Incinerator tests

City plant's dioxin levels up since '94

EPA used data to push repairs, other changes

By Garry Lenton
The Patriot-News
Aug 17, 1997

Smoke stack tests conducted at the Harrisburg Incinerator last summer showed the trash-to-steam plant was releasing large amounts of dioxin, a suspected cancer-causing substance, into the atmosphere.

The releases measured in 1996 were eight times higher than similar tests conducted in 1994, according to documents obtained by the Patriot-News through the federal Freedom of Information Act. The results surprised state and federal environmental officials, as well as the operators of the plant.

"This facility is probably the highest emitter of dioxin in the country that we know of for municipal incinerators," said Jim Topsale, municipal waste combustion expert for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 office in Philadelphia.

The findings were never publicized by EPA or the city. Eric Epstein, a Harrisburg environmental activist and long-time opponent of the incinerator, said last week that he was unaware of the test results.

EPA used the tests to push the Harrisburg Authority, which operates the plant for the city to repair the incinerator to bring the emissions down. A consent order signed by the city in May required the authority to develop maintenance plans; make changes in the operation of the plant; improve operator training; and have supervisors certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Many of those requirements already have been met, said Dan Lispi, project manager overseeing repairs at the incinerator for the city.

Despite the test results, residents living near the plant should not be concerned about health problems, Lispi said.

"There's no evidence anywhere that this level of dioxin causes a health problem," he said. "There is absolutely zero evidence of that."

David McGuigan, chief of the air enforcement division for EPA Region 3, wasn't as willing to waive off a health risk, however.

"It's difficult to give a qualitative assessment," he said. "Obviously, dioxin is not something you want to take for granted, but to quantify the risk a community is exposed to is very difficult."

Epstein called the incinerator a "technological fossil" and accused the city, EPA and the state Department of Environmental Protection of environmental racism for allowing it to continue operating. He said both agencies have documented numerous environmental problems at the plant, which is located near Hall Manor and Hoverter Homes, two low-income housing projects.

"If the incinerator was located across from Italian Lake, it would have been shut down two decades ago," Epstein said.

Dioxin is a man-made compound produced when trash, especially plastics, is burned. Tests on animals have indicated that small amounts of dioxin can adversely effect reproduction, the liver, the immune system and the growth process, according to an EPA directory.

But the scientific community is divided over how much dioxin must be present to risk human health.

EPA once characterized dioxin as one of the most potent cacinogens known to man, a position the agency has since backed away from. But dioxin remains a serious environmental concern, officials agree.

In 1982, the federal government bought and closed the town of Times Beach, Mo., after discovering dioxin in the soil. But in 1991, the federal health official who recommended the evacuation said he had changed his opinion about dioxin. Dr. Vernon N. Houk of the Centers For Disease Control said if dioxin is a carcinogen, it is a weak one that is associated only with high dose exposures.

"Studies of the number of people likely to get cancer from being exposed to dioxin are inconclusive, in part because scientists could not be certain how much dioxin they were exposed to," writes Linda-Jo Schierow, a specialist in environmental policy for the Congressional Research Service. "Although scientists have interpreted the significance of these studies in various ways, they generally agree that human data are limited, and dioxin is a probable human carcinogen under some conditions of exposure."

There now is no dioxin standard. EPA is expected to enact regulations this year that will limit air emissions to 30 nanograms per cubic meter.

Test samples taken from the Harrisburg incinerator in July 1996 measured nearly 9,000 nanograms per cubic meter. Under deadlines established in the federal Clean Air Act, the Harrisburg Authority will have to meet the regulations by 2000.

Because there are no federal standards, state officials are unable to regulate the incinerator, said Sandy Roderick, spokesperson for DEP.

DEP does set emission limits for waste incinerators when it issues air quality permits. But Harrisburg's incinerator predates the permitting process and therefore is not subject to those limits, Roderick said.

Lispi acknowledged that the plant has problems, but rejected the notion that dioxin levels were the highest in the nation.

