Lawmaker risks public health with freeze on Oklahoma’s air quality standards for trash incineration

The average American generates 4.9 pounds of solid waste per day, which creates a quandary of how to protect public health and the environment when disposing of it.

The most popular methods of disposal are landfilling and incineration, where waste is either buried in a landfill or burned at high temperatures to reduce its volume. Incineration is often preferred over landfilling because it significantly reduces the volume of waste that needs to be buried, thus conserving land space. It can also generate energy by burning waste to produce heat or electricity, which is not possible with a landfill.

We tend to not think much about waste management because for the most part this happens out of sight and thus out of mind, but fortunately the EPA does.

According to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA must re-evaluate the air quality standards every five years. The review process is based on assessing the latest scientific information regarding the health effects of air pollutants and any improved technologies to control pollution. The standards are not static, they are a moving target and must be revised as conditions warrant. As recently as last year the EPA proposed to strengthen Clean Air Act standards for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incinerators that would reduce harmful pollution and improve air quality.

Yet an Oklahoma state Sen. Aaron Reinhardt, R-Tulsa, has rejected this common sense and statutory procedure. He has introduced a bill, SB 621, that would freeze air quality standards and regulations as they currently exist and exempt such facilities from any subsequent regulation regardless of changed conditions. The end result is a bill that supports incineration, a dirty and unsafe technology that does nothing to safeguard either your health or the environment. 

The only waste-to-energy plant in the surrounding eight-state-area just so happens to be in the Jenks Republican’s west Tulsa district.                    

Solid waste incineration is often presented as a clean and quick-fix solution for cities facing waste management and energy supply challenges, but this is false. It is actually among the worst approaches cities can take to achieve both waste reduction and energy goals. These aging facilities are expensive to maintain, too risky to finance, and too costly to upgrade. There are currently 62 MSW incinerators in the US. The industry has seen at least 53 MSW incinerators close since 2000 due to these issues.  

Burning trash is not a renewable or “clean” source of energy. The process of incineration merely transforms the waste into remains, such as toxic ash and air and water pollution, which are harder to contain and usually more toxic than the original form of the refuse. Incinerators are major emitters of particulate matter of toxic metals and more than 200 organic chemicals, including cancer-causing dioxins, furans, and PFAS.

These toxins require strong environmental controls to mitigate air pollution, and this in turn causes operational costs to skyrocket. When budgets are squeezed, facilities tend to cut back on these environmental controls, with serious consequences for air quality and health. Even the most “advanced” incinerators release thousands of pollutants that contaminate our air, soil and water. Many of these pollutants enter the food supply and concentrate up through the food chain.                                                    

Waste-to-energy incineration not only poses considerable risks to the health and environment of neighboring communities as well as that of the general population, but also fails as an energy generating facility. Detailed analysis (11) shows that incinerators waste more energy than they produce, primarily because what we incinerate needs to be replaced by new products. Extracting virgin materials from the earth, and manufacturing and processing these into new materials to replace the ones incinerated uses up tremendous amounts of energy compared to reusing or recycling what we already have.

There is also an environmental justice issue involved. Studies find that proximity to waste incineration may increase risks of cancers, birth defects, and other adverse health impacts. Often, low-income and communities of color bear the brunt of this toxic burden, with 80% of US municipal solid waste incinerators situated in communities where more than 25% of people live below the federal poverty rate, or both. The Tulsa plant is located in just such a locale.                                 

Despite the environmental concerns and health risks, state and federal regulatory agencies tasked with protecting human health are not doing enough to monitor and regulate this industry.

Now, Sen. Reinhardt aims to further hamstring and incapacitate what regulatory oversight still exists. 

We can’t burn away our problems. Let’s hope that municipal administrators, lawmakers and communities choose options that promote — not undermine — sustainability.