The Abell Report What We Think About, and What We’D Like You to Think About Published As a Community Service by the Abell Foundation

Home , Garbage

April/May 2001 Volume 14, Number 2 The Abell Report What we think about, and what we’d like you to think about Published as a community service by The Abell Foundation

A Burning Problem: Abell Salutes: Air pollution from power plants and incinerators Children’s Literacy is a widespread cause of ill health in Maryland, Initiative for helping but one that the state’s policymakers can curb poor children In this article, the Maryland Public Interest (EPA) concluded that an American’s risk become successful Research Group (MaryPIRG) discusses the of getting cancer during his or her lifetime health effects of air pollution from power from dioxin may be as high as 1 in 100. students plants and incinerators in Maryland. Garbage and medical waste incinerators Conclusion: Maryland’s policymakers must are a major source of dioxin. It is a challenge to prepare young take four basic steps to reduce the dangers. Power plants and incinerators both children from disadvantaged school increase your children’s risk of being districts to enter school as ready to learn I. OVERVIEW born with brain damage. A report funded as their counterparts in affluent school by The Abell Foundation and written by districts. Children’s Literacy Initiative he air that Marylanders breathe the MaryPIRG Foundation last year (CLI) has been working to meet this contains significant amounts of revealed that Maryland fish contain con- challenge in Baltimore City for three Tunhealthy pollutants, some of centrations of mercury as high as three years; its programming provides chil- which now seem to be much more harm- times the level that triggers further inves- dren’s books of a very high quality, pro- ful than we understood just a year ago. tigation in the neighboring state of fessional development for teachers so that Power plants and incinerators play a Delaware. Mercury can cause neurologi- they are able to instruct more effectively, major role in producing these pollutants. cal impairment in fetuses of women who and supportive, literacy materials for Power plant emissions raise your consume it in fish. It is released into the classroom enrichment. risks of heart and lung failure. During environment primarily from the smoke- After three years, it’s safe to say, CLI the last year, researchers were able for stacks of power plants and incinerators. works. the first time to estimate the number of However, there are solutions. Here are the results of three tests lives cut short in Maryland by micro- Maryland’s policymakers can take steps administered to the students participat- scopic particles formed from power plant to greatly reduce the effect of power ing in the CLI program, with compar- emissions, as discussed later in this plants and incinerators on our health. article. The estimate is 927 per year, isons to the school system’s goals, and This article will examine the problem and more than the number of deaths per year offer four recommendations for curtailing it: with children participating in the Head from automobile accidents or murder. 1. Control power plant emissions and Start program. Research indicates that these microscopic shift toward clean energy technologies Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test particles cause death primarily by pene- 2. Cease promotion of municipal solid (PPVT) gains over time are uncommon trating the body’s defenses against larger waste incineration for children of any background, because particles and then triggering heart and 3. Minimize medical waste incineration the test determines a child’s vocabulary and rely on better alternatives lung failure. knowledge with respect to other children 4. Warn Marylanders when fish have Incinerator emissions raise your become dangerously contaminated his/her age. Thus, in order for a child to cancer risk. Also within the last year, the with mercury. continued on page 11 US Environmental Protection Agency continued on page 2 continued from page 1 MARYLAND COUNTIES: II. THE PROBLEM: Estimated Premature Deaths Per Year AIR POLLUTANTS FROM Due to Fine Particles from Power Plant Emissions POWER PLANTS AND INCINERATORS County Deaths Deaths per 100,000 Adults Six of the most important air pollutants produced by power plants and incin- Allegany 28 48.0 erators are microscopic airborne particles, Anne Arundel 63 23.0 ozone smog, dioxin, mercury, other toxic chemicals, and global warming gases. Baltimore 142 31.0 During the last 12 months, researchers Baltimore City 235 47.2 have upgraded the health risks posed by Calvert 7 21.3 each of these six pollutants, as discussed Caroline 6 30.2 in a profile of each pollutant, below. Carroll 20 26.6 1. Lethal airborne particles Cecil 11 25.5 “Fine particles” are defined as those Charles 14 22.4 with a diameter of less than 2.5 millionths of meter, or about one hundredth of the Dorchester 8 39.3 width of a human hair. Frederick 23 24.2 Health effects: Fine airborne parti- Garrett 7 37.6 cles are associated with asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, other respiratory ail- Harford 26 22.2 ments, disruption of heart function, and Howard 20 15.6 deaths from heart and lung failure. Kent 4 35.8 Role of power plants and incinerators: Fine airborne particles can be emit- Montgomery 120 21.1 ted directly, but most form from gaseous Prince Georges 110 23.4 sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emis- Queen Annes 7 24.8 sions. In the eastern United States, pow- Somerset 5 34.8 er plant sulfur dioxide emissions are the leading cause of fine particle pollution. St. Marys 12 25.4 Incinerators, too, contribute to fine parti- Talbot 8 34.1 cle pollution. Washington 31 35.6 Last year, a rigorous study co-funded by the automobile industry and the Wicomico 14 29.7 Environmental Protection Agency con- Worchester 7 30.5 firmed the findings of previous studies: there is a correlation between the amount Source: Abt Associates, analysis for “Death, Disease, and Dirty Power,” October 2000. of fine particles in the air and the death “Death, Disease, and Dirty Power” is available at www.pirg.org and www.cleartheair.org rate, and that correlation cannot be continued on page 3

