COVANTA’S HISTORY IN AMERICA
Covanta is a large multi national company with a long history in
America. In this section of my submission I wish to draw your
attention to Covanta’s poor record with regard to its treatment of its
work force and with regard to emission violations.
________________________________________________________________________
Covanta Environmental and Labor Violations
Covanta Energy, a U.S.-based waste incineration firm, has been cited by U.S.
regulatory agencies for the following violations of environmental and labor
statutes:
Environmental Violations
 In October 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection fined Covanta U.S. $45,600 for excessive emissions of toxic
nickel and related compounds at an incinerator the company operates
near Philadelphia. Nickel emissions for a waste combustor at the plant
were more than twice the permitted level, according to tests conducted
in November 2006.1 Nickel compounds are known human carcinogens,
according to the World Health Organization.
 In September 2008, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection cited Covanta for exceeding the allowable emission rate for
dioxins and furans at its incinerator in Pittsfield by nearly 350%,
according to tests conducted in 2007. The agency also cited the
facility for failing to report other violations of its operating
permit during 2008, and fined Covanta U.S. $7,653.2 The
World Health Organization also classifies dioxin as a known human
carcinogen.
 The Florida Department of Environmental Protection fined Covanta
U.S. $11,100 in July 2008 for excessive dioxin/furan emissions at the
company’s incinerator in Okahumpka earlier that year.3
 In September 2007, the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection cited Covanta for excessive dioxin/furan emissions at the
company’s incinerator in Wallingford during July 2007.4
 In March 2006, the Hawaii Department of Health found that an
incinerator Covanta operates near Honolulu had exceeded the emission
limits for dioxin/furan and lead during 2005, and fined the company
U.S. $6,200.5
1
 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has
repeatedly cited Covanta for air pollution at three incinerators the
company operates in that state. During 2009, the agency has fined
Covanta U.S. $26,900 for violations at a facility in Warren County
from 2003 to 2007, and U.S. $20,000 for violations at a facility in
Union County from 2007 to 2009. The violations at both incinerators
included excessive emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide.6
 In August 2008, the New Jersey agency also fined Covanta U.S.
$14,025 for air pollution violations at the company’s incinerator in
Newark from 2006 to 2008, including for illegal carbon monoxide
emissions and for exceeding the state’s “opacity” limits for visible
emissions.7
 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has
repeatedly cited an incinerator Covanta operates in rural
Lancaster County for air pollution violations. Since 2005, the agency
has issued ten “consent assessments” against Covanta at the facility,
penalizing the company a total of U.S. $131,800. The violations have
included excessive emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
hydrogen chloride, and nitrogen oxide from 2004 to 2008.8
Labor Standards
 In June 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor cited Covanta for serious
violations of safety rules at its incinerator in West Wareham,
Massachusetts, and imposed penalties of U.S. $13,500. The violations
included an accumulation of fly ash on energized 208-volt electrical
equipment, flexible cords “hot-wired” into electrical equipment as a
substitute for fixed wiring, unguarded lamps exposing workers to burn
hazards, and emergency lighting units missing or not functioning.
 The Department cited the same Covanta facility in April 2009 for
safety violations found during an October 2008 inspection, and fined
the company U.S. $6,375. The unsafe conditions included electrical
equipment “maintained” with cardboard and duct tape, and improper
storage of oxygen and acetylene cylinders side-by-side with no barrier
between them.10 In addition, the safety agency had previously cited
Covanta for failing to require employees fighting a fire inside the West
Wareham plant in March 2007 to wear appropriate protective
clothing.11
 In May 2009, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint
charging Covanta with maintaining illegal work rules at 46 Covanta facilities
throughout the U.S. The government’s complaint is scheduled for a hearing
in October 2009.
2
 In June 2009, the Board amended its complaint, charging Covanta with
numerous other unfair labor practices at the West Wareham plant, including
by illegally withholding bonuses and wage increases from employees at the
facility because they had voted for union representation
For Release:
November 5, 2009
Contact:
Edmund.Coletta@state.ma.us
617-292-5737
MassDEP Issues $4,000 Penalty to Covanta Springfield's
Waste Combustor Facility for Air Quality Violations
Covanta Springfield, LLC in Agawam has been assessed a $4,000 penalty by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for air
pollution control violations.