He called the 1996 test on anomaly, noting that tests conducted by EPA at the incinerator in 1994 showed dioxin levels of 1,157 nanograms. Lispi said last year's tests did not reflect normal operating conditions. Higher-than-normal amounts of air traveling through the furnace carried more dioxin-contaminated ash and other particles into the stack, forcing pollution levels higher.

McGuigan said dioxin levels at the Harrisburg incinerator should be lower in tests now. The authority has submitted new samples for EPA review, but the results have not been determined.

The age of the Harrisburg incinerator, and the operational problems it was experiencing contributed to the high levels said Topsale.

Since last summer, the authority has spent nearly $3 million to improve the efficiency of the stokers, boilers and air scrubbers used at the plant. The city plans to spend about $100 million to replace the 25-year-old incinerator with new equipment by 2000. The interim work, which is expected to be completed next month, should reduce the amount of pollution released, Lispi said.

Work on the first burner was completed last week, he said, and the second burner should be repaired and back on line by September.

"We feel that this work is going to carry us for as long as we need," Lispi said.


Incinerator's neighbors wary of emissions

Dioxin's health effects questioned

By Robert Farley
The Harrisburg Patriot News
Harrisburg, Pa.
Aug 18, 1997

Reports that the Harrisburg incinerator was releasing large amounts of dioxin, a suspected cancer-causing substance, into the atmosphere, had some neighbors of the city-owned trash-to-steam plant worried about their health and angry they were not informed.

Sterling Summers, a resident of 19th Street, said he became `extremely agitated` after reading in The Patriot-News that one official with the federal Environmental Protection Agency characterized the facility as `probably the highest emitter of dioxin in the country that we know of for municipal incinerators.`

`I think that basically, as property owners, we need to find out what the risk factor is,` Summers said. `We need to know whether we need to leave here or whether we should be taking legal action against the incinerator.` Summers was equally miffed with the city and the EPA.

`We should have been informed,` he said. `I think this is outrageous,` he said. `It really infuriates you when they don't inform you.` There now is no dioxin standard, but EPA is expected to enact regulations this year that will limit air emissions to 30 nanograms per cubic meter. Test samples taken from the Harrisburg incinerator in July 1996 measured nearly 9,000 nanograms per cubic meter. Under deadlines established in the federal Clean Air Act, the Harrisburg Authority, which operates the facility for the city, will have to meet the regulations by 2000.

Dan Lispi, project manager overseeing repairs at the incinerator for the city, assured there is no evidence that this level of dioxins causes a health problem. Neighbors need not worry about health problems, he said.

But some do worry.

`We breathe it every day here,` said Donald Tadych of North Third Street. `At night, you can see it going up into the sky.`

Tadych said he skims incinerator ash from his pool every day. He and other neighbors said the ash dirties their cars.

`And the bad part is, they're burning everyone else's crap,` he said, noting that trash is imported from other states to the facility.

Most neighbors said they have never even heard of dioxin, let alone about reports the incinerator was emitting it.

Releases of dioxins measured in smokestack tests at the incinerator last summer measured eight times higher than similar tests conducted in 1994, according to documents obtained by The Patriot-News through the federal Freedom of Information Act. The findings were never publicized by EPA or the city.

Dioxin is a man-made compound produced when trash, especially plastics, is burned. Tests on animals have indicated that small amounts of dioxin can adversely effect reproduction, the liver, the immune system and the growth process, according to an EPA directory.

But the scientific community is divided over how much dioxin must be present to risk human health.

`I'm very concerned,` said Rita Burhannan, who lives down the street from the incinerator. `We need to know. We don't want to breathe that mess.`

`It should be regulated,` she said. `But as long as people have money to do things, they usually get away with it.`

Said another neighbor: `My concern is that they comply with what the EPA standards are.`

EPA used the tests to push the Harrisburg Authority to repair the incinerator to bring the emissions down. A consent order signed by the city in May required the authority to develop maintenance plans; make changes in the operation of the plant; improve operator training; and have supervisors certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Many of those requirements already have been met, said Lispi, who contests the statement the dioxin levels were the highest in the country.

Since last summer, the authority has spent nearly $3 million to improve the efficiency of the stokers, boilers and air scrubbers used at the plant.

The city plans to spend about $100 million to replace the 25-year-old incinerator with new equipment by 2000. The interim work, which is expected to be completed next month, should reduce the amount of pollution released, Lispi said. Work on the first burner was completed last week, he said, and the second burner should be repaired and back on line by September.

Eric Epstein, a Harrisburg environmental activist and long-time opponent of the incinerator, called the incinerator a technological fossil and accused the city, EPA and the state Department of Environmental Protection of environmental racism for allowing it to continue operating. He said both agencies have documented numerous environmental problems at the plant, which is located near Hall Manor and Hoverter Homes, two low-income housing projects.

Summers, who has lived almost next-door for 15 years agrees.

`People say the problem over here is crime,` Summer said. `Crime is not our problem. Our problem is right down there at the incinerator. If this were Bellevue Park, this would never happen.`


Editorials conflict with each other on waste plan

The Harrisburg Patriot News
Harrisburg, Pa.
Sep 4, 1996

I am confused and need your help in determining which of your editorials I should believe the one appearing Aug. 27 where you label Dauphin County's Solid Waste Plan as ". . . an incredibly short-sighted decision . . ." or the one which appeared Sept. 10, 1990, "County's landfill plan makes sense."

In your earlier editorial, you recognized that "{t}ipping costs would be at least $12 a ton cheaper at the landfills than at the Harrisburg Incinerator, which was seeking about $50 for the disposal of each ton."

As well, you noted that "the incinerator has other disadvantages beyond economics. It was less attractive than the Chambers' proposal because Harrisburg could offer no alternative in the event the facility broke down and because it could only accept a limited amount of trash in the first few years as a result of other contractual obligations."

These earlier problems with the incinerator, which included the appropriately named "Mount Ashmore," are now compounded, as you noted in your Aug. 27 editorial, by the need for the city to float a new $94 million bond issue to retrofit a plant which you characterized as ". . . a turkey from day one."

Finally, by Mayor Stephen R. Reed's own account, the incinerator would be closed for two years while the proposed overhaul and expansion is undertaken. Strangely enough, the city plans during this hiatus to accept trash at its facility but truck it to landfills.

Upon reflection, you may determine the logic of your initial editorial conclusion that "given all of the problems, expenses and uncertainties associated with the Harrisburg Incinerator, the authority was right to select the solution it did . . ."

The litigation between the city and county referred to in your recent editorial as on-going was actually terminated by a settlement agreement reached in 1995.

While I recognize the vital role that a free press plays in our society, there is also a responsibility on the part of the media to express informed opinions.

-- Sally S. Klein Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Commissioners Harrisburg


Experts disagree on health hazards of incinerator:
2 say risk from dioxin is minimal; third urges closing facility

By Garry Lenton
The Harrisburg Patriot News
February 22, 1997

Dioxin in cigarette smoke and in the exhaust from diesel trucks and buses poses a greater health threat to Harrisburg residents than that emitted by the city's trash-to-steam incinerator, according to two medical experts.

Still both agreed that the city must do everything it can to bring down dioxin levels at the incinerator. The incinerator's dioxin emissions are considered among the highest in the nation for municipal incinerators, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Dilution is a wonderful thing," said Dr. Ward Donovan, director of the Central Pennsylvania Poison Center at Hershey Medical Center.

"That is not to say that dioxin is not a toxic chemical. It is a highly toxic chemical. But everything is related to dose," he said.

Dioxins are unavoidable in the environment and can be found in everyone, Donovan said. Sources of exposure, in addition to incinerators, include cigarette smoke and exhaust from diesel-powered vehicles.

"Diesel-truck traffic exposes 1,900 times more area than incinerators," said Dr. Kay Jones, a former senior adviser to the President's Council of Environmental Quality under Presidents Carter and Ford. "If you look at the dioxins in the soil, the fingerprints all look like diesel-truck exhaust.

Jones, now a consultant was hired by the city to help bring the incinerator's dioxin emissions down. Jones has testified about dioxin before Congress and has worked with city officials in Detroit; Columbus, Ohio; and Norfolk, Va., to help correct problems at incinerators.

Like Donovan, Jones said the health risks posed by the incinerator are almost too small to measure.

But a third expert who has campaigned to close municipal incinerators across the nation said dioxin poses a threat to the entire community and urged the city to shut the facility down.

"They have been running an incinerator that they have not been very forthcoming about," said Dr. Paul Connett, professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y., who has spent 12 years researching waste and dioxin issues. "they have a terrible track record. Before they spend another $100 million of taxpayers' money, they should have to defend it."

Jones calls Connett and alarmist.

Connett calls Jones a lackey for polluters.

Tests conducted at the city's incinerator in 1996 by the EPA found dioxin levels close to 9,000 nanograms per cubic meter, according to documents obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act. The level is among the highest in the nation for municipal incinerators, according to EPA.

Dioxin is a man-made compound produced when trash, especially plastics, is burned. Tests on animals have indicated that small amounts of dioxin can adversely affect reproduction, the liver, the immune system and the growth process, according to the EPA.

EPA officials caution that though the level was high, it is probably lower now and is far lower than the 40,000 to 80,000 levels recorded in the 1980's. EPA tests from 1994 found levels had dropped to about 1,100 nanograms.

There is no federal standard for dioxin, but the EPA is expected to adopt a 30 nanograms standard this year.

EPA used the tests to obtain a consent agreement with the city in May that required the Harrisburg Authority, which operates the plant, to bring emissions down and improve management. The authority must make changes in the operation of the plant, improve operator training and have supervisors certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Some requirements already have been met.

City officials have maintained that the plant is safe and that they are working to make it safer. Dan Lispi, project manager overseeing repairs at the incinerator, said last month that there was no evidence that dioxin levels at the plant caused health problems.

"Those are certainly levels of considerable concern at the site. But what I would tell a patient is that the hazards are to the workers," said the poison center's Donovan.

But even workers at the plant face a risk that is extremely small, he said.

Based on Jones' studies of emissions over the last 25 years, the likelihood that a person would develop cancer because of dioxin from the incinerator was less than once chance in 10,000, the criteria used by EPA to determine if a pollution site qualifies for the Superfund program.

Because dioxin enters the body through the food chain, subsistence farmers were identified as the most at risk, but even those were below the EPA standard, Jones said.

The city is poised to spend nearly $100 million to replace the 25-year-old incinerator with new equipment by 2000, the year the city will have to meet the tougher EPA standard.

Since summer of 1996, the authority has spent nearly $3 million to improve the efficiency of the stokers, boilers and air scrubbers used at the plant. Those repairs should bring dioxin emissions down even more, officials said.


INCINERATION: The Burning Issue

 

The world is running out of space to store its waste. Increasingly, rather than recycling waste, industry and governments are burying or burning it. Incineration is being promoted as the answer to the excesses of modern consumer society.

Since industrialisation, the nature of our waste has changed dramatically; most products and materials contain a cocktail of chemicals that is released during incineration, with severe consequences for human health and the environment. Incineration may put the waste problem out of our sight, but it does not put it out of our minds, our lungs, our environment or our food chain. Incineration causes more problems than it professes to remedy. It is a multi- billion dollar pollutant.

