Health Care Without Harm, 2004 1

Incineration

and

Health Care Waste

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 2

Internationally there has been a move away from

incineration This is true for America, India,

Greece, Germany, France, Japan, Turkey, Netherlands, Costa Rica and the Philippines

Incinerator companies are taking their technology East (Eastern Europe) and South

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 3

Examples

Philippines, Clean Air Act (1999), Section 20

“Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of municipal, biomedical

and hazardous waste, which process emits poisonous and toxic

fumes is hereby prohibited”

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 4

Rhode Island, USA (1992) – State Senate Act 92-S 2502

“…incineration of solid waste is the most costly method of waste disposal with known and unknown escalating costs

which would place substantial and unreasonable burdens on both state and municipal budgets to the point of

seriously jeopardizing the public’s interest.”

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 5

It is hazardous to the environment and is therefore

not sustainable

Ash and atmospheric emissions Health problems – hormonal, immune

and reproductive systems Audit of hospital waste streams

conducted by groundWork and Health Care Without Harm - 2001

Release of mercury a major concern Ash produced is much more poisonous

than the waste before it is burnt

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 6

Air Quality Bill does not state WHAT particularly needs to be measured for!!!

Not enough reasonable measures

No timeframes

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 7

Stockholm Convention

Incinerators seriously undermine the objectives of the POP’s treaty

Stockholm Convention ratified by South Africa

Incineration identified as principle source of dioxins and furans

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 8

Environmental Protection Agency (1970’s)

The EPA describes it as:“one of the most, if not the most, potent reproductive/developmental

toxicants known” Dioxins are classified as persistent

organic pollutants (POPs) – once manufactured resist being broken down

Bioaccumulation – up food chain

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 9

Air Quality Bill does not deliver on Stockholm Convention

KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health does not have one incinerator that meets legal standards

Civil society has lobbied government to implement non-thermal technologies

Government taken to court by groundWork over Ixopo incinerator

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 10

Ixopo incinerator largest in KZN – poorly managed

Audit reports showed failure to meet health and safety conditions of permit

- exceeding emission levels prescribed

- failure to meet required temperature

(release of dioxins)

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 11

April 2002, Civil Society Workshop on Health Care Waste and Incineration

Formulation of Isipingo Declaration

KZN government – policy decision to halt medical waste in province

Two first ever non-thermal treatments were set up in KZN

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 12

Air Quality Bill Does not mention the phasing out of

dirty technologies NO emphasis to the selection of clean

production technologies No mention of emission control devices Inadequate guidance is given to officials

entrusted with licensing of industries Air pollution control is about “technology

forcing”

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 13

Alternatives to incineration Reduce, reuse, recycle – together with composting

Numerous proposals on the table for incinerators;

- Burning tyres (Pretoria Portlands Cement);

- Wood, bark, sawdust, sludge (Mondi

Paper)

- Hazardous Waste (Natal Portlands

Cement), etc. Halt production of substances that cannot be

recycled

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 14

Waste reduction and separation is important Lessons from other countries such as the UK Recycling waste; e.g. tyres

- rubber wheels

- running tracks

- surface materials for roads

- backing of carpets and car mats Wood and bark – composting Sadly this Bill gives no empathies to pollution

minimization

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 15

Conclusion

Building incinerators is a reaction to the problem of waste management and is not part of a sustainable energy policy

Burning matter does not destroy it. Burning it converts it into another form and redistributes it in the air, land and water

We need to move away from waste disposal to waste management

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 16

The Air Quality Bill needs to be strengthened through the following:

It needs to commit to the phasing out of dirty technology such as incinerators.

It also needs to give emphasis to the selection of clean production technologies that would emit few pollutants than burn technologies;

Health Care Without Harm, 2004 17

It also needs to emphasize emission control devices, i.e. scrubbers to reduce pollution levels (Section 36).

Guidance needs to be given to authorities for decision making on licensing.