In November 2008, Covanta Springfield self-reported the violations to MassDEP.
The municipal waste combustor facility, located at 188 M Street, reported that it
did not maintain the appropriate carbon injection rate to one of its combustor
units. In addition, an alarm failed to sound when the activated carbon flow to the
combustor unit stopped. The activated carbon filters air emissions from the unit.
Other violations identified included a failure to submit air quality modeling
results in a timely manner, and failure to provide MassDEP with correct
information on its monthly reports.
Covanta Springfield has cooperated with MassDEP to address the noncompliance
issues, and has entered into a consent agreement to fully correct the violations and
agreed to pay a penalty of $4,000. The company has also agreed to install and
operate an "oxygen continuous emission monitoring" system to improve the
facility's air quality monitoring capability.
"Air pollution control equipment must be operated and maintained as permitted to
achieve the maximum emissions reduction. These controls are critical to ensuring
a safe environment and MassDEP will vigorously enforce air quality
requirements," said Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional
Office in Springfield.
MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe management and
recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites
and spills, and the preservation of wetlands and coastal resources.
3
Below is an excerpt from a letter sent to the Dioxin Review Panel in America:
July 12, 2010
Download the PDF with Full Scientific Analysis and References.
Dr. Timothy Buckley, Chair
Dioxin Review Panel
Science Advisory Board
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Washington, DC
Dear Dr. Buckley,
Twenty-five years after publishing its first assessment of dioxin, a common
industrial pollutant and food contaminant, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has yet to establish a safe daily dose for human exposure to this potent
chemical.
This important assessment, once completed, would serve as a cornerstone and
working model for the agency’s efforts to protect public health from chemical
contaminants.
See full report on:
http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________
LAKE FRONT
October 29, 2003|By Lauren Ritchie, Sentinel Columnist
Mystery has always enveloped Lake County's infamous deal to build a
garbage-burning incinerator.
In the end, Lake County commissioners gave a company that became
Covanta Energy a $200 million gift in the form of an incinerator, complete
with all the bond financing, and operations and maintenance costs through
2014.
Tuesday -- after more than two years of wrangling -- commissioners wisely
approved a compromise deal engineered by commission Chairman Welton
4
Cadwell to trim about 10 percent off the cost and shorten the term of the
contract with Covanta, which operates the incinerator in Okahumpka.
But an ex-partner is wedged in the middle of this newly forged lovefest, and
his name is F. Browne Gregg. The 81-year-old Leesburg industrialist slipped
into the horse-trading near the beginning and has since been lurking in the
background, not entirely divorced from the deal.
Gregg, who in 2000 sold his flagship company Florida Crushed Stone for $348
million, could torpedo the new agreement between the county and Covanta if
he can convince a New York judge that the waste-to-energy firm owes him
$31.7 million under secret contracts. Covanta won't be able to shave $20
million off Lake's bill if a judge rules that Covanta has to pay Gregg instead.
Gregg's role was clear at the beginning: He bought NRG Recovery Group, the
company that first proposed an incinerator and obtained permits to build it.
Later, he hooked up with Ogden Martin Systems Inc., which eventually
became Covanta, in a joint venture to build and run the plant.
In October 1988, just as commissioners were puckering up to smooch the
bond sale, then-County Attorney Chris Ford announced that Gregg had sold
his interest to Ogden, but the sale wouldn't affect the county one iota.
Ford was either misinformed or not truthful, but he died in 1997, so we'll
never learn what he really knew.
The truth began to seep out when Gregg and Ogden got into a court
battle about the ash. Documents showed that Gregg still had a huge
stake in the garbage-burning plant that allowed him to collect
millions from Lake taxpayers -- through Covanta -- through the
years. Lake officials never knew
________________________________________________________________________
5
Hesperian Foundation Weblog: Individual Post
July 20, 2010
Environmental Justice in Detroit and Beyond – Fighting the World’s
Largest Trash Incinerator
The next time some perky, well-meaning
health professional cheers you on to take
charge of your health, remember to ask her
how to do it without breathing. That’s what it
would take for Detroit residents who live in
the shadow of the world’s largest incinerator,
owned by Covanta.
