Why burning hazardous waste in cement kilns is a bad idea

Why burning hazardouswaste in cement kilns is abad ideaDr. Paul ConnettProfessor of ChemistrySt. Lawrence UniversityCanton, NYpconnett@stlawu.eduMonselice, Nov 23, 2005

Why burning hazardous waste incement kilns is a bad idea• Burning hazardous waste is dangerous evenwhen done by professionals!• It is even more dangerous when done byuntrained operators.• Workers in the plants do not realize howhazardous some of the materials are that theyare handling -this includes the waste itself; thefly ash and the clinker.• The air pollution control is very crude.• The gases enter air pollution control abovetemperatures where dioxin is formed.

Why burning hazardous waste incement kilns is a bad idea• These plants are not regulated like genuine hazardouswaste incinerators.• These plants are not monitored like genuine hazardouswaste incinerators.• If something goes wrong when you are making cement -not a big problem, BUT• If something goes wrong when you are using hazardousmaterials when you are making cement - this can be avery serious problem.• Frequently, cement kiln operators put the fly ash backinto the kiln -• this means there are only two places that toxic metalscan go either into the AIR or into the PRODUCT(cement).

Why burning hazardous waste incement kilns is a bad idea• If the cement kiln burns waste containing chlorine,bromine or fluorine, very dangerous by-products areformed• these include DIOXINS and FURANS• These plants create enormous quantities of dust fromgrinding the clinker - this dust goes everywhere,including onto workers, onto cars, onto roads, adjacentproperty and sometimes even onto fields where food isproduced• When the clinker is produced using hazardous waste itwill contain toxic materials - and so will the dust -including toxic metals and possibly dioxins and furans• Giving industry a cheap way of getting rid of hazardouswaste conflicts with the need for CLEAN PRODUCTION.

The Radici Plant• November 2004 (local EPA tests):• Vinyl chloride monomer - 33 grams/hour• Benzene chloride - 323 grams /hour• Benzene - 769 grams/hour• Acrylonitrile - 479 grams/hour• Acetone - 936 grams /hour

The Radici Plant• Second test (after waste use stopped???)• Vinyl chloride = 14 grams/hour• Benzene chloride = 14 grams/hour• CHLORINE STILL IN WASTE• Benzene = 208 grams/hour• Acrylonitrile = 264 grams/hour• Acetone = 28 grams/hour• COMBUSTION BETTER BUT STILL NOTGOOD ENOUGH.• They are either still burning waste or using adirty fuel.

AIR EMISSIONSCO2 + H2OACID GASES:HCI, HF, SO 2NO xTOXIC METALS:Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etcNEW COMPOUNDS:PCB’sPCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDFs (FURANS)CHLORINATED BENZENESPHENOLS, NAPTHALENESETCFINEPARTICULATE(SUBMICRONPARTICLES)

DIOXINSThe chemical structures

Benzene DepictionsHHHCC CC C CHH=HC 6 H 6

2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN2,3,7,8-TETRA CHLORO DIBENZO DIOXIN

PCDFs or FURANS• Furans (or PCDFs) have one oxygen atomlinking two benzene rings, with chlorine aroundthe rings. There are 135 furans.

2,3,7,8-TETRA CHLORO DIBENZO FURAN

There are 17 extremely toxic dioxins and furans. Theyhave chlorine at the 2,3,7 and 8 positions:7 Dioxins and 10 Furans

The biology

• Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds are fat soluble andeasily cross membranes and enter the cells of all tissues• Once in the cell they fit into a protein called the Ahreceptor• This combination enters the nucleus and attaches to theDNA• It doesn’t cause mutations, but it does switch on genes• Switching on genes results in the production of newproteins in the cell.• In other words it functions like a fat soluble hormone.

Two remarkable things aboutthe Ah receptor• 1) After 30 years of research scientists donot know what it is in the cell for. Have notidentified its normal function.• 2) The Ah receptor appears in evolution atthe same time as the backbone appears infish. Every species above invertebrateshas the Ah receptor.