The Abell Report is published bi-monthly by The Abell Foundation 111 S. Calvert Street, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174 • (410) 547-1300 • Fax (410) 539-6579 Abell Reports on the Web: http://www.abell.org/publications

2 continued from page 2 1999, a share expected to decline signifi- ment and tends to accumulate up the food cantly as a result of new regulations on chain. More than 90 percent of the intake explained by any other factor tested. summertime nitrogen oxide emissions. of dioxin by humans is through food con- Based on the quantitative relation- Incinerators emit both nitrogen oxides sumption. Dairy products, meat, fish, and ship between fine particle pollution and and volatile organic compounds. eggs are the primary sources of exposure. deaths, Abt Associates estimated the The media have reported that of all Once humans ingest dioxin, the diox- number of deaths per year in every coun- American cities, Los Angeles and Houston in is stored in fatty tissue where it remains ty and city of the lower 48 United States have the worst ozone smog. They have unless it is transferred in breast milk to resulting from fine particles that derive reported much less the fact that, on a infants or via the placenta to fetuses. A from power plant emissions. Abt Associ- statewide basis, Maryland has among the 1999 study concluded that the daily intake ates is the EPA’s leading analytical con- worst ozone smog in the nation. For of dioxin was, per kilogram of body tractor on the health effects of air pollu- instance, in 1999, Maryland registered weight, 50 times greater in breast-fed tion. Its analysis used models and meth- more bad smog days per monitoring station infants, and three times higher in toddlers, ods approved by the Environmental Pro- than any other state except for Georgia. than in adults. tection Agency, and was reviewed and Abt Associates has estimated that This article follows the convention of endorsed by Professor John Spengler of 180,000 of the asthma attacks and 3,900 using the term “dioxin” to refer to a col- the Harvard School of Public Health of the emergency room visits in Maryland lection of dioxins, furans, and other relat- before publication. each year result from ozone smog. ed chemicals understood to have similar According to Abt’s analysis, fine parti- mechanisms of toxicity. cles deriving specifically from power plant 3. Dioxin emissions cut short approximately 30,100 Health effects: Cancer, developmen- 4. Mercury lives per year in the United States, including tal delays. Other effects may include Health effects: Exposed fetuses and approximately 927 in Maryland. (See table depression of the immune system, children can suffer developmental impacts at left for county-by-county estimates.) They endocrine and nervous system abnormal- including weakened immune systems, low- also cause an estimated 947,000 missed ities, increased susceptibility to diseases ered IQ, and behavior disorders. Other work days each year in Maryland. The study such as adult-onset diabetes, and altered effects include endocrine disruption, kid- is available on the Internet at liver function. ney damage, central nervous system dam- www.pirg.org/reports/enviro/dirty_power. Role of power plants and incinera- age, and increased risk of heart attack. The elderly, people with respiratory tors: Municipal solid waste (garbage) Role of power plants and incinerators: disease, and children face a higher health incinerators produced an estimated 40% Power plants burning coal and oil pro- risk from fine particles than the general of US dioxin emissions to the air in 1995, duced 39% of Maryland’s reported mercu- public does. but their emissions have since declined by ry emissions to the air in 1998, as a result an unknown amount as a result of new of mercury in these fuels. The EPA has 2. Ozone smog regulations. Medical waste incinerators indicated it may require a reduction in pow- Health effects: Long-term effects produced an estimated 17%, a figure that er plant mercury emissions. Municipal sol- include permanently reduced lung func- will soon decline as a result of new regu- id waste incinerators produced 32% of tion in exposed children. Short-term lations. Much of the dioxin from inciner- Maryland’s reported mercury emissions to effects include cough, sore throat, and ators results from the burning of plastics, the air but have recently cut their emissions asthma attacks. and especially PVC plastic. Coal com- as a result of new regulations. Medical Role of power plants and incinera- bustion produced an estimated 3% of waste incinerators produced 23% but will tors: Ozone smog forms from the combi- dioxin emissions. release less by 2002 to meet new regula- nation of nitrogen oxides and volatile EPA concluded last year that an tions. The mercury-containing items burned organic compounds in the presence of American’s risk of getting cancer as a in incinerators include lighting tubes, bat- sunlight and heat. Nitrogen oxides are result of exposure to dioxin may be as teries, and thermometers, among others. generally the limiting ingredient. Power high as 1 in 100 based on the amount cur- Mercury released into the air returns plants produced approximately 35% of rently in the average American’s body. to earth in rain and snow, much of it end- Maryland’s nitrogen oxide emissions in Dioxin is persistent in the environ- ing up in bodies of water. There it makes continued on page 4

