Incineration of Waste-Information
-Incineration & Gasification: A Toxic Comparison
- The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators
Below please find info that was sent to me from an Oakville
Resident who has done a great deal of research on the subject.
Yesterday, I took the opportunity to review Ontario's
Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for New Municipal Waste
Incinerators (Guideline A7) and compared it to BCs
Emission Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. What I read was
most troubling. Let me just highlight some significant differences that caught
my eye.
| Ministry encourages but does not require continuous monitoring; (BC requires continuous monitoring of temperature, oxygen and carbon monoxide) |
| Emission performance must be tested only once a year (BC requires monthly
reporting) |
| Ministry may require testing for carbon monoxide benzo(a)pyrene, biphenyl napthalene, formaldehyde and odor, ((under BC standard CO must be monitored continuously and BC sets specific limits for many compounds). |
| Ministry recommends temperatures should be 100c above standard operating temperature while BC requires "The auxiliary burner(s) shall be designed such that the minimum combustion zone temperature of 1000°C can be maintained for at least 15 minutes without any waste feeding to the unit." |
Of course both Ontario and BC standards pale in comparison to the standards set
forth by the European Commission (
Legislation). Take a look at the
Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December
2000 on the incineration of waste . It
sets stringent operating and monitoring standards along with legally
binding limit values for emission of such things as dioxins and furans for all
installations. The more recent
Combustion Plants Directive adds additional requirements: "Concentrations of
SO2, dust, NOx shall be measured continuously" - that is along with already
required monitoring of oxygen, temperature, pressure, water vapour, etc. We
simply do not have legislation, monitoring and enforcement procedures in place
to adequately protect public safety and the environment.
Poorly designed, operated and monitored
incinerators pose serious threats to public health:
| Cormier, S. et al. 2006. Origin and health impacts of emissions from combustion Envir. Health Perspectives . 114:6; see also Avakian, M. 2002. The Origin, Fate, and Health Effects of Combustion By-Products Envir. Health Perspectives110:11 |
| Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor Anthony, 2005. " The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators " 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine |
| National Research Council. Committee on
Health Effects of Waste Incineration. 2000.
Waste Incineration & Public Health National Academy of Sciences. |
Certain European incineration operations are being held up to the public as
being safe and efficient. They are that way only because they have been built to
very high standards to meet very stringent health and safety requirements. The
cost of building these plants is high. That cost could be invested in
alternative waste management strategies.
Zero-waste strategies are proving successful around the world:
New Zealand ,
Nova Scotia,
Vermont.
San Francisco,
Canberra, Au etc. We should use our tax dollars to focus on
prevention and minimization. That begins
with producer and consumer responsibility - "cradle to grave." Reducing,
reusing, composting, we can easily double and triple our waste diversion in
Ontario. That should be our immediate goal. Exploration of energy recovery
technologies (of which there are many) can be concurrent with review and
revision of public policies and legislation that will clearly ensure public
health and environmental protection.
Please take the time to consider more carefully the path the Ontario government
is preparing to travel. We can do better. We must do better.
In text hyperlinks: