A GRAVE HEALTH CONCERN FOR OUR PROVINCE AND NATION

 

     I would like to draw your immediate attention to the St. Marys Cement Company in St. Marys, Ontario.  They have revealed to the citizens of St. Marys their plans to do a test burn of plastic waste in the cement kilns.  It will be a four day test burn in which 320 tons of plastic waste would be burned, possibly by December of 2008.  After the test, their intent is to burn plastic waste in the future on a daily basis, up to 80 tons per day.

 

     A petition is circulating throughout the town with signatures being added daily.  Many of the Cement Plant employees opposed the plan to burn hazardous waste, as do many of the town’s citizens.  A surprising number say they will move away from St. Marys if this plastic burn is allowed.  The impact felt by the town will be devastating in more ways than one.

 

     Burning plastic could release noxious gases that can equal any biochemical weapon.  Not only will the environment and health of the people of this town be in jeopardy but also those in neighbouring locations such as London, Stratford, Kitchener, and beyond, including all of the valuable farmland and agriculture in between.  The environmental manager for St. Marys Cement admits it will be controversial, since burning plastic is usually considered an environmental danger.  The EPA says air pollution from Portland cement manufacturers (St. Marys Cement) can travel long distances, creating region-wide health problems.  Already people who have heard about it as far away as Toronto are gravely concerned.  And so should we all be concerned. If this Cement Plant is allowed to burn plastic, it will be a first in Canada.  And once started, it will open the door for others to follow across the nation, as is already being contemplated in Bowmanville.

 

     The toxins and dioxins produced by burning plastic waste are carried hundreds of miles by air currents contaminating crops for human and livestock consumption.  They then accumulate in fish and animals including in beef, pork, chicken, milk, and eggs.  They bioaccumulate in the environment, increasing their concentration as they move up the food chain, the largest concentrations being found in humans.  Once inside the body, through inhalation or digestion by way of the food chain, it is there to stay.

 

     The plastics industry is coming under increasingly determined fire worldwide for claiming that incinerating its products does not significantly increase emissions of the deadly chemical dioxin. Dioxin is a deadly by-product formed by the burning of plastics that contain chlorine.  Chlorine is commonly present in plastic. Dioxin is the nastiest, most toxic man-made organic chemical.  Its toxicity is second only to radioactive waste. It is a known human carcinogen and the most potent synthetic carcinogen ever tested in laboratory animals. The World Health Organization said “Once dioxins have entered the environment or body, they are there to stay.”

 

     Dioxin made headlines several years ago at places such as Love Canal, where hundreds of families needed to abandon their homes due to dioxin contamination, and Times Beach, Missouri, a town that had to be abandoned as a result of dioxin.  Vietnam War veterans exposed to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange became seriously ill.  A simple search on the Internet will tell you that plastic is not an alternative for fuel to even be considered.  There are numerous places that have had to be evacuated or abandoned due to toxic contamination.    

 

     The tiniest amount of dioxin can cause damage and our bodies have no defence against it.  (One trillionth of a gram contains 1.8 billion molecules of dioxin).  Each molecule has the ability of mutating the cells in the body.  Dioxin is a powerful hormone-disrupting chemical causing cancers, birth defects, reduced immunity, nervous system disorders, blood disorders, autism, liver disease, autoimmune system diseases, circulatory problems, miscarriages, loss of fertility, endocrine system disruptions, and alters the development of fetuses in humans and animals.

 

     When hazardous waste (plastic) is burned as fuel, the amount and types of air contaminants increase, more so than with conventional fuel.  There are higher levels of lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, including 14 other heavy metals.  Other chemicals released in the burning process are as follows:  chlorine, cyanide, benzene, carbon monoxide, carcinogens, chlorinated hydrocarbons similar to pesticides, etc.  Pesticides will now be banned in Ontario for our safety as of Spring 2009, with a couple of exceptions.  What about pesticide-like stack emissions?

 

     The exposure to heavy metals can provoke serious health effects.  Exposure to lead can cause development problems in the fetus and affect the neurological development and future intelligence of the child.

 

     Mercury exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain, the kidneys, and to fetuses.  Mercury affects the nervous system provoking vision and hearing changes, memory problems, nervousness, etc.

 

     Exposure to cadmium can affect the kidneys, liver and lungs, cause genetic damage and has been proven to cause cancer in rats.

 

     Nitrogen oxide emissions from cement plants cause severe respiratory problems and contribute to childhood asthma.  This pollutant is also a significant contributor to acid rain.

 

     Combustion is never 100% efficient, no matter how high the temperature of the kiln.  Some fraction of the original alternative fuel will survive.  The chlorine (from the burning of plastic) and organic molecules that survive combustion combine to produce dioxin.  Dioxin will appear in the emissions as either surviving or newly synthesized material.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cement kilns that burn hazardous waste (plastic) emit dioxins at rates more than 80 times higher than kilns that burn conventional fuels.  Also cement kilns that burn hazardous waste produce more Cement Kiln Dust (CKD).  There is on average 75 to 104 percent more dust per ton of clinker than kilns that do not burn hazardous waste.  Did you know that dust from silica sand (used in cement making) causes cancer?  The EPA recently reported the CKD from cement kilns burning hazardous waste (plastic) carries dioxins at concentrations of about 100 times higher than CKD from kilns burning only conventional fuels.

 

     The portion not captured by pollution control devices is released directly into the air.  Some of the captured CKD also escapes during transfer and disposal.  As an example, one cement kiln burning 90 tons of waste per day was found to produce CKD at a rate of 200 tons per day.