Toxic Pollution

In many areas of the world, incinerators are the largest source of toxic pollutants such as lead, mercury and dioxins to the environment. In 1994, the US Environmental Protection Agency identified medical and municipal waste incinerators as the largest sources of  dioxin emissions into the environment, responsible for about 84% of the total dioxin emissions in the United States. In Japan, incinerators are estimated to cause 93% of dioxin emissions; in Switzerland, 85%; in Great Britain, 79%; and in Denmark, 70%. [1]

Scientists have identified over 200 toxic, or potentially toxic, substances from the incineration of municipal solid waste alone. It is likely many other chemicals are emitted that are, as yet, unknown to science. Chemical reactions during incineration also mean that new substances are created, many of which are more toxic than those in the original waste.

Incinerators generate cancer causing dioxins, the most harmful chemicals known to science. They also release heavy metals, furans and halogenated organic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenlys (PCBs), and a range of other dangerous pollutants. These pollutants cause a variety of health problems;  immune and reproductive system defects, spontaneous abortions, respiratory diseases, diabetes, hormone disruption and cancers.

The pollutants are released into the environment in incinerator smoke clouds and in the ash, which is then spread into the environment and can leach into groundwater, contaminating rivers and seas. It is estimated that, for every three tons of waste that is incinerated, one ton of ash is generated. Even though it can contain up to 100 times more dioxins than air emissions , the ash is usually landfilled or sometimes used by the contruction industry to make highways and cement.

Some fish caught in European Union waters are so contaminated with dioxins they have been declared unfit for human consumption. Significantly higher levels of dioxins are found in people, food and soil near incinerators, in some areas higher than levels the World Health Organisation considers safe.

Public opposition

Growing public concern has led to the closure of some incinerators and to proposals for construction of new ones being rejected.  In the United States, since 1985 over 300 proposals for waste incinerators have been defeated or put on hold. In the Philippines, protests against plans to build the world’s largest municipal waste incinerator, led to a national ban on incineration in 1999. Many state and local governments around the world, in Canada, New Zealand and Argentina, have also banned waste incineration.

Futility of controls and regulations

The incineration industry is responding by installing expensive pollution control devices, such as filters and scrubbers, in countries that can afford them.  However, such devices do not stop all emissions and the better the air pollution trapping device, the more toxic the ash becomes.  There may be high tech incinerators but there is no such thing as a non-polluting incinerator.

Attempts by government and industry to control emissions will soon be overtaken by mandatory international regulations that will mean incineration as a method of waste management will become untenable. The Stockholm Convention, agreed by over 100 countries in 2001, identified all waste incinerators, including cement kilns that burn hazardous waste, as primary sources of dioxins, PCBs and furans. Under the Treaty, governments have committed to eliminating these, and other, harmful chemicals. The Treaty emphasises the need for other methods of waste management – those which do not create dioxins.

The "green energy" myth

A publicity machine is driving the move to build more incinerators. They are being sold as “green energy” providers, biomass systems, combined heating or power systems, waste-to energy systems and any number of other forms of energy creation. Incineration produces little subsequent energy. Indeed if the energy of the materials burned is included in accounting, they have a net energy loss. Recycling saves more energy than incineration. Recycling reduces the energy input required to access, manage and exploit natural resources, as well as lowering the energy consumption of manufacturing industries. Incineration can only recover some of the energy potential of the waste; it cannot recover the energy involved in the manufacture of the products and materials in the waste stream. Reuse and recyling can.

Money to burn

Advocates of incineration suggest it is saves money. But the economics of incineration do not stand up to scrutiny. Incinerators, particularly those that have pollution control systems installed, are formidably expensive. Local authorities that invest in incinerators often find they have less money to invest in more sustainable forms of waste management, such as reuse and recycling. Incinerators rely on the continued generation of waste to support their high building and operating costs.

Incineration  usually costs 5 to 10 times more than landfilling, though does not reduce the need for landfills because the ash is deposited in them. In Hong Kong, proposals for two new incinerators will cost nearly US$1 billion just to build. When pollution control devices are used, costs further escalate. In the United Kingdom, around 30% of the capital costs of a conventional British incineration facility is attributable to the flue gas clean-up system. In the Netherlands, a 1,800 ton per day facility, which went on line near Amsterdam in 1995, cost US$600 million. US$300million, half this cost, went on air pollution control devices.

