Evaluation of Emissions from the Open
Burning of Household Waste In Barrels
Volume 1. Technical Report
& Volume 2. Appendices A-G. Report No. EPA-600/R-97-134a. Nov97
Ban the Burn Barrels !
Prepared by: Paul M. Lemieux, U.S. EPA, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
In cooperation with: N.Y. State Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic
Substances Assessment and N.Y. State Department of Health, Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research,
Albany, NY 12202
Prepared for: U.S. EPA, Office of Research & Development, Washington, DC
20460
Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
22161. Tel: 703-605-6000.
Cost: Volume 1 (NTIS # PB98127343) = $29.50; Volume 2 (NTIS # PB98127350) =
$36. Add $5 Postage (the postage is the same for ordering either both volumes or
just one.)
The researchers found very high emissions of volatile organic
compounds (particularly benzene), poly aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated
benzenes and dioxins and furans, simply by burning household trash in a burn
barrel. Surprisingly, they found more dioxins and furans emerging from trash
from households which had pursued aggressive recycling! (See # 1 below.) For
each of these pollutant categories they worked out how many burn barrels
(burning 3 to 1 I pounds of household waste) was equivalent to the emissions
from a "modern, well-controlled" 200 ton-per-day trash incinerator.
Their calculations are startling and summarized in the table below (see table
4-2, page 64 of the report):
Number of household burn barrels to equal pollution from a full-scale 200 tpd
municipal solid waste incinerator facility.
Avid
Recycler Non-Recycler
PCDD (dioxins) 4.15 1.55
PCDF (furans) 1.03 11.65
CBs (chlorobenzenes) 140.00 100.00
PAHs 83.80 9.31
VOCs 0.07 0.01
However, we should point out that their reference trash
incinerator was the 2,000 tpd facility in Hartford, CT, scaled down to 200 tpd.
Choosing this facility, which gave some of the lowest emissions recorded in the
U.S., somewhat distorts the picture. Tom Webster and Paul Connett recently
tabulated the dioxin emissions for all the U.S. incinerators measured, and
calculated the total annual emissions on a yearly basis from 1985 to 1995 (2).
Converting the 1993 dioxin emission figures for N.Y. state incinerators they got
the following burn barrel equivalent (using the non-recycler burn barrel
emissions in this report):
Grams of dioxin Burn Barrel
Tons-per-day TEQ/year equivalent
Albany 750 7.60 4091
Babylon 750 0.02 11
Dutchess County 400 0.13 68
Hempstead 2505 0.07 37
Hudson Falls 432 0.40 214
Huntington 750 0.18 95
Islip 510 0.03 16
Long Beach 200 46 2455
Niagara Falls 2200 96.0 50,000
Oneida County 200 2.5 1318
Oswego County 200 1.9 1000
Peekskill 2250 10.0 5455
Some caveats are in order here. Many of these dioxin
emissions are based upon very limited test data, particularly the newer plants
where the emissions were obtained from the tests made prior to the plant's
receiving their operating permit. Such measurements are made when the plant is brand new and when
its being operated under ideal conditions. These test results probably don't
represent the emissions under routine conditions, and certainly not under upset
conditions. There is also the question of whether the trash stream used during
the emission testing was representative of their day-to-day operations (i.e.,
many MSW incinerators accept medical waste, outdated pharmaceuticals, industrial
and hazardous wastes, etc.).
Furthermore, we suspect that burn barrels do not have the
same potential to add to the long distance transport of dioxins, and hence add
to the cumulative impact on the foodchains, as in the case with incinerators
with tall stacks. (However, it is mainly the rural areas where the majority of
householders burn their own trash. St. Lawrence County in NY State, where we
live, is generally ranked as the number 1 or 2 dairy producing county in the
state. The overwhelming majority of residents who live in the towns have burn
barrels, which are more often than not placed nearer the pasture than the house.
Also, dairy farms have more and more plastic wastes that are generally burned
on-site.) In our view, it is clear that burn barrels are capable of putting out
high dioxin emissions into the local environment and we support the call for a
nationwide ban on the burning of household trash in burn barrels. We hope the
U.S. EPA has the courage to push this through. Meanwhile, the NY DEC and the NY
DOH, co-sponsors of this report, could set a good national example by banning
burn barrels in NY state.
This report further underlines the fact that we will not get
rid of the dioxin menace, simply by putting better air pollution control devices
on incinerators. The situation is particularly alarming in developing countries
where enormous amounts of trash are burned at the side of the road and in tires
set at landfills. In our view, the only realistic way of solving this dioxin
problem is to get chlorinated products out of commerce, and chlorine out of the
chemical industry. The best place to start is with a ban on PVC. As long as this
horrendous plastic (over 50% chlorine by weight, and stuffed with health
threatening additives) enters the market place, dioxins will continue to enter
our food, our bodies, and our babies.
1. "This study evaluated two separate waste streams:
that of an avid recycler, who removes most of the recyclable content from the
waste stream prior to combustion; and that of a non-recycler, who combusts the
entire stream of household waste... From estimates of waste generated each day
by New York households for the avid recycler and non-recycler scenarios,
emissions per day of PCDDs/PCDFs are significantly higher for the avid
recycler... This phenomenon is likely due to several factors, including the
higher mass fraction of PVC in the avid recycler's waste..." (From the
Abstract, page ii of report.)
Table 2-1. Composition of household waste prepared by EPA (based on a characterization of household waste prepared by the NY State
DEC). (Page 6)
Non-Recycler (%) Avid Recycler (%)
PAPER
Newspaper, books, and office paper 32.8 3.3
Magazines and junk mail 11.1 -
Corrugated cardboard and kraft paper 7.6 -
Paperboard, milk cartons, and drink boxes 10.3 61.9
PLASTIC RESIN
(all types may contain trace plasticizers:
e.g., cadmium)
PET # 1 (bottle bill) 0.6 -
HDPE: # 2, LDPE # 4, and Polypropylene # 5 6.6 10.4
PVC: # 3 0.2 4.5
Polystyrene: # 6 0.1 0.3
MIXED # 7 0.1 0.3
FOOD WASTE 5.7 -
TEXTILE/LEATHER 3.7 -
WOOD (treated/untreated) 1.1 3.7
GLASS/CERAMICS
Bottles/jars (bottle bill) 9.7 -
Ceramics (broken plates and cups) 0.4 6.9
METAL- FERROUS
Iron - cans 7.3 4.0
NON-FERROUS
Aluminum - cans (bottle bill), foil, other 1.7 1.0
Other non-iron (wire, copper pipe, batteries) 1.1 3.7
PERCENT TOTAL 100.0 100.0
TOTAL WEIGHT GENERATED PER HOUSEHOLD 4.9 kg/day 1.5 kg/day
FOR DISPOSAL IN BURN BARRELS
2. Webster, T. and Connett, P. (1997), Dioxin Emission Inventories and
Trends: The Importance of Large Point Sources. Presented in part at Dioxin '96, Amsterdam, August 1996 and submitted for
publication to Chemosphere.
Source: Waste Not # 427 Published 48 times a year. Annual rates: Groups &
Non-Profits $50; Individuals $40; Students & Seniors $35; Consultants & For-Profits $125; Canadian
$US45; Overseas $65. Editors: Ellen & Paul Connett, 82 Judson St., Canton NY 13617. Tel: 315-379-9200. Fax:
315-379-0448. Email: wastenot@northnet.org
|