 

     The smaller CKD particles are those most likely to escape capture by pollution control devices.  These particles are also the most likely to lodge deeply in the lungs and cause asthma attacks, heart and lung diseases, strokes, and premature mortality.  Smaller airborne particles have also been linked to high rates of pneumonia, pleurisy, bronchitis, and asthma.  The American Lung Association drew attention to the issue of CKD as follows:  “Particulate matter is a health concern because inhaling even relatively low airborne concentrations of dust can cause or aggravate lung diseases such as asthma or emphysema, and is associated with premature death…Since CKD collected in air pollution control devices typically has a small particle size, poorly managed cement kiln dust handling, transport and disposal has been shown to cause severe fugitive dust and air pollution problems.”

 

     Fugitive emissions can blow or wash into the surrounding environment during waste transfer and storage.  At one cement kiln burning hazardous waste, fugitive emissions were reported to be 20,074 pounds per year.

 

     Emissions of airborne particles increased by 66% when hazardous wastes (plastic) were burned in cement kilns and by 203% when the hazardous waste also contained chlorine sources (found in plastic.)

 

     Burning chlorinated chemicals (in plastic) in cement kilns increases the likelihood of “Upsets” which are accompanied by increased emissions of unburned wastes and new contaminants known as products of incomplete combustion, or even more severe consequences.  Upsets are not uncommon.  One kiln that was studied averaged 3 upsets a month.

 

     Spills, both on-site and off-site, are also a concern at cement plants where hazardous materials are burned.  “It is virtually impossible to completely prevent small spills of hazardous waste.  These spills may be caused by equipment failures, maintenance operations, or operation error.” This is according to a report assessing the likelihood of repeated spills by the N.Y. State Legislature.

 

     The Portland cement industry is the third largest source of industrial emissions in the U.S., emitting more than 500,000 tons per year of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide.  Headquartered in Toronto, St. Marys Cement supplies cement materials to the Great Lakes Region in the U.S. and Canada and is also a producer of concrete and aggregates to the Ontario market.  St. Marys Cement ranks a high #4 on the list of the top 10 air polluters in Ontario.

 

     St. Marys Cement is wholly-owned by Votorantin Cimentos, a Brazilian conglomerate based in Sao Paulo, Brazil with 2005 net revenues of approximately $10 billion Canadian dollars.

 

     There are cement companies now operating solely on natural gas and therefore preserving us and our land.

 

     September 9, 2008 the U.S. federal government in its enforcement of the Clean Air Act to reduce air emissions from Portland cement plants, secured an $800,000.00 civil penalty and mandated installation of pollution controls to two companies (one of them being St. Marys Cement) that own and operate a cement plant in Illinois.  The government cited the companies for operating modified kilns without obtaining necessary permits and for not installing required pollution control equipment.  The cement plant has decided to shut this site down.

 

     The EPA began to focus on improving compliance with the Clean Air Act at Portland cement manufacturing facilities across the U. S. due to widespread non-compliance and significant amounts of nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide emitted during the manufacturing process.

 

     In the US and Europe, the communities that have lived with cement plants burning hazardous waste, recognized the myths (of ecological energy recycling) and have organized themselves to defend their health and environment.  National health associations, such as The American Lung Association, have opposed burning hazardous wastes in cement kilns and have produced video testimonials about the health problems that this practice provokes in the local population.

 

     The solution to mounting plastic waste in landfills is not to burn it as fuel.  As the director of the Sierra Club Ontario put it, “These things can become landfills in the sky.”  Safer alternatives must be found.  For example, a few years ago they wanted to burn rubber tires in cement kilns and have now found multiple uses and benefits from the recycled material.  They have now come out with a plastic made from corn that is completely biodegradable.

 

     Since there is no way to shield crops from dioxin deposited on them from the air, or to later remove it, action to prevent crop contamination must be directed at the sources that produce dioxin, such as cement kiln incinerators. 

 

     Since the goal of prevention is to completely eliminate the pollutant, which experience shows is unattainable through control devices, it must be achieved by changing the process that generates the pollutant. This can be achieved by recycling, not burning it.

 

    The alternative to burning hazardous wastes in the making of cement is simple:  require the use of less contaminating fuels such as fuel oils or the least contaminating alternative, natural gas.  The dioxin-free alternative is quite straightforward:  the kiln returns to burning a conventional fuel instead of burning hazardous waste.

 

     How can we be sure the plastic will not contain any radioactive waste?  How can we rely on tests and government standards?  One need only to think of what standards and inspections have accomplished in the food industry, re:  the listeriosis outbreak.

 

     Ontario Power Generation plants have shipped ash containing mercury and other toxins to the St. Marys Cement Plant, where it was re-heated in cement kilns.  If this is the case, then there’s more being burned in the kilns right now other than conventional fuel and the public is not even informed.  People say they can smell plastic being burned now.  They say there are a lot of trucks arriving in the night.  Why are emission odours especially foul during the overnight hours?  

 

     A thorough investigation by the proper authorities needs to be conducted to find out the true facts.  The problem is the common practice to notify the company of an impending investigation so that they can clean up their act.  It needs to be checked out thoroughly, not just during the normal workday but especially at night as well as weekends. 

 

     I also question why the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) would not conduct tests on the Cement Plant’s emissions independently rather than allowing the Cement Company to do it themselves.

 

     It has also been reported that the MOE advised the local elementary school to get the kids inside when a phone call was placed concerning the “bad smell” from the Plant.  Yet the public is left uninformed.  Quite often during the summer months, people are forced indoors and have to close their windows due to foul emissions from the Cement Plant. 

 

     Currently, groups like the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario (AMPCO –e.g., St. Marys Cement, Imperial Oil, PetroCanada) have grabbed the government’s ear with their aggressive lobbying for subsidized, dirty power.  We need to make sure the government hears an equally strong message from voters who don’t want to pay for AMPCO’s dirty power with lousy air quality and rapidly accelerating climate change. 

 

     It is all a matter of increased profit for the company, but at our expense. They receive a tip fee for disposing of the waste.

 

     Despite petitions and protests in London, Ontario, a facility was allowed to burn plastic for approximately a year.  It has now been completely bulldozed and they are now proceeding to attempt to dig up the polluted ground surrounding it.  Can we not learn? What will it take before the government stops such a dangerous practice?

 

     The Cement Company has everything to gain.  They present their side of it at public meetings and try to reassure the public.  In the meantime, businesses in town were threatened or intimidated until many store owners withdrew the petitions placed on their premises.  Two petitions containing many signatures were taken and now another has disappeared.  The Cement Plant neglected to inform Mayor Hahn and council that they have indeed made application to the Ministry of Environment for the test burn.

 

     The town of St. Marys has hired Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to do an independent test of the kiln emissions for the test burn.  A simple search on the Internet (http://www.craworld.com/en/index.asp – search “Orgaworld” on this site) shows a very strong connection between Orgaworld, who is supplying the Cement Plant with the plastic waste, and Conestoga-Rovers & Associates as recently as 2007.  Will they give an unbiased appraisal?

 

     The statistics from countries that have burned plastic waste speaks for itself.  And we, the people, have everything to lose.

 

     Public pressure is the only thing that will make them listen.  Send your objections to the Ministry of Environment to Mr. Tesfaye Gebrezghi, Supervisor, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, re: St. Marys Cement Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project.  By fax: 1-416-314-8452, or by email: Tesfaye.Gebrezghi@Ontario.ca .  Immediate action must be taken since time is running out to voice our objections. 

 

    Also contact the Mayor and Council, local MP, Premier McGuinty, Prime Minister Harper, Perth Environmental Officer at phone # 519-873-5025.

 

     Only you can make a difference, so will you?  Don’t delay!

 

 

 

References:

 

http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/documents/altdetoxCement.pdf

 

http://www.cleanairalliance.org/node/324

 

http://www.cleanairalliance.org/node/166

 

http://www.lfpress.com/perl-bin/publish.cgi?x=articles&p=241987&s=societe

 

http://plasticisrubbish.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/dioxins-why-you-dont-want-to-be-burning-plastic/

 

http://www.stopthequarry.ca/StMarys/StMarysCement.php

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420800.300-burning-plastic-raises-a-stink.html

 

http://www.texascenter.org/publications/kiln.htm

 

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/CBNS/dxnsum.html

 

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-09-091.asp

http://www.texascenter.org/publications/kiln.htm

 

http://www.stmaryscement.com/saintmaryscementinc/_Uploads/CurrentInfo/Panels_St%20%20Marys%20Sept11OH.pdf

 

http://www.stmaryscement.com/saintmaryscementinc/_Uploads/CurrentInfo/Key%20Comments%20Responses%20for%20Sept%2011%20_St%20Marys_%20FINAL.pdf

 

ACCRUED FACTS

 

Environmental Problems and Health Effects

 

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/05/stories/2003060500930100.htm

 

It is a well-known fact that the extensive use of plastic carry bags, plastic cups etc destroys the environment. Burning plastic could release noxious gases that can equal any biochemical weapon. PVC, a common ingredient in plastic, is acknowledged to be carcinogenic.

 

http://www.lfpress.com/perl-bin/publish.cgi?x=articles&p=241987&s=societe

 

The environmental manager for St. Marys Cement admits it will be controversial, since burning plastic is usually considered an environmental danger.

 

“A cement kiln burns at 1,450 C — a temperature that destroys all organic materials completely,” said Vroegh.

 

Vroegh said the temperatures of the kiln’s exhaust gases would be controlled to prevent reformation of toxins such as dioxin and furans.

Dan McDermott, director of the Sierra Club Ontario, said he is “very suspicious” of claims that toxic materials can be completely eliminated by incineration.

“These things can become landfills in the sky,” he said.

McDermott said he does not have any specific research on incinerating plastic, but said the town of St. Marys should get independent verification of any claims made by the company.

“I would treat this kind of scheme as guilty until proven innocent,” said McDermott.

 

http://www.cleanairalliance.org/node/324

 

Currently, groups like the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario (AMPCO –e.g., Imperial Oil, St. Marys Cement, PetroCanada) have grabbed the government’s ear with their aggressive lobbying for subsidized, dirty power.  We need to make sure the government hears an equally strong message from voters who don’t want to pay for AMPCO’s dirty power with lousy air quality and rapidly accelerating climate change. 

 

http://plasticisrubbish.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/dioxins-why-you-dont-want-to-be-burning-plastic/

Dioxins are unintentionally, but unavoidably produced during the manufacture of materials containing chlorine, including PVC and other chlorinated plastic feedstocks.
Burning these plastics can release dioxins.

Dioxin is a known human carcinogen and the most potent synthetic carcinogen ever tested in laboratory animals. A characterization by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of cancer causing potential evaluated dioxin as over 10,000 times more potent than the next highest chemical (diethanol amine), half a million times more than arsenic and a million or more times greater than all others.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420800.300-burning-plastic-raises-a-stink.html

Burning Plastic Raises a Stink

THE plastics industry is coming under increasingly determined fire worldwide for claiming that incinerating its products does not significantly increase emissions of the deadly chemical dioxin.

In a new report timed to spearhead a campaign to ban the production of PVC, the US arm of the international environmental group Greenpeace rejects the industry’s assertion that there is no correlation between the quantity of chlorine from plastics burnt in incinerators and their emissions of dioxin. And a leading member of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific advisory panel on dioxin backs Greenpeace’s conclusions.

Dioxin is a toxic organic chemical that contains chlorine. It is produced when chlorine and hydrocarbons are burnt at high temperatures. The biggest source of chlorine in incinerated waste is PVC, a hydrocarbon that also contains chlorine. This has led many scientists to argue that it is the main culprit in causing dioxin emissions from incinerators.

http://www.texascenter.org/publications/kiln.htm

Cement Production and Conventional Environmental Problems

Traditional cement production can cause environmental problems: the continual extraction and mining of limestone and other materials leaves large scars in the earth; inadequate transportation of extracted materials for grinding and storage in the plant produces a tremendous amount of dust. As in any combustion process, the calcination process in the kiln produces air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. The amount depends on the type of fuel, air pollution control equipment and parameters of the kiln’s operation. The left-over cement kiln dust can be contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants. If the cement kiln dust is deposited back in the quarries from which the limestone was extracted, or to a municipal landfill, it can contaminate soils, groundwater and flood waters.

Exposure to carbon monoxide negatively impacts the central nervous system and, along with nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter, irritates the lung tissue and the respiratory system and aggravates the symptoms of people with lung diseases (asthma, chronic bronchitis). Exposure to these contaminants can also increase cardiac and other circulatory problems as well as acute respiratory sicknesses.

What environmental problems and health effects can happen when hazardous waste is used as the fuel in the cement-making process?

*The amount and types of air contaminants — including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter — increase, more so than with the burning of coal, petroleum or natural gas.
*Higher levels of lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury, and 15 other heavy metals commonly found in cement kiln air emissions, occur when hazardous wastes are burned.
*New contaminants, known as Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs), are produced, including highly-toxic dioxins and furans, in the stack emissions.
*The cement kiln dust, the clinker, and the cement itself can contain these heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, arsenic, lead and selenium for example) as well as the PICs.
*There is a higher risk of accidents in the transport of hazardous wastes to the plants.
*Workers at the cement plants are exposed to hazardous wastes, increasing their health risks.

The exposure to heavy metals can provoke serious health effects. The exposure of a pregnant woman to lead can cause development problems in the fetus and affect the neurological development of the child, including its future intelligence; exposure to cadmium can affect the kidney, liver and lungs, cause genetic damage and has been proven to cause cancer in rats; mercury exposure at high concentrations can cause permanent damage to the brain, the kidneys and to fetuses in development; the nervous system is especially sensitive to the effects of mercury, provoking more severe disorders with increases in exposures (irritability, nervousness, trembling, vision and hearing changes, memory problems). Other suspected or known carcinogens emitted by rotating kilns include berilium and hexavalent chromium.

What opposition has the practice of incinerating hazardous wastes in cement kilns generated in other countries?

National health associations — such as the American Lung Association — have opposed burning hazardous wastes in cement kilns and have produced video testimonials about the health problems that this practice provokes in the local population.

Are there any alternatives?

The alternative to burning hazardous wastes in the making of cement is simple: require the use of less contaminating fuels such as fuel oils or the least contaminating alternative, natural gas.

The huge underutilization of natural gas produced by Pemex, the privatization of the delivery of natural gas in Mexico and the tendency toward price reductions offer greater opportunities for Mexican cement plants to take advantage of natural gas.

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/CBNS/dxnsum.html

The Dioxin Problem

• Our daily intake of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals creates a lifetime cancer risk in the general U.S. population that is 500-1,000 times greater than the “acceptable” one in a million risk. In pregnant women long-term damage to the fetus may also occur close to this level of exposure, leading to birth defects, disrupted sexual development, and damage to the nervous and immune systems. By any reasonable standard, this means that we must eliminate exposure to dioxin.
• Nearly all of the general population’s exposure to dioxin comes from food — two-thirds of it from milk, dairy products and beef, major components of the diet. For their part, milk cows and beef cattle absorb dioxin by eating dioxin-contaminated feed crops. Since we cannot readily eliminate these foods, action must be taken to prevent the contamination of the feed crops by dioxin.
• Dioxin enters the environment chiefly in the form of airborne emissions from incinerators, particularly those that burn municipal and medical waste. The EPA dioxin reassessment proposed, as a hypothesis, that once emitted, dioxin is carried in the air to farms where it is deposited on the crops fed to milk cows and beef cattle. Since there is no way to shield crops from dioxin deposited on them from the air, or to later remove it, action to prevent crop contamination must be directed at the sources that produce dioxin, such as incinerators.

A typical assessment worked out the maximum cancer risk to a person breathing dioxin-contaminated air at a point downwind of an incinerator where the ground-level concentration of dioxin is greatest.

The International Joint Commission (IJC) has concluded that only the strategy of pollution prevention can end the toxic threat to the Great Lakes. Present efforts to remedy the environmental impact of toxic pollutants — including the most recently proposed EPA regulations of incinerator emissions — are almost entirely based on the strategy of control: a device is appended to the source with the aim of recapturing enough of the pollutant to bring the environmental emissions to some presumably acceptable level. The IJC strategy calls for a different approach. Since the goal of prevention is to completely eliminate the pollutant — which experience shows is unattainable through control devices — this must be achieved by transforming the process that actually generates the pollutant so that it is not produced to begin with. This can be done, for example, by recycling municipal waste instead of burning it.

Our study also shows that the major sources of the dioxin deposited in the Great Lakes, in particular the incinerators that burn municipal or medical waste, can be replaced by dioxin-free waste-disposal procedures with little or no loss in economic activity or jobs — and even with possible gains.