A coalition, including local environmental
justice groups, the Teamsters, and
neighborhood residents, is calling for the plant
to be closed. Hesperian staff and several
hundred others attending the US Social
Forum, joined them by participating in a
march on June 26. The coalition says,
“Detroit’s children suffer asthma rates three times the national average. The
municipal incinerator is a major contributor to these devastating health
impacts. Meanwhile, the recycling rate in the city is less than a third the
national average.” They are advocating for resources to be put into recycling
instead of incineration, which provides good jobs and is better for people and
the planet.
As we walked through the urban neighborhood near the incinerator,
marchers covered their faces, choking on the thick, foul air. We walked by a
park, a school, a church, and down residential streets, where people daily
breathe in the incinerator fumes. We were appalled to see houses literally
right next to the incinerator.
The march made it painfully clear to us that whether we are able to
live healthy lives has only partially to do with the individual
decisions we make or our genetic makeup. More critically, our
health is a product of our environment, of our social, political, and
economic realities.
Activists from Detroit and around the country described those diverse but
connected realities and their common struggles for health and environmental
justice—fighting coal mining in West Virginia, trash incineration in New
Jersey, and the Chevron oil refinery right here in Richmond, CA. Their
6
stories echoed others we had heard earlier that week, of people fighting for
their right to health in communities across the country and around the world,
often in the face of incredible odds.
Detroit’s weekly, The Metro Times, described the march in their summary of
the USSF:
On Saturday, when an estimated 1,000 people marched from the city's main
public library on Woodward Avenue to the incinerator located near the
intersection of Interstates 94 and 75, residents of the 48217 ZIP were
shoulder to shoulder with environmental activists, out-of-town forum
attendees, people living around the incinerator and a dozen men wearing
shirts that identified them as "Teamsters for Clean Air, Good Jobs & Justice."
Asked why Teamsters would be supporting an action like this, one of
them replied, "We breathe the air too." And, moreover, said organizer
Alex Young, recycling operations in places like Oakland, Calif., are
providing union members good-paying, green jobs.
Among those joining the march on what has been described as the world's
largest incinerator was Cynthia Mellon of Newark, N.J., home to what she
said is the world's second-largest incinerator.
"We didn't know you existed before," she told the Detroiters. "Now we are all
part of a big cause."
San Francisco author and historian Chris Carlsson described the action to
close the incinerator on his blog:
“Demonstrations took place around Detroit to address local issues,
from a small-ish demo outside DTE Energy, the local utility, to a
larger march on Saturday against a massive trash incinerator. ….
Incineration of trash instead of a curbside recycling program is a
self-defeating industrial process. The utility claims that burning
trash to make electricity in a state-of-the-art facility reduces carbon
emissions over putting it all in landfill, which is questionable at best.
But if you take into account the “externalities” of local health
problems, air pollution, etc., not to mention that it takes rather fewer
people to collect the garbage and dump it into an incinerator than it
does to run a robust recycling program that makes use locally of the
materials it recycles, and you are compounding a whole series of
social problems… I learned later that the fight against the
incinerator has been going on for over 20 years!”
7
Hesperian has long recognized the connection between health and the environment. Our
newest book, A Community Guide to Environmental Health focuses on giving people the
tools to address environmental problems in their communities. It includes an entire
chapter of alternatives to incineration to deal with solid wastes, as well as detailed plans
for health clinics to safely handle health wastes without burning.
Photo by Amanda Starbuck
________________________________________________________________________
Incineration is Big Climate Problem, New Report Says
RallyToday to Affirm That Closing Detroit Incinerator is a Necessary Step to 1
June 18, 2008
Earlier this month, The Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Association
(GDRRA) communicated to Convanta, the operator of the Detroit
incinerator, that GDRRA will not renew the facility’s lease. It is still not clear
if GDRRA has intentions of continued incineration of Detroit’s solid waste.
Detroit has the largest incinerator in the world. Opponents of the incinerator
have long expressed concerns about the negative health and economic
impacts of the incinerator. A new national report titled Stop Trashing the
Climate shows that closing the incinerator and implementing a recycling
program in Detroit is also a necessary step to reduce the city’s impact on
climate change.
