Incinerator numbers sharply declined in the 1990s as the effects and extent of the pollution became apparent. Every single hospital incinerator in BC was shut down in the 1990s due to pollution concerns. (Note: when salespeople say that dioxin amounts have decreased, ask for the stats for a particular incinerator as dioxin emissions decreased across Canada and the US mainly due to the shut down of the incinerators. Small decreases came from enhanced pollution mitigation technology).

However as incinerator salesmen rebranded them as waste to energy and tried to sell them as green, climate change solutions, a surge of proposals and lobbyists flooded local governments.

Metro Vancouver, BC’s largest regional district, is now submitting its Solid Waste Management Planfor provincial approval. It is pushing new incinerators as the keystone of its plan. It is important that it does not happen as this would be opening the door to many other similar projects.

The first ever, national incinerator ban was in the Philippines (1999).

Four states in Mexico have banned incineration: Hidalgo, San Luis Potosi, Quintana Roo and Zacatecas.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island both have moratoriums on the construction of MSW incinerators.

Halton and Niagara Regions in Ontario also avoided them. Studies could not prove they were safe nor a cost-effective waste solution. In fact, Nova Scotia, which has the lowest waste per capita in Canada, started on that path when citizens refused incineration and more organics in their landfill as options, asking their leaders to develop more sound solutions.

Santa Cruz and Redbluff California are other regions that have had success.

In February 2010, in Surrey, England, plans for incineration were cancelled in favour of real waste reduction targets (70% by 2013), an EcoPark and anaerobic digestion of organics.

Locally

Metro Vancouver would need to go back to the drawing board to craft a sound, sustainable solid waste plan. It would need to listen to its citizens. It would also save the unnecessary cost of an incinerator and hopefully redirect staff and financial resources towards real waste reduction initiatives.

Provincially

A sound rejection of this in Metro could lead the Province to take a stance on incineration.

Present policies allow a loophole where municipal solid waste could be considered as Clean and Renewable Energy, which then qualifies a project for additional funding. Consultations were held by the provincial government on this definition in the summer of 2009 and Minister Blair Lekstrom said the results would be out “in the near future” in a letter dating December 2009.

In addition, it could encourage the provincial government to work on a provincial vision for waste reduction and resource conservation.

Research in Britain, shows that health concerns around incinerators, particularly with regards to certain cancers, heart disease and impacts on fetuses and infants.  A study noted here on the UK Health Research website showed concerns with infant mortality. Health Care Without Harm put together this document outlining concerns with incineration. In many cases, it has not been proven harmful because the testing and research are not being done. Metro Vancouver and other incineration supporters often note that the UK Health Protection Agency is not concerned about health impacts of incineration. However, a letter from the CEO of the agency notes that they have not studied the health impacts because “the number of people around an incinerator is too small.” In other words, the sample size is too small and so they have not bothered to investigate further, nor use the precautionary principle. Not reassuring for the people living downwind or in close proximity.

In addition, the UK Health Protection Agency relies on work done by Mark Broomfield, a consultant for Enviros. However, they fail to mention that this information has been refuted and that Enviros has ties to incinerator companies (such as being hired by WRG to write a health report).

Incineration technology has not been proven to be safe (that includes plasmification, gasification, mass burning and all other forms of incineration). The Halton Region undertook a study which showed health concerns about both incinerators and landfills as well as pointing out that more research would be needed to fill the gaps in current knowledge. Halton did not proceed with an incinerator.

In June 2008 in Europe, many medical associations (including physicians, environmental chemists and toxicologists) representing over 33,000 doctors wrote a keynote statement directly to the European Parliament emphasizing their widespread concerns on incinerator particle emissions and the lack of monitoring of or research on incinerator emissions of specific fine and ultrafine particle size and their health effects.

