ACTION CENTER    RESOURCE CENTER    ABOUT US

Guest Opinion on Medical Waste

Statesman Journal 29 June 2004

Dear Editor:

In his Guest Opinion on 22 June (p. 7C), Bob Anderson, Chair of the Marion County Solid Waste Management Advisory Council (SWMAC), discussed a proposal to increase medical waste incineration at Covanta's Brooks incinerator. Anderson encouraged us not to rush to judgment on important environmental issues, and to maintain a thoughtful, open-minded approach. Why then, at the SWMAC meeting that very night did Mr. Anderson make it clear that (a) he had ALREADY made up his mind in favor of raising the medical waste incineration cap, and (b) he wished to rush the Council into making a decision that same night in support of his position?

Mr. Anderson wrote in his Guest Opinion that burning more medical waste will not increase dioxin or mercury emissions from the incinerator. He bases this conclusion on pre-announced emissions tests performed annually at the incinerator. If the tests were done on TYPICAL burn days, then this conclusion would be supportable. But if on the test days, either Unit 1 burned less than a normal amount of medical waste, or Unit 2 burned more than a normal amount of PVC plastic (which forms dioxins), then the statement is unproven.

Mr. Anderson mentioned using the extra money received by the county from the increased medical waste incineration to enhance monitoring of the incinerator. His position is that increased monitoring after the policy change could tell us whether or not the extra burning is harmful to the public. Shouldn't the Council have this important information BEFORE they make their decision? By running three controlled emissions tests [burning a normal daily load of trash ( 500 tons) with (i) NO medical waste, (ii) a normal current load of medical waste ( 4 tons), and (iii) a double medical waste load (8 tons)] we can determine if our CURRENT rate, and also the proposed INCREASED rate, of medical waste incineration produce measurable emissions of dioxin or mercury. Wouldn't this be good to know NOW, and not AFTER the decision is made?

Mr. Anderson wrote that he supports "environmental projects [that] appear to be sustainable and profitable at the same time." I am disturbed that he neglected to mention public health and safety as one of his primary concerns, but I believe Mr. Anderson to be a responsible public representative, so perhaps his definition of "sustainable" includes health and safety issues. Making an objective decision requires Council members to weigh information from all sides equally. Covanta and solid waste haulers have a vested interest in processing more waste and thus increasing their profits. Therefore their data on profitability and health/safety effects should be weighed against those supplied by groups outside of the waste processing industry. This is an important decision - let's do it right!

Sincerely:

Todd P. Silverstein (Professor of Chemistry, Willamette University, Salem, OR)