1.THE DEP HEARING ON THE MERRIMACK AGGREGATE WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS STUDY (from Jill)

WHERE IS THE COMMITMENTMENT TO SAFETY?

The DEP study ignores the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed in previous hearings and reports. It sounds a chilling alarm bell by indicating that the DEP, which is our main line of defense against pollution, is not on the job. Whether this is due to budgetary limits, staffing problems, industry lobbying, or other causes, it greatly increases our unease. It appears reckless to issue a permit to a facility for long-term emission of very toxic substances when we apparently do not have governmental committment to serious scrutiny of the health threats.

STUDY IGNORES CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

[This point was made by someone at the hearing.] There was no attempt to look at persistent pollution that accumulates and bioconcentrates. This is the main concern of citizens groups, and it was ignored.

PARTICULATES

Kunce presented a slide that dismissed particulates because data from Lawrence shows that they are "below guidelines" and they are "decreasing". This is an inadequate justification. The EPA recently tightened particulate standards on large particulates (PM10) and introduced regulation of smaller particulates (PM2.5). This was based on the conclusion of the EPA scientific panel that particulates are much more harmful than previously thought, causing premature deaths and incidents of severe respiratory distress even when current standards are met. Even more significantly, EPA concluded that there is no threshold of no effect - that the health damage is simply proportional to the exposure. Even so, the EPA did not propose regulating to eliminate health damage - they compromised by choosing a politically feasible standard that improved, but did not eliminate, the level of damage. In this context - DEP should not compare emissions to the old PM standards. They are not relevant. Furthermore, the comparison to compromised standards does not answer the question of how much health damage will occur(see below). - When there is a linear dose-response effect, it is irrelevant if the total concentration is decreasing because other pollution sources are being cleaned up. The only relevant question is the damage done by the source in question. - DEP should use the EPA models to estimate the number of premature deaths and respiratory incidents caused by the incinerator emissions.

PERCENT REDUCTION OF MERCURY

Bill Gaughan presented "actual" data from Saugus that showed that mercury emissions were reduced to 3.9% of pre-retrofit levels. Is this level of improvement expected at MRI? If the MRI data on this key pollutant are much higher, DEP should be asked to publish a correction.

COMPARISON TO GUIDELINES Historically, the known level of harm for almost every pollutnt can be shown to have decreased with knowledge. Thus, comparison of pollutant levels to current guidelines is inappropriate for making policy decision of long-term effect, such as whether to permit a facility that emits persistent pollutants. Only one study showing health effects at a lower level is required to turn the DEP's clean bill of health into an environmental catastrophe without possibility of remediation. Thus, before using the guideline-based approach, DEP should be asked to show stability of the guidelines with time- i.e. show that the guidelines are not decreasing rapidly with research. [We know that for mercury and dioxin, the guidelines. are falling with every review.]

THE MISSING BASELINE

The study does not present a very important baseline case: the case corresponding to closure of the facility. The study only considers current operations (which are definitely not a future option) and retrofit. Since selection between closure and retrofit is a key public policy decision, it should be part of the study. The fact that DEP doesn't favor it is no excuse for not studying it. It should not be hard to include since DEP can simply run the same models with a zero level of emissions. RED HERRINGS The DEP introduces several deliberate red herrings into the process. They should be strongly rebuked for doing so. For example:

o The attempt to imply that landfills are also significant sources of mercury was rebutted at the meeting, but it deserves further response.

o The attempt to confuse the issue on dioxin sources was outrageous. Incinerators are a major source, and their contributions can be measured if care is taken.

o The attempt to point the finger at other sources of Hg is a transparent diversionary tactic. MRI is not the only source of Hg - and we know that. The point is that MRI must be responsible for what it emits (period). We should resent any attempt to change the topic to other pollution sources.

CANCER METHODOLOGY

The methodology used for estimating cancer risks seems appropriate. They appear to have added up the risk from all the pollutants for which they had data. This is better than looking at each pollutant separately. But their work was applied to the wrong exposure pathway. They should do the same thing for food exposures.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATION

Before getting into the complexities of human health, it might be useful to have DEP state clearly how MRI will contribute to the mercury concentrations in local lakes. What fraction of the current concentration is due to the incinerator? How is the mercury level in the lake expected to change over the next 20 years with and without the incinerator? What is the year at which fish advisories can be cancelled - with and without the incinerator?