The amounts of dioxin different sources produce vary a great deal; but what they all have in common is combustion — fuel is burned — and the presence of chlorine in the fuel. Trash-burning incinerators have been studied most, and we now know that they literally synthesize dioxin by chemical reactions as combustion gases cool down in their control devices or exhaust stacks. There, chlorine (released, for example, from the burning of chlorinated plastics) and organic (carbon-containing) molecules that survive combustion combine to produce dioxin.

Instead, a sample of the stack gas must be trapped and sent to a laboratory for an elaborate and expensive (about $1000 per sample) analysis. Very few of the many sources have ever been analyzed for dioxin, and even those are tested only infrequently.

The EPA and other environmental agencies have used the “emission-factor” approach to get around this problem. Measurements are made at a few — hopefully typical — trash-burning incinerators, let us say, recording not only the amount of dioxin emitted from the stacks, under standard (again hopefully) operating conditions, but also connecting that amount to the amount of trash burned. An emission factor — the amount of dioxin emitted per ton of trash burned — can then be calculated. Finally the amount of dioxin emitted by an untested incinerator can be estimated by multiplying the amount of waste it burns (the “throughput”) by the appropriate emission factor.

There are difficulties with this approach, for the amount of dioxin emitted depends, not only on the amount of material burned, but on a number of other factors as well, including: the nature of the fuel (especially its chlorine content); the design of the incinerator; and the type of emission control device. The largest — and often unknown — variable is the nature of the fuel. For example, two measurements of dioxin emissions from a Columbus, Ohio municipal waste incinerator (now closed) differed by a factor of five, apparently because of a difference in the composition of the trash burned on the two occasions.

Should the community build an incinerator that would expose the people of the community, themselves, to this hazard? Since, in this case, the risk would be self-imposed, the community at risk, through its elected officials, could decide whether or not to accept it.

We have also learned more about the dioxin “background” problem. This goes back to claims made some 20 years ago in reports from the Dow Chemical Company that dioxin occurs throughout the environment because it is created by widespread natural processes such as forest fires, and not by industrial processes and products. That idea was laid to rest when studies of dated lake sediments showed that almost no dioxin was present until the 1940s, and then rose sharply in parallel with the use of chlorine by the petrochemical industry. Nevertheless, in some quarters the idea persists that the widespread occurrence of background levels of dioxin is an unavoidable situation that we have to live with. And it is sometimes argued that since the output of dioxin from any one source does not add significantly to the background level, it can be “safely” operated. We now know that the chief contribution of each source to the hazard of airborne dioxin is, in fact, made by adding to the general level of background dioxin — the widespread fallout — and that this dangerous impact on the food supply is not “natural” but man-made.

Another useful outcome of our study has been the identification of serious gaps and inadequacies in the basic information about airborne emissions of dioxin. Only an extremely small fraction of the operating incinerators and other sources have ever been tested for dioxin emissions, forcing reliance on emission factors, which are themselves uncertain.

In pollution control, the source that generates the pollutant remains unchanged, but a separate control device is attached to trap or destroy the pollutant before it escapes into the environment. The source continues to produce the pollutant, but now a lesser amount — which is never zero — reaches the environment.

Unlike pollution control, prevention calls for changing the technology of the production process in which the pollutant originates, so that the source no longer produces it at all. Automatically, emissions are then zero.

In practice, combustion is never 100% efficient; some fraction — which may be very small– of the original organic fuel will survive.

Incinerator manufacturers claimed that a well-run incinerator would destroy all of the dioxin in the trash and that its presence in emissions was only a sign that the furnace was not hot enough or otherwise malfunctioning. However, a CBNS analysis showed that the amounts of dioxin emitted by different incinerators was not related to their operating temperatures. In 1984, seeking a better explanation, we suggested the possibility that in the cooler parts of the incinerator, surviving fragments of chlorine-free organic compounds in the fuel might combine with chlorine (which is released, for example, when chlorine-containing plastics burn) and produce newly formed dioxin. Within a year this idea was tested in a Canadian incinerator. Dioxin was measured in the fuel (trash), the hot gas leaving the furnace, and the relatively cool gas at the base of the stack. The amount of dioxin at the base of the stack was 100 times the amount leaving the furnace, and much more than the amount in the fuel. We now know that a trash-burning incinerator produces dioxin; whenever the incinerator operates, the world has more dioxin than it had before.

Cement kilns that burn hazardous waste:

As of 1993 there were 28 cement kilns in the United States and two in Canada that burned hazardous waste. Of these, 9 facilities were located in the Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario. They accounted for 7% of the U.S. cement production and 12% of the Canadian production.

Cement kilns are designed to manufacture cement by heating a mixture of raw materials to temperatures in the range of 1400o-1500oC. For that reason, and because of the large amount of material involved, cement production uses a great deal of fuel, generally in the form of natural gas, fuel oil, coal, or coke. The kilns are usually designed to switch fuels easily in response to fluctuating prices. Hazardous chemical waste is massively produced by the petrochemical industry; it is burnable, and cement kilns have been allowed to use it as a substitute fuel. Hazardous waste frequently contains chlorinated organic compounds, including dioxin, and for the reasons discussed above, when it is burned dioxin will appear in the emissions as either surviving or newly synthesized material.

The dioxin-free alternative technology:

The dioxin-free alternative is quite straightforward: the kiln returns to burning a conventional fuel instead of burning hazardous waste.

The economic consequences:

The generation of dioxin by cement kilns that burn hazardous waste can be eliminated by the simple expedient of switching back to their normal fuels: coal, coke, oil, or natural gas. Since the kilns are already equipped to handle these solid, liquid or gaseous fuels, no capital costs are involved in this transition. The transition will, however, affect employment and the cost of operation and maintenance — in particular, the cost of fuel.

