[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E222-E223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        SOLID WASTE INCINERATION

                                 ______


                        HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 30, 1995
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues the facts surrounding solid waste incineration. While the 
reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
may not be on the top of the agenda for this Congress, I believe the 
importance of the issue warrants some immediate discussion.
  I have long been a vocal opponent of solid waste incinerators in my 
community. While incinerators may make some small dent in our garbage 
problem, they also create severe environmental and health concerns we 
cannot afford to ignore.
  During combustion, an incinerator emits significant quantities of 
heavy metals like mercury, cadmium and lead, and complex organic 
compounds, including dioxins. Equally important, incineration 
transforms many toxic substances in solid waste into highly volatile 
compounds more easily absorbed into the food chain or inhaled or 
ingested by humans. Lead can cause mental retardation, learning 
disabilities and kidney damage. It is especially toxic to children and 
pregnant women. Cadmium has been linked to lung cancer and kidney 
disorders. High levels of dioxins can result in altered liver function. 
These toxins are not rare--they are common emissions of solid waste 
incinerators. Burning garbage is a dangerous and costly proposal.
  Research has shown that air pollution by tiny particles, even within 
current legal limits, can raise the risk of early death from heart or 
lung disease. As a result, I have urged the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (USEPA) to review and update the Federal health based 
standard for particulate air pollution. This is an issue of great 
concern for me and my constituents since we must already cope with a 
number of polluting industries in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs. 
Fortunately, the USEPA has initiated the process of revising air 
quality criteria for particle pollution. I welcome this action.
  Last year, the USEPA released its report on the dangers of dioxins. 
Dioxins, one of the most toxic manmade chemicals, are chlorinated 
hydrocarbons that are byproducts of a number of combustion processes, 
including solid waste incineration. In its report, the USEPA concluded 
that dioxins are probable cancer causing agents. Dioxins have also been 
associated with weakened immune systems, birth defects and damage to 
the reproductive system.
  Dioxins are extremely pervasive in the environment. Much of dioxin 
comes from incinerators that emit the chemicals through the air, which 
is deposited on grass and trees. The chemical is then consumed by cows 
and other animals. Dioxin is also deposited in lakes and streams and 
ingested by fish. The highest concentrations of dioxins are found in 
plants and animals, thus contaminating the food supply.
  [[Page E223]] As required under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 
the USEPA last year announced tougher new air standards for municipal 
solid waste incinerators. These regulations are designed to cut harmful 
emissions from incinerators by requiring the installation of more 
pollution control equipment. While I am encouraged by these new 
requirements, I remain opposed to the construction of any new solid 
waste incinerators. The costs of complying with new standards, along 
with the health risks of the incineration process, are simply not worth 
it.
  At this time, I wish to insert into the Record comments made by one 
of my constituents, Michael Turlek of the Lyons Incineration Opponent 
Network (LION) in Illinois. These comments were submitted in response 
to the USEPA's proposed rules on incinerator emissions and the 
reassessment of dioxin.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend 
Mr. Turlek for his commitment to the environment. Mr. Turlek has been a 
leading force in fighting solid waste incinerator projects proposed for 
my congressional district. I thank Mr. Turlek for his tireless efforts 
on behalf of public health.

               Lyons Incinerator Opponent Network (Lion)

                         (by Michael W. Turlek)

       The disclosures of the Federal EPA Health Assessment 
     Document for dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds call for re-
     assessment of corrective measures for primary sources of 
     major dioxin emissions.
       We are dealing with extremely poisonous, stable compounds 
     with environmental persistence measured in decades. Compounds 
     that can be passed from the expectant mother's system to the 
     growing fetus, then, post-natally, through the mother's milk 
     to the infant who is then subject to a lifetime of additional 
     exposure and health hazards. Following absorption, a half-
     life for 2-3-7-8-TCDF elimination was estimated from 5.8 
     years to 11.3 years.
       The current report reveals the average human intake 
     exposure rate to be more than 500-fold HIGHER than the 1985 
     EPA report data. Upper-bound risk estimates for general 
     population dioxin exposure could be as high as one in 10,000 
     to 1 in 1,000. This is frightening data and the FEPA must 
     look closely towards recommendations for the cure rather than 
     the band-aid.
       We, as responsible adults cannot accept the associated 
     health risks for the current or future generations.


