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
|