Dioxins: chemically stable butextremely biologically active• Dioxins switch on genes• Produce different proteins, includingenzymes and growth factors• Disrupt at least six different hormonalsystems: male and female sex hormones;thyroid hormones; insulin; gastrin andgluocorticoid.

Effects of dioxins on thyroidfunction of new born babies• H.J. Pluim et al., The Lancet, May 23,1992. (Volume 339, 1303)• Examined 38 new born babies, dividedthem into 2 groups:• Low-exposed (mothers had average 18.6ppt dioxins in milk fat, range 8.7 - 28)• High-exposed ((mothers had average 37.5ppt dioxins in milk fat, range 29 - 63)

Effect of Dioxins on Neonatal Thyroid Function after Lowexposureand High-exposure at various agesLow-exposure(mean)High-exposure(mean)P*At birthT4122.5134.30.071T4/TBG0.2400.2320.45TSH10.411.90.581weekT4154.5178.70.006T4/TBG0.2910.3320.006TSH2.932.560.5111weeksT4111.1122.20.033T4/TBG0.2200.2470.040TSH1.812.500.044

Our Stolen FutureHow Man-made Chemicals areThreatening our Fertility, Intelligenceand SurvivalTheo ColbornJohn Peterson MyersDianne Dumanoski1994

Developmental Effects of DioxinsLinda S. BirnbaumHealth Effects Research Laboratory, US EPAEnvironmental Health Perspectives,103: 89-94, 1995

Regulatory levels• Outside US, Allowable Daily Intakes (ADI) range from 1to 4 pg/kg bodyweight/day (WHO).• In US there is no safe level for a suspected carcinogen;the US EPA uses health risk assessment instead.• In 1985 US EPA estimated that 0.006 pg/kg/day wouldyield a lifetime cancer risk of 1 in a million.• Industry has fought this standard for 20 years!• The latest draft from US EPA has lowered the level to0.001 pg/kg/day

In most industrialized countries• Citizens are getting between 1 and 2picograms of dioxin TEQ/ kg bodyweight/per day

DIOXINS IN OUR FOOD• Dioxins are fat soluble and persistent andaccumulate in the food chain, speciallyanimal fats. Well over 90% of our dioxinintake comes from dairy products,meat,and fish.DIOXINMILK

Dioxins - major concernsOne liter of cows’ milk gives the same dose of dioxin as breathing airnext to the cows for EIGHT MONTHS (Connett and Webster, 1987). Inone day a freely grazing cow puts the equivalent of 14 years of humanbreathing into its body (McLachlan, 1995)!The liver cannot convert dioxins to water soluble products thus theysteadily accumulate in human body fat. The man cannot get rid ofthem BUT A woman can……by having a baby!The highest dose of dioxin goes to the fetus during pregnancy andthen to the new born infant via breastfeeding.

Dioxins - Major Concerns• One liter of cows’ milk gives the same dose of dioxin asbreathing air next to the cows for EIGHT MONTHS (Connett andWebster, 1987).• In one day a freely grazing cow puts the equivalent of 14 yearsof human breathing into its body (McLachlan, 1995)!• The liver cannot convert dioxins to water soluble products thusthey steadily accumulate in human body fat.• The man cannot get rid of them BUT A woman can…• By having a baby!• Thus, the highest dose of dioxin goes to the fetus duringpregnancy and then to the new born infant via breastfeeding.

Dioxins in cow’s milk - history• 1989 Dioxins in cow’s milk in Netherlands very high downwind ofincinerators = 12 ppt. Result: 16 Farmers not allowed to sell milk for5 years.• German law:1) cannot sell milk > 5 ppt.2) 3-5 ppt, have to reduce source3) goal:

Dioxin in cow’s milkpg I-TEQ/g fat (ppt)• Denmark 2.6• Finland 0.83 - 1.17• France 1.81• Germany 0.71 - 0.87• Ireland 0.08 - 0.51 Averagein Ireland = 0.2• Netherlands 0.38 - 1.6• Spain 1.2 - 2.0• Sweden 0.93 - 2.0• UK 1.01Measurements reported in 1999,(IOM, 2003).