Locally, the Chief Medical Health Officers(page 26) for both Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health Authorities noted “It is the position of both Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health that Metro Vancouver must conduct a Health Impact Assessment for each individual proposed waste-to-energy (WTE) facility. The draft plan states that a number of technologies are to be assessed, implying that, as yet, no technology has been chosen. Nevertheless, discussion at the Council of Councils meeting and background supporting that incineration is the favoured choice. We acknowledge the work Metro Vancouver has done in reviewing the waste incineration technology currently in use in Europe. While valuable, experiences from other jurisdictions can not take away from the need to assess the potential health impact from each individual WTE proposal, based on the actual technology chosen, the site selected, and public input.”

While the incinerator does have some testing done, it is not adequate to prove that it is safe. The present Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) committed it to conducting certain tests for the Burnaby incinerator and having citizen oversight with a Plan Monitoring Committee. However this committee no longer exists and the test results are not readily available to the public.

In addition, the present SWMP specifically states that NO testing is to be done during start-up, shutdown and malfunctions. These are the times when the release of many pollutants (particularly dioxins) will be higher.

A report Metro commissioned for the start up of the Burnaby incinerator recommended more testing of the soil around the Burnaby incinerator as the results of testing after the commissioning of the incinerator showed increases (and some decreases) in certain metals (increases in mercury, lead and nickel in some areas). They also recommended notifying the health officials be updated on the levels in agricultural produce.

So far there is no evidence that any of these 1990 recommendations were followed through by GVRD (now Metro).

With this lack of appropriate knowledge, testing, accountability and transparency, should we allow more of these facilities?  The smart thing to do is to use the precautionary principle and ensure we have adequate knowledge before proceeding to put citizens and the environment at risk.

Christina Lake and Kamloops recently successfully prevented waste incinerators from being built in their communities but in both cases, the proponents said they were looking for sites in OTHER BC COMMUNITIES.  Port Moody avoided an incinerator in their community by mobilizing last summer. In each case, it was the work of dedicated citizens who were able to prevent these facilities from being approved.

Some European countries have gone down the incinerator path but they are not all happy with it. See this report showing that the European Parliament does not see incineration as the answer. Many European doctors do not see this as a solution either. Organizations representing over 30,000 doctors brought their concerns to the European parliament.

It has also been mistakenly reported that Europe produces less waste.  This report shows that waste production per person per year for these countries in 2005/2006 was:

• Switzerland 650 kg
• Sweden 480 kg
• Netherlands 625 kg
• Ireland 804 kg
• Denmark 740 kg
• Austria 617 kg
• Scotland 695 kg
• Bavaria 517 kg

In comparison, in 2005 BC had 663 kg per person.

Let’s leapfrog Europe and work on zero waste instead of waste disposal. BC is one of the leading jurisdictions for Extended Producer Responsibility where producers of products become responsible for them at the end of their lives so lets proceed with more EPR to shift the responsibility from local government back to the producers that make the products.

As matter is neither created nor destroyed, whatever atoms went into the incinerator will have to come out –either in the air or as ash. Incineration only reduces the volume of the material but landfills are still needed for the ash. The problem with the ash is that new toxins were formed during the combustion process so the ash is toxic from these new toxins as well as whatever may have been in the waste to begin with. Dr. Connett gave this presentation at a zero waste conference in the Phillipines on the issues with toxic ash.

Some areas try to use the ash for “beneficial purposes” claiming it is safe. In the UK, children were banned from pathways built with incinerator ash once local residents had it tested to prove that it was not safe, as they had been assured. Similar health issues have been seen when ash from coal plants were used to make gypsum.

Only we (citizens and businesses) can make waste disappear … by not creating it in the first place. This may be by reusing and repairing items, buying items that can fulfil many purposes, by sharing items, by making wise purchasing decisions (quality goods over shorter-lived low quality items, items with less or lower impact packaging), by designing things smarter so they last longer and have a lower environmental impact and by asking for better design and systems from companies and government.

The short answer is certainly not. The report “Resources Up in Flames” by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance was written for the perspective of the Global South at a time when incineration companies were pushing incineration there while there seemed little chance of sales in North America, however all of the points still hold true today whether you live in the Global South or here in North America where the incineration push has returned with a vengeance.

