Download
1 / 24
240 likes | 457 Views
2. INTRODUCTION. Some NGO's and community members requested incineration and recovery of waste from energy to be explicitly banned in the Waste Bill on account of, inter alia, the following:The formation of dioxins and furans and resultant health impacts.Effect of incineration and co-processing on
E N D
1. 1 INCINERATION TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN Presentation to Portfolio Committee 03 March 2008
2. 2 INTRODUCTION Some NGO’s and community members requested incineration and recovery of waste from energy to be explicitly banned in the Waste Bill on account of, inter alia, the following:
The formation of dioxins and furans and resultant health impacts.
Effect of incineration and co-processing on recycling.
Non-existent Laboratory capacity to measure dioxins and furans
Toxicity of residues from incineration
Government’s inability to monitor and enforce standards and permit conditions.
Impacts of currently high levels of cement dust on communities adjacent to cement plants / kilns.
3. 3 BACKGROUND In the 1970’s – 80’s emissions from incinerators were high in relation to current emissions and there was little understanding of the effects of emissions on human health during this time.
International emission standards for incineration are extremely low, with technologies for further reduction continuously being developed and explored.
Internationally incineration as a waste management technology is on the increase, contrary to submissions made by NGO’s.
In developing countries the co-processing of waste in cement production is rapidly increasing.
Internationally NGO’s no longer oppose co-processing of hazardous waste
4. 4