                 reproductive and developmental effects

       Hormonal changes, reproductive dysfunction, under-developed 
     organs and impaired organ function. Developmental toxicity 
     found in fish, birds and mammals is likely to occur in 
     humans.


                            immune toxicity

       Alterations in specific immune defector functions and 
     increased susceptibility to infectious disease.


                                 cancer

       TCDD has been clearly shown to increase malignant tumor 
     incidence in laboratory animals.
       The peer panel that met in September of 1993 found that 
     results from human studies were largely consistent with 
     observations from laboratory studies of dioxin-induced cancer 
     and therefore should not be dismissed or ignored.
       Major, qualitative, environmental release sources have been 
     identified as: Medical Waste Incinerators, Municipal Waste 
     Incinerators, Cement Kilns, and Industrial wood burning.
       Dioxin, being a by-product of incineration merely transfers 
     the dioxin to land-fills via the bottom-ash if emission 
     standards are reduced to keep dioxins out of the atmosphere.
       The problem continues.
       It behooves the EPA to recommend a ban on medical 
     municipal, wood-burning and other dioxin producing 
     incinerators. Tightening standards is not enough.
       Chemical manufacturing process recommendations should call 
     for a phasing out of chlorinated compounds with immediate use 
     of alternate non-dioxin compounds, where available.
       Perhaps it's time that we should be talking about BEST 
     KNOWN technologies rather than BEST AVAILABLE. Laser burn 
     technology might prove substantially more efficient.
       Part of the study states that you cannot point to the 
     number of the populace affected negatively nor can you point 
     to the individuals; but the facts and data are there.
       You never will be able to point to these people. They will 
     continue as needless, obscure casualties, unless you do 
     something about it.
                                addendum

       The persistent and hazardous nature of dioxin causes us to 
     question the control effectiveness of Waste Incineration 
     Dioxin Standards.
       Michael Cooper, Mgr, Environmental Compliance, Foster/
     Wheeler waste incinerator builder/operator, while describing 
     ``carbon injection'' as a dioxin emission control system 
     stated the following:
       Trapped dioxin particles are released when introduced to 
     fire of lower temperature than the original combustion.
       In answer to a question from the Chair, he stated that the 
     dioxin particles do not end up in the fly-ash.
       Our comment: Most incinerator operations have identified 
     dioxin in both fly-ash and bottom ash.
       In answer to another question from the Chair, Cooper stated 
     that the temperature was not high enough to destroy the 
     dioxin.
       Our comment: Carbon injection is not a proven technology 
     for removal and destruction of dioxin.


                         OTHER QUESTIONS ARISE

       1. Can we be comfortable with injecting dioxin particles 
     for destruction while other dioxin participles are being 
     formed? Are we really reducing atmospheric dioxin emission or 
     creating a steadier flow?
       2. Do we want dioxin-contaminated fly ash or dioxin-
     contaminated bottom ash that does not test hazardous to be 
     landfilled with non-hazardous waste?
       3. Do we want dioxin-contaminated fly ash or bottom ash 
     used for building products as some burner builder/operator 
     would?
       4. Because of the high toxic and persistent nature of 
     dioxin, we should require hazardous waste treatment for ash 
     and filters that show dioxin content.
       The preponderance of evidence shows dioxin to be a very 
     dangerous, hazardous compound. How much longer are we going 
     to expose the population to needless hazards, be it dioxin, 
     mercury or any other compound?
       Haven't we learned yet?
       

                          ____________________