Columbus Waste-to-Energy Facility

[John Thomas <jnthomas@infinet.com>]

Priorities '95
A Project of the Columbus Department of Health

Draft Recommendations for Environmental Improvements
September 7, 1995

Solid Waste Reduction Facility / Dioxin
Page 82-84

[This is the full text of the recommendations made by the Columbus 
Department of Health based on its Priorities '95 project.  As you all 
know the Columbus Waste-to-Energy facilty has been showned to be one of 
the nations largest dioxin sources.  The recommendations made by 
Priorities '95 seem to be out of line with the magnitude of this 
facility.  In fact, these recommendations are merely a guide for what 
steps the city should take to re-open the facility, not what should been 
done to protect human health.  The facility is now closed.  The greatest 
protection to human health would be to keep the facility closed.  But 
this is not the goal of the city of Columbus.  Therefore the 
recommendations.]

RECOMMENDATION:
The Waste-to-Energy Facility (WTEF), if reopened, must have 
state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment.

The dioxin, SO2 and other emissions from the recently constructed 
waste-to-energy facilities in the country are well below the limits 
established and, in some cases, those under consideration by the US EPA.  
Installation of state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment on the 
Columbus WTEF should reduce the emissions drastically.

RECOMMENDATION:
The WTEF must become a good neighbor of the community.

The architectual facade and ecternal aesthetics of the facility should be 
improved.  Peopl want to live near facilities which are beautiful and 
aesthetically pleasing.  Therefore, improvements to the architectual 
facade of the facility and creation of beautiful gardens around the 
facility would make the facility more acceptable to the community since 
these would be considered "environmental improvements."

Surrounding plant landscaping should be improved.  This is one more way 
in which the facility can become a good neighbor and create goodwill 
among visitors.  If the facility is to exist, it will need strong support 
from visitors too; especially from those who visit for a tour of the 
facility, such as school children and civic groups.  Improved landscaping 
would make the visit a pleasant experience.

The facility interior must be clean and spotless as is the case with many 
well-operated facilities in the country.  Most of the waste-to-energy 
facilities in the country which are well-accepted by the public have 
clean interiors.  To the public and those who work at the facility, as 
well as visitors, a clean facility signifies a healthy facility.

Staff should be well-dressed and courteous to the customers, visitors and 
the community.  This is simply a measure to boost the morale of the staff 
and to improve community relations.  It also makes the visit to the 
facility a pleasant experience and generates goodwill in the community.

RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a well-planned, well-funded and vigorous public education program.

The goal of such a program is to educate the public about the 
desirability of an environmentally well-equipped waste-to-energy 
facility.  The public must be made aware of (1) the greater risks of 
death in many areas of life other than the WTEF, and (2) the fact that 
toxicity is dose-dependent.  The risks of solid waste disposal by illegal 
dumping in the absence of well-regulated disposal facilities should also 
be made known.  It is necessary that the public education program be 
entrusted to persons with skills in communicating complex scientific 
issues to the public in simple, easy-to-understand terms.

Citizens and environmental groups must be involved from the very 
beginning.  If and when it is decided to consider reopening the plant, 
citizen and environmental groups must be involved in the decision-making 
process from the very beginning.  There is no substitute for a 
well-informed public.

The public school system should also be involved.  Since the basic 
problem is with public perception and education, the education process is 
best conducted by educating school children in the correct scientific 
facts.  The pros and cons of the solid waste facility/dioxin issue should 
be explained to children on a scietific basis.  Children, in turn, will 
educate their parents and others.


With Respect, in Gentleness and Peace.


John Thomas
http://www.infinet.com/~jnthomas/computer_revolution