Waste Incinerators and Landfills - Research Proposal Example

Running Head: WASTE INCINERATORS AND LANDFILLS Waste Incinerators and Landfills [The [The of the Institution] Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Introduction Problem Statement & Research Objective The literature has reported that the debate over the use of waste incinerators in favor of landfill continues. Incinerators result in toxic air emissions and toxic ash. It is estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that 80% of the dioxin found in the United States is due to municipal and medical waste incinerator air emissions. In addition, mercury, lead, cadmium, and other metals are emitted from the incinerator in a vapor form and from the incinerator stacks. Some of the toxic emissions are removed from the air but are found in the ash. Incinerator ash landfills, called monofills, are considered more toxic and dangerous than the raw trash landfills. These ash landfills must be monitored continuously since the toxins in them are not biodegradable and they never become non-toxic. Due to these concerns and the Clean Air Act, many incinerators have been shut down (Toxic Alert, 2002). Detroit began the building of the Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Incinerator in 1986. It is the largest incinerator of any municipality found in the U.S. It is legally allowed to release over 25 tons of hazardous air pollutants and over 1,800 tons of additional pollutants yearly, to include lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter. Detroit inhabitants are reported to have higher incidence of health concerns compared to other areas. Detroit children (40%) located near the city center and the area containing the incinerator, have elevated blood lead levels. Detroit has among the highest asthma rates in the countries which is three times that of the national average. The city has the third largest asthma-related death incidence. The city will spend million to burn and landfill 600,000 tons of trash. It is reported that the use of landfill disposal as an alternative would save the city million per year; the addition of a recycling program would result in savings of million per year. It is also reported that access to public documents regarding incinerator operation is difficult (Ecology Center, 2002). Thus the Detroit incinerator releases toxic metals, acid gasses, hazardous chemical compounds such as mercury and dioxins. It contributes to 20% of the nation's mercury emissions and is the main source of dioxin and other toxins. Mercury results in brain damage, birth defects, and neurological damage in infants. Dioxins cause cancer, hormone disruptions, and are associated with endometriosis, diabetes, asthma, and low sperm counts. Detroit citizens are paying five times more for this incinerator than communities who utilize recycling and landfills (Ecology Center, 2002). Since others have determined that landfills and recycling may offer safer methods of disposing of waste, compared to incinerators, it appears that further study of these variables is warranted. In addition, Strzelecki (2001) reported that new technologies have resulted in 99.9% efficiency with regard to incineration, which implies that this factor must also be considered. Although the majority of scientific evidence suggests that atmospheric emissions from WTE are not severe when compared to other commonly accepted health and environmental risks, some environmental groups warn that WTE can pose problems if technology is not used properly. Studies have shown, for example, that furan and dioxin production can increase when incineration temperatures are not maintained at design specifications. Concern was also raised during the 1980s that some U.S. WTE operators may not be trained properly to monitor and minimize emission levels. Others warn that WTE is not appropriate for the entire municipal waste stream. Incineration remained ill-suited to manage the municipal waste stream in its entirety as far as the targeted removal of critical items were concerned as it could increase the safety and utility of incineration for the remainder of the waste stream (Brown, 2003). Removal of products that contain heavy metals, such as batteries, is particularly important. The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research study will be to explore the EPA database regarding toxins reported by different industries, to determine if landfills report fewer toxins than upgraded incinerators. Research Question & Hypothesis The research question is as follows: What are the dioxin and mercury toxin levels reported for industries utilizing toxic waste incinerators' and What are the dioxin and mercury toxin levels reported for industries utilizing landfills' The hypotheses for this study are as follows: Hypothesis 1: The dioxin levels reported for industries utilizing toxic waste incinerators will be higher than those reported for industries utilizing landfills. Hypothesis 2: The mercury levels reported for industries utilizing toxic waste incinerators will be higher than those reported for industries utilizing landfills. Significance of the Study An understanding of the different levels of dioxin and mercury toxins released by incinerators compared to the levels released by landfills will assist officials in determining which method is most efficacious. CHAPTER2 Literature Review This review of the literature concerning the topic of hidden health risks associated with waste