[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Hamilton's SWARU incinerator to burn at full capacity!
Hi folks,
More bad news on increasing dioxin levels in Hamilton, Ontario. Anyone
wanting more detailed information on the SWARU incinerator, please feel
free to contact me.
Cheers,
Lynda Lukasik
Hamilton, Ontario
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth to Burn More Garbage at SWARU
The RMHW recently passed a motion to increase the burn at the SWARU
incinerator from 143,000 to a full capacity burn of 200,000 tonnes per
year. The decision was made based solely on financial reasons, with the
region realizing an annual savings of $445,000 per year as a result of the
tonnage increase. Savings accrue as a result of the contract the region
holds with Canadian Waste, a subsidiary of Wheelebrator. At a higher
tonnage, the region is charged less per tonne for the company to burn its
waste. Additional waste to the facility will be from commercial
and industrial sources, as the facility is already handling all sources of
municipal curbside waste.
The decision to increase the burn at SWARU involved a blatant disregard for
a recommendation put forward by a community liaison committee mere months
earlier. This committee of citizens and politicians recommended that the
facility burn only 5 days worth of tonnage over 7 days - a decision aimed
at keeping emissions from the aging 27 year old facility at a minimum. At
that time, the recommendation was accepted by regional council.
The approval of an increased burn means an increase in toxic emissions from
the SWARU facility. For instance, the facility presently emits 4.0 gms TEQ
dioxins/furans each year. At a full capacity burn, the facility will emit
an estimated 6.21 gms TEQ dioxins/furans per year, an increase of over 50%.
Of the 5 municipal incinerators in Ontario, SWARU is already the worst
actor, contributing over 91% of the dioxins and furans from this source.
While the region argues that even with these increases, no provincial air
regulations are being violated and that there will be minimal threats to
the environment and human health, agencies at the federal and international
level are moving in the opposite direction by pushing to reduce significant
point sources of dioxins/furans. The Canada Council of Ministers of the
Enviornment (CMME), recognizing the carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting
characteristic of dioxins/furans, not to mention the fact that this class
of chemicals is persistent and bioaccumulative, are working to establish a
Canada-wide standard for dioxins/furans. The World Health Organization
recently re-evaluated the health risks posed by this class of chemicals and
concluded that 'subtle effects may already occur in the general population
in developed countries at current background levels'. WHO recommends that
'every effort should be made to reduce exposure to the lowest possible
level'.
The facility is also a significant point source emitter of
hexachlorobenzene, contributing over 97% of the HCB emitted by Ontario
incinerators (1462 grams per year). The move to a full capacity burn will
also increase emissions of particulate matter, heavy metals such as lead,
mercury, cadmium and chromium, and other air pollutants such as sulphur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide.
The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth was selected as the first
Agenda 21 community, and has come to call itself the 'sustainable region'.
Surely the sustainable region can come up with more progressive,
environmentally sound methods for managing its waste. The SWARU facility
is an old, inefficient incinerator which is already impacting on the
environment. A full capacity operation will only magnify thes impacts.
The impacts of this move have implications far beyond Hamilton, Ontario.
If you are concerned about the decision made by Hamilton Regional Council,
please consider sending an email with your views to the chair of the
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Mr. Terry Cooke. He can be
reached via email at chairmancooke@hamilton-went.on.ca .
Lynda Lukasik
Hamilton, Ontario
llukasik@worldchat.com
----------
> From: Tony Tweedale <ttweed@wildrockies.org>
> To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> Subject: help: PCDD/F non-detect may equal a WQS violation
> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 2:14 PM
>
> Does anyone know any other responses to that old industry complaint, that
> the standard is lower than current analytical detection abilities,
possibly
> resulting in a violation when there is none present? Specifically, MT
has
> proposed changing its 2,3,7,8-TCDD ambient water quality standard to a
TEq
> basis (leaving the concentration not to be exceeded unchanged).
> Smurfit-Stone Container Corp and NCASI have submitted comments that
include
> the above complaint. I don't know the dl's for EPA's ambient water
PCDD/F
> method, but it seems possible that the common procedure for
> non-detects--assume it to be present at a concentration that is the
median
> between zero and the d.l. for the congener-- could result in a violation
of
> the standard even when many of the congeners are not detected (and even
tho
> the MT legislature weakened their WQS for carcinogens, incl. dioxins, by
> 10-fold a few years ago).
>
> I know the "it's a health based standard, so the d.l's are irrelvant"
> argument, but that is weak against such a concrete scenario. Does the
> analytical compliance method specify that nd's be treated as zero, or as
> half the PQL or dl, or some other way?
>
> They are also arguing that since different congeners have different
> degradation and (especially) accumulation factors, compliance analysis
> based on all congeners (weighted by TEq's), rather than compliance
measured
> on 2,3,8,8-TCDD alone, is bad science, therefore a bad regulation. Any
> insights on this broad argument? Also, is the EPA dioxin WQS for
> 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone, or does EPA have ambient water limits for PCDD/F?
>
> Enviros have already commented that a TEq based standad is appropriate as
> it can reflect advances in toxicity knowledge of the different congeners
> (such as the recent WHO 1.0(!) TEF for one of the penta
2,3,7,8-substituted
> congeners. Just because the expopsure (env fate & uptake) parts of the
> risk equation are less characterized than the health effects portion,
that
> doesn't mean having WQS for other congeners is inappropriate!
>
> Tony Tweedale, Montana-CHEER
> (Coalition for Health, Environmental & Economic Rights)
> 224 E. Pine (2)
> Missoula, MT 59802-4541
> 406-542-1709 tel. [& Fax--must call me 1st)]
> ttweed@wildrockies.org
>
> Causality is a concept not subject to empirical demonstration.
> -David Hume (1711-'76)
> Temperate but endangered planet. Enjoys weather, northern lights,
> continental drift. Seeks caring relationship with intelligent life form.
> -Friends of the Earth
>