GARBAGE: THE BURNING ISSUE They’re not exactly bullish on the “ resource recovery ” /garbage burning industry. Even that venerable business publication Barron’s called it “a great big flop ... long on promise, short on profits. ” Now Metro, the joint government agency for the Portland area, faced with an immense solid waste problem, and no easy solution, is planning to build one of the world’s largest units in Oregon City. The following three articles examine some troubling aspects of the garbage burning issue from the environmental, financial and recycling perspectives. IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, BUT... By Steve Dodge Sonoma County, Calif., report F l calls it “the false panacea.” Proponents of the technology like to call it “resource recovery’’ — an answer to our garbage problems, an aid to our energy problems. But whatever you call it, garbage burning is a concept that’s probably as old as civilization itself. What’s relatively new is using the energy from burning plastics, glass, wood, metals and just about anything else that gets thrown away to generate steam for electrical production. Plans are in various stages of development for facilities in Oregon City, Salem, Douglas and Union counties, Seattle and other parts of the country which share a common problem: What to do with all that garbage? On the surface “resource recovery" sounds like an alternative energy dream. Proponents like to talk of fuel oil saved by an industrial customer who substitutes the generated steam energy and landfills they won’t have to site. But serious problems, mechanical and environmental, have plagued the “resource recovery” industry. An explosion has shut down the Eugene facility. The Saugus, Mass., plant, a prototype of the bulk burning plant proposed for Oregon City, suffered severe corrosion problems and has required millions of dollars in repairs. A considerable amount of material is left over from the burning process — some of it highly toxic — which has to be disposed of in landfills or toxic waste dumps. The plants, most everyone agrees, are major new sources of air pollution. Among the wide range of pollutants emerging from garbage burners are: lead, mercury, asbestos, arsenic, carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides and dioxins, the controversial substances found in the herbicide 2,4,5,T and the Vietnam defoliant Agent Orange. Much of the debate on the Oregon City facility has centered on the dioxin issue and other pollution concerns, although the coalition of neighborhood groups and Clackamas County environmentalists opposed to the plant question the use of tax dollars and garbage rates to build and finance ongoing operation of the facility. Metro, the inter-governmental agency charged with solid waste disposal, has been the driving force behind this proposal. Metro’s plan calls for trucking about 600,000 tons (annually) of unsorted garbage from all over the Portland area to a site in Oregon City across the street from Drawing by Steve Winkenwerder There are about 30 different types of dioxins, including one whose only known source in the environment is the fly ash o f garbage incinerators. Dioxin is the most toxic substance known to mankind. Rossman’s Landfill, adjacent to the Park Place exit of Interstate 205. Steam from incineration of the garbage would be piped approximately a half mile along the Willamette River to Publishers Paper Company for use in electrical generation and the papermaking process. Metro and Publishers contend the • plant will not harm the local environment and would generate up to 80permanent jobs and 200 temporary construction jobs, while displacing part of the 25,000 gallons of fuel oil Publishers uses daily to operate their plant. Gershman, Brickner and Bratton (GBB), a Washington, D.C., solid waste consulting firm contracted by Metro and Oregon City, contends that even in the areas of highest impact — the Sunset area of West Linn and the Canemah, Park Place and Mt. Pleasant areas of Oregon City, there would be “no significant health impacts. ” GBB also questions findings of dioxin at the now-closed Hempstead, N. Y., resource recovery plant, saying dioxin was found during tests for other substances. GBB said “on a molecular basis it [dioxin] is perhaps the most poisonous synthetic chemical” but concluded “present data on dioxin emissions are not sufficient to curtail the proposed [Oregon City] resource recovery project." A recent report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits dioxins have had “adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects at very low doses" on laboratory rats and other animals, but states “information with respect to human exposure is less conclusive. " “EPA’s policy for quite some time as a general statement is that resource recovery is the preferred alternative for waste disposal,” said Randolph Christmon, environmental protection specialist with the Washington, D.C., headquarters of EPA. Christmon noted the report concludes garbage-to-energy facilities “do not present a public health hazard for residents living in the immediate vicinity. ” The citizens of Hempstead, N.Y., who generated enough local opposition to close their facility, apparently feel differently. Christmon admitted that dioxins were found at the New York facility, but he said the agency isn’t sure how much. He said the EPA had been informed by the city of Hempstead that the plant will not reopen until a safety standard has been established for dioxin. The EPA has no plans to set such a standard, says Christmon, because the agency feels the amount emitted is too small to worry about. Dr. Phillip Leveque, a Molalla physician who is one of the few doctors In the state licensed as a toxicologist, disagrees, saying flatly, “dioxins are too toxic to be tolerated in a populated area." He notes there are about thirty different types of dioxins, including one whose only known source in the environment is the fly ash of garbage incinerators. Dioxin, he told an Oregon House committee, “is the most toxic substance known to mankind. ” In hearings before the Oregon City Commission, Leveque testified that dioxin emissions result from burning products containing the chemical pentachlorophenol: canned goods, boxes, crates, plywood and other wood products, and garden clippings sprayed with 2,4, D or 2,4,5,T. ‘Tn nature they have a tendency for bioaccumulation and consequently they present a threat for man and the environment. In other words, they are stable in the environment and can be stored in plants and the fat of food animals — get into the food chain and threaten man by passing on toxicity, ” he told the commission. Oregon officials have been largely relaxed about some of garbage burning’s other pollution problems. Most of the urban area hugging the Willamette River from Portland to Oregon City is presently listed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as a “non-attainment" area — or area in violation — of state and federal standards set for carbon monoxide and lead, as well as the soot, dust and other airborne debris known as particulate. The proposed plant, with its 250-foot smokestack, would discharge another 80-100 tons of particulate a year, the maximum allowable under the specifications issued by MSD, though some feel the figure is unobtainable and would be revised upwards if the plant became operational. DEQ’s Lloyd Kostow raised a few eyebrows in West Linn when he told the city council “a considerable area of the Portland area exceeds particulate standards." Asked a man in the audience: “There’s too much particulate material there already, but you’re talking about adding more?” “Yes,” replied Kostow. He later said that if the plant is built, DEQ and Metro would have to come up with ways to “offset” the plant’s pollution. He mentioned further restrictions on automobiles, industry, and restrictions on woodstoves as possibilities. State officials also appear to be unruffled by the fact that garbage plants emit nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxides which react with sunlight in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Wheel- abrator Frye estimates that 210 tons of sulphur dioxide, 1050 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 204 tons of hydrochloric acid would be generated annually by the Oregon City plant. By comparison, all the Portland area’s transportation sources combined total 1250 tons annually of nitrogen oxide. 30 Clinton St. Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz