.greenpeace.org/intemational/campaigns/toxics/incineration/alternatives-to-incineration 3/25/2008 Alternatives to incineration I Cfreenpeace International Page 2 ot,J If all the PVC and chlorinated wastes were eliminated from the waste stream, incineration would still be a poor solution due to high costs, loss of jobs in the recycling industry, lost profits from secondary resale and on-going contamination from heavy metal, hydrocarbon and other air emissions. Cost effective and eco-efficient waste management alternatives to incineration exist Glass, metals and paper can be easily recycled and reused. Organic waste fractions can be composted at household or community level. Some plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene can be efficiently recycled if collection and recycling systems are based within the region. Recycling is also profitable. A ban on incinerators, legislated in 1992 in the province of Ontario, Canada, stimulated job creation and the price of secondary materials. A highly successful recycling programme is running in Curitibi, Brazil since 1989. Ten thousand families participate in the "Garbage that is not Garbage" programme receiving two kilos of food for every four kilos of recyclable garbage collected and delivered to the mobile units. The programme was implemented to foster the separation of organic from inorganic garbage as part of the city's environmental programme. Even admittance to the municipal open air shows requires bringing a bag for recycling rubbish. Approximately 60 tonnes of paper are recycled every day equivalent to 1,200 trees. The goals for the future are to transform Curitiba into a centre of excellence in the areas of urban planning and transportation and demonstrate the success of good city planning in developing countries. An analysis of recycling potential including composting found that 72.8 percent of waste reclamation was possible. The financial costs of incineration (even with energy recovery) was calculated to be 6,000 pesetas/tonne compared to 2,325 pesetas/tonne if materials were recycled. Implementation could achieve a 60 percent beneficial use within five years and solve the country's escalating waste problem. A study, by the Centre for the Biology of Natural Systems in New York, US in 1996, to examine the costs and benefits of eliminating dioxin sources from all combustion processes in the Great Lakes region of North America. The study found that replacing all municipal waste incinerators in the region with intensive recycling programmes would result in approximately US$530 million annual savings. The consequences of closing all the 52 Great Lakes garbage incinerators and creating programs of intensive recycling capable of diverting the same tonnage of waste that is currently burned involves an increase in collection costs and an increased education cost to the municipalities. But this is balanced against the net income from processing and marketing collected recyclables, the savings from avoiding disposal costs and paying off the debt for the incinerator. The study estimated that 6,100 jobs would be created from additional collection and processing jobs after deducting job losses at incineration closures. Further job increases of 21,000 are predicted if the additional recycled materials are used by current and new manufacturing firms within the region. A 1991 study by the Worldwatch Institute calculated the number of jobs per one million tonnes of waste processed in New York City. Type of waste disposal/Number of jobs Landfill - 40-60 Incinerators - 100-290 Mixed waste composting - 200-300 Recycling - 400-590 Recycling is not the answer to waste reduction however. We need to reduce our use of packaging and products and advocate reusable, returnable packaging and better product design for durability and reparability. Alternatives to medical waste incineration In medical waste incinerators, the dominant chlorine donor is PVC plastic, which enters these facilities as packaging and in many disposal medical products. An estimated 9.4 percent of all infectious waste is PVC, and virtually all available chlorine fed to medical http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/incineration/alternatives-to-incineration 3/25/2008 Alternatives to incineration I Cireenpeace International rage s of waste incinerators comes from PVC. In reality there are dioxin-free means of disposing of 99.7 percent of the medical waste stream. Because medical waste incinerators are a major point sources of dioxins some countries have brought in more stringent regulations. This has resulted in many hospitals closing their own on-site incinerator and shipping waste to a commercial incinerator with more pollution control devices. However, this is increasingly seen as an inadequate solution. Increasingly hospitals in Austria, Germany and Denmark are reducing the amount and nature of wastes by switching to reusables, which can be sterilised. Substitution of PVC products go with programmes to prevent waste and separate for recycling. Reasons for phasing out PVC in these hospitals: municipal incineration plants either did not accept wastes where the chlorine content exceeded the determined percentage, or would do so only at a considerably increased price; incineration plants had to be closed due to more stringent emission regulations; and repeated complaints from the community. Other reasons exist to substitute PVC products within hospitals. Medical objections against the use of PVC are mainly based on the migration of the plasticiser DEHP. It is soluble in fat-containing fluids such as blood and may cause diseases of the liver, skin and cardiovascular system. Animal experiments have shown a significant Increase in liver tumours when DEHP is added to the food of mice and rats. For this reason DEHP was classified as "carcinogenic in animal experiments" and for lack of adequate epidemiological studies in human beings as "possible human carcinogen". Recent evidence points to its hormone disrupting potential. Currently there are often increased costs for PVC alternatives (often 20-30 percent more expensive). However these costs must be balanced against the cost of ongoing incineration fees and dioxin emissions. Non PVC hospital products In general, 85 percent of the total medical waste stream in hospitals consists of the same mixture of discarded paper, plastic, glass, metal and food waste that is found in ordinary household waste. The remaining 15 percent is defined as infectious and these wastes must be sterilised before disposal. A small percentage of this waste or 0.3 percent of the total medical waste stream, can only be incinerated, in part for cultural or aesthetic reasons, but also because it is difficult to sterilise in any other way. Thus there are dioxin-free means of disposing of 99.7 percent of the medical waste stream. Non hazardous waste can be recycled within a household waste recycling plan. Alternative disinfection For disposing of infectious waste there