incinerators, compared to land fills, will address the following areas relevant to the study: history of toxic waste concern; methods of eliminating toxic waste; and dioxin and mercury effects. About 47 percent of incinerator ash is currently sent to sanitary landfills along with other municipal waste, and the remaining 53 percent is sent to specially designed monofills that only accept ash (Jones, 2004). Also at issue is whether incinerator ash should be classified as a hazardous waste and be landfilled at sites with even more stringent standards and designs--and, of course, much higher disposal costs than conventional municipal landfills. Controversy also exists about using ash as a resource in the production of various products. Ash has been mentioned and/or used as a resource in, for example, the production of roadbase materials, asphalt, covers for landfills, offshore reefs, erosion control, and concrete-like blocks. In fact, several European countries have used ash as a resource for many years. While the technical obstacles to using ash in these and other products are being overcome, some environmentalists argue that these uses are unacceptable. In particular, they assert that once ash is out of a controlled environment the heavy metals and other contaminants may eventually be found in unacceptable uses and locations. From their perspective, ash disposal is less environmentally threatening than the use of ash as a resource. History of Toxic Waste Concern Solid waste disposal during the first half of the 20th century was unorganized. However, following World War II, the population grew as did its waste product. Landfill space became more sparse and posed a threat to public health for nearby communities. The 1960s brought attention to the United State's solid waste crisis. Until this point solid waste management consisted of practices that were defined by each town; the early 1970's brought federal government involvement. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created and designed to monitor and shape environmental practices which included the management of solid waste. A standardized approach was sought and it was resolved that incineration was more advantageous than recycling or land filling. In 1965 the Solid Waste Act was passed. Congressional hearings in the 70s regarding solid waste management led to the Resource Recovery Act in 1970; this was the first time that alternatives were openly discussed and debated at a national level. In the 1970s the pro-incinerator lobby was organized by the National Center for Resource Recovery. While incinerators were favored for awhile, the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) movements led to the resurgence of recycling and the halting of incineration facility development by the late 1980s. As the debate continued, a consensus on practices of incineration and land-filling was identified. While recycling tends to be the most frequently discussed solution, it is concluded that the two most efficient methods of disposing accumulated waste are sanitary landfill and incineration (Lounsbury, Geraci, & Waismel-Manor, 2002). The EPA administrator, Carol Browner, implemented new dioxin or particulate standards in 1993. Her intent was to incorporate these standards into the incinerator regulations. It was suggested that systems such as the Environetics Dry Scrubber System, would be used to retrofit kilns or incinerators to meet these new standards. Since this EPA announcement cement kiln operators began defending their methods and records of disposing hazardous wastes. These operators state that they refine combustion techniques by fuel blending or substituting fossil fuels, to control for pollution. There are numerous other federal and state initiatives that may have a significant impact on the future viability of WTE. Those initiatives may make minor changes in the "playing field" in terms of WTE's competitiveness with other management options, or changes may be more severe. For example, the U.S. EPA included a provision in the draft New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for municipal waste incinerators that would have required WTE facilities to separate at least 25 percent of all incoming waste for recycling. Although generally supported by environmentalists as an essential "shot-in-the-arm" (Travis, 2002) for the fledgling recycling industry, the WTE industry was not in favor of the requirements. About 80 percent of existing WTE facilities recover ferrous metals and 25 percent collect aluminum. In addition, about 80 percent of all planned facilities are located in communities that have active recycling programs (Hilgendorff, 2002). Opponents to the 25 percent rule argued that recycling was already taking place, the 25 percent rule was an arbitrary number, and the rule would place an undue financial burden on many existing and planned facilities. In the past, the key decision-making issue for county officials and staff was developing SWM capacity that would reduce reliance on landfills, provide environmentally sound waste disposal, be reliable (i.e., was proven to be reliable at other sites in the United States), recover resources, and be economically acceptable. The county staff and most officials believed that WTE with a front-end separation process was the technology that could meet these parameters. Initially, key decision-making issues important to the public specifically focused on WTE incinerators rather than on SWM generally. The first issue to which the public reacted was the possibility for residents' health to be affected adversely by incinerator emissions.