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.
Top Related