The politics again!• The US EPA published its draftreassessment of dioxin in 1994 (whichwas virtually complete).• We are still waiting for the final version tenyears later!

Institute of Medicine, 2003Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds in theFood SupplyStrategies to Decrease ExposureJuly 1, 2003

Institute of Medicine, 2003• Fetuses and breastfeeding infants may beat particular risk from exposure to dioxinlike compounds (DLCs) due to theirpotential to cause adverseneurodevelopmental, neurobehavioral,and immune system effects in developingsystems…

Institute of Medicine, 2003• …The committee recommends that the governmentplace a high public health priority on reducing DLCintakes by girls and young women in the years wellbefore pregnancy is likely to occur.• Substituting low-fat or skim milk, for whole milk…coupled with other substitution of foods lower in animalfat by girls and young women in the crucial years beforepregnancy…

When it comes to dioxin andincinerators• Governments always say to the citizens• You don’t have to worry• Because we have tough new air emissionstandards•But…

THE CHAIN OF PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONHAS THREE LINKS.STRONGREGULATIONSADEQUATEMONITORINGTOUGHENFORCEMENTIF ANY LINK IS WEAK THE PUBLIC IS NOT PROTECTED

De Fre and Wevers (1998)• De Fre and Wevers compared 6 hour testing for dioxinswith 2 week testing (on same incinerator)•• They found 30-50 times higher concentration (massdivided by total volume of flue gas) in the 2 week testcompared to 6 hour test.• Reason: 2 week test picks up upset conditions as well asstart up and shut down.

THE BAD LAWLevel ofPollutionTHE GOOD LAWLevel of corruptionLevel ofPollutionPublic participation

POLITE PEOPLEGETPOISONEDANGRY PEOPLEGETORGANISED !

WE WANT DIOXINOUT OF OUR BABIES!

WE WANT DIOXINOUT OF OUR FOOD!

CONCLUSION• Do not burn hazardous waste in cement kilns -• Do not burn hazardous waste in any facility -• Use chemical methods to destroy or containtoxic materials -• BETTER STILL stop using as many toxics asyou can - especially toxic metals like lead,mercury and cadmium - and non-metals likechlorine, bromine and fluorine.• We need CLEAN PRODUCTION.

The Big Picture

By the time a high schoolstudent leaves school, he or shewill have watched over350,000 TV commercials.Paul HawkenThe Ecology of Commerce.

We are living on this planet as if we hadanother one to go toWe cannot run a throwaway society on a finiteplanetLandfills simply BURY the evidenceIncinerators simply BURN the evidenceWe need to face the real problem…

Zero Waste 2020

ZERO WASTENO TO INCINERATIONMOVINGTOWARDS THEFRONT END -weneed to designwaste out of theindustrial systemNO TO LANDFILLNO TO ATHROWAWAYSOCIETYZERO WASTEBY2020YES TO ASUSTAINABLESOCIETY

To achieve Zero WasteWe need three things:• INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITY (at front end)• COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY (at back end)3)GOOD POLITICAL LEADERSHIP to link these twotogether

INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITY1) Better industrial design of products andpackaging2) Extended Producer Responsibility -companies should anticipate that they will berequired to take back durable goods (cars, TVs,computers, copying machines etc) after use aswell as non-recyclable packaging material.3) Clean Production - reduce use of toxics inproducts and processes.

INDUSTRIALRESPONSIBILITY IN ACTIONXEROX CORPORATION EUROPE• Recovering old copying machines from 16countries• Over 95% of materials reused or recycled!• $76 million saved in 2000 !!

THREE FINAL MESSAGES• TO CITIZENS• Don’t let the experts take your commonsense away.• TO POLITICIANS• Put your faith back in people. Stop trying tosolve all your problems with magicmachines and overpaid consultants• TO ACTIVISTS• Have FUN !!!

The Battle Hymn of Garbage(Chorus)We don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe know there’s a better way!