8
September 27, 2010
Covanta Settles CAA Suit Over NJ Incinerator
Law360, New York (September 27, 2010) -- Two New Jersey environmental
groups have settled a lawsuit against Covanta Energy Corp. that alleged a
municipal incinerator the company runs on behalf of Essex County is spewing
carbon monoxide and other dangerous chemicals into a Newark neighborhood
at levels that violate the Clean Air Act.
Covanta must install new, cleaner technology on all three boilers at the
incinerator by July 2011 and hire an independent consultant to verify
reductions in the plant’s toxic emissions, according...
Source:
Covanta Settles CAA Suit Over NJ Incinerator - Law360
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Blumenthal sues power plant
BY KEITH LORIA
August 19, 2010
HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - Connecticut Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal announced on Wednesday that he has filed a lawsuit against a power
plant for allegedly releasing dangerous air emissions repeatedly.
Covanta Energy has allegedly been emitting excessive levels of the
chemical dioxin at its trash-to-energy plant. Covanta was alerted to the
emissions and charged over them three years ago. That matter was settled in
November, when Covanta agreed to pay $355,000 for similar allegedly unpermitted
dioxin emissions.
"Our legal action follows a repeat environmental violation - excessive emissions of
toxic dioxin," Blumenthal said.
Source: Covanta incinerator closed and being sued for excessive dioxin ...
9
The Rutgers Environmental Law Center at Rutgers University in New Jersey
has filed a notice of its intent to sue Covanta over repeated Clean Air Act
violations at the Essex plant, the state's largest garbage incinerator.
Superfund site in New Hampshire and will have to pay its share of an
estimated $48 million cleanup there. Covanta sent more than 43,000
gallons of waste oil to the Beede recycling site in the 1990s and is
liable in part for the mishandling of those wastes by Beede, according
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-2340 or scott.harper@pilotonline.com. Reach Tim
McGlone at (757) 446-2343 or tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com.
Ironbound Community Corporation and GreenFaith Announce Settlement
Newark Incinerator Takes Steps for Cleaner Air
GreenFaith, the Ironbound Community Corporation, and the Eastern
Environmental Law Center announced that they had reached a settlement
with Covanta, the owner/operator of the Newark incinerator, in a suit
brought over Covanta’s hundreds of violations of its air emissions permit.
Oct 01, 2010
NEWARK, NJ ‐ The Ironbound Community Corporation (ICC) and
GreenFaith are pleased to announce that they have reached settlement with
Covanta in a case involving air emissions violations at the garbage
incinerator located in the densely populated Ironbound section of Newark,
New Jersey. The Eastern Environmental Law Center (EELC) represented
ICC and GreenFaith throughout the litigation and settlement.
On February 20, 2009 EELC filed a lawsuit on behalf of ICC and GreenFaith
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
that ……….
Covanta had violated federal Clean Air Act pollution limits
concerning the emission of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and fine
particulate matter on hundreds of occasions.
10
The Newark incinerator is the largest garbage incinerator in New Jersey,
with the capacity to burn up to 2,800 tons of municipal solid waste every day.
It accepts garbage from virtually all of Essex County and much of
Manhattan. According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, the incinerator emits more mercury, a potent neurotoxin, than
any other incinerator in New Jersey
Ironbound Community Corporation and GreenFaith Announce Settlement ...
________________________________________________________________________
Waste-to-energy incineration is both noxious and expensive
by Joyce Nelson National Office | The Monitor Issue(s): Environment and sustainability
February 1, 2010
At the “Waste-Based-Energy” industry conference in Toronto last November,
the Tony Yorkville hotel meeting room was filled with consultants, lawyers,
company reps, and municipal bureaucrats, all talking trash: waste tonnage
spread-sheets, the seeming evils of landfill sites, the supreme benefits of
burning municipal solid waste (MSW) to make energy.
There was even some serious discussion about whether or not to just give in
and call it “incineration” – an old-fashioned word that Canadians just keep
using, rather than terms like “gasification” or “pyrolysis” which don’t exactly
roll right off the tongue.
But the real focal point of the conference was the proposed Durham/York
Region waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator to be operated by Covanta Energy
Corp. The proposal is currently before the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, which was scheduled to release a preliminary decision in
January and make a final decision by June 2010.
