Use of WTE through incineration for waste management is controversial for several reasons. The main reason is that the general public fails to realize that the toxicity of the treated products is generally millions of times lower than that of the original material.

Millions of tons of harmful wastes go into landfills, where they will remain forever, contaminating the soil, water and air, for generations to come. The sound solution is burning waste smokeless to produce significantly smaller amounts of much less harmful products. Experts in US Environmental Protection Agency are fully aware that incineration is a much "lesser evil" than all its alternatives, but they can not overcome the political pressure of the mis-informed public, and of the "Not In My Backyard!" mentality.

The use of incinerators has been on the decline in the United States. If you are a chemist, and if in your laboratory or school you have a small flask of a harmful chemical, you want to dispose of it legally. To do so you have to pay up to $1000 to someone who will take it and transport it to one of the few remaining incinerators. There were 98 such plants in 2002 and 89 in 2004. It is often cheaper to take waste directly to a landfill, so plants sometimes end up being subsidized in order to compete. The difficulties and costs of disposing of harmful chemical wastes in America are so excessive and prohibitive, due to the misconceptions of incineration, that many chemistry teachers of public schools dump their chemicals onto ground.

Myths of thermal treatments prevail over facts. One misconception has to do with "chemicals" versus "natural substances". The fact is that all chemical molecules of the same compound are completely identical, regardless whether they have been produced by a flower, by a factory, by incineration, by a car, or by a baby. When a cow produces methane, those methane molecules contribute to the global warming and much more so than many carbon-dioxide-producing cars. The same principle applies to incineration. The tiny traces of residual by-products of industrial incineration are neither better nor worse than those produced by our cars, but we abhor only the former.

Negative public perceptions of WTE	Overcoming negative perceptions with the technology used by WRSI
WTE PLANTS ARE UNATTRACTIVE	Can be aesthetically designed to better match surroundings Plants exist unobtrusively in down-town residential areas of Europe
MERCURY AND DIOXINS WILL KILL MY BABIES	Consistently low mercury and dioxin levels(approx. 4% of allowable levels) Plant emissions equivalent to six cars equipped with catalytic converters The waste that a person produces per year and is treated by the WRSI (WTE) process is equivalent to driving a car for 50 miles Visibility of all emission data to the municipality and public assuages these fears
POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR	Use Hamburg/MVR experience as an example of how to overcome political issues Political will is growing as alternative methods become less attractive and fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) become more scarce and expensive More stringent EPA standards and proven reliability make WTE/Thermal Recycling a viable solution for disposal of MSW Worker and public safety demonstrated over many years The alternative is to continue landfilling which is not a sound solution to dealing with MSW Clearly demonstrate disadvantages of polluting alternatives Landfilling, especially rail to landfill, is only out of sight and out of mind and just relocates the problem – we still breathe the same air and share the same environment WTE creates significantly more local/skilled jobs than landfilling or rail to landfilling
REDUCES RECYCLING	Two decades of industry data show the opposite Communities utilizing WTE have higher recycling levels than those communities utilizing landfills
WTE TOO EXPENSIVE	Can be implemented at a reasonable cost Future landfill clean up costs must be taken into consideration WTE generates significantly more construction and permanent jobs – rail to landfill and/or landfilling do not Power production is reliable, clean and qualifies as renewable. It has a significant commercial value Other by-products also have commercial value Can be independent commercially viable without the involvement of large waste management companies Fossil fuel price increases make WTE more financially attractive
"SMOKE" FROM STACK MUST MEAN POLLUTION	“Smoke” from WRSI facilities not visible above 70 degrees Water vapor, steam, is the primary element leaving through a WTE stack Real time data link to EPA or equivalent entity allows continuous monitoring - can also be made available to public
WTE PLANT EMITS BAD ODORS	WRSI’s state of the art air vacuum systems contains odors and then draws these odors through the Flue gas cleaning system where they are eliminated – Zero smell for public
PUBLIC MONEY SHOULD NOT BE SPENT ON WTE PLANT	The ability to sell power and by-products commercially makes it financially attractive to private industry, wholly owned or in a joint venture with a municipal government Allows for public monitoring

Top of Page

 
© 2005 All Rights Reserved