1. Health Care Without Harm, 20041 Incineration and Health Care Waste

2. Health Care Without Harm, 20042 Internationally there has been a move away from incineration This is true for America, India, Greece, Germany, France, Japan, Turkey, Netherlands, Costa Rica and the Philippines Incinerator companies are taking their technology East (Eastern Europe) and South

3. Health Care Without Harm, 20043 Examples Philippines, Clean Air Act (1999), Section 20 “Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of municipal, biomedical and hazardous waste, which process emits poisonous and toxic fumes is hereby prohibited”

4. Health Care Without Harm, 20044 Rhode Island, USA (1992) – State Senate Act 92-S 2502 “…incineration of solid waste is the most costly method of waste disposal with known and unknown escalating costs which would place substantial and unreasonable burdens on both state and municipal budgets to the point of seriously jeopardizing the public’s interest.”

5. Health Care Without Harm, 20045 It is hazardous to the environment and is therefore not sustainable Ash and atmospheric emissions Health problems – hormonal, immune and reproductive systems Audit of hospital waste streams conducted by groundWork and Health Care Without Harm - 2001 Release of mercury a major concern Ash produced is much more poisonous than the waste before it is burnt

6. Health Care Without Harm, 20046 Air Quality Bill does not state WHAT particularly needs to be measured for!!! Not enough reasonable measures No timeframes

7. Health Care Without Harm, 20047 Stockholm Convention Incinerators seriously undermine the objectives of the POP’s treaty Stockholm Convention ratified by South Africa Incineration identified as principle source of dioxins and furans

8. Health Care Without Harm, 20048 Environmental Protection Agency (1970’s ) The EPA describes it as: “one of the most, if not the most, potent reproductive/developmental toxicants known”  Dioxins are classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) – once manufactured resist being broken down  Bioaccumulation – up food chain

9. Health Care Without Harm, 20049 Air Quality Bill does not deliver on Stockholm Convention KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health does not have one incinerator that meets legal standards Civil society has lobbied government to implement non-thermal technologies Government taken to court by groundWork over Ixopo incinerator

10. Health Care Without Harm, 200410 Ixopo incinerator largest in KZN – poorly managed Audit reports showed failure to meet health and safety conditions of permit - exceeding emission levels prescribed - failure to meet required temperature (release of dioxins)

11. Health Care Without Harm, 200411 April 2002, Civil Society Workshop on Health Care Waste and Incineration Formulation of Isipingo Declaration KZN government – policy decision to halt medical waste in province Two first ever non-thermal treatments were set up in KZN

12. Health Care Without Harm, 200412 Air Quality Bill Does not mention the phasing out of dirty technologies NO emphasis to the selection of clean production technologies No mention of emission control devices Inadequate guidance is given to officials entrusted with licensing of industries Air pollution control is about “technology forcing”

13. Health Care Without Harm, 200413 Alternatives to incineration Reduce, reuse, recycle – together with composting Numerous proposals on the table for incinerators; - Burning tyres (Pretoria Portlands Cement); - Wood, bark, sawdust, sludge (Mondi Paper) - Hazardous Waste (Natal Portlands Cement), etc. Halt production of substances that cannot be recycled

14. Health Care Without Harm, 200414 Waste reduction and separation is important Lessons from other countries such as the UK Recycling waste; e.g. tyres - rubber wheels - running tracks - surface materials for roads - backing of carpets and car mats Wood and bark – composting Sadly this Bill gives no empathies to pollution minimization

15. Health Care Without Harm, 200415 Conclusion Building incinerators is a reaction to the problem of waste management and is not part of a sustainable energy policy Burning matter does not destroy it. Burning it converts it into another form and redistributes it in the air, land and water We need to move away from waste disposal to waste management

16. Health Care Without Harm, 200416 The Air Quality Bill needs to be strengthened through the following: It needs to commit to the phasing out of dirty technology such as incinerators. It also needs to give emphasis to the selection of clean production technologies that would emit few pollutants than burn technologies;

17. Health Care Without Harm, 200417 It also needs to emphasize emission control devices, i.e. scrubbers to reduce pollution levels (Section 36). Guidance needs to be given to authorities for decision making on licensing.