Aside form the huge capital costs, many incinerators are plagued by unexpected maintenance costs, explosions and unanticipated down-time. Incineration schemes drain money from the local economy. While the costs for running the incinerator are borne by the taxpayer, they do not generate as many jobs in local communities as waste reuse, recyling and composting schemes do. Incinerators are usually built by huge engineering firms which are seldom located within a community, so most of the economic benefits leave the community. In addition, the human costs of damaged health and the environment are impossible to measure.

The sustainable solution

Incineration is a costly, hazardous and unsustainable approach to waste management. Rather than preventing pollution, it burdens communities with higher costs, substantial pollution and causes environmental degradation.

Adopting a more sustainable approach to the waste problem is far safer and more cost effective. Waste is a potential resource that should be recovered and brought back into the economy. Recycling and composting waste is a more sustainable approach to waste management, can reduce costs and create jobs as most recycling projects remain in the local community, generating local income. Successful recycling programmes in cities in Canada, Australia and Belgium have brought about reductions in municipal waste of up to 70%.

Incineration  also relies on the continuing cycle of dirty production methods. While incineration is pursued as a solution to the waste crisis, industry will not be forced to address the need to design and manufacture products that do not contain toxic chemicals. These can be reused, composted or recyled safely and provide a sustainable solution to a global problem, in line with the progressive vision of a Zero Waste society.

Greenpeace International 

Keizersgracht 174

1016 DW Amsterdam

 The Netherlands

info@ams.greenpeace.org


[1] Dioxin and Furan Inventories: National and Regional Emissions of PCDD/PCDF; UNEP Chemicals, May 1999.


ZERO WASTE: The Way Forward

Waste disposal is a multi-billion dollar global problem. Currently, waste is either landfilled or incinerated, with severe implications for the environment and human health. Landfills are major producers of methane, and pollute water tables. Incinerators, even so-called state-of-the-art ones that have pollution control devices, produce greenhouse gases and are a source of heavy metals, particulates and cancer causing dioxins. They poison the air, soil and water.

Both systems are extremely costly and generate little local income. Collection in the U.S. alone  costs $US 4 billion annually. In Asia, $US 25 billion is spent dealing with the problem, a figure estimated to double by the next generation.

Society has been stuck with these expensive, unsafe, 'quick-fix' waste management systems that perpetuate a mindless “throw away” mentality to what is a potential resource for too long. A new paradigm is required that looks at waste not as a problem to be buried or burned but as an opportunity to recover valuable resources, create jobs, save money and reduce pollution.

What is Zero Waste?

Zero Waste is a new approach being pioneered by leading corporations, municipalities, and progressive governments. It strikes at the heart of the waste problem by tackling the way products are designed and changing the way waste is handled so that products last longer, materials are recycled, or, in the case of organics, composted.

The philosophy has arisen out of the realisation that the wastefulness of our industrial society is compromising the ability of nature to sustain our needs and the needs of future generations.  Zero Waste is a whole system approach that aims to fundamentally change the way in which materials flow through human society. The goal is an industrial system directed towards material recovery rather than material destruction.

Wasting versus recycling

Every day around the world, we burn and bury paper, metals and plastics that, if recycled, would lighten the ever growing pressure on the world’s forests, soils, and mineral resources by making more with less. Doubling the life of a car saves the 15 tonnes of materials required to make a new one. Recycling paper gives wood fibres six lives rather than one. Increasing the productivity of resources in this way also leads to major savings in energy.  Zero Waste could play a central role in cutting CO2 emissions and sequestering carbon in the soil. 

Zero Waste also provides economic dividends. Redesigning production and increasing recycling to eliminate waste is stimulating a green industrial revolution. New materials and growth industries are emerging, together with a growth in jobs. Effective programmes for waste separation, as well as systems for composting of organic waste – which accounts for at least 50% of waste in most countries – also generate local income.

