destruction of dioxins

[Ralph Ryder <Ralph@tcpub.demon.co.uk>]

In article <3.0.6.32.19990614153840.00854980@essential.org>, Neil Tangri
<ntangri@essential.org> writes
>To our friends in Europe:
>
>I have read in a number of reports that the contaminated foods are being
>"destroyed." This latest article clearly states that they will be
>incinerated. My understanding is that incineration will not destroy dioxin,
>but rather disperse it! This reminds me of the Dutch incinerator which so
>polluted nearby dairy farms that the milk from those cows had to be
>destroyed; so it was incinerated at a hazardous waste incinerator located
>next to the municipal waste incinerator, further contaminating the cows!
>It's not exactly what we mean by recycling....
>
>On a serious note, someone should alert the health authorities that
>incineration is not an acceptable means of dealing with dioxin-contaminated
>foods. I don' t know a better method, but perhaps others on the list can
>suggest one.
>
>

Dear Neil
According to the experts, industrial ones of course, high temperature
incineration is the best method to get rid of dioxins. But can we be
sure that the incinerator chosen is working properly when they handle
the dioxins? My reason for asking is as follows: 

In the early '90s the Coalite Chemical plant in Derbyshire had it's in-
house incinerator closed down due to the fact it showered the local
community with dioxin.  This contamination caused the milk of 27 farms
to exceed the recommended level of the British government. In order to
avoid a national scare/disaster, the government lifted their acceptable
level by a factor of 10, bringing it into line with the WHO. This
wonderful piece of magic, (which might even be the object of the 'Masked
Magician's next  show,) took the total of toxic milk down to two farms.
The other 25, whose milk the day before had been considered a deadly
poison, continued business as usual. 
Have you noticed how the manipulation of figures and statistics has
played such an important role in industrial science and industry
sponsored research into dioxin? (Just a passing thought) 

The milk from the two remaining farms, being classed as toxic waste,
(the meat from another was contaminated and also withdrawn from market)
was sent to the Cleanway Incinerator in Ellesmere Port, (where, for my
sins I happen to live). 
This 'state of the art' facility, so praised in the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution 17th Report (May 1993) is otherwise known as
'Jimmie Hendricks Experience' given that on at least three occasions
they have turned the sky above the town of 70-80,000 residents purple
after putting iodine into the kiln. (this is beside having 7 chemicals
releases in one month alone.) 

I received a phone call from one of the workers at Coalite expressing
his concern that the dioxin contaminated residues stored on site since
the closure of the incinerator were being disposed of in such a densely
populated area. "We are scared to walk passed the tank knowing how toxic
the stuff is" he told me. 
When I question Henry Pullen one of the bigwigs at Cleanaway about the
heavily dioxin contaminated waste being burned at the site he replied
"This waste is no different than any other."  

There's nowt so blind...

The following is taken from ToxCat Vol. 2. No. 11. and might give the
people some food for thought. 



INCINERATORS REMAIN A NET DIOXIN SOURCE

Modern burners produce about 15 times as much dioxin as that in the
incoming waste.

The UK incineration lobby, with Professor ‘Pyro’ Porteous leading the
way and supported by Gev Edulgee of ERM, have been claiming that MSW
incinerators are dioxin sinks. 
        This was never really a sustainable argument and even the Energy
Technology Support Unit (ETSU) decided that they should distance
themselves from it. A number of people were slightly surprised by the
findings of the study that UK MSW contains 3-13ng/TEQ dioxin (above
‘background’ soil contamination levels) whilst incinerator bottom ash is
claimed to contain 7.5 - 28 ng/kg.
        When Alan Watson,(FoE) Maddie Cobbing (Greenpeace) Ralph Ryder
(CATs) and Robert Allan (An Talamh Glas) visited SELCHP (a ‘state of the
art’ UK incinerator) the management refused to provide them with a
bottom ash sample and seemed very touchy about providing any data.
        Incinerators remain net dioxin sources, says ETSU. The new
generation of municipal waste incinerators produce 15 times as much
dioxin as they destroy, according to the Energy Technology Support Unit
(ETSU). The finding contradicts claims by the Energy from Waste
Association (EWA) that modern plants act as dioxin sinks.
        Dioxin releases to air from municipal incinerators have fallen
considerably as a result of new emission limits introduced at the end of
1996. As a result, the EWA has claimed, modern, well-managed plants now
“act as net destroyers of dioxin. “
        The Associations claim is based on dioxin balances published by
the International Ash Working Group (IAWG) which suggested that a modern
German incinerator destroys more than 78% of the dioxins present in the
incoming waste.
        However, dioxin measurements in household waste and incinerator
residues, carried out for the Environment Agency by AEA Technology,
paint a different picture.’ In the autumn issue of the Warmer Bulletin,
Stephen Burnley, a senior consultant with ETSU, (part of AEA,) uses
these data to calculate dioxin balances for a modern UK incinerator
fitted with a semi-dry scrubber and bag filter.
        According to his best estimate, a modern incinerator produces
about 15 times as much dioxin as that in the incoming wastes (see
table). Using pessimistic assumptions, the overall dioxin loading could
be increased 170-fold. And even on optimistic assumptions, the
incinerator remains a net dioxin source.
        The main reason that Dr. Burnley came to a different conclusion
from IAWG is that dioxin levels in UK household wastes were found to be
relatively low - possibly reflecting a reduction in environmental levels
of dioxins. 
        Earlier overseas reports put dioxins levels in whole waste at
10-250ngTEQ/kg.Waste from Woking, Glasgow and Colwyn Bay generally
showed fairly consistent dioxin concentrations of 313ngTEQ/kg, although
Dr. Burnley used the full data spread of 0.5-21ngTEQ/kg. Only small
differences between the waste fractions were found, apart from fines in
the Colwyn Bay area, which contained around 70ngTEQ/kg.
        According to ETSU, most of the dioxins end up in residues from
the air pollution control system, typically at 8101,821 ngTEQ/kg.
Dioxins are also present in bottom ash at levels of 7.5-28ng/kg. A plant
taking in 100,000 tonnes of waste annually will produce 3,800 and 29,600
tonnes of these residues, respectively, most of which are sent to
landfill.

        Dioxin balance for a 100,000 ton per year  incinerator, gTEQ/y

                       Optimistic    Pessimistic     Neutral

Input waste             2.1            0.05              0.41
Output:
Bottom ash             0.22         0.83                0.62
Air pollution 
control residues       3.1            6.9                  5.2
Flue gas               0.025         0.61               0.25
Total output            3.35          8.34               6.07
Net dioxins             1.25          8.2                 5.66


A preliminary assessment of trace organic compounds in household waste,
CWM 133/95, from Waste Management Information Bureau, AEA Technology, F6
Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OXI4 3DB.

Source:ENDS Report 273 October 1997 


I hope this is of some use.


wishing you good health


Ralph


**************************************************************** 
Ralph Ryder
Communities Against Toxics
PO Box 29
Ellesmere Port
Cheshire UK
CH66 3TX
Email ralph@tcpub.demon.co.uk
Tel/Fax 0151 339 5473
****************************************************************