Speaker after speaker at the conference claimed the Durham proposal had
“paved the way for others” and offered many lessons, especially in terms of
managing public “fears”. Across Canada, at least a dozen municipalities and
regional councils are considering WTE incineration for their residual wastes.
Metro Vancouver is now formally on the path to building one or more WTE
incinerators by 2015. Others, such as Ottawa and Edmonton, have made
their commitment (to Plasco Energy Group and Enerkem Inc.), but those are
smaller, “experimental” projects so far.
So the Durham/York Region proposal excites the industry partly because it’s
a big project and there’s a lot riding on it, because it’s in a province where the
11
premier “has drunk the Kool-aid” (as one speaker put it) and is onside with
WTE incineration, and partly because it’s Covanta.
New Jersey-based Covanta, often called “the octopus” of the
industry, is the world’s largest owner of mass-burn WTE facilities,
with 44 WTE plants in the U.S., an aggressive expansion plan
underway worldwide, and 2008 revenues of $1.7 billion. Covanta now
operates the WTE incinerator in Burnaby, B.C., and is vying to get
Metro Vancouver’s waste barged over to Vancouver Island for a
proposed WTE incinerator in Gold River.
Covanta is also a primary funder for the key lobby group, the Canadian
Energy From Waste Coalition (see box). In Durham Region, the CEFWC has
come up against a concerted anti-incinerator “situation” – a “situation” that
has rolled on for years, and gone right up to the wire last summer.
With their excellent research skills, the anti-incinerator folks of
Durham Region have “gasified” the most persistent claim made by
the CEFWC and all WTE incinerator proponents: that “everything’s
fine with WTE incineration abroad.” In fact, the past four years in
Europe and Britain have been a seething hotbed of incineration
controversy and protest -- but all those Canadian politicians going
on taxpayer-financed junkets to Scandinavia and Europe to
investigate WTE technology seem to have missed that part of the
scene.
Nonetheless, some of the best research into the health impacts of WTE
incineration – especially from dioxins, furans, and nanoparticles - has been
coming out of Britain and Europe (see box). The Durham Region activists
have started putting that research out to the Canadian public.
In June 2009, an estimated 140 delegations – most of them opposed to
the Covanta WTE plant – spoke at two marathon regional council
meetings, voicing a wide spectrum of concerns: missing financial
data, Covanta’s long record of U.S. air emissions regulatory
violations, the site’s location in an agricultural community, the tens
of thousands of tonnes of toxic ash that would be generated
annually, and the fact that the Medical Officer of Health Report for
the proposal dealt only with the minimum capacity scenario of
burning 140,000 tonnes of MSW annually, while Covanta has the
option to super-size the project to burn 400,000 tonnes per year. The
municipality of Clarington, the site of the project, declared itself an
“unwilling host” in January 2008.
12
The project is a P3 (public-private partnership) under a potential 35-year
“put or pay” contract. That means that Durham Region will have to generate
140,000 tonnes of waste per year for some 35 years (400,000 tonnes annually
if the incinerator is super-sized) or pay the consequences to Covanta. Such
contracts usually mean paying $200-$400 for every tonne missing –
obviously, a disincentive for keeping recycling programs going.
These “put or pay” contracts (which also demand large “tipping fees” for the
waste delivered at the site) are part of the reason that several municipalities
– for example, Port Moody, B.C., and in Ontario, Halton Region, Niagara
Region, and Toronto – have backed away from incineration, at least for now.
The Durham/York Region project will be partially financed under the region’s
$100 million Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund, but already that source of
funding looks rather inadequate. Originally costed at $197 million, the
facility’s price-tag has steadily risen to $272 million – even before
construction. Sid Ryan, former CUPE Ontario president and now president of
the Ontario Federation of Labour, says: “This is typical of P3 projects. They
[Covanta] underbid to get the project going; then the taxpayer is on the hook
for the cost overruns. This [Durham] project smells like an environmental
and fiscal disaster.”
Once the project is built, Covanta would be paid $14.7 million annually to
operate it.
Durham/York Region is hoping to further finance the project through a $140per-tonne tipping fee (the charge for accepting waste at the site), and energy
sales. In December 2008, former Ontario Energy and Infrastructure Minister
George Smitherman added impetus to the project by directing the Ontario
Power Authority to purchase electricity from the proposed incinerator at a
rate of 8 cents per kilowatt-hour: almost three times the re-sale rate and
representing a significant taxpayer subsidy.