3 continued from page 3 year, is the first in which power plants about whether municipal solid waste have been required to report their toxic incineration accelerates or diminishes its way up the food chain, concentrating emissions. In Maryland, of the toxic air global warming. in the tissues of fish. Humans absorb pollutants included in the Inventory, pow- mercury primarily from eating contami- er plants emitted 25 million pounds, while III. MARYLANDERS: nated fish. all other industries combined emitted 8 IN HARM’S WAY It is the effects of mercury on the million pounds. Every state is affected by pollution developing fetus that have gained the Acid gases constitute the vast major- from power plants and incinerators, but most attention, because even relatively ity of the power plant toxic air emissions. Maryland is disproportionately affected. low levels of mercury can cross the pla- The power plant emissions also included This is a result of highly polluting power centa. The National Academy of Sciences toxic metals and a collection of other tox- plants in our state, our location downwind (NAS) reported in 2000 that an estimated ic chemicals. of other states’ power plants, the concen- 60,000 U.S. children are born with an ele- Incinerators, too, emit an assortment tration of our incinerators in populated vated risk of neurological impacts of toxic chemicals including metals such areas, and the importance of fish in our because of low-level mercury exposures as lead and arsenic, acid gases, volatile diet. in the womb—exposures resulting from chlorinated organic compounds, and The leading cause of fine particle their mothers’ consumption of fish. polycyclic aromatic compounds. pollution in the air over the United States Although the impact on an individual Power plants and incinerators emit is sulfur dioxide emissions from power child may not be so severe that the parents hundreds of chemicals. In addition to the plants. Maryland has more electric utility would seek medical attention, NAS con- known toxic effects of some of these, power plant sulfur dioxide emissions per cluded that these children are among there may be additional health effects not square mile than any state except Ohio, those that struggle to keep up in school yet known. There is a pattern of discover- according to the latest data available from and may need special education. ing additional health impacts of power the EPA. The third and fourth highest- Some researchers have estimated that plant and incinerator emissions over time, ranking states, West Virginia and Indiana, there has been a 50% increase in learning as well as greater magnitudes of impacts are upwind of Maryland, as is Ohio. In and behavioral disorders among children already known. fact, Maryland is on the downwind side of during the last decade. Mercury and other the nation’s great concentration of highly toxins in the environment are considered 6. Global warming gases polluting power plants, which are clus- possible causes. Health effects: According to a report tered in a swath that extends from Ken- There is likely no “safe” level of mer- earlier this year by the Intergovernmental tucky and Illinois eastward into Maryland cury exposure at which there will defi- Panel on Climate Change, global warm- and Pennsylvania. (See map.) The air nitely be no health effects. The level cur- ing is raising average temperatures, alter- entering Maryland comes already laden rently deemed “safe” by the EPA has been ing climatic conditions, causing a rise in with fine particles, ozone smog, and mer- revised downward significantly. sea level, and increasing the frequency cury from many of these power plants. and intensity of extreme weather events The Maryland Department of the 5. Other toxic chemicals such as droughts, hurricanes, and floods. Environment (MDE) has joined New Health effects: Toxic air pollutants in Predicted health effects that may apply in York state and US EPA in a lawsuit general pose a risk of effects ranging from Maryland include more deaths from against allegedly highly-polluting, old cancer and organ damage to neurological excessive heat, greater illness from wors- power plants in upwind states that have disorders and birth defects. ened smog, greater diffusion of some expanded without making pollution con- Role of power plants and incinera- infectious diseases and allergens, and trol improvements. tors: Power plants released three times as more deaths from extreme weather events. Incinerators as well are major con- much toxic air emissions as all other Role of power plants and incinera- tributors to air pollution, including dioxin industries combined in Maryland in 1998, tors: Power plants produce approximate- and mercury. In recent years, Maryland according to the EPA’s Toxics Release ly 40% of US human-induced emissions of has incinerated an 11% higher share of its Inventory. carbon dioxide, the gas most responsible municipal solid waste than the national The 1998 Inventory, released last for global warming. There is dispute continued on page 5

4 IV. SOLUTIONS: IN THE Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from U.S. Power Plants HANDS OF MARYLAND’S POLICYMAKERS Maryland’s policymakers have opportunities to greatly reduce the problem of power plant and incinerator pollution in the state. The General Assembly, the governor, Maryland’s members of Congress, the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Public Service Commission, the Baltimore City Council, and healthcare facilities each have a vital role to play in these solutions.