Governments that embarked on policies to reduce waste in order to combat pollution and climate change, are now realising that Zero Waste is a key element in any post industrial economic strategy. In Germany recycling already employs more people than telecommunications. In the US, it has overtaken the auto industry in direct jobs. Local and national legislatures in Australia, Denmark, the USA, New Zealand and Canada are already advocating Zero Waste policies. Major corporations such as Sony, Mitsubishi, Hewlett Packard and Toyota are also supporting the principle. Some regions have reduced their waste problem by up to 70% by recycling alone.

Producer responsibility

Zero Waste is not reliant purely on recycling. The growing volume of waste is the result of wasteful production processes and excess packaging.  In order to solve the growing waste problem, steps should be taken to reduce the amount of waste produced by industries and decrease the amount thrown out by consumers.  Source reduction is the most efficient and pollution-fee approach to the waste problem.

Zero Waste is a total approach from the beginning to the end of the production process. It  incorporates the principles of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which ensure manufacturers take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products and packaging. The cost of continuing to produce and package irresponsibly currently falls on the local community through waste management taxation. If a product and its packaging cannot be reused, recycled or composted then the producer should bear the cost of collection and safe disposal.

Government policy can encourage manufacturers to eliminate materials and products that are not reusable, recyclable or compostable.  Careful segregation of remaining discarded materials is required to facilitate their recovery as resources ready for use by industry. Producer responsibility legislation is already emerging in Europe. The End of Life Vehicles Directive and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directives set high targets for reuse and recycling and exclude the use of hazardous materials.

Many household items, such as batteries, insect sprays, paper and plastic products, disposable razors and hairsprays, contain dangerous toxic chemicals that pose serious health risks and exacerbate the waste problem. Municipal solid waste that contains toxic chemicals or materials, is less likely to be recyclable and more likely to cause environmental problems in landfills and incinerators. Manufacturers must ensure they stop producing items that contain toxic chemicals.

The key to Zero Waste is prevention :  Preventing valuable resources from ever entering the disposal stream in the first place. Preventing the mounting volume of disposable products and packaging.  Preventing the continuous use of dangerous toxic substances in every-consumer items; and stopping the head-long rush to incineration.

Until we achieve Zero Waste, we may need to landfill a small portion of our waste especially in the transition years. This should only happen after the maximum amount of organics and dry recyclables have been removed. This residual waste needs to be ‘cleaned’, that is made as biologically safe as possible to avoid the chemical reactions, methane emissions and leaching of poisons into soil and groundwater which makes landfilling of mixed waste such a problem.

Implementing Zero Waste

Governments' traditional role in waste management has been to put it out of sight through burial or burning, but shrinking landfill capacities, contamination, toxic emissions and hazardous emissions from incineration show that the problem never really goes away. To address the growing problem of modern waste management, governments’ must take a more active role in tackling the waste problem in the future. They must raise demand for recycled products, levy environmental taxation on bad packaging, implement education and assistance programs and establish economic incentives for disposal reduction and development of sorting, recycling and composting projects and facilities. Enlightened governments that are already following these policies have proved it can work if the political will is present. 

Only well-implemented waste elimination, recycling and composting systems based on source separation will lead us down the path of zero waste and towards a sustainable future.

Greenpeace International

Keizersgracht 174

1016 DW Amsterdam

The Netherlands

info@ams.greenpeace.org


What's Wrong with Incineration?

The time has come to find a better way to manage our trash. The trash we generate in Harrisburg can become a resource. Trash can be converted into commodities for sale and create  more jobs.

All it takes is a plan – a plan that includes recycling, composting, and reusing the items we throw away everyday.

It will pay benefits to the economy and help preserve our environment for the future. Cleaning up our air, soil, and water is as much a community benefit as providing public safety and public education.

Studies have shown that recycling is much cheaper and creates far more jobs than incinerators. And it is environmentally friendly. We don’t have to worry what recycling is doing to our children.