If hazardous waste is replaced with a normal fuel, instead of receiving a tip fee for disposing of the waste (which in 1993 amounted to $68 million), the 9 cement kilns in the Great Lakes region would then pay for the normal fuel (about $9 million per year). This amounts to an increase in their cement production costs of approximately $77 million. At the same time, the transition results in a payroll savings of $11 million, since the additional employees that handle the hazardous material are no longer needed. Finally, if they stopped burning hazardous waste, the kilns could avoid (a) the operation and maintenance cost incident to burning hazardous waste, and (b) the cost of installing the control devices needed to meet the new regulations for dioxin emissions that have just been proposed (April 1996). The cost of burning hazardous waste amounts to roughly $85 per ton of hazardous waste burned, a total of $32 million for the 9 Great Lakes cement kilns burning hazardous waste. According to an EPA-sponsored study, these costs, for improving dioxin emission control equipment in keeping with the proposed regulations, would amount to $19.1 million for the 9 Great Lakes cement kilns.

An important but poorly evaluated economic factor relates to recent changes in the supply of hazardous waste and the capacity to burn it. A recent analysis concludes that commercial incinerators and cement kilns burning hazardous waste are currently operating at only 60-80% of their capacity to burn such wastes. As a result, there is now intense competition for the relatively short supply of hazardous waste among cement kilns and commercial incinerators, which tends to reduce the fees that they can charge. Thus, a recent account of the incinerator industry’s objections to the secrecy of current EPA discussions with the cement industry points out that “[T]he controversy comes down to the competition between some cement makers and incinerator operators for a shrinking supply of hazardous waste to burn.”

These developments suggest that the added income that cement kilns enjoy by burning hazardous waste instead of normal fuel is likely to be less than our present estimate indicates. This is especially true because, on top of the over-capacity, the supply of hazardous waste is declining, the result of the environmentally motivated campaign in the chemical industry to reduce the generation of such wastes.

Conclusions:

Despite the absence, thus far, of the data needed for a complete analysis of the economic impact of requiring cement kilns to burn normal fuels rather than hazardous waste, it would appear that there will be little or no economic barrier to this transition — a change that would eliminate this source of the dioxin now entering the Great Lakes. Indeed, the industry itself provides persuasive evidence that it is economically feasible to produce cement without burning hazardous waste. More than three-fourths of the cement is produced, quite successfully, without burning hazardous waste.

We venture, therefore, to recommend that the Great Lakes states and Ontario — and indeed the U.S. and Canadian regulatory agencies as a whole — develop regulations that end the practice of burning hazardous waste in cement kilns. As experience shows, this change will not take place in the absence of public pressure. The fact that cement is extensively used in public construction, and that it may be contaminated with dioxin and other toxic pollutants if it includes ash from the combustion of hazardous waste, creates an opportunity to exert such pressure. For example, in 1991 the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on environmental grounds, passed a resolution against a local cement company’s plan to burn hazardous waste in its kiln– a customary form of complaint. But the Council added a more persuasive argument when it outlawed the use of cement from kilns burning hazardous waste on any City-funded projects.

There is an interesting, if ironic, footnote to the history of these relations among the public, regulatory agencies, and industry. For a long time EPA’s regulatory approach has been governed by the strategy of pollution control, which — despite recent proclamations about the importance of pollution prevention — continues to dominate the Agency’s regulatory efforts. However, pollution control is economically unproductive; as standards become more strict, the marginal cost of implementing them rises very rapidly. This gives rise to a dynamic interplay among three forces that influence environmental policy: the public’s pressure for improved environmental quality; EPA’s tendency to respond — when it does — by imposing stricter control-based standards; and the industries’ reaction to the resulting increase in environmental costs, which induces them to recognize the economic advantages of pollution prevention over control.

http://downwindersatriskarticles.blogspot.com/

Over the past year, several cities including Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas have passed resolutions calling for the purchase of only “green” cement from less-polluting plants.

http://www.zender-engr.net/docs/health_effects_burning_trash.pdf

 

Acute effects from burning some wastes can be very serious. It takes only five ounces of burning PVC to give off enough hydrogen chloride gas to kill someone in an average-size room in just ten minutes.

Children can be at much greater risk. Because of their body size, they inhale more air per pound of body mass than do adults, and can absorb a proportionately larger “dose” of toxins. Also, children’s bodies are more susceptible to damage from the mercury, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals found in the smoke because their nervous systems are not fully developed.

 

Dioxin is one of the most hazardous chemical compounds to breathe and it causes cancer. It is almost always formed when burning garbage. Temperatures of 600° to 1200 ° will form the most dioxin, and at over 1800° very little is formed.

 

One of the highest sources of chlorine is PVC. It is 56% chlorine. Some studies show that the amount of PVC in waste is the most important predictor of dioxin emissions. PVC also forms hydrochloric acid which is a major irritant to eyes and lungs, and potentially lethal.

 

PVC – Polyvinyl chloride forms dioxins when burned and hydrochloric acid. It may contribute to dioxin formation from other wastes because it has so much chlorine. The more chlorine a dioxin, furan, or PCB has, the more toxic its effects.

Hydrochloric acid can irritate and burn your lungs and cause fluid build up and possible ulceration of your respiratory tract. Dioxin can cause cancer, immune dysfunction, IQ deficit, reproductive effects, and much more. Don’t burn it.