(Brickner, 2001) Following closely was the financial impact of the project on county residents. However, once opponents began to offer alternatives to incineration, the public framed issues in terms of broad SWM concerns. In particular, citizens wanted SWM activities to have minimal effects on the health of county residents and sought to keep solid waste disposal costs reasonable. The 125 additional acres of potential landfill space fostered a belief among some that any decision to proceed with incineration could be delayed. Efforts continued to control pollution and a lawsuit filed by Greenpeace led to the judge blocking all waste incineration at Vertac Superfund in Jacksonville, Arkansas. The contractors could not meet the required level of dioxin destruction. This ruling prevented the incineration of 22,000 bbl of wastes which remained at the former Agent Orange site. Commercial hazardous waste companies fell into a business slump. Debates over laws continued. It remained unclear what the definition of solid and hazardous wastes were. Requirements continued to change as concerns regarding health effects of dioxins grew. In 1994 the EPA released its dioxin study which confirmed the hazardous effects of this compound (Rotman, & Begley, 1994). Methods of Eliminating Toxic Waste Manns (1995) reports that the majority of medical waste is disposed of by incinerators, in the U.S. and around the world. On-site hospital incinerators are common in the U.S. and the UK. In the U. S. there are around 6.000 medical waste incinerators and 5,000 are on-site hospital incinerators. These incinerators are estimated to burn 2.2 million metric tons of medical waste, or 80% of the total hospital waste. It is estimated that 30% of this is plastics. These hospital incinerators are faced with increased air quality standards since the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the UK Environmental Protection Act of 1990. Benefits of incineration include the destruction and sterilization of waste, the reduction of waste, elimination of needs to preprocess waste before incineration, and ability to dispose of incinerator ash in landfills. Costs include pollution risks due to gaseous and particulate emissions and the incinerator ash, and financial costs related to meeting stricter standards. The age of the equipment is a problem faced by most hospitals since they tended to be installed during the 1970s. This equipment tends to lack pollution control devises and they have low stack heights which results in emissions remaining close to the ground. The original equipment was also designed to burn pathological waste such as body fluids and tissue, and they are now being used to burn plastics and metals which they inadequately incinerate. The Air Resources Board required that all medical waste incinerators install new pollution control equipment as of 1991; many of the incinerators have closed down since this time. Alternatively, Kim and Campbell (1997) report that hazardous-waste incineration has been erroneously believed to be the largest cause of pollution. Recycling programs often use tanks which are the number one emission problem. They also state that incinerators produce the lowest number of carcinogens. These authors provided a table estimating organic emissions from different types of waste systems: Table 1 U.S. Organic Emissions Tanks 1,240 Surface impoundments 284 Containers 85 Land-treatment units 73 Landfills 40 TSDF equipment leaks 26 Treatment-unit process vents 8 Waste-fixation equipment 2 Hazardous-waste incinerators 1 Total 1,760 (Emission Source Type estimated volume (1,000 Mg/yr) Doersam and Gregory (1997) report on Texas Disposal Systems Landfill Inc. (TDSL) which is a disposal company which serves Austin, San Antonio and other counties. TDSL is expanding and diverting more and more materials away from landfill into end products that are beneficial. This facility is permitted as a Type I municipal solid waste landfill; it has authorization for recycling and composting. The landfill receives 1,400 tones of solid waste each day. Marketing produces are ground mulch, composted mulch, organic topsoil and compost; pathogens are destroyed as the mixture is composted for extended periods. The National Recycling Coalition (2002) reports that the EPA stated the greatest benefit of recycling is the conservation of resources and energy and prevention of pollution when an old product is recycled into a new product. Reprocessing or manufacturing a second time is cleaner and less costly regarding energy and materials. Pollution is eliminated with regard to material extraction and processing. Results of mineral extraction and processing are air, land, and water pollution with toxins such as sulfur dioxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, and methane. These pollutants are eliminated by recycling. The extents of health hazards resulting from incineration are unknown. Toxins such as dioxins, heavy metals, and others remain persistent and cumulative over time, increasing levels of toxicity in the environment. Neil J. Carman, Clean Air Program Director stated that as a former government air pollution inspector for industrial and municipal facilities: I observed numerous operational problems and deficiencies with incineration equipment, including state-of-the-art incinerators. Problems occurred day and night . . . mechanical and operational problems which were often linked to human error . . . normal daily operations will tend to become complacent and sloppy . . . as an incinerator ages malfunctions tend to become part of the normal routine of daily operation . . . the public who live downwind . . . will inevitable suffer over time as I observed from the fallout of particulate matter, unburned hazardous chemicals, a rain of acid gases including hydrochloric acid, and dangerous heavy metals (Carman, 1995). Thornton, McCally, Orris, and Weinberg (1996) reported that medical waste incineration is a major contributor to dioxins in the environment and the largest source in the U. S. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic is the main source of organically bound chlorine found in the medical waste and it is the main cause of jatrogenic dioxin that is a produce of the incineration of medical wastes. In 1994, the EPA released its assessment of dioxin which summarized the sources, occurrence, and toxicity of the dioxin compounds. Dioxin is considered very potent and toxic producing multiple adverse effects in experimental studies with animals, fish, and wildlife. Even low levels of exposure produce adverse effects. Effects of particular concern include those relative to reproduction, development, and immune function. Dioxin presents a global health risk. NaQuin (1999) report that the EPA estimates that up to 80%a of the nations 2,400 medical waste incineration units will be closed due to its med-waste incineration rule. Building of the Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Incinerator began in 1986. In 1990 the Michigan air pollution control commission denied the permit to operate the incinerator due to violations of the mercury air permit limits, even though limits for dioxins and furans were met; the incinerator was ordered to be shut down. Methods to cut down on the mercury pollution included removing 30% of the wastes from a landfill to Sumpter Township's landfill, a monofill for ash that is lined with plastic and clay liners and have a leachate collection system. Strzelecki (2001) reported that plant engineers of a major chemical plant replaced an existing air pollution control system with technologies that utilized quenching, scrubbing, and wet electrostatic precipitation for gas cooling, acid gas absorption, and submicron particulate. An evaluation of these changes revealed that it resulted in 99.9% efficiency with regard to all regulated pollutants at a lower pressure drop and it required minimal maintenance. Dioxin and Mercury Effects The EPA states that 95% of dioxins in the US come from incineration of waste. Thornton, McCally, Orris, and Weinberg (1996) further reported health effects of dioxin. Biochemical experiments have demonstrated that these compounds act as hormones for the environment, crossing cell membranes and binding to receptor protein in the cytoplasm, the Ah receptor. This Ah receptor complex is transported to the nucleus and binds specific DNA sequences, activating gene transcription with many biological functions. Very small doses produce false signals with powerful effects on endocrine mechanism processes such as proliferation and differentiation of cells and reproduction, development, metabolism, and immune functions. Dioxin causes cancer in humans. Dioxin has accumulated in the food chain and contaminated the food supply, therefore every human being is exposed to dioxin from conception to death, and even low doses are not safe. Due to this exposure a part of the human population currently experiences health risks; it is presumed that universal exposure has resulted in large-scale impacts on health. For example cancer incidence has increased internationally for several decades, sperm counts have fallen, and male reproductive tract abnormalities have increased, and these changes may be due to dioxin exposure. Stadler and Murray (2001) reported on mercury exposure. The U.S. population with emphasis on pregnant women and children, are at risk of mercury exposure. Mercury is a heavy metal that is toxic and results in harm to the kidneys, liver, and reproductive and nervous systems. In January, 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to limit their consumption of certain marine fish contaminated with mercury. This was followed by an analysis of mercury concentrations in the blood and hair of children and women in the U.S., by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This study found that 10% of the women had mercury levels above safe levels. Mercury cannot be destroyed and it is bioaccumulative. It affects the nervous system resulting in anorexia, lethargy, trembling, motor-control problems, and visual impairment. Low level chronic exposure has been shown to result in decreased memory attention and language skills in children. CHAPTER 3 Methodology This chapter will present the methodology that will be used to conduct this study. Research design, subjects, instruments, procedures, data collection, and limitations will be discussed. Research Design Archival research is the collection and reviewing of information which already exists in government research documents and other sources. The purpose of this review is to answer a research question or test a hypothesis. This research design will be used to determine differences in mercury and dioxin pollutant levels, resulting from incinerator and landfill techniques for eliminating hazardous waste. Sample