As long as we have an incinerator, we will never have a serious recycling program.

It is not safe to burn trash in any kind of incinerator.

We don’t want to burn our waste in an incinerator -- even a "state-of-the-art" incinerator -- because of the by-products of incineration. If we decided to burn only what is safe, there would be almost nothing left to incinerate. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified incinerators as the greatest source of air-borne dioxins. Dioxin is the unwanted by-product of burning plastic. Incinerators are also a major pollution source of heavy metals, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB’s).

Burning trash creates dioxin, a very dangerous substance.

Dioxin is dangerous and persistent. It is one of the most poisonous chemical compounds ever studied.

It is so persistent that people who have lived around the incinerator for 30 years are still carrying around the dioxin in their bodies from the first day of its operation. The body stores dioxin in the fat in our body. Dioxin gets into the soil, water and air, and ends up in the milk we drink, the meat and fish we eat.  

When we are all dead and buried, the dioxin created in the incinerator will still be here – and a lot of other places. We don’t want to leave that legacy for our children.

Dioxins and heavy metals cause harm to people and children.

They hurt our immune systems, nervous systems, and reproductive systems and have been linked to birth defects and learning disabilities, premature puberty, miscarriages, and cancer.

They interfere with our ability to think. In a very real sense, the unwanted by products of our incinerator is destroying our intelligence, our ability to concentrate and to think — and thinking is the way we are going to solve our problems.

This is not a local issue.

This incinerator doesn’t just affect people in Harrisburg. It is a source of concern for the people of Steelton who live in the shadow of the incinerator, too. Groups from Virginia and Tennessee want to help close down our incinerator -- not because they want to interfere, but because they know that our dioxin is becoming a problem for the entire United States – and beyond.

Dioxin is one of the chemical compounds known as the “Dirty Dozen” that the international community is moving to ban. In fact, EPA Director Christine Whitman signed on to an international agreement in 2001 agreeing to work toward the elimination of all dioxin.

There is a much better option: recycling, composting, and reuse.

We know that the average American trash contains items that can be recycled:

      ·            30 percent paper (cardboard, newspaper, newsprint, office paper)

      ·            10 percent glass

      ·            10 percent metals

      ·            31 percent food and yard

                   waste,  and

      ·            6 percent plastic

                 

That’s 87 percent of the trash. Paper, glass, and metals can all be recycled. And food and yard waste can be composted, treated, and sold as compost. The recycling industry is just now discovering new ways to recycle plastic, which Massachusetts says is becoming very lucrative.

We can cut our trash in half

By composting our yard and food waste we can reduce our stream by 31 percent, and if we begin recycling all paper – not just newspaper – we can reduce our trash by another 20 percent. That’s about a 50-percent reduction.

Recycling makes more sense for Harrisburg.

Since Harrisburg produces somewhat under 100 tons of trash a day, do we really want to build an expensive incinerator capable of disposing of 820 tons a day? We could easily reduce our disposal needs to less than 50 tons a day if we recycled more.

However, as long as we have an incinerator we will never have a good recycling rogram. Recycling and incineration work at cross purposes because incinerators seek to burn as fuel the same items that we seek to recycle.

   Incinerators are very expensive and not cost effective.

The Harrisburg Incinerator has lost money for the past eight years, which is another reason we want to close down the incinerator.

Harrisburg's mayor is proposing to  borrow $92 million to fund a $67 million incinerator improvement project.  If  the city proceeds with plans to rebuild the incinerator, and borrows another $92 million, it will become even more expensive. 

Residents should not invest in a money-losing facility while living with the health risks and harms from years of exposure.

It's time to have a public discussion on the incinerator.

There are alternatives that are safer, less expensive, generate revenues, and create jobs, while dealing with our trash problem.  It is time to study them in an open forum and to make the tough choices necessary to get the city and its residents off its destructive path.


Return to the Coalition Against the Incinerator (CAI)