THE $8M LONG-TERM STUDY

While we all agree that more study is needed, the $8M study proposal sketched out at the meeting seems unlikely to be worthwhile. The time frame for the proposed study makes it irrelevant to the level of pollution we will suffer over the next 10 years (4-5 years of study, 2-3 years to write regulations, 4-15 years to implement). Our immediate need is for studies that focus on the truly relevant concerns and apply current models and knowledge. We do believe that someday researchers will discover synergistic interactions between pollutants, and that they will discover a "body count" due to current permitted levels of pollution. But it isn't clear that DEP will be able to speed the advance the science in this matter.

NEED FOR AN UNBLINKING, UNFETTERED STUDY

The comments at the meeting indicate a willingness to put the blinders on according to which particular regulation DEP is charged with enforcing at the current time. This ignores the fact that many decision-makers, with varied responsibilities, are looking to the DEP for guidance. For example, municipal officials need a study to help them assess the importance of expending additional town funds on increasing recycling. Communities need a study telling them whether to support further lawsuits against polluters. Communities need to know whether they should enter into particular contracts for municipal solid waste disposal. Legislators need to know whether they should work to provide additional funds for particular solid waste programs (such as the subsidy for pollution controls that Mr. Shawn Worcester of NESWC mentioned). And the citizens of the Commonwealth need to know what the problems are so they can develop the political will to solve them. At the hearing, Mr. Kunce indicated that DEP's prime focus is on developing the data needed to defend DEP regulatory actions in court. While this is important to DEP, it isn't the sole need of the Commonwealth. And it is not the most important need. If the incinerators are killing people, we can shut them down without a long drawn-out series of partially effective regulatory actions on the part of DEP. But first we have to know the true level of hazard.
 
 

2. (This is a copy of an e-mail sent to Fran Ludwig by Jill)

Hi Fran-

It became clear at the meeting last week that the DEP knows its approach to safety science is not sound. I think they actually agree with our critique of their model. However, they are politically locked-in to permitting the NESWC facility no matter what the scientific findings. If political winds change, though, it would be a whole new ball game. Logic is clearly on our side, and if we can demonstrate constituent support for sustainable waste management as well, we may have an unbeatable combination. We'll be discussing this at the next SWAT meeting on Monday.

Below are answers to some of your very good questions. I'll also forward John Andrews' comments on the meeting in case you haven't gotten them. If your time is as tight as I think it is, you may want to hold off on a letter to DEP and use the time for a future letter or discussion with our legislators, who appear at this point to hold more potential to influence the outcome.

ARE SAFE LEVELS REALLY SAFE?

So-called safe levels have already resulted in bioaccumulation to levels that are hazardous to anyone eating local fish. The highest fish mercury levels in the state have been found in Haverhill, very close to the cluster of incinerators. Instead of investing $43 million in the retrofit, which is an incomplete solution to mercury, dioxin, or any other form of pollution, we should invest in source reduction (of mercury and other toxic precursors) and consumer education to accomplish overall reduction in the waste stream as well as in toxics. We should be investing in sustainable waste management options, not costly technologies that are invariably outdated when the next study shows "safe levels" were not safe enough. Indeed our current mercury disaster is itself a product of what were the "guaranteed" safe regulations of the 1980s.

EXPECTED IMPACT OF MERCURY EMISSIONS AFTER RETROFIT

After retrofit, NESWC will still emit some 26,000 grams (59 lbs) of mercury each year. Because of bioaccumulation and persistence, it requires only a gram of mercury to render the fish in a 20 acre lake inedible (according to the Minnesota Dept. of Environmental Protection). Rough calculations suggest that mercury emissions even at this rate would be very damaging. If only 5% of this emitted mercury falls into Mass. waters, it will take only a few decades to poison our remaining clean fish stock.