Human subjects will not be used for this study. The sample to be studied will include one upgraded incinerator industry and one landfill industry. The industries will be chosen according to availability of information and matched for amounts and types of waste material processed. Self-reports from industries are filed by the EPA, regarding pollutants resulting from the industry operation. This information is a matter of public record and is available online. The data will be examined and statistically analyzed by the investigator. Instruments Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is an EPA database that tabulates the release of toxic chemicals to the environment. The TRI was developed as a response to the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (1986). This database is operated at EPA headquarters and it is designed for public access. The information contained is generated annually from industries which are classified according to their operations; if the industry manufactures or processes over 25,000 pounds of a listed chemical per year or has used over 10,000 pounds and employees over 10 individuals, it must report annually regarding releases of toxic chemicals into the air, water, or land. Quantities treated, combusted, or recycled on-site or transferred must be reported. Designated chemicals number 650. In 1996 the total number of reports submitted annually was approximately 73,000, from 21,000 manufacturing facilities and 200 Federal facilities (EPA, 2002). Procedures Following approval from the faculty monitor regarding this research study, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) database, will be consulted to analyze toxic waste data pertaining to mercury and dioxin for the selected landfill and incinerator industries. Data Analysis ANOVA will be used to test for differences between the means related to the dependent variables, levels of dioxin and mercury, for an incinerator and landfill industry. One-way or one factor ANOVA extends the t-test to include three or more samples when testing for the means. Assumptions are the same as for the t-test for independent samples; underlying populations are assumed to be distributed normally with equal variances. Sample sizes need to be equal and fairly large, greater than 10 to insure equal variance. It is also assumed that the scores are independent. Limitations The scope of this study includes the use of the TRI maintained by the EPA. Since this study utilized a self-report database, findings may be limited. References Brickner Robert H., 2001. "Combustion Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste." In Energy from Solid Waste: An Option for Local Government. Kentucky Energy Cabinet, Louisville, Kentucky, pp. 11-25. Brown M. D., and K. Jarvie, 2003. "The Future of Waste-to-Energy." Solid Waste & Power, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 12-22. Carman, N. J. (1995). A letter by the Clean Air Program Director. Austin, Texas. Doersam, J., & Gregory, B. (1997). Composting is alive and well in Central Texas. BioCycle, 38(10), 34-36. Ecology Center. (2002). Ecology Center News. Found online at: www.ecologycenter.org Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Found online at: www.epa.org Hilgendorff Christine C., 2002. "Emerging Trends in Solid Waste Finance." Solid Waste & Power, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 12-17. http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/research/ford/confer/opne/chapt14.htm Jones Kay H., and James Walsh. 2004. "On the Regulation of Municipal Solid Waste Resource Recovery Incinerators." Risk Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 379-382. Kim, I., & Campbell, C. E. (1997). Incineration: Tested & true. Chemical Engineering, 142-4. Lounsbury, M., Geraci, H., & Waismel-Manor, R. (2002). Policy discourse, logic and practice standards: Centralizing the solid waste management field. In The dynamics of classification in the mutual fund industry. Found online at: Manns, L. D. (1995). Regulation of on-site medical waste incinerators in the United States and the United Kingdom: Is the public interest being served' Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2), 545-552. NaQuin, D. (1999). Will EPA's medwaste rule: Burn up incineration' Waste Age, 30(9), 104-107. National Recycling Coalition. (2002). NRC comments of EPA's white paper. Found online at: http://www.nrc-recycle.org/member/advocacy/policypositions/epawhitepapercomm2-01.htm Roberts, J. (1994). US scientists class dioxins as a health concern. BMJ, 309(24), 759-760. Rotman, D., & Begley, R. (1994). Hazardous waste. Chemical Week, 155(6), 24. Stadler, F., & Murray, M. (2001). Mercury rising. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 16(3), 43-51. Strzelecki, D. (2001). Waste incinerator upgrade results in 99.9 percent efficiency. Pollution Engineering, 33(4), 40-41. Thornton, J., McCally, M., Orris, P., & Weinberg, J. (1996). Hospitals & plastics: Dioxin prevention and medical waste incinerators. Public Health Reports, 111(4), 298-301. Toxic Alert. (2002). Incineration - a poisonous technology and a hoax. Toxic Alert. Found online at: www.ToxicAlert.com Travis Curtis C., and Holly A. Hattemer-Frey, 2002. "A Perspective on Dioxin Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators." Risk Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 91-97. Valenti, M. (1993). Tougher standards for burning hazardous waste. Mechanical Engineering, 115(8), 68-73. Read More