are several alternative dioxin-free methods that are cost comparative. Three of these are autoclaving, microwave disinfection and superheated steam sterilisation. Autoclaving An estimated 45 percent of infectious medical equipment from Western hospitals is already reused through autoclaving. This is basically steam sterilisation, which encourages the reuse or recycling of medical equipment. Autoclaves are commercially available in varying sizes from desktop to industrial units. The process involves heating bags of medical waste at between 120 and 165 C for 30 to 90 minutes in chambers into which pressurised steam is introduced. The steam penetration ensures destruction of bacteria and pathogenic micro-organisms. Waste Is reduced by an estimated 75 percent of its volume and can either be landfilled directly or compacted further, The autoclaved infectious waste adds to the landfill burden, but the amount is usually less than 0.2 percent of the municipal solid waste stream. According to a recent survey of hospitals that have installed autoclaves, they are easier to operate than incinerators. Cost benefits of autoclaving http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/l*ncineration/altematives-to-incineration 3/25/2008 7xtiernauves to incineration tireenpeace lnternauonat rage,+ of A 1996 study by the Centre for the Biology of Natural Systems in New York examined the annual operating costs of hospital incinerators in the Great Lakes Region of North America and found that autoclaving was more profitable. Autoclaving is the most profitable investment unless there are no regulations at all on incineration emissions. Further assessment was made of the costs to hospitals of converting to autoclaves including paying off the debt on the original purchase of an incinerator. In this scenario conversion costs (US$2.9 million) are still cheaper than the annual operating cost of incineration with mandatory emission upgrading (US$3.4 million per year). Microwave disinfection Microwaving is economically competitive, versatile and studies in Europe have shown virtually no emissions since the internal heating system is closed. Consequently there is no need for pollution control devices. Microwave disinfection relies on treating hospital waste with moist heat and conventional microwaves at temperatures of 940C. The equipment can be installed on or off site in stationary or mobile units. The remaining residues, which have been reduced by 80 percent in volume, can be landfilled Superheated steam sterilisation This technology comprises a heated shredder and sterilisation unit. In the shredder, organic liquids are vaporised and solids reduced to gas by super-heated steam at temperatures between 500 and 7000. Medical equipment is melted into a sterile mass in under an hour. Remaining residues are cooled and dropped into a collection bin or ground in a heated shredder. The process has been shown to reduce medical waste by 50 to 60 percent of its original volume. Alternatives to hazardous waste incineration European researchers estimate that 70 percent of all current waste and emissions from industrial processes can be prevented at source by using technically sound and economically profitable procedures. No country should contemplate a commercial hazardous waste incinerator without a national programme of cleaner production. Policy measures to achieve this have been well documented by UN agencies and cleaner production initiatives have achieved significant results particularly within small and medium scale industries. Once an incinerator is built, ongoing toxic waste generation is legitimised and there is little incentive to investigate process changes within industry even if cleaner production methods are more profitable. For this reason, mandatory toxic use reduction plans should be prepared by each facility currently generating toxic waste. Benefits of toxic use reduction - Massachusetts, USA Massachusetts in the US has achieved significant reduction of hazardous waste through mandatory company planning. This legislation and training programme has become a model for pollution prevention activities around the world. The Toxic Use Reduction Act (TURA) was passed in 1989. The goal of the legislation is to develop toxics use reduction as its primary tool for industrial pollution control while enhancing the competitive position of Massachusetts enterprises. The first goal is to reduce toxic waste generation by 50 percent through toxics use reduction over a 10 year period (1987-1997). Under TURA firms that use any of a list of approximately 800 chemicals in quantities that annually cross a minimum threshold must: • Annually report publicly on the amount of chemical used and released; and • Pay an annual fee prepare a plan (updated every two years) on how to reduce or eliminate the use of those chemicals that is certified by a licensed Toxics Use Reduction Planner. Between 1990 and 1993 all firms cut their toxic by-product (waste) by 14.5 percent and plan to generate 23 percent less waste in 1998. Total volume of listed toxic chemicals in the state dropped by six percent within these three years. Of the 29 firms applying for awards in toxics use reduction, together they had eliminated the use of 2,870 tons of toxic chemicals, reduced 750 tons of http://www,greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxies/incineration/alternatives-to-incineration 3/25/2008 Aiternatlves to incineration vreenpeace international rage D of:) hazardous wastes and saved US$44 million per year. Alternatives to other combustion sources of dioxin - cement kilns Increasingly, cement kilns are burning hazardous waste as fuel thereby generating dioxins in air emissions and ash. Cement products are now contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins. A phase out of incinerable waste streams is possible via toxics use reduction legislation. The Centre has done the economic costs of converting these cement kilns back to fuel for the Biology of Natural Systems in 1996. The study found that the added expected income from burning hazardous waste in cement kilns is likely to be less than the model estimates due to a declining market share. This would enable kilns to resume former fuel burning of coal, coke, oil or natural gas, as currently practised by three quarters of the kilns in the region. However Instead of receiving a tip fee (which in 1993 amounted to US$68 million), the 9 cement kilns in the region would then pay for the normal fuel (about US$9 million per year) amounting to an increase of approximately US$77 million. At the same time, the transition results in a payroll saving since additional employees that handle the hazardous material are no longer needed. Furthermore the kiln could avoid the operational costs of installing control devices and more importantly would not generate dioxin-contaminated emissions and wastes. http://www.greenpeaee.org/international/campaigns/toxies/incineration/alternatives-to-incineration 3/25/2008