Locally, while Metro claims it will make money ( 35 Yr Cost: WTE = Profit $20 million, Landfill = Cost $1.5 billion) the numbers have not been shown to prove this. First,  projecting costs out to 35 years is a tricky business, particularly with changing waste volumes, waste programs, waste types, energy pricing, economy, and carbon pricing.  This also does not factor in any future changes to laws, emissions control ones especially. (Note the Burnaby Incinerator had spent nearly $100 million upgrading the emissions equipment compared to its initial $80 million cost for what was state of the art at the time.)

The proposed costs for a new incinerator in Durham, Ontario (which will not be state of the art) were $272 million for a 140,000 tonnes per year facility  with operating costs projected at $14.7 million and energy revenues of $8.6 million. Two items of concern are the fact that the Durham council will not be able to see the costs involved with the contract until it is signed and that these costs are for a non-state of the art facility that is smaller than the 500,000 tonnes per year facility proposed by Metro.

The Burnaby Incinerator costs approximately $20 million a year to operate and pay its financing debt to process  around 280,000 tonnes per year with revenues of $11 million a year for energy (half of which are dependent on having a stable customer for their steam).

So in general, operating costs are almost double energy sales. Metro Vancouver’s proposal forecasts energy revenue to be more than the operating costs (without showing how this would be the case). Industry estimates show higher initial cost projections than Metro is using too. So the Metro numbers hinge on getting a bargain on building the incinerator and getting far higher revenue from energy sales than others.

This kind of gambling has not paid off for some communities. In the US, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, in part because of choosing to build an incinerator for waste and being unable to make the payments.

A critique of some of Metro’s assumptions for planning was given at the Vancouver Board of Trade by Paul Levelton of KPMG. Here is their rebuttal to Metro’s review of their analysis. (note: although the work of KPMG was paid for by Belkorp, the operator of the Cache Creek Landfill, KPMG is a well-respected company providing third party expertise, providing the type of research that Metro Vancouver should have been doing as part of its due diligence for its citizens. They may possibly have less vested interests than AECOM who did Metro Vancouver’s report as AECOM operates the Swan Hills incinerator in Alberta)

Finally, keep in mind, these kind of expenses would only forestall the day when the landfills are full…of ash. What kind of investments would make sense?  Investing in behaviour change and staff to assist residents, businesses and institutions make the necessary changes as well as systems for organics composting. It seems like the Vancouver Board of Trade agrees. See their July 5, 2010 letter pointing out their concerns.

No. It is the same old technology with better scrubbers. The US EPA showed that the Greenhouse Gas emissions associated with burning municipal waste are greater than coal.

from Stop Trashing the Climate

A report done on the life cycle assessment of different waste management strategies by Dr. Jeff Morris concluded that composting and recycling offered the lowest environmental impact. A European Commission study on climate change impacts of municipal solid waste options came to a similar conclusion that recycling and composting were preferable and that landfills were preferable to incineration.

This study also showed that energy is wasted when materials are incinerated as new materials are then required to be produced to replace them, instead of using those materials again through recycling or composting. Instead of waste to energy, it is a waste of energy to incinerate mixed municipal waste.

Even worse is that incineration competes with recycling so communities that choose incineration end up with less recycling than they could have had.

While some sources seek to reassure the public that “new” incinerators will be “state-of-the-art”, this merely repeats the historical pattern of promises to the public on safety, building incinerators that are state-of-the-art for their time, discovering pollution problems once they are built and then closing them down or adding costly retrofits. The Burnaby Incinerator was state of the art in its time too and yet more than its original cost has been spent since it was built trying to reduce the pollution. This article in the Watershed Sentinel points out some concerns with air pollution monitoring and the expectation that better monitoring will reveal the need to do more to reduce pollution (not add to it). A recent article highlights the inability of one incineration company to meet its claims of low pollution at its test facility in Ottawa. Aside from pollution, another concern is the contract with the City of Ottawa where the city gets financial incentives when they convince other cities to buy the technology, making it harder for citizens to know who speaks the truth and who is merely a salesperson trying to get a commission.