DEADLY STATISTICS

Dioxin—A Deadly By-Product

One of the most dangerous pollutants that is produced is a highly toxic chemical called Dioxin. Dioxin does not decompose and builds up in tissues of animals and humans, and can be found in fat cells of cows and humans. The World Health Organization said: “Once dioxins have entered the environment or body, they are there to stay due to their uncanny ability to dissolve in fats and to their rock-solid chemical stability.”

What Is Dioxin?

Dioxin is the name generally given to a class of super-toxic chemicals, the chlorinated dioxins and furans, formed as a by-product of the manufacture, molding, or burning of organic chemicals and plastics that contain chlorine. It is the nastiest, most toxic man-made organic chemical; its toxicity is second only to radioactive waste. Dioxin made headlines several years ago at places such as Love Canal, where hundreds of families needed to abandon their homes due to dioxin contamination, and Times Beach, Missouri, a town that had to be abandoned as a result of dioxin. Unfortunately, dioxin has now entered our food supply, primarily in meat, fish and milk.

 Dioxin – An Unprecedented Threat

We now know that dioxin exhibits serious health effects when it reaches as little as a few parts per trillion in your body fat. Dioxin is a powerful hormone-disrupting chemical. By binding to a cell’s hormone receptor, it literally modifies the functioning and genetic mechanism of the cell, causing a wide range of effects, from cancer to reduced immunity to nervous system disorders to miscarriages and birth deformity. Because it literally changes the functioning of your cells, the effects can be very obvious or very subtle. It changes gene functions and, therefore, can cause so-called genetic diseases to appear, and can interfere with child development.

There is no “threshold” dose – the tiniest amount can cause damage, and our bodies have no defence against it. A picogram (one trillionth of a gram) has 1.8 billion molecules of dioxin, each of which has the capability of disrupting a cell.

Unfortunately, according to the EPA, much of the population of the U.S. is at the dose at which there can be serious health effects. How did this happen? For about 40 years we have seen a dramatic increase in the manufacture and use of chlorinated organic chemicals and plastics. For chemicals, it was insecticides and herbicides (weed killers). For plastics, it was primarily polyvinyl chloride (PVC). From phonograph records to automobile seat covers to wire insulation to shampoo bottles to handbags to house siding to plumbing pipes to wallpaper, we are literally surrounded by PVC. When these chemicals and plastics are manufactured or burned, dioxin is produced as an unwanted (but inevitable) by-product.

Years ago dioxin was a little-known threat near factories that produce PVC plastic or chlorinated pesticides and herbicides, and where those pesticides and herbicides were heavily used, such as on farms, near electric and railway lines, apple orchards, paper company forests. It became better known when Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese civilians, exposed to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange, became ill. It has been a hazard downstream of paper mills (where chlorine bleach combines with natural organics in wood pulp and produces dioxin).

Dioxin, formed during burning, is carried for hundreds of miles on tiny specks of fly-ash from the incinerators. It settles on crops, which then get eaten by cows, steers, pigs, and chickens. It contaminates lakes, streams, and the ocean. Like the pesticides such as DDT, dioxin accumulates in the fat cells of the animals, and re-appears in meat and milk.      

 

Dangers of Burning Plastic

– When burned, PVC plastic forms dioxins, a highly toxic group of chemicals that build up in the food chain, can cause cancer and harms the immune and reproductive systems.

– PVC includes high amounts of toxic additives, which are released during use and disposal, resulting in elevated human exposures to chemicals.

– PVC disposal is the largest source of dioxin-forming chlorine and phthalates in solid waste, as well as a major source of lead, cadmium and organotins–which pose serious health threats.

– PVC production poses serious environmental health threats due to the manufacture of raw chemicals, including chlorine and cancer-causing vinyl chloride monomer.

– More than 100 municipal waste incinerators in the U.S. burn 500 to 600 million pounds of PVC each year, forming highly toxic dioxins and releasing toxic additives to the air and in ash disposed of on land.

– Any PVC waste generated should be diverted away from incineration to hazardous waste landfills.

– Communities should continue to organize against PVC-related dioxin sources such as waste incinerators while working to promote safer alternatives.

 

***

When plastic is burned, the chemicals contained in it are released into the atmosphere and left in the ground. These will find their way into the biological systems of plants and animals and ultimately be deposited into human cells and tissues. From there it can cause anything from simple allergies to more formidable diseases like cancer.

 

***

Question – What toxic substance is produced that is harmful to our health when a plastic material is burned?

Answer – Many plastics, particularly PVC when burned results in emissions of the deadly poison named dioxin. Dioxin is a toxic organic chemical that contains chlorine and is produced when chlorine and hydrocarbons are heated at high temperatures. To inhale dioxin or to be exposed anyway to its fumes can cause many deadly results. ~ Dr. Mabel R.

 

 

 

References:
http://plasticisrubbish.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/reply/
http://www.cqs.com/edioxin.htm
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20031208/msgs/289049.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00031.htm

More Deadly Information…

 

HEALTH CANADA:

Exposure to dioxins and furans has been associated with a wide range of adverse health effects in laboratory animals and humans. The type and occurrence of these effects typically depend on the level and duration of exposure.

Most dioxins are introduced to the environment through the air. The airborne chemical can attach to small particles that can travel long distances in the atmosphere, which means that Canadians may also be exposed to dioxins and furans created in other countries.

These substances work their way up the food chain by moving into and remaining stored in body fat. Because of this, people actually take more dioxins and furans into their bodies through food than through air, water or soil. Ninety per cent of people’s overall exposure to dioxins is estimated to be from the diet.

[StopPlasticFuel Admin: These stats are based on averages—if St. Marys Cement Company burns plastic, we as citizens of this community will be exposed to far greater amounts of these toxins than these stats imply.]

