Representatives from the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) met before the state’s Environment Committee today, answering questions regarding a bill drafted in response to a proposed medical waste burning plant in Bristol. The plant, which was tentatively approved on Jan. 16 by DEEP, has faced steep local opposition from a group named Bristol Residents for Clean Air (BRCA).
“We need legislative reform to ensure that all residents are protected from the risks associated with medical waste incineration,” said Jodie Maro, coordinator of BRCA, in a statement released after DEEP’s tentative determination.
The questions answered by DEEP centered around the need and potential impacts of Senate Bill 80. Titled, ‘An Act Concerning the Burning of Medical Waste,’ it was first proposed by Senators Henri Martin (R-Bristol) and Rob Sampson (R-Cheshire) and Representatives Gale Mastrofrancesco (R-Southington) and Donna Veach (R-Berlin).
The language of the bill plainly states, “No person shall operate a medical waste incinerator unless such incinerator is in compliance with all standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for medical waste incinerators.”
Per Tracy Babbage, DEEP’s Bureau Chief of Air Quality, the state’s requirements on medical waste burning are more stringent than the EPA’s. Committee Co-Chair, Rep. John-Michael Parker (D-Durham), started today’s meeting by asking whether or not the passage of the bill would be “redundant,” or whether there exists a gap in federal and Connecticut state regulation that needs to be filled.
Babbage explained that there are currently four municipal waste burning facilities in the state, located in Bristol, Bridgeport, Lisbon and Preston. Currently, none of them are designated as biomedical waste facilities. She said that one way the state’s regulations are more stringent than that of the federal government is that, while the federal government’s biomedical waste regulations only come into effect for plants in which an excess of 10% of the waste they treat is biomedical, Connecticut requires extra regulations for plants that treat an excess of 8% biomedical waste. Per DEEP’s determination, since the biomedical waste only makes up 8% of ReWorld’s plant processing, it doesn’t trigger compliance with federal emissions standards for biomedical waste.
“The applicability of the federal standard actually doesn’t apply because our state standard is more stringent, and the Federal applicability threshold never applies,” said Babbage.
Babbage went on to say that biomedical waste is “probably the most heavily regulated” waste source in the state. She said there are “robust permitting and enforcement requirements,” and that annual emissions testing is required for all of them.
This assertion, however, is a point of great contention amongst the litany of people who submitted written testimony in support of the bill. Numerous testimonies, including Maro’s, asked that the bill be revised so that plants would have to follow stricter EPA emissions limits laid out in 40 CFR 60.52c, which they say pertains to “a new or newly modified hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator.” Per DEEP’s tentative determination, the special waste disposal permit requested by ReWorld would be privy to the emissions limits set by 40 CRF 70.5(c) and 40 CFR 72-78, which ReWorld meets.
Essentially, Maro and other residents would like for additional EPA emissions standards to apply to ReWorld’s site, while DEEP argues that since it doesn’t meet the 10% biowaste standards, the requested standards are not applicable.
When Parker asked, “So is, in fact, there a Connecticut standard that is at least as robust as the federal one that these already apply to?” Babbage went on to say that she would want to know whether the committee has “particular pollutants of concern,” and spoke about the openness of DEEP to work on stricter nitrogen oxide emissions standards. Babbage did say that DEEP would look to “fully evaluate the applicability of the federal hospital medical waste incineration performance standard” to see if there are any areas that are more stringent, but added that “I don’t believe that there are, just because the testing requirements we have are, as I mentioned, extremely robust.”
Emissions are not the only point of contention, however. BRCA’s post-determination statement also took issue with a perceived lack of continuous monitoring, arguing that yearly emissions monitoring “underestimates actual emissions by significant margins,” insufficient noise pollution controls, and biosafety and pathogen risks. These topics were not addressed by the committee or DEEP.
Brandon Schain, a lawyer representing DEEP, also noted that the bill, if passed in its current state, would not impact the Bristol permit as there is no language that would make it apply retroactively. Schain said that since ReWorld’s permit applications have been tentatively approved, it is now in the hands of an independent hearing officer to issue a proposed final decision.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
We do not need legislative reform and there is no evidence of risk to the residents of Bristol. Bureau Chief Tracey Babbage is correct in that our standards are more stringent (not less) than the EPA’s. But we do want to thank the local residents and Republican lawmakers for taking the opportunity to voice their broad opinions and specific concerns on this matter. Fortunately, these concerns can be easily addressed.
Bristol is the right place to burn medical waste. Thank you all for coming out.