Solution #1: Control power plant emissions and shift toward clean energy technologies Power plants are Maryland’s leading cause of fine airborne particles and of mercury pollution. They are also a leading Maryland and the upwind states to the west of it produce much of the cause of ozone smog, of toxic air pollu- nation’s power plant pollution, especially the sulfur dioxide emissions shown tants generally, and of heat-trapping car- here, which form fine airborne particles associated with premature deaths. bon dioxide. Fortunately, there are ways to reduce power plant pollution. continued from page 4 land county except Allegany. An estimated 235 Baltimore City residents die pre- Action items for Solution #1 average and approximately 16% more maturely each year as a result of this pow- medical waste per capita than the national er plant pollution. 1a. Cut pollution from existing average. Over 240,000 of Maryland’s The medical waste incinerator at power plants. The electric power indus- children live within two miles of one of Hawkins Point in Baltimore City is the try has thus far not been required to take the state’s 41 medical waste incinerators. largest in the world. In this incinerator many of the measures it could take to Marylanders may be more exposed and twelve others within its city limits, greatly reduce harmful emissions. There than residents in many other states to mer- Baltimore alone hosts 84% of the state’s are no regulations on mercury or carbon cury in fish. Marylanders have a tradition medical waste incineration, or as much as dioxide emissions. Most power plants are of catching and eating fish and shellfish the average US state. “grandfathered” out of modern limits on from the Bay and other bodies of water, so Baltimore City is also home to the particle-forming emissions. As a result, its citizens may eat considerably more largest of Maryland’s three municipal enormous emission reduction opportuni- fish than the national average. solid waste incinerators. This incinera- ties remain. For example, scrubbers tor, including its large smokestack installed to remove contaminants from Baltimore: More than its share labeled “Baltimore RESCO,” is adjacent power plant exhaust remove more than of pollution to Interstate 95 in the southern part of the 90% of the fine particle-forming sulfur Baltimore City has some of the worst city. Together, Baltimore’s 13 medical dioxide, but are used by only about 20% power plant and incinerator pollution in waste incinerators and one municipal of coal-burning power plants. Even the state. With several power plants clus- solid waste incinerator release much of greater reductions can be achieved by tered in and near the city, Baltimore has a the state’s incinerator pollution directly switching a power plant from burning higher concentration of fine particle pol- into the most densely populated part of coal to burning natural gas. lution from power plants than any Mary- the state. continued on page 6

5 continued from page 5 sive, generation from these resources has mize its need for electricity by investing become much less so. A 2000 report by in energy-saving measures that both In 2000, both houses of Congress saw the Maryland Public Service Commission reduce pollution and save money. A bills to cut nationwide power plant emis- estimated that Maryland could derive package of programs proposed to the sions of smog- and particle-forming pol- 5.5% of its electricity from wind, organic Public Service Commission by energy lution by 75% and of mercury by 90% waste, and landfill gas with a 1.1% impact expert groups and citizens’ groups would compared to the amounts emitted in 1997. on electricity prices. save Marylanders more than $500 mil- The same bills would have cut power Already, arrays of large, modern lion in the first ten years and in year ten plant carbon dioxide emissions back to wind turbines are operating in Pennsyl- would reduce carbon dioxide emissions the quantity emitted in 1990. More than a vania and under development in West by an amount equal to the annual emis- quarter of the House of Representatives Virginia at locations close to the Mary- sions of 280,000 average automobiles. and 15 senators co-sponsored this legisla- land border. Each turbine generates Programs of this kind are in place in tion. Because Maryland is downwind of enough electricity for hundreds of three quarters of the states that, like many highly polluting power plants, it homes. Maryland, too, has sites suitable Maryland, have deregulated the sale of would particularly benefit. Of the ten for “wind farms.” electricity generation. members of Maryland’s congressional Earlier this year Governor Glenden- The Public Service Commission and delegation, Representatives Gilchrest, ing took the lead in promoting Mary- the General Assembly both have the Cummings, and Cardin co-sponsored the land’s use of renewable energy. In an authority to establish programs to help bill. The other seven were asked to do so, executive order, he set an immediate goal Maryland families and businesses use but declined. Similar bills are being intro- for state government of obtaining an electricity more efficiently. duced in March of this year. electricity contract for itself in which six Governor Glendening has already percent of the electricity is generated seized the opportunity to use energy more 1b. Promote use of clean, renew- from renewable energy sources. efficiently in government buildings. The able energy resources. Pollution from executive order mentioned above requires the burning of fossil fuels can be reduced 1c. Establish programs to help state government facilities to improve but not eliminated. Therefore, the even- Marylanders use electricity more effi- their energy efficiency 10% by 2005 and tual solution to the problem of power ciently. In addition, Maryland can mini- 15% by 2010. continued on page 7 plant pollution is to generate most electric power from minimally polluting, renewable resources including wind, sun, Smokestack Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide organic waste, landfill gas, geothermal, at Nine Maryland Power Plants, 1998 and ocean energy. At present, 0.2% of the power generation in Maryland is from PLANT NAME TONS OF S02 COUNTY these sources, primarily landfill gas. Morgantown 79,905 Charles Promoting the use of these resources Chalk Point 56,453 Prince George’s allows the technologies for using them to Brandon Shores 50,343 Anne Arundel* advance, hastening the day when they are Dickerson 40,091 Montgomery likely to become the least expensive C P Crane 28,860 Baltimore energy resources in addition to being the Herbert A. Wagner 28,608 Anne Arundel* least polluting. Vienna 2,962 Dorchester Bills have been proposed in the R P Smith 2,379 Washington Maryland General Assembly for the last Gould Street 426 Baltimore City two years that would direct electricity suppliers to derive a share of the electric- Source: EPA acid rain database, latest available data on March 25, 2001 at ity they sell from these kinds of resources. http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/emission/md/md_fsum.htm These bills are similar to policies already *In northern Anne Arundel County, near Baltimore adopted in nine other states. Once expen-

