Here is a copy of the Press Release which was not used by the Eagle-Tribune.
For immediate release For further information:
People for the Environment Ed Meagher (978) 685-1012
P.O. Box 542, North Andover, MA 01845 Joan Kulash (978) 975-8108
August 17, 1998 Kathy Moyes (978) 682-9159

North Andover Citizens Left Out of Decisions about Incinerator

Residents of North Andover are outraged by the breakdown of the democratic process in town decision-making regarding the highly polluting NESWC incinerator. The Board of Health, whose clear mandate is to protect the public health and the environment, did not host any hearing for the general public at all. The Planning Board has not allowed any discussion of the implications of continued pollution after a proposed retrofit is completed. Both of these boards are relying solely on the conclusions of the "expert" hired by the town, whose training is in meteorology. The town's consultant is relying on operator's reports to the MA Dept. of Environmental Protection, along with some fancy computer modelling. No independent evaluation of the emissions data or measurement of the real impacts on the environment has been undertaken in connection with the "research."

According to members of the Merrimack Valley Environmental Coalition, the NESWC incinerator has been a very serious polluter for the past thirteen years, emitting far too much dioxin, and at least a ton of mercury (20% of the state's total), 164 pounds of lead and 40,000 pounds of particulates per year. There is good reason to suspect that the air emissions have been under-reported. The plant experiences literally hundreds of violations of the sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide limits each year. Carbon monoxide excess emissions during very long periods of "startup time" have been as high as 200-300 per cent of the permit limit. There have been significant periods when monitoring and emissions control equipment have not been functional.

The 23 NESWC towns face a 40-50 million dollar retrofit that will reduce the amounts of some air pollutants while concentrating more of the toxins in the ash. Even after the proposed retrofit, Massachusetts Refusetech estimates it will annually emit up to a ton of lead, 364 pounds of mercury, and many thousands of pounds of particulates (Environmental Notification Form, Table A-4, February 2, 1998). The plant would still be allowed to emit .13 lb. of dioxins, the most toxic compounds known to man; this yearly amount of dioxins represents a clear danger for an already overburdened populace. For lead and particulates, the new standards actually allow for greater emissions than have been experienced in the past by these trash combustors. Environmentalists state that any amount of mercury or dioxin added to the environment is too much because these pollutants do not degrade, but build up in ever-increasing concentrations. The 23 NESWC towns retain 100 per cent of the liability for any environmental damage caused by the ash.

Of course, pollution from the incinerator does not stop at the borders of North Andover. Health statistics for the area including North Andover, Andover, Lawrence, Methuen and Middleton are worth pondering. For the five-town area, the MA Department of Public Health (DPH) has compared area rates for each disease or condition with state averages for the same condition. Here is a summary of DPH data:

Hospitalization for:

Asthma (all ages, FY 1995): 45% above state rate
Pediatric asthma (1994) 60% above state rate
Pediatric asthma (1996) 40% above state rate
Bacterial pneumonia (FY'95) 39% above state rate
Angina (FY'95) 77 % above state rate

(NOTE that these figures only include those hospitalized.)

Elevated blood lead levels (Ages 0-6, 1994):76% above state rate
("lead poisoning")

For North Andover alone, the following DPH data stand out:
Hospitalization for angina (FY'95): 49% above state rate
Breast cancer incidence (1987-92): 31% higher than expected

(based on "statewide average age-specific incidence rates," MA Cancer Registry Cancer Incidence in MA: 1982-92, DPH, Nov. 1995)

(NOTE: There was no significant excess in incidence from 1982-86.)

Death rate from breast cancer (1995): Almost twice the state rate

Members of People for the Environment and the Merrimack Valley Enviromental Coalition urge all readers in NESWC towns to contact your NESWC representative to state your commitment to the protection of public health and the environment.
 
 

2. ( From Jill Stein), from Joel Tickner <ticknerj@woods.uml.edu> of U.Mass Lowell regarding PVC. There is growing interest in the role of PVC as a dioxin precursor and the benefits of using less toxic substances inthe construction industry. This is important to waste management in that construction materials eventually become a part of the waste stream, and detoxifying" construction materials will greatly reduce the toxic burden of the waste stream. It is exciting to see this discussion beginning to take place at the state level. However, Joel's email also reflects the the power of the vested industry to influence this discussion on a state level, and industry's efforts to prevent the discussion from taking place at all by threatening law suits. (Note, VI below refers to the Vinyl Institute, and Sarnafil is a manufacturer of PVC roofing.)

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:18:07 -0400

Subject: [Fwd: meeting with state procurement people on PVC]

Today I met with Hope Davis, Sarah Hammond Creighton, and Pat Lynch of the Department of Capital Asset Management, Eric Friedman of the procurement office, and Gina McCarthy, director of the TURA program at Executive Office of Environmental Affairs to discuss PVC hazards. Sarah and Hope are in charge of green building for the state office in charge of all public buildings, Pat Lynch is their "roof specialist", and Eric is in charge of green procurement. I believe HCWH has already met with Eric.

This meeting was to introduce the technical aspects of the PVC issue to these people as well as to discuss the conference on PVC alternatives in construction that the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production is planning. The meeting also follows on the heels of Ted Boylan's meeting with Trudy Coxe two weeks ago.

Let me first start out by saying that this is going to be a very politically heated conference. Even before our meeting this morning,

Hope told me that emails were flying throughout the internal system about why they were meeting with me. Gina also indicated that Sarnafil called yesterday threatening lawsuits again and demanding information on this meeting. Gina told me she held her ground and that Sarnafil will meet with her next Tuesday for her to explain the Clean States Program.

Also, in introduction, let me tell you that Pat Lynch is the mole within the government that has been notifying Sarnafil and the VI about what is happening. He made that clear during the meeting. He was obviously spoon fed the lines to say but he did listen to my presentation.

I began my presentation noting that this is not just a radical green issue and that concerns about PVC and PVC deselection are happening around the world, in industry, government, and non-governmental sectors. I then presented information on the PVC lifecycle to the group and they were very receptive and asked good questions. Fire and dioxin seemed to be the greatest concerns. Also, long term liability for the state should a PVC deslection process occur.

The main concern for them was whether alternatives worked. Since the only technical person was Pat, the discussion focused mainly on roofs and he made clear that PVC for its price was the best material there. He did admit that the industry knows it leaches phthalates (this was another concern for those at the meeting) but there is a "cost benefit calculation" to be made. He did say that if he had more money for roofs he wouldn't choose PVC. He showed an interesting graph (without titles) demonstrating that PVC was the most widely used roofing material (I had seen this graph before). I asked him whether that was growth in the industry and not percentage of market and he acknowledged that that was the case (in other words - PVC only holds about 5% of the roofing market but is growing at 14% - more than others, while EPDM holds 40% of the market...A bit tricky on his part).

I left them with a large packet of mainly firefighters materials (on acute hazards) and opened them up to the possibility of a larger meeting with experts later. They made it clear that because this is a hot issue there is no way the state will take a position on PVC until this issue is carefully studied and both sides have been heard. I agree that this is a good position but obviously NGO/labor encouragement will be useful. Gina was clear in stating that the evidence on a need to replace PVC in medical devices is very good and the move is happening. They want ot be cautious about construction.

They are very excited about the conference. I made it clear that the idea of the conference is to focus on the broader issue of sustainable materials using PVC as a first case study into the issue.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the meeting.

Cheers,

Joel

--

***Please Note new area code effective immediately

Joel A. Tickner
568 Flat Hill Rd.
Lunenberg, MA 01462
tel 1-978-582-3371
fax 1-978-582-3372