 |
|||
|
Sections |
Harrisburg plans to install new incinerator |
|
|
|
In response to harmful emissions from its current incinerator, the City of Harrisburg plans to have a new incinerator up and running by January 2006
By DEBRA MASSIC Reporting Spring 2004 |
 |
||
|
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The city has finally come up with a plan for a new incinerator to replace the old one, which has been out of commission since June of 2003 because of failure to meet air pollution laws. The new one is expected to be finished by January 2006. Three new units will be
built on the existing site, reusing some of the old buildings, but including
the best new available technology required to meet federal regulations for
emissions. The company building the new incinerator,
Barlow Projects Inc., is not required to tell the city the cost,
according to Ron Davis,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection chief engineer.
How The old incinerator was also self-sustaining, but after it was shut down, it left behind a $94 million debt due to inefficiency, according to Brooke Mountcastle, director of the Harrisburg Clean Air Council. Eventually, city residents may see their trash disposal fees increase.
“The state didn’t do a great deal about it,” he said. “The incinerator reached the end of its life, wore out, and broke down. They couldn’t pay to maintain it. Now residents in a lower tax base will have to pay for it. People on fixed incomes cannot afford an increase in their monthly bills.” The incinerator handled trash from out-of-state as well. Local businesses were forced to find other sources for their trash, while city residents had to pay higher fees to use the incinerator. The new incinerator will primarily be used for the City of Harrisburg and Dauphin and Cumberland counties, said Louis Colon, project manager for the City of Harrisburg Mayor’s Office of Special Projects. Currently, all the trash is being shipped to landfills. New limits have been set for emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. According to the project application, all emissions will be tested initially to verify their compliance. Dioxins will be tested annually. Each of three units will operate parallel, but independently. New requirements have also been established for waste and ash handling, source separation and employee certification and training. The old incinerator was first shut down in December of 2000 after its emissions levels increased eight-fold in a two year period, making it one of the highest emitters of dioxins in the country for municipal incinerators. The Environmental Protection Agency did not have standards for dioxins at the time. In addition, although the EPA once characterized dioxins as one of the most potent carcinogens known to man, they later backed down from this claim. Dioxins cause cancer, learning disabilities, early puberty, endometriosis, sexual reproductive disorders, and impaired immune systems, according to http://www.stoptheburn.org. The EPA allowed the incinerator to reopen January of 2001, after agreeing to burn 50 percent less emissions and close down for good in 2003. The city installed systems that injected lime, coke and oxygen into the stacks, according to Colon. It was once emitting 1500 nanograms of dioxins per hour, but after the modifications it was emitting only 99 to 102 nanograms per hour. This allowed the city to gain support for new retrograde technology in the new project. Mountcastle has done surveys of residents living near the incinerator. He talked to one woman who reported that six people on her block had died from cancer. The city of Harrisburg has done no accumulative studies, though, so no correlation can be drawn. “When the incinerator was built in the 1970s, there was not a large outlining population,” said Colon. “There was no effect on the population because it was not there. The city built up around it.” One of biggest complaints of those opposed to rebuilding the incinerator was that instead of increasing efforts to burn trash, recycling should be better utilized. According to Mountcastle, only 23 percent of trash is recycled in the area, but far more could be if the city developed a comprehensive aggressive program and a community recycling center. City consultants believe that recycling will be more expensive. “I am asking the city why in 2004, they continue to burn trash, when they could be recycling and reusing,” said Mountcastle. “They’ve already amassed a huge debt with the incinerator that they will have to pay off eventually.” Harrisburg has increased its recycling efforts over the years and is currently contributing $305 million in state taxes and $18.4 million in annual sales. However, it is unlikely that recycling will ever replace waste removal. Colon sees increased recycling as making more room for trash in the incinerator. The new incinerator can handle 800 tons of trash per day; more than double what the old one burned. “The incinerator is the most cost-effective way to go,” said Colon. “We explored all alternatives including composting and recycling.” Several public meetings were held to gather the public’s input on the issue. However, how much impact the public has had is debatable. Colon feels the city listened to the residents and determined a new incinerator was the best option. Mountcastle saw the whole process as only offering two options: to have an incinerator or not. He also didn’t feel the bid process was adequate. “It wasn’t promoted or advertised,” he said. “The whole thing was not a democratic process. There was a lot of effort to limit activist and community involvement. The mayor backed the city into a corner until we were between a rock and a hard place.” “The EPA is supporting us, so we’re going ahead with it,” Colon said. All stories in this magazine are the intellectual property of the individual authors. You may email comments about this story to: dlm352@psu.edu
|
|||
ever, the incinerator will be self-sustaining, meaning its revenue will
help pay for the new units. It creates steam that powers turbines that fall
back to the