6 continued from page 6 municipal solid waste. In striking con- ing fossil fuel, coal. Municipal solid trast, the General Assembly in the neigh- waste combustion produced less than Solution #2: Cease promotion of boring state of Delaware voted over- 0.4% of US energy but approximately municipal solid waste incineration whelmingly last year to ban new munici- 40% of US dioxin emissions to the air and Many large municipal solid waste pal solid waste incinerators throughout 19% of US mercury emissions to the air (garbage) incinerators generate electricity. most of that state. before the implementation of new emis- The builders and owners of these inciner- Is municipal solid waste incineration sion standards that took effect in Decem- ators are seeking to receive any favorable an environmentally preferable source of ber of 2000. The new standards reduce treatment afforded to generation from energy, or is it highly polluting? incinerator emissions, but by an uncertain wind, sun, and other environmentally amount, as discussed below. preferable renewable energy resources. Municipal solid waste incineration Thus far in Maryland, they have had some produces harmful emissions Tougher new emission standards success. The Maryland General Assem- Smokestack emissions from munici- In 1995, the EPA issued new rules for bly has included municipal solid waste in pal solid waste incineration contain a vari- solid waste incineration facilitates in its definition of “renewable energy ety of harmful substances, including at response to changes in the Clean Air Act resources” and directed electric utilities least 14 of Maryland’s officially designat- of 1990. The new requirements, imple- deriving any electricity from such ed “priority air pollutants.” In particular, mented by the end of 2000, were intended resources to continue doing so. Governor incinerators are likely to produce at least to significantly reduce hazardous Glendening has allowed up to half of the two extremely toxic pollutants, dioxin and emissions. Dioxin emissions, for “green power” purchased for the state mercury, at a much higher rate even than example, were projected to decline by government to come from incineration of do power plants burning the most pollut- approximately 90%.

Municipal Solid Waste is a Dirty Fuel Heavy Metal Concentration in Fuels: ug/MJ

CHROMIUM MERCURY

Oil 3.2 Oil not reported

U.S. Coal 1,017 U.S. Coal 18.7

Solid Waste 15,102 Solid Waste 166

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 0 200 400 600 800 LEAD CADMIUM

Oil 13.9 Oil not reported

U.S. Coal 738 U.S. Coal 110

Solid Waste 39,290 Solid Waste 702

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 0 200 400 600 800

Source: James Fischer, Staff Engineer of Energy Projects Section, California Air Resources Board

continued on page 8

7 continued from page 7 of the waste, improper conditions in the tion does not merit inclusion in programs burner can be quite common. Further- for promoting the use of minimally pol- Questions about public health impacts, more, start-up and shut-down can be slow luting renewable energy resources such in spite of new standards and frequent. As a result, incinerators as wind, sun, and landfill gas. Three of In 2000, the National Research may spend a significant amount of time the reasons follow: First, the possible Council (NRC) of the National Academy producing harmful emissions substantial- negative health effects of incineration of Sciences released a major report, ly greater than those measured during are too large. Second, the technologies “Waste Incineration and Public Health.” their preannounced annual stack tests. promoted by these programs are emerg- The 335-page report is the result of a mul- Researchers De Fre and Wevers ing technologies that need assistance to tiyear investigation by a multidisciplinary found that the average dioxin emissions develop toward maturity, while munici- team of experts. per hour at an incinerator over a two-week pal waste incineration is already a The NRC report calls into doubt period were 30 to 50 times as high as the mature technology. Third, including whether the EPA’s new regulations will average emissions per hour measured in a incinerators would crowd out other tech- achieve the projected emission reduc- preannounced six-hour test. nologies that are minimally polluting and tions, and whether the public will be safe The NRC report concludes that need assistance to mature. At present, even if they do. “more incinerator emissions information incineration produces twice as much One of the report’s findings is that is needed, especially for dioxins and electricity in the mid-Atlantic region as incinerator emissions may be substantial- furans, heavy metals, and particulate mat- all other non-hydro renewable energy ly higher than official estimates, particu- ter [airborne particles].” resources combined. larly for dioxin, heavy metals, and fine The report’s other conclusions The governor and his Green airborne particles. An incinerator’s annu- include the following: Buildings Council should revise the state al smokestack emission test is pre- “Substantial concerns about regional government’s “green energy” purchasing announced, and incinerator operators take dioxin and furan exposures and moderate so that municipal solid waste incinera- steps to make sure emissions are mini- concerns about regional exposures to tion is not included. mized at the time of the test, which lasts a metals are not expected to be relieved by few hours. At other times, specifically MACT regulations [the kind EPA has 2b. Determine how much pollution during start-up, shut-down, and when implemented], because the regulations Maryland’s incinerators are actually some condition in an incinerator’s burner may not adequately reduce risks attribut- releasing. To allow a better understand- is not optimal, emissions can be higher able to cumulative emissions on a region- ing of the extent of the health threat posed than those measured in the test. The NRC al basis.” by Maryland’s incinerators, the Maryland team reported on an emissions test con- “Substantial concerns about [inciner- Department of the Environment (MDE) ducted during the start-up of a burner at ation] workers’ exposures to particulate should develop accurate estimates of an incinerator. The resulting dioxin emis- matter, lead, mercury, and dioxins and incinerator emissions of dioxin and any sions were 40 to 96 times as high as those furans are not expected to be relieved by other pollutants for which the current offi- during a standard preannounced emission MACT compliance, because those regula- cial estimates may be inaccurate. To do test. The team also examined emissions tions were not designed to affect workers’ this, MDE will likely have to conduct when conditions in a burner deviated from exposures.” unannounced or continuous emission tests the optimum. When the burner contained for the pollutants in question during the extra air or less fuel than usual, dioxin Action items for Solution #2 full range of incinerator operating condi- emissions increased exponentially. Emis- tions. MDE should require that the incin- sions were also much higher when the 2a. Keep municipal solid waste erator emission test results be published temperature dropped or the amount of incineration out of programs to pro- in local newspapers and that unabridged oxygen in the burner deviated from its mote environmentally preferable ener- test data be made available on the Internet optimum. gy technologies. Though the Maryland or at a library near each incinerator. Because incinerators burn a constant- General Assembly has included munici- The exposure of incinerator workers ly changing waste stream, with variations pal waste incineration in the definition of is another part of the pollution picture. in the composition and moisture content “renewable energy resources,” incinera- continued on page 9