RETROFIT WILL PREVENT FUTURE PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

If we proceed with retrofit, we will lock into a maximum state recycling rate of 50%, (other states have set targets well over 60%) because there will be obligate incinerator capacity to fill. So even if we recycle over 50%, trash will be imported to keep the incinerators burning. This retrofit watershed is a golden opportunity to make our waste management system more sustainable. By denying permit to NESWC and avoiding one of the retrofits, we can shift 10% of our waste stream from incineration to reducing/recycling. If we don't take the opportunity now, we won't have another chance for 20 years (the lifetime of the retrofits).

THE SMOKING ANALOGY

The discussion we're having with the DEP reminds me of a recurrent dialogue I have with smokers as a physician. There is never a good time to quit and the smoker always has compelling reasons not to quit "today". If you can get them to see the bigger picture and to understand how big the future consequences of smoking are, then the sacrifices entailed in quitting don't seem so big anymore. The DEP and society in general want to sweep the consequences of incineration under the rug, in part because of the misperception that we have no options. The truth of the matter is there are increasingly serious consequences, particularly with regard to food chain pollution, and that we do have readily available options.

There is nothing sacred or immutable in our one ton-per-person-per-year rate of trash production. Our reckless approach to waste production is predicated on ignorance of the consequences. The concepts of persistence, bioaccumulation, and maternal transmission require a bit of explaining, but once people become aware of this process, their outlook is fundamentally changed. Trash production doesn't look so benign anymore, and it becomes utterly simple to reduce it.

In answer to your mercury question, current main sources are thermometers, manometers (blood pressure cuffs), and fluorescent light bulbs (not necessarily in that order). The disposal of bulbs is regulated only for large purchasers. Lois Pines has proposed some very good legislation that would address this and other aspects of source reduction. DEP is trying to promote source reduction, but could put some of the $43 million retrofit money into this and do a whole lot better!

The meeting on Monday couldn't come at a worse time, but we have only 2 months to stop the retrofit, so we decided to go ahead anyhow. It's likely to be a small meeting, and we'll certainly understand why people aren't there! If you can come for part of the meeting, great, and if not, happy holidays! We'll keep you posted in the meeting notes. Jill
 

3. ONE DEAD IN CAMBODIAN PROTESTS AGAINST TOXIC WASTE (from Jill)

Reuters.SIHANOUKVILLE, Cambodia - One rioter died on Sunday morning as 1,000 people stormed offices of local authorities in the Cambodian port city of Sihanoukville, police said on Sunday. Chanting dock workers and residents were protesting against allegedly toxic waste imports from Taiwan that may have killed two people and sickened others. In a second day of unrest, protesters burst into the offices of the Cambodian Shipping Agency Broker, KAMSHAB, near the port and began throwing office furniture from the top floor of the government agency.

"One demonstrator died when he was trying to take property from the government building of KAMSHAB. He fell out of building," said Kheng Wicheth, chief of an immigration police base at the scene of the violence.

Two passersby were also injured by falling furniture, he added. The crowds later burnt some office furniture and a motorcycle. The protests were aimed against company and government officials who had cleared the import of 3,000 tonnes of industrial waste from Taiwan petrochemical giant Formosa Plastics.

The waste had been dumped about 10 km (six miles) from Sihanoukville. It is believed by local environmental inspectors to be compressed ash from an industrial waste incinerator and to also contain hazardous material such as lead, zinc and mercury. Formosa Plastics has said the material is industrial waste that did contain traces of mercury, but had been certified by Taiwan's Environmental Protection Administration as being well below hazardous levels and was safe for landfill disposal. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has demanded that the waste be sent back to Taiwan immediately and appealed for help from the United Nations, World Health Organization and other world environment agencies to resolve the problem.

Health Minister Mam Bunheng said the deaths of at least two people and five cases of dizziness appeared connected to those involved with the movement of the waste. Kheng Wicheth said the demonstration had spun out of control and that police lacked equipment to control the crowds. One of the protesters, Hen Yon, 42, who lives near the dump site site said local people were angry and frustrated. "I want the corrupt officials to send back home the waste immediately," he told Reuters. "I worry about my family's health because of the Taiwanese waste." Premier Hun Sen has warned that any government official found to be involved in the incident would be suspended and punished. The director of a Cambodian company that imported the waste is still being questioned by police.

Cambodia's environment minister, Mok Mareth, told Reuters on Sunday that work would begin immediately to prevent the waste contaminating water supplies.