The Health Effects of Dioxins and Furans

Scientists have studied the effects of dioxins and furans on laboratory animals. They have also researched the health effects on people exposed to dioxins through industrial accidents, contaminated food, and occupational exposure to certain herbicides prior to improved manufacturing processes that have reduced these contaminants.

The studies show that dioxins and furans have the potential to produce a range of effects on animals and humans. Health effects associated with human exposure to dioxins include:

·       skin disorders, such as chloracne

·       liver problems

·       impairment of the immune system, the endocrine system and reproductive functions

·       effects on the developing nervous system and other developmental events

·       certain types of cancers

It is important to remember that with all toxic substances, including dioxins, the risk of health effects depends on many factors, including:

·       the way a person is exposed (e.g., through food, air, water, etc.)

·       how much a person is exposed to, and when (e.g., whether it is a large amount on one occasion, or daily exposure to small amounts, etc.)

[StopPlasticFuel Admin: St. Marys and area would have daily exposure to large amounts in comparison to these stats.]

·       individual susceptibility, including general state of health

·       whether the person is also exposed to other substances that may be associated with health effects

These issues are very complex. Scientists do not have all of the answers, but they agree that exposures to dioxins and furans should be kept as low as possible.

 

***

 

PLASTIC IS POISON

Burning plastic releases toxic chemicals such as lead and cadmium. Dioxins and furans, which are perhaps the most toxic synthetic chemicals on the planet, can also be released from plastic by burning, and even in small quantities can be extremely harmful.

Plastic recycling facilities almost inevitably will dispose of some waste: plastic that is either contaminated or has incompatible resins, non-plastic waste imported along with plastic waste and residues from melting and washing. Greenpeace estimates that 25-40% of imported plastic waste is not actually recycled.

Many plastics were once packaging for pesticides and household cleaners and therefore contain a variety of topical toxic ingredients. Plastic wastes and associated contaminants also find their way into waterways and the marine environment, where they are ingested by birds and fish.

 

***

 

KIDS SNIFF BINS TO GET HIGH

Sunday November 4, 2007

A NEW drugs craze is sweeping the country – wheelie bin sniffing.

Youth gangs are stealing the bins, setting fire to the bottoms – then sticking their heads under the lids to inhale the fumes.

Solvent abuse charities last night warned it could be just as dangerous as sniffing glue or petrol.

Gases from the burning polyethylene plastic starve the brain of oxygen, giving a quick high.

Drug charity Solve It said: “Just because it sits in mum and dad’s back yard doesn’t mean it’s safe. Once on fire, a bin is a lethal weapon.”

The craze started in Glasgow and has spread to other areas. Police in Barnsley, South Yorks., which has had 100 bin fires in a fortnight, say it’s the “new drug of choice.”

 

***

 

Wheelie bins are a new target

Burning Danger

A spite of incidents involving burnt-out wheelie bins over the past year are causing concern for Cleveland Fire Brigade over fears it could signal the development of a worrying trend.

Fire Brigades from around the UK have reported a rise in wheelie bin fires, and there are worries that those committing the crime are risking their lives by inhaling the fumes released by the burning plastic.

 

Ed Parish and his colleagues at Cleveland Fire Brigade’s Arson Task Force have seen the number of wheelie bin fires in the area slowly develop over the past year, and it’s something they’re increasingly worried about.

Concerns

There are a number of concerns for the Fire Brigade, the first is the fact that burning the bins creates a disturbance in that particular area as Ed explains.

“Setting fire to wheelie bins is a criminal act, and the implications are that it’s very dangerous. Its knock on effect is that it can spread to houses and affect families.”

There are also the obvious health impacts to people that may inhale the fumes from the plastic. Most wheelie bins are made from high density polyethylene that when burned, release deadly gases that if inhaled provide a headache-heavy short high but starve the brain of oxygen and can prove fatal.

“This buzz or fix they’re looking to get, they should realise that the gases they inhale contain number of carcinogenic substances they’re breathing in and these can have massive effect on their internal organs.”

Warning

Ed and his colleagues have a harsh message for the individuals vandalising wheelie bins, whatever their reason.

“We will catch you, we will prosecute you, watch out. But in the meantime you’re putting your own life at risk and I’d advise you to stop right now.”

 

***

The Daily Item
Published November 29, 2007

When burned, many plastics (particularly polyvinylchloride, or PVC) release carbon monoxide and the deadly poison named tetrachloro-dibenzo-dioxin, a toxic organic chemical that is a known carcinogen. There is ample evidence that this compound is very dangerous to humans, even at low levels of exposure. Cancer and respiratory illness are common effects of this chemical.

Plastics like PVC are common in such things as vinyl siding, bottles and jugs, etc. Plastic agricultural silage wrap, wire insulated with plastic, shopping bags and plastic containers often end up in trash, but none of these items should ever be burned. These items could be a major source of airborne pollutants; they could easily make their way into the food chain and our bodies. There are recycling options available for many of these products.

***

 Studies have linked dioxins and furans to cancer and respiratory disease.

***

 Burning of Plastic Waste Poses Health Hazard

Thomas P. Thomas, environmentalist and Botany professor, says burning of plastics and PET bottles releases dioxins, which can harm the immunity and reproductive systems.

 

 

References:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/dioxin-eng.php
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1994/132/10299
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20071104/ai_n21089973
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tees/content/articles/2007/11/22/wheelie_bins_inhale_feature.shtml
http://www.dailyitem.com/0111_letters/local_story_333000916.html
http://www.gov.pe.ca/infopei/index.php3?number=60944
http://www.nlsenlaw.org/copy_of_news/burning-of-plastic-waste-poses-health-hazard