8 continued from page 8 bags” colored with pigments containing miles of a medical waste incinerator in lead, and products and packaging made Maryland. Some recent studies, cited in the NRC from PVC that release especially large Maryland burns approximately report, have shown high worker exposure amounts of toxic pollutants when inciner- 42,000 tons of medical waste each year, to pollutants at incinerators. Maryland ated. The Abell Foundation has funded a including approximately 900 tons from should investigate the exposure levels of MaryPIRG Foundation project to encour- other states. In the future, the amount of workers at Maryland incinerators. age the reduction of medical waste incin- imported waste could greatly expand. The findings about how much pollu- eration in Maryland. The largest medical waste incinerator in tion the incinerators are producing, along the world, located at Hawkins Point in with other factors including the scientific Problems with medical waste incinerators Baltimore City, is currently permitted to community’s advancing understanding of Medical waste incinerators burn only import waste within a 250-mile radius, the effects of that pollution, will assist 1% of Maryland’s trash but produce a sig- extending as far as New York City. policymakers in deciding whether incin- nificant share of pollutants that are found eration should be altered to reduce emis- in Maryland’s water and air. Nationally, MDE’s missed opportunity to cut sions or worker exposure, moved away medical waste incinerators produce an pollution from Baltimore, ended, or allowed to con- estimated 17% of dioxin emissions; and The US EPA is requiring the states tinue unchanged. Maryland’s medical waste incinerators to reduce incinerator emissions. The were responsible for approximately 23% Maryland Department of the Environment Solution #3: Minimize medical of the 4,500 pounds of mercury that were has finalized new state regulations that waste incineration and rely on released into the state’s air in 1998. Med- merely fulfill EPA’s minimum require- better alternatives ical waste incinerators also emit other tox- ments, missing an opportunity to better According to the Centers for Disease ic metals, hydrogen chloride, fine parti- protect Marylanders’ health. MDE’s reg- Control, 3-15% of a typical hospital’s cles, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ulations do not set emission standards for waste is considered infectious—possibly nitrogen oxides, and other harmful and a number of important toxic pollutants, capable of transmitting an infectious dis- potentially harmful compounds to the air. including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and ease—and must be treated, by incinera- Many medical waste incinerators are PCBs. The regulations allow 19 times tion or some other method, to protect pub- located in commercial or residential more dioxin emissions than standards in lic health. Hospitals, however, routinely neighborhoods; 18% of Maryland’s white some European countries and nearly four burn 75-100% of their waste, including population, 34% of the minority popula- times as much mercury as is allowed in materials such as mercury-containing tion, 43% of the low-income population, Florida or New York. MDE’s regulations thermometers and lighting tubes, “red and over 240,000 children live within two require that medical waste incinerators add emission control devices to be in Typical Composition of Hospital Waste compliance with the emission standards by March 15, 2002, but the regulations do Plastics ...... 15-30% not require hospitals to explore less polluting waste treatment methods such as Paper and Cardboard ...... 45% steam sterilization nor to implement pol- Food Waste ...... 10% lution prevention programs such as modi- fying product purchasing, efficiently seg- Glass ...... 7% regating waste, and adopting reduce, Wood ...... 3% reuse, and recycle initiatives. By utilizing these strategies, hospitals can reduce their Metals ...... 10% harm to public health and may be able to Other Materials ...... 10% save money.

