OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYR JANFEB 90 PAGE 6 I' ? never having to say goodbye being.an incinerator means Lance Christie by - The Grand County voters vetoed zoning In Cisco for a commercial hazardous waste Incinerator by a 2:1 margin In November, 1988. But It now seems we are sure to have the same design of waste Incinerator In the Grand County part of Green River In the near future. Incinerator Information project, my research Identified During the Co-W- est three reasons why a commercial hazardous waste Incinerator In canyon country would not be a beneficial neighbor: (1) State and federal regulations were a farce, not measuring or limiting Incredibly toxic air emissions like dioxins and heavy metals. Study after study has shown that medical and municipal waste Incinerators emit the same toxins as "hazardous waste Incinerators; only the quantity varies. (2) State and federal regulatory agencies said they did not have the resources to actually monitor a waste Incinerator In Southern Utah. (3) would Surveys Indicated that having a hazardous waste Incinerator In Grand County and tourists. work against attracting clean Industry, new residents, These same reasons still exist when looking at the current proposals for medial waste Incinerators on the Grand County side of Green River, and a commercial hazardous waste Incinerator on the Emery County side of Green River. Several studies document that burning hospital wastes produce dioxins and cadmium In the exhaust gas at levels harmful to public health. The feds have drafted new Incinerator regulations which regulate dioxins and heavy metals emissions, but they aren't In effect yet and arent getting anywhere. The state says It still has no ability to regulate Incinerators down here In SE Utah. As to economic Impact, Green River Is a starting point for many river trips; If the area got a reputation for being polluted, area tourism might negatively be affected. Any haze produced from smokestacks near Green River will affect all of Canyonlands. In November, 1988, Continental Thermal Destructors, a "paper corporation from New Jersey, had a conference with the Environmental Health Division, Utah waste, Department of Health, on the permitting process for a never or built River. (Continental has hospital waste Incinerator near Green operated a waste Incinerator, or anything else. The corporation reps were told that only an Air Quality Permit was required at the time, but that regulations were being prepared to require a Solid Waste Incinerator Permit as welL These regulations took effect In April, 1989, and Continental's Incinerator permit Is currently In In response to pressure from Continental and process and being "fast-track- ed their political supporters. The public was first Introduced to Continental when they held public presentations In Green River In January, 1989. They presented plans for a "pyrolizer which would Incinerate hospital wastes. Waste heat from the pyrolizer would be used by the Ford brothers to heat tomato greenhouses. The greenhouses seemed most exciting to Green River citizens, offering numerous Jobs for which people of an agricultural background qualify. Shortly after, the Ford brothers moved their tomato-growi- ng plans to the Price area to take advantage of the waste heat from the power plant and the larger labor pool there. Twq other companies proposed hospital waste Incinerators In Tooele and Salt Lake Counties. Continentals plans seemed to have hit the doldrums. Local concerned citizens, Including the Grand County Commissioners heard nothing about any further Incinerator plans until recently. In October, I found out that the Interim Health Committee of the Utah Legislature was considering several waste Incinerators meet the bills, Including one which would make same siting criteria as hazardous waste Incinerators. Two weeks ago, I heard from two different private citizens that Continental was pursuing Its solid waste Incinerator permit "with the pedal to the metal I made numerous calls to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau and the Air Quality Bureau, asking dumb questions. I found out that Continental submitted their application (called "notice of Intent or NOI) to the Air Quality Bureau in January, 1989. the Bureau gave It back, saying It was Incompetent and Insufficient Continental then hired Energy Products of Idaho (EPI), an Incinerator equipment manufacturer, to prepare their NOI. The NOI by EPI proposed two Incinerators, each having 1,050 pounds per hour capacity. Each would maintain a temperature of 1400 degrees Fahrenheit In the primary combustion chamber, and 1800 In the secondary combustion chamber with a gas residence time of three seconds. Wet scrubbers would remove particles from the exhaust The supplementary fuel was "commercial grade natural gas. You may recognize this design as a close relative of st's hazardous waste incinerator. Continentals permit application assumes that medical waste will be classified as hazardous waste In the future (because studies show burning It releases toxic dioxins and heavy metals). Continental therefore proposed an Incinerator design appropriate for burning hazardous waste. "non-hazard- ous "non-hazard- non-hazard- ous Co-We- There Is a puzzling Inconsistency In the Continental Incinerator design versus the California Air Quality Board findings. California medical waste Incinerators are not commercial hazwaste types like Continental's. The Board found that a combination of a dry scrubber and baghouse removed 99 of dioxins and cadmium from the Incinerators' exhaust, but a wet scrubber did not reduce these toxins to design like Continental's, you a safe level With a have to use a wet scrubber to lower the exhaust gas temperatures. The Why Is Continental exhaust would burn up a dry scrubber and baghouse. Continental using this commercial hazardous waste Incinerator design which does not permit the use of Best Available Control Technology for medical waste exhaust pollution control? This Is a relevant question for the permit hearings. two-cham- ber hlgh-tempera- ture ous The Air Quality Bureau gave Continental their permit In March. The permit specified very strict limits on nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and particulate emissions, and required monitoring of oxygen and carbon monoxide at the stack. The Bureau Is aware of the professional articles that report that hospital wastes give rise to dioxins and heavy metals when burned. Bureau staff declare that, if the Continental Incinerator maintains the temperature, oxygen, and other operating conditions specified In the permit; Jf the wastes fed Into It are what the permit allows; and if the hospital staff bagging the waste leave out unpermltted wastes, then the Continental Incinerator will produce little toxic emissions and regional haze. However, both the Air Quality and Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureaus Compliance Sections admit they dont have the resources to assure these conditions are met Several Bureau staff recommended local monitoring of the waste stream and Incinerator operations. Immediately after solid waste Incinerator regulations were adopted, the Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau (SHWB) got a call from the state bonding authority about Green Rivers application for Industrial Revenue Bonds for Continental SHWB said truthfully that Continental had neither a permit nor an application pending. Shortly after, an upset Continental appeared and argued that, since they got their Air Quality Permit before April, they didnt need a Solid Waste Incinerator Permit The Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau had told them In writing that they did, so this argument didnt wash. Continental submitted a sold waste permit application and their $100 fee posthaste. Several SHWB staff report being pressured by Continental, Mayor Hatt of Green River, and Governor Bangerter's office (apparently Inspired by Mayor Hatt for this "rural asking help cccncmlc development) to produce a solid wo etc permit Jr- - |