HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-24-SWAT-min.pdf Minutes of 8/26/98 SWAT Team meeting
Next meeting Thursday, 9/24, room G15
Attendance: John Andrews, Laura Dickerson, Eileen Entin, John Fedorochko, Rosemary Green, Myla
Kabat-Zinn, Jean Kreiger, Fran Ludwig,Alan Levine,Michael Schroeder, Jill Stein, George
Woodbury, Susan Youmans
LMRI/NESWC/DEP UPDATES
1 MERCURY UPDATE It was announced that the DEP now requires tighter control of mercury
emissions from Mass. solid waste incinerators. While the DEP is to be commended for passing the
most protective regulations to date in the US, this doesn't put an end to the problem. The new
regulations will reduce the rate at which mercury is accumulating in the environment and the fish
supply However, the environmental burden of mercury will still continue to grow, albeit at a slower
rate. Many scientists fear this global environmental burden of mercury is virtually permanent, since
mercury does not degrade. Once released into the environment, mecury appears to perpetually
recirculate through the atmosphere, water and the aquatic food chain.
2. SWAT MEETING WITH BOS
John Andrews and Jill Stein met with the Lexington Board of Selectmen in late July to discuss
NESWC's lobby effort against improved mercury regulation. NESWC was arguing against improved
pollution control unless the state would pay for any increased costs due to new pollution controls.
The SWAT suggested that DEP has the responsiblity for deciding if pollution controls are needed,
and that NESWC should be open to the possiblity that such controls might be justified by the health
and environmental costs imposed by incinerator pollution. SWAT also suggested that any state
subsidies to NESWC should be designed to help transition to least-cost, market-rate solid waste
options, and not to merely subsidize options that are charging more than market rate. SWAT also
suggested that lobbying against pollution control would be costly in the long run. Since the new
mercury regulations had already been approved prior to the BOS meeting, the mercury issue was no
longer active. The suggestion was made however to the BOS that NESWC establish alternative solid
waste management plans that do not rely on incineration and which optimize the broader health and
economic interests of the communities. (See LONG TERM PLANNING below) Such a plan will be
essential when the current MRI/Wheelabrator contract expires, or in the event it is terminated early
The BOS suggested SWAT communicate directly with NESWC.
3 POSSIBLE BUY-OUT OF NESWC CONTRACT
The SWAT was alerted to the fact that NESWC is discussing a possible "buy-out" deal with MRI
(Wheelabrator)under which a lump sum settlement would be paid to MRI and the NESWC contract
would be dissolved. Wheelabrator(WMI)would then fully own the North Andover incinerator. The
assumption is that the buy-out would take place after the NESWC communities pay for the clean air
upgrade. MRI feels that the rising costs of electricity will make the facility profitable for MRI to
operate, even without a contract with the communities, (since the facility has been entirely paid for
by the communities).
The "buy-out" would free the 23 NESWC communities from the burden of the "guaranteed annual
tonnage" to Wheelabrator and permit us to maximize reducing/recycling strategies. The "buy-out"
would also permit us to pursue market-rate, less polluting waste-disposal options. Some
environmental groups raise concerns however that if Wheelabrator is cut loose from its reluctant,
watchful partners, it may be freer to pollute. These issues will be further addressed by the new
coalition of NESWC communities described below
http.//www.lexingtonma.org/swat/MinAug98.htm 10/9/98
1vu11ul S In O/GU/YO 3 VV./-11 lcalu lucct111g ragc G in J
ILPOLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR NESWC
LONG-TERM PLANNING
Concern was expressed that the 23 NESWC communities do not have a well-conceived plan or
program for transitioning to a future program that best serves their needs. NES WC/MRI planning
seems to be focused upon incineration,whereas the need is for a plan that properly considers source
reduction, recycling, landfilling, in addition to incineration. Since there are several scenarios in which
the North Andover incinerator could become unavailable, there is also a need for a contingency plan
for its loss. Therefore, the 23 communities should be invited to initiate a planning effort that can
prepare us for such a development. Lexington should suggest initiation of such an effort to the 23
communities.
It was stated that achieving the best solid waste program would require some level of regional
cooperation. Hence,planning undertaken by individual towns, while valuable, cannot substitute for
regional initiatives. This is especially true if there is a desire to obtain support from state-level
agencies (The state is more likely to respond to a request based on a regional consensus than to
requests of a single town). Thus, there is a need for regional communication and cooperation.
Some discussion ensued as to how such a planning effort might be structured. It was suggested that it
would be best to convene a new group rather than form a committee under NESWC itself. Such a
group would involve all interested towns, would include citizen groups, and would include recycling
organizations. The group could be organized under MAGIC, MAPC, or existing recycling networks.
Some office support would be of value to the group. Options for such organizational support will be
explored through existing contacts (Jeanne Krieger/Joe Marino for MAGIC, Jill Stein for recycling
networks).
STATE SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN
It was felt that the Massachusetts solid waste master plan is outdated and deficient. It does not reflect
the current realities of costs, new discoveries about pollution damage, the remarkable success of
recycling, or the potential of source reduction. Communities should work with the state to update the
solid waste plan.
III. STATE SUBSIDIES
It was suggested that any state subsidies to MRI/NESWC should be targeted to assisting the
communities to transition to least-cost, market-rate solid waste options. Subsidies should not be used
merely to support tipping fees that are higher than market rate. This viewpoint was based upon an
assertion that state money is still taxpayer money, and does not come "for free" Disguising the true
costs of solid waste options tends to result in continuation of programs and policies that are
burdensome to the taxpayer.
IV HEALTH IMPACT OF INCINERATION
The importance of the precautionary principle was discussed when considering widespread toxic
exposures and risks to large populations. The evolving nature of the science of toxics was discussed.
Since the amount of substance known to cause harm is generally found to be smaller and smaller over
time, it is important that we protect the public health by minimizing exposures to probable toxins
until they are proven safe. Instead of assuming potentially toxic synthetic chemicals "innocent until
proven guilty", we need to protect the public from exposures until the chemicals are proven safe.
Chemicals should not be accorded the same rights as people. The burden of proof lies with the
polluter,not with the potential victim.
http://www.lexingtonma.org/swat/MinAug98.htm 10/9/98
rvunuLeS li 0/LUIY0 o Will learn meeting rage 3 01 .3
The role of incineration as the major source of mercury release in Massachusetts was discussed.
Among these incinerators, the Wheelabrator/MRI incinerator released the greatest amount of
mercury The environmental, chemical, and food-chain characteristics of mercury were discussed, as
well as its impact on humans,particularly the developing fetus. (The discussion will be continued
next meeting, focusing on who is at risk from mercury contaminated fish and how people can
minimize this risk. We'll also address the essential upstream solution: preventing further
environmental releases of mercury)
V.MASS RECYCLES DAY, 11/15
It was suggested that we might be more effective if we specificly focused on "green" holiday buying.
This might involve shopping suggestions for reduced packaging, nontoxic gift selection and reduced
consumption.
VI. QUESTIONS FOR WHEELABRATOR VISIT
This was deferred till the next meeting.
http://www.lexingtonma.org/swat/MinAug98.htm 10/9/98