Source: American Society for Healthcare Environmental Services of the American Hospital Association. “An Ounce of Prevention.” 1993. continued on page 10

9 continued from page 9 explore methods other than incineration. are less protected if they attempt to report Naples Community Hospital in Florida health or safety problems. Action items for Solution #3 cut its disposal costs 80% and cut pollu- The City Council can prevent an tion by switching from incineration to imported air pollution problem by 3a. Apply the “Three R’s” model— autoclaving. Another alternative, devel- rescinding the Hawkins Point Incinera- reduce, reuse, and recycle—to pur- oped by the Baltimore-based Antaeus tor’s special permission to import medical chasing and waste collection strategies Group, sterilizes the waste with super- waste from outside of the Baltimore in healthcare facilities. “Reduce” heated water and turns it into a confetti- region. includes reducing the purchase of sup- like mixture that occupies only 20% as plies containing mercury or PVC and much volume as the original waste, Visit www.marypirg.org/medwaste instead favoring alternatives. By system- according to the company. for more materials on how healthcare atically reducing, reusing, and recycling, facilities large and small can cut pollution Maryland healthcare facilities can 3d. Make incinerator emission and save money through better supply decrease the volume and toxicity of their standards and testing practices more strategies and waste collection practices. purchases and their waste stream. Four protective of public health. MDE years ago, Johns Hopkins Hospital incin- should set stronger emission limits, Solution #4. Warn Marylanders erated all of its medical waste, but now it including limits for arsenic, chromium, when fish have become danger- incinerates 24% less as a result of reduce, nickel, and PCBs, and hold small inciner- ously contaminated with mercury reuse, and recycle programs. Albany ators to the same emission standards as Airborne mercury from power plant Medical Center in New York has saved other incinerators. MDE should also and incinerator smokestacks ends up in $4 million in the first six years of its require continuous emissions monitoring bodies of water, where it makes its way up reduce, reuse, and recycle programs. for carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, the food chain into fish. As reported sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and oxy- above, a National Academy of Sciences 3b. Use waste segregation to keep gen; take into account the frequency of report estimated that 60,000 children are non-infectious waste out of incinera- start-ups and shut-downs when permitting born in the US each year with an elevated tors. MDE should require and assist and monitoring incinerators; prohibit the risk of neurological impairment because healthcare facilities and incinerator oper- averaging of test runs, so that one failure their mothers ate unsafe amounts of mer- ators to develop and implement waste constitutes failing the test; and publish cury in fish during pregnancy. segregation plans for keeping most mer- stack test results in the newspapers of the The solution to the mercury problem cury, PVC, and regular garbage out of communities that host the incinerators. is to stop releasing significant amounts the infectious waste bound for incinera- into the environment, in part by following tors. Beth Israel Hospital of New York 3e. Rescind the special permission the recommendations above. Until that City saves $600,000 per year in medical for the Hawkins Point incinerator to happens, fish consumption advisories are waste disposal costs by keeping non- import medical waste from as far away the primary method of protecting Ameri- infectious waste out of its infectious as 250 miles. The current statute that cans from particularly unsafe levels of waste “red bags.” Johns Hopkins Hospi- allows for importation of medical waste mercury exposure. tal has a program to separate mercury, brings pollution problems from else- lead, nickel, and cadmium out of its where into Baltimore’s air. The legisla- Maryland’s advisory policy does not incinerator-bound waste. tion was originally passed when the com- sufficiently protect its residents’ health pany stated that in order to be competi- The states are responsible for advis- 3c. For infectious waste, explore tive and retain its union workers, the ing citizens about mercury-contaminated alternative treatment methods that incinerator needed to expand its catch- fish in state waters. Maryland’s policy is may include autoclaving, sterilizing ment area. But shortly after the 250-mile to issue no advisories about mercury in and shredding, microwaving, or chemi- radius was approved by the Baltimore fish unless the concentration reaches 0.5 cal disinfection. For the small portion of City Council, the company locked out its parts per million (ppm) in tissue of fish waste that must be treated as infectious, well-trained union workers and replaced that are captured and tested. At that con- MDE and healthcare facilities should them with non-union workers whose jobs centration, the US EPA recommends that continued on page 11

10 continued from page 10 ABELL SALUTES: Continued from page 1 a person weighing 158 pounds consume no more than eight ounces of increase her PPVT score from 89 to 100 in the course of a year, she has had to learn more fish per month. Eight ounces is one words than child who had a score of 100 and kept it. typical “fish meal.” In contrast, ten The Abell Foundation salutes young Children’s Literacy Initiative for leveling the percent of US women of childbearing playing field— for helping to provide children from high poverty neighborhoods with the age consume more than six times that same opportunity to succeed in school as their affluent peers. amount of fish per month. Approxi- mately 17 states have a lower threshold for action than Maryland does, ranging from zero to 0.35 ppm. PPVT Pre-K CLI Classrooms Percentage Increase: 12% Maryland’s current threshold of 0.5 ppm is a recent improvement from its 120 earlier standard of 1.0 ppm. 100 100 100 80 89 89.5