“We will be importing waste from York Region (currently our 21% partner),”
says the Durham Environment Watch website, “and there have been
discussions with other municipalities [including Peterborough and
Northumberland counties] to accept additional waste.”
CUPE Ontario’s briefing to Durham Region Council stated: “Durham Region
will either have to keep producing mountains of garbage to burn or will have
to solicit garbage from Toronto and other parts of the GTA to keep this plant
going.”
The initial Environment Assessment of the project excluded the possibility of
accepting garbage from Metro Toronto (which has invested in organics
13
composting, and landfill for residuals), but in May 2009, Clarington Council
voted to rescind its “unwilling host” designation, and an addendum to the
motion outlined a $10-per-ton tipping fee “royalty” to go directly to
Clarington for waste received specifically from Metro Toronto.
According to Dr. Paul Connett, a U.S. expert on incineration, for the
taxpayers an incinerator is an “economic disaster,” but for a few people an
incinerator is a “gravy train”. That “gravy train” is on a collision course with
communities across Canada, and it will be up to an informed public to stop it.
As one speaker put it at the November industry conference: “The inability to
manage public perception issues is what stops [WTE incineration] projects,
not the government approvals process.”
(Joyce Nelson is a Toronto-based freelance writer/researcher and the author
of five books. Her three-part series, “Incinerators – The Next Generation,” is
currently running in The Watershed Sentinel -- P.O. Box 1270, Comox, B.C.
V9M 7Z8.)
________________________________________________________________________
14
“Everything’s Fine with WTE Incinerators Abroad”
(Not Really!)
June 2006: The British Society for Ecological Medicine’s report, The Health Effects of
Waste Incinerators, found that modern WTE incinerators release toxic emissions
implicated in asthma and respiratory illness, autism, dyslexia, allergies, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and birth defects.
November 2006: Sixty-eight international medical/health experts released the
“Memorandum of the Paris Appeal,” calling on the EU to “immediately prohibit the
construction of any new incinerators” until all EU Member States have fully functioning
recycling programs.
October 2007: The French Group of Scientific Experts on the Dangers of Incineration
(GESDI) issued a report on WTE incineration health concerns, especially reproductive
disorders and birth defects. Demonstrations against incinerators took place across France,
organized by 500 French medical doctors.
June 2008: More than 33,000 medical doctors from the EU sent a letter to the European
Parliament opposing the redefinition of WTE incineration as “recovery,” and expressing
concerns about the health effects from WTE incineration. They especially noted that
ultra-fine particulate emissions (nanoparticles) – associated with asthma, type 2 diabetes,
immune system dysfunction, and multiple sclerosis – are not monitored in Europe (nor
are they monitored anywhere in the world).
June 2008: The British Society for Ecological Medicine’s 2nd edition of The Health
Effects of Waste Incinerators stated that “the hazards of incineration are greater than
previously realized” and “no more incinerators should be approved.”
Autumn 2008: By late 2008, the “Memorandum of the Paris Appeal” had been signed by
the Standing Committee of European Doctors – representing two million medical doctors.
April 2009: The Irish Doctors Environmental Association released its “Hearing on
Health & Municipal Waste Incineration,” coming out strongly against WTE incinerators.
Autumn 2009: Britain’s Health Protection Agency released a study declaring that WTE
incineration poses little risk to human health, but admitted that it did not assess
illness/death rates around incinerators and refused to consider nanoparticle emissions in
its study.
2009-2010: Large anti-incinerator demonstrations have taken place across Ireland,
Wales, Scotland, and England. Britain’s unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission
has called for more than 80 WTE incinerators to be built across the UK, while cutting the
recycling budget by 30 percent.
—J.N.
March-April 2010 www.watershedsentinel.ca/documents/FeaturedArts/WS%20Pt3%2...
15
MPCA turns back bid to burn more trash without public hearing
By Chris Steller | 11.25.09 | 2:34 pm
Stymied by citizen resistance, the operator of Hennepin County’s incinerator
in downtown Minneapolis tried — in vain — this month to get the state’s OK
to burn more trash with an administrative end-run around a public hearing.