"We need to cover the waste immediately with plastic so it will prevent any further damage to the surrounding area," he said. "We will use bulldozers and tractors to create a protective soil wall around the dump."

Samples of the waste have been taken to Hong Kong for testing, but no results have been released. Cambodia lacks the facilities and expertise to carry out any testing itself. A technical expert from the United Nations is expected to arrive in Cambodia on Monday to help analyze the suspect material. (C) Reuters Limited 1998.
 
 

4. SWAT Team Annual Report: (from Jill) SWAT
Lexington Solid Waste Action Team Summary for Lexington's Annual Report, 1998

Role

To advise the Board of Selectmen on waste management policy options, in order to address growing health, economic and environmental problems from our increasing burden of solid waste. The Solid Waste Action Team, (SWAT) was also asked to explore options for regional cooperation in waste management, and to recommend programs to improve local participation in waste reduction efforts.

Appointed

by the Board of Selectmen: Chair Jill Stein, Principal Staff advisor George Woodbury; John Andrews, Jeanne Binstock, Dianne Carr, Laura Dickerson, Elizabeth Brosens, Eileen Entin, John Fedorochko, Katherine Fisher, Kate Fricker, Rosemary Green, Myla Kabat-Zinn, Jay Kaufman, Jeanne Krieger, Al Levine, Fran Ludwig.

Highlights

* The SWAT Waste Management Alternatives Report, in progress, summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the four waste management treatment options: source reduction, recycling, landfill, incineration. The report will also summarize the history, trends, and current status of solid waste and its management in Lexington.

* Exploring Opportunities for Regional Waste Management Our current regional waste management network, the North East Solid Waste Communities (NESWC) will expire in 2005. To prepare for the future, SWAT is collaborating with other groups to help build potential networks for future regional waste management efforts and develop consensus on sustainable policies. SWAT's collaborations include the following groups:

1.NESWC- developing strategy for seeking state assistance for the cost of transitioning to more sustainable waste management options. SWAT is encouraging NESWC to develop long range policies that address health and environmental impact, the costs of which are generally overlooked in short-term waste management assessments.

2.Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)-

a.)SWAT contributed health effects testimony at the DEP hearings which helped lead to stricter mercury controls, reducing the health risks of environmental mercury exposure.

b.)SWAT is offering input to DEP on their draft Aggregate Waste Combustor Emissions Study, suggesting that a health impact assessment of incinerator emissions must include human exposures to water, land and food pollution resulting from incinerator emissions.

c.)SWAT participates in the DEP's Waste Segregation Advisory Committee, helping to develop guidelines for incinerators to decrease the quantity of toxic substances entering their waste streams.

3.League of Women Voters (LWV)- SWAT is working with Lexington's LWV as well as a coalition of NESWC Leagues in examining waste management alternatives.

4.Merrimack Valley Environmental Coalition (MVEC)- SWAT, along with this coalition of NESWC citizen groups, has met with EPA Region I Commissioner John DeVillers and with Secretary Trudy Coxe, of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, in an effort to develop sustainable regional solutions to health, economic and environmental concerns associated with the NESWC incinerator.

5. Urban-Suburban Faith Community Linkage on Environmental Justice- Through SWAT's subcommittee on religious community outreach, we are participating in preliminary efforts to develop an interfaith environmental justice network. The network is intended to foster suburban and urban religious group partnerships in environmental justice projects.
 
 

* Increasing Public Participation in Waste Reduction Programs-Tools and networks for community education are being developed. We will focus on this aspect of our charge once our policy report has been completed and presented to the Board of Selectmen.

1. Tools SWAT has developed for community education on the health, economic and environmental issues in waste management:

email newsletter (issued 1-2 times per month)

SWAT website (http://www.lexingtonma.org/swat/HomePage.htm)

"Four Good Reasons to Reduce and Recycle",an educational flier

bibliography of internet sources on incineration

2. Developing outreach networks- SWAT has established subcommittees to focus on education and outreach to our schools, the business community, and religious groups. We have also established linkages with existing local organizations, (Citizens for Lexington Conservation, League of Women Voters) and have written two op-ed articles for the Minuteman addressing the "Emerging Health Imperative" to reduce the toxicity and quantity of our waste.