The Battle Hymn of GarbageWhile we recognize our landfillsAll are swelling with the wasteIt doesn’t justifyA bad decision made in hasteLet us put our heads togetherSo the problem may be facedAnd we must do it now!

The Battle Hymn of Garbage(Chorus)We don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe know there’s a better way!

GodRecyclesThe DevilBurns

The Battle Hymn of GarbageMine eyes have seen the burningOf the garbage in our townOfficials built incineratorsWhile we all just stood aroundNow they want to regulate themJust to keep our voices downBut we won’t buy it now!

The Battle Hymn of Garbage(Chorus)We don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe know there’s a better way!

The Battle Hymn of GarbageMine eyes have seen the garbageThat’s a smoldering on the grateWe must stop incinerationBefore it is too lateUnless we wish the dangersWe had better separateAnd we must do it now!

The Battle Hymn of Garbage(Chorus)We don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe know there’s a better way!

The Battle Hymn of GarbageThe state has deemed appropriateThe burning of our trashAnd the builders and the ownersare just countin’ up the cashBut we citizens believe the moveIs foolish and is rashAnd we won’t buy it now!

The Battle Hymn of Garbage(Chorus)We don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe don’t want incinerationWe know there’s a better way!

Regulatory agencies have enormous powerwhen it comes to permitting incineratorsBut little political will when it comes toprotecting the public once the facility isbuilt.Health Risk AssessmentreplacesPublic Health ProtectionThe people lose their health, their propertyvalues, even their homes, whileConsultants make a fortune!

4 COMPONENTS OF RISK ANALYSES.1.STACK2.3.4.1. ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS.2. CALCULATION OF DISPERTION USING COMPUTER MODEL.GIVES GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS.3. CALCULATION OF HUMAN UPTAKE.4. EXTRAPOLATION OF HUMAN RISK FROM ANIMAL STUDIES.

Politics versus Science• In 1993, it was discovered that one trash incinerator inColumbus, Ohio, was putting out 984 grams of DioxinTEQ per year• This was more than the whole of Germany, twice asmuch as the Netherlands and three times as much asSweden - for all sources.• The Ohio EPA did a health risk assessment anddeclared that “there are no substantial health risks posed”

Politics versus Science (cont.)• The Columbus Health Department put out a Dioxin fact Sheet for citizens• They explained that one part per trillion was equal to taking a 1 secondvacation after working 31,700 years.• They converted the maximum emission rate from the incinerator to 1341.9ppt**• ** One part per trillion (ppt) is equivalent to taking a 1 second vacation afterworking 31,700 years. The maximum emission is equal to 1,342 seconds ora 22.4 minute vacation taken in 31,700 years (if a person worked all year)• or if a person worked 40 hours per week it would take 133,567 years to earnthe 22.4 minute vacation.

Politics versus Science (cont.)• Prior to a second dioxin test of the incinerator (March 94), the following excerptsappeared in the plant operator’s log:• “We lost our north end trash last weekend…Remember the tests are very importantand is our future” 2-14-94• “We must have a ‘good source’ of trash for the test” 2-15-94.• “It appears the second shift crane operator used the good, dry material on Sunday…”2-18-94• “This test is our future and I would think everyone would be extremely interested inhelping out if possible.” 2-21-94• “Continue to hold the M.R. trash…we will fill the area up with M.R.trash in preparationfor our testing.” 2-22-94

Politics versus Science (cont.)• The Columbus Health Department brought in a consultant (Dr. Greg Rigo) to put thedioxin problem into perspective.At a press conference (which got front page coverage)he presented an inventory of dioxin emissions in the US:• 33,000 grams Dioxin enters the US environment annually• 62% = from unknown sources (possibly volcanoes and rotting wood)• 20.5% = from motor vehicles• 4.0% = from the production of herbicides & pesticides• 2.6% = from ALL US MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATORS• combined (approx. 130 at that time)• 2.0% = from chlorine bleaching of paper• PROBLEM - 2.6% of 33,000 grams is 850 grams per year, which was less than theoutput from the incinerator (984 grams per year) he was supposedly investigating!