[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: another question
Dear Mr. Sagady,
Either all of my message was not transmitted or you have chosen to
discuss only one of the several references I cited. Some are based
on direct measurements of dioxin emissions from the burning of
landfill gas, not assumptions.
And, yes, K. Jones's argument is as you have described it.
However, the topic under discussion is dioxin formation during the
combustion of landfill gas, not Jones' comparison of waste management
options, which involved some highly selective and questionable
assumptions and conclusions. His paper was referred to in this
discussion only because it contained information about the
topic at hand -- dioxins and landfill gas. I urge you to review the
other studies cited.
> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:18:31 -0500 (EST)
> Reply-to: asagady@sojourn.com
> From: asagady@sojourn.com
> To: Multiple recipients of list <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> Subject: Re: another question
> At 10:00 PM 11/7/97 -0500, Jon Campbell wrote:
> > Hi, folks,
> >
> > Landfill gas is a source of dioxin, if burned,
> >because of the presence of vinyl chloride
> >monomer, which comes from deteriorating
> >PVC. Typical flaring is very low temperature,
> >and incomplete combustion, giving rise to
> >particulates of elemental carbon and PAH,
> >and polychlorinated phenols.
> >
> >Jon
>
> Gee Jon....there's a lot of assumptions here. But
> do you have any data? If you read carefully some
> of what Pat Costner posted, the most quantitative
> information there was based on assumptions and
> not actual test data. I know because I found the
> same hit that Pat did and read the parts that weren't
> posted in Pat's message. The author of that material
> was also making the argument that recycling MSW
> causes worse contamination problems than waste
> incineration. I don't believe that and I don't think
> Greenpeace would either.
>
> But here are the assumptions you are making....
>
> The proposition that PVC degrades to vinyl chloride in landfills
> in the absence of both heat and UV and that this
> would be the principle source of the chlorinated
> content of landfill gas.... I really find that
> hard to accept as being significant at all as
> a source. But if you have research showing
> that is the case rather than shear supposition,
> please tell us where it can be found.
>
> If chlorinated compounds are
> present in landfill gas I find it much more likely
> that the sources will be PCB materials disposed
> in landfills that evaporate, chlorinated solvents
> contained in consumer products (i.e. freon,
> methylene chloride, paint related solvents, etc.),
> small quantity industrial waste disposal or
> older surrepticious industrial waste solvent
> disposal.
>
> Finally, there are a whole range of combustion
> devices that are used to deal with landfill gas. There
> are the old style torches, there are dedicated
> gas combustors with burners, there are internal
> combustion engines use for electricity generation.
>
> If you are quite certain that all three catagories of
> these combustion devices are significant sources
> of PCDD/PCDF emissions, please tell us the
> source of your information and the amount of
> PCDD/PCDF generated, and why anyone would
> want to be concerned on a priority basis about
> landfill combustors as a source as opposed to
> all of the other clearly characterized sources
> of PCDD/PCDF out there?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Alex J. Sagady & Associates Email: asagady@sojourn.com
> Environmental Consulting and Database Systems
> PO Box 39 East Lansing, MI 48826-0039
> (517) 332-6971 (voice); (517) 332-8987 (fax)
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pat Costner
P.O. Box 548, or 512 CR 2663
Eureka Springs, Arkansas 72632 USA
ph: 501-253-8440
fx: 501-253-5540
em: pat.costner@dialb.greenpeace.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~