Home
 

Waste-to-energy incinerators sue over regulation

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@greenfutures.org

 

 

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. Fall 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 top