Some examples of mercury in est Scores 60 Maryland fish 40 Between 1985 and 1997, 62 sam- 20 Average T ples of fish taken from Maryland 0 waters were found to be contaminated Beginning End Year-End Head Start of Year of Year Goal National with more than 0.12 ppm of mercury, End of Year the level that triggers further investi- CLI Classrooms gation in the neighboring state of Delaware. Here are some of the instances of high concentrations in multiple samples: Concepts About Print Pre-K CLI Classrooms Percentage Increase: 175% • The ten samples of bluefish taken 15 in 1985 from just off Kent Island 10 est Scores 11 10 in the Chesapeake Bay had mer- 5 4 3 cury concentrations averaging 0 Beginning End Year-End Head Start

0.31 ppm. In the subsequent 12 Average T of Year of Year Goal National years, MDE tested no more blue- End of Year CLI Classrooms fish at that location.

• The only samples in Garrett County’s Savage Reservoir after Alphabet Letter Recognition Test 1993, three samples of three dif- Pre-K CLI Classrooms Percentage Increase: 186% ferent species, had mercury con- 40 centrations averaging 0.29 ppm. 40 30 35

est Scores 20 • In the Baltimore region, the only 10 14 samples from Liberty Reservoir 10 0 after 1992, two of carp and one of Average T Beginning End Year-End Head Start largemouth bass, had mercury of Year of Year Goal National End of Year concentrations averaging 0.17 ppm. CLI Classrooms continued on page 12

11 continued from page 11 V. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY special permission to burn medical waste OF NEXT STEPS FOR CURB- from up to 250 miles away. At mercury concentrations like those ING POWER PLANT AND The state’s healthcare facilities can in the first two samples, the EPA recom- INCINERATOR POLLUTION improve their purchasing and waste col- mends a limit of three eight-ounce fish lection strategies to keep non-infectious meals per month. At the average concen- Current regulations are not adequate trash, mercury, and PVC out of the infec- tration found in Liberty Reservoir, the to protect Marylanders from power plant tious waste stream. For the disinfection of EPA recommends a limit of four such fish and incinerator pollution, and there are infectious waste, they can explore alterna- meals per month. major limitations on what citizens can do tives to incineration. In the process, they to protect themselves. The responsibility can reuse and recycle more, reduce overall Action items for Solution #4 for curtailing this pollution rests with purchases and waste, and save money. 4a. Tighten Maryland standard. Maryland’s policymakers. Fortunately, The Maryland Department of the MDE should adopt a mercury-in-fish there is a great deal they can do. Environment can ensure that healthcare standard low enough that it will trigger Maryland’s members of Congress facilities take these steps by requiring advisories sufficient to protect all Mary- can co-sponsor federal legislation to them to develop and implement plans for landers, including children, nursing reduce smog- and fine particle forming keeping most regular garbage, mercury, infants, fetuses, and people who consume emissions from power plants by 75%, and PVC out of incinerators. MDE can large quantities of fish. MDE reports that mercury emissions by 90%, and also make medical waste incinerator stan- it is considering a standard of 0.3 ppm. At carbon dioxide emissions back to their dards and testing more protective of pub- that concentration, the EPA recommends levels of 1990. lic health, as detailed in recommendation consuming no more than three eight- Maryland’s state legislators and 3d earlier in this article. ounce fish meals per month. governor can begin shifting the state as a To provide good information for whole away from the burning of polluting policymaking related to municipal waste 4b. Modify sampling and advisory fossil fuels for power generation by ensur- incinerators, MDE can conduct additional programs. MDE should also modify its ing that a rapidly increasing share of Mary- emission tests to more accurately estimate fish sampling and advisory programs as landers’ electricity comes from clean the emissions of dioxin and any other necessary to ensure that any fish and renewable energy resources and by estab- pollutants the emissions of which may shellfish populations with unsafe mercury lishing extensive programs to help families be grossly underestimated by current test- concentrations are identified, and that vir- and businesses use energy more efficiently. ing methods. tually all Marylanders who might eat If the General Assembly has not Finally, MDE can warn Marylanders unsafe quantities of these fish are warned established such energy efficiency pro- about populations of edible fish in Mary- of the danger. MDE reports that it is grams by the April 9th end of its 2001 ses- land waters that contain unsafe concentra- working to upgrade its sampling and advi- sion, the Public Service Commission tions of toxic mercury, until steps such as sory programs. can establish them by using the mandate those outlined above have reduced mercu- for such programs already granted to it by ry pollution enough that such warnings are 4c. Set uniform nationwide standard. the General Assembly. The PSC can also unnecessary. US EPA should issue new rules establish- support legislation to increase the use of Together, Maryland’s policymakers ing a uniform mercury-in-fish standard clean renewable energy. can greatly reduce the amount of power for all states sufficient to protect all The Baltimore City Council can plant and incinerator pollution in Marylan- Americans. rescind the Hawkins Point Incinerator’s ders’ air and food.

The views in this article are those of the authors, who are staff members of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group (MaryPIRG) and can be reached at [email protected] or 410-467-0439. ••• A version of this article with endnotes is available at www.marypirg.org/abellreport.