Now two state legislators accuse Covanta Energy of trying to
“railroad the expansion through without further public input” (pdf).
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) agrees that Covanta was
out of line in seeking a low-level administrative amendment to its permit in
order to increase the amount of trash it’s allowed to burn.
“It was a little puzzling for us,” Carolina Espejel-Schutt told the Minnesota
Independent last week. “Administrative amendment is not the correct process
to follow.”
Rather than being the most minor possible kind of alteration to its permit,
MPCA sees the change Covanta seeks as rising to the most significant level.
“We think it is major,” she said.
Even changes of minor or moderate significance can require public hearings if
there is substantial public interest, Espejel-Schutt said. And “clearly for
Covanta there is a lot of interest,” she said — both from the public and
elected officials.
Last summer, the Minneapolis Planning Commission voted down the plan for
burning more trash at the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC).
Opponents turned in force for that hearing and again when Covanta appealed
the commission’s decision to the Minneapolis City Council’s zoning and
planning committee.
But the company put its appeal on hold at the last minute, promising to make
an application to the MPCA. Then Covanta waited until Nov. 3 — Election
Day, as it happened, in Minneapolis — to submit its application.
In the meantime, opponents petitioned for environmental review, but the
MPCA said it couldn’t act on that request until Covanta submitted an
application.
Opponents rallied again for the postponed appeal hearing before the city
council zoning and planning committee Nov. 19, but the item was tabled
16
again. That same day, the MPCA issued its letter turning back the
administrative-amendment request.
Covanta’s play for under-the-radar approval was not only inappropriate given
public interest, Espejel-Schutt said, but any change without a public hearing
would violate the terms of the existing permit for HERC.
Her letter to Covanta (pdf) quoted from the HERC permit:
Fuel usage: less than or equal to 365,000 tons [per] year of waste for the total
facility. An amendment to increase this fuel usage must undergo public
notice and comment.
Covanta is seeking to burn 442,380 tons of trash per year.
Justin Eibenholtzl, one of three Minneapolis residents to petition for
an environmental review beyond the study done for the adjacent
Minnesota Twins stadium, says an expansion of burning at the
state’s leading source of dioxin merits study.
Until it gets state and city okay to burn more, Covanta must stay in
compliance with the existing limits in its permit, MPCA’s Espejel-Schutt
wrote in her letter.
But she told MnIndy that, practically speaking, Covanta could temporarily
get away with burning more on a day-to-day basis without violating the
annualized allowable maximum. “It would be a while” before burning more
trash would exceed those limits, she said.
Covanta didn’t respond to a request for comment from MnIndy
MPCA turns back bid to burn
more trash without public hearing ...
________________________________________________________________________
17
CONCLULSION
The above demonstrates the kind of company Covanta is, and a leopard doesn’t change
its spots.
Covanta’s past dealings are some of the reasons that we in Merthyr Tydfil and the
Rhymney Valleys do not welcome this proposal on our doorsteps. In fact, knowing what
we know we would be crazy to want to do business with such a firm.
The proposed incinerator is not a viable proposition from any point of view.

The plant is way too big for our needs.

There will be insufficient rubbish to feed this giant incinerator.

If there is insufficient rubbish to feed the plant Covanta will implement the ‘put or
pay’ clause; which will cost the tax payer money, or will bring in rubbish from wider
and wider destinations – making us the dumping ground for other people’s rubbish.

If the incinerator gets the go-ahead it will have a detrimental effect on recycling.

There are very few jobs on offer, there are many more jobs in recycling.

A plant of this size will adversely affect tourism.

Incinerators emit carbon dioxide and contribute to Global Warming.

Incinerators emit dangerous chemicals – cancer causing dioxins and dangerous PM10
and PM2 particles. Incinerators – even newer generation incinerators - are dangerous
to health.

A large plant of this size is inflexible and will lock our authorities into a contract for
the next 25 – 35 years. With many changes in recycling and new technologies being
developed to recycle and reduce waste, we cannot say for certain what our waste
management needs will be in next 5 to 10 years, let alone 25 – 35 years.

Covanta, in my opinion, is an unethical firm which treats its workforce badly and is
unable to prevent emission violations from damaging the environment and people’s
health.
18