Toxics in Massachusetts - A Town-by-Town Profile Ch 1

Toxics in Massachusetts: A Town-by-Town Profile Acknowledgements Toxics Action Center would like to thank Boston University Superfund Research Program for their support (funded by NIH/HIEHS Grant # 2 P42 ES007381-012). The maps included in this report were created by Raphael Adamek and Gregory Patts of the Boston University Superfund Research Program Community Outreach Core. Thanks also to residents across Massachusetts who have organized to protect public health and the environment and to our members for your generous support of our work to clean up and prevent pollution throughout Massachusetts. Preface Toxics in Massachusetts: A Town-by-Town Profile is an easy-to-use source of information about many types of hazardous sites in Massachusetts. For each town this report lists: National Priority List Superfund Sites State Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites Solid Waste Incinerators Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators Partially Capped or Uncapped Landfills Capped Landfills Filthy Five Power Plants Toxics in Massachusetts: A Town-by-Town Profile contains the most current data available at the time of printing; therefore readers must keep in mind that the information presented in the report may not be completely up to date. More information about specific communities or specific types of toxic pollution can be found by contacting the sources of this information directly or by contacting Toxics Action Center. Introduction to Toxics in Massachusetts Massachusetts is a beautiful state with a long colonial history. It is the most populous of the six New England states, and most of its population of 6.6 million lives in the greater Boston metropolitan area. As the 7th smallest state in the United States, its compact borders contain surprisingly rich diversity. There are modern urban skylines, sprawling suburbs, and historic town centers with village greens. Eastern Massachusetts is densely populated and largely suburban. Central Massachusetts encompasses Worcester County, and includes a number of cities and small upland towns, forests and small farms. The Quabbin Reservoir borders the western side of the county, and is the main water supply for the eastern part of the state. The Pioneer Valley along the Connecticut River in Western Massachusetts is urbanized from the Connecticut border north as far as Northampton. West of the valley, the small mountain range known as the Berkshires dominates the landscape and serves as a destination for vacation-goers. Although much of the state was cleared for agriculture years ago, traces of old growth forest remain, and forests cover almost two-thirds of the state. Massachusetts has extensive coastline and a declining commercial fishery that still harvests a variety of species including Atlantic cod, haddock and American lobster. A significant number of North Atlantic Right Whales summer on feeding grounds in Cape Cod Bay, and the islands off the Atlantic coast are beautiful, prized vacation destinations for out-of-state residents. Unfortunately, Massachusetts’s landscape is also littered with a toxic legacy. During the 19th century, Massachusetts and the New England region became a national and world leader in the Industrial Revolution, with the development of machine tools and textiles. The economy transformed at the time from primarily agricultural to industrial, making use of its many rivers, and today old industrial cities are full of historic toxic contamination. Massachusetts has thousands of potential and identified hazardous waste sites awaiting cleanup, some of the worst air quality in the nation, and rivers and lakes polluted by industrial contaminants and toxic mercury. Asthma and cancer rates are some of the highest in the country, and both can be linked to environmental causes. Massachusetts is also plagued by economic disparities. Poor urban areas are often the most overburdened by toxic pollution. Since World War II, Massachusetts has been transformed from an industrial economy to a service and high-tech economy, as well as a center for higher education. Twenty years ago when people thought of protecting the environment they thought of picking up litter and about protecting our wilderness and wildlife. Yet in the late 1970s, toxic contamination at Love Canal near Niagara Falls, New York, a nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and a leukemia cluster in Woburn, Massachusetts, made national news. Unfortunately, these tragedies were not isolated incidents, and Massachusetts has its own toxic legacy that will take decades to fully clean up. Despite significant threats to public health and the environment, we have an opportunity to protect and improve the quality of life in Massachusetts. The good news is that resources exist in the Bay State that could be allocated to protect public health. Additionally, local decision-making power in towns and cities allows communities to take action when state bureaucracy is unresponsive or lacks sufficient resources to enforce the law. The following pages outline actions that the government and citizens should take to make Massachusetts a safer and healthier place to live. Recommendations Phase Out Persistent Toxic Chemicals Persistent toxic chemicals can be found in places we live, work and play. These contaminants can cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive problems, immune system challenges and damage to the nervous and respiratory systems. Massachusetts agencies should protect the public from toxic chemicals and ensure the safety of all products on the market through comprehensive chemical reform. Massachusetts agencies can start by phasing out the use of deca or PBDE, a flame retardant used in everyday electronics such as television and computers, as well as carpet and furniture, and DEHP, a chemical found in medical equipment and building materials. PBDE flame retardants have been shown to permanently impair learning and behavior in animals. DEHP has been linked to stunted reproductive development in baby boys and to the development of asthma in children and adults. Massachusetts agencies should also require that manufacturers prove their products are safe before they go on the market, and should use their authority to ban or restrict the use of a chemical if it poses a risk of environmental contamination or can harm human health, and if safer alternatives are available. The legislature should pass the Safer Alternatives Bill to begin the process of chemical reform by assisting businesses in switching to safer alternatives. The Commonwealth already passed the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA), creating a highly successful system to assist industrial users of large quantities of toxic chemicals to reduce their toxics use. This program has been good for public health and also resulted in significant cost savings for many participating businesses. The Safer Alternatives Bill would preserve existing TURA programs and expand them to seek safer substitutes for toxic chemicals in consumer products and other sources. Furthermore, the Toxics Use Reduction Institute established by TURA should be maintained at full levels of funding. This agency plays an invaluable role in assisting businesses to identify and switch to safer alternatives. Assure Appropriate Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste sites can pose a health threat due to direct exposure or contamination of water or soil. According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), there are thousands of potential or identified active hazardous waste sites in this state that are classified by priority. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Massachusetts oversee the identification, listing, storage, and cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The EPA and State must establish shorter timelines to ensure that these sites are cleaned up in a manner that fully protects public health and the environment. Contaminated sites often go for years and sometimes decades without being fully cleaned up. The state must ensure that there are proper resources and oversight for effective cleanups. Furthermore, the “polluter pays fees” from the national Superfund program expired in 1995, and they have not been reinstated. On the 30th anniversary of the Superfund program, taxpayers are paying to clean up hazardous waste sites classified on the federal Superfund list. This provision should be reinstated, and the Massachusetts delegation should work at the federal level to strengthen the Superfund. Create a Waste Plan that Maximizes Waste Reduction and Moves Towards Zero Waste Massachusetts residents generate more trash than any other New England state, creating almost 13 million tons of waste annually, of which 8.7 million tons are household and commercial waste, or municipal solid waste. Only one-third of municipal solid waste is recycled each year and the rest is burned incinerators or buried in landfills.i Recycling rates are stagnant, and each of the 25 active landfills in the state and 7 incinerators poses significant threats to the health of Massachusetts residents. The Environmental Protection Agency states that all landfills eventually leak, and what they leak, both into groundwater supplies and into the air, is toxic. Incinerators emit, among many pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, lead, particulate matter, dioxins, and carbon monoxide. These air pollutants have been linked to birth defects, asthma, respiratory disease, and cancer. Massachusetts needs to continue to take steps away from burning and burying its trash, which pollutes air and water and threatens public health. In addition to increasing recycling, the state agencies must reduce waste at its source. We could recycle or divert 70-90% of what is currently thrown away, and Massachusetts should implement a “zero waste” plan that includes aggressive recycling, commercial composting programs, and education programs focused on reducing waste. Zero waste includes 'recycling' but goes beyond it by taking a 'whole system' approach to the vast flow of resources and waste through society. Zero waste maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ideally ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back into nature or the marketplace. Economic incentives should promote closed-loops, bringing consumers’ discards back to manufacturers and contractors to reprocess and reuse. Nantucket serves as a home-grown example of zero waste. Twenty years ago Nantucket had a 7% recycling rate and the town’s landfill was nearing capacity. Today, the municipality diverts more than 92% of waste from landfills through aggressive recycling and waste reduction practices and has extended the life of the landfill for decades. ii Massachusetts should retire its incinerators and create a goal of zero waste and an implementation plan for how to reach it. Specific policies include enforcing waste bans on recyclable materials, updating the Bottle Bill to include water bottles and designer sports drinks, extending Pay As You Throw programs, implementing commercial and residential composting programs, and passing extended producer responsibility legislation. Advance Renewable Energy Technologies As global warming quickly becomes one of the most serious environmental and public health problems of the 21st century, the United States needs to lead the way in ending reliance on dirty and dangerous sources of energy and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the country. One of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuel power plants that burn coal, oil, or natural gas to create electricity and pollute our air and water with toxic air emissions like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and lead. Many states like Massachusetts rely also on dangerous nuclear power plants, like Pilgrim, that threaten public health and the environment with constant low-level radiation exposures and the possibility of nuclear accident. Instead of building new fossil fuel-burning power plants or re-licensing Pilgrim, Massachusetts has an opportunity to lead the way with energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that are truly clean. Massachusetts needs a new approach focusing on long-term energy planning that requires utilities to purchase low-cost energy, starting with all available cost-effective resources for energy efficiency. After energy efficiency, utilities should be required to purchase all costeffective clean energy. The Commonwealth has the resources to generate 3,000 megawatts of clean power annually by 2020, enough to repower over 1 million homes, create 10,000 jobs and replace the largest coalburning power plant in the state in Somerset. Massachusetts is already leading the way nation-wide by passing a law to cap global warming pollution but could better promote clean energy sources like wind and solar. This plan will save money for Massachusetts ratepayers, stimulate jobs growth in green industry, and protect public health and the environment. Reduce Pesticide Exposures Pesticides are chemicals deliberately added to the environment to kill living things and are, therefore, toxic by design. Pesticides have been linked to a growing list of health problems, including cancer, reproductive harm, learning disabilities and genetic damage. Pesticides are currently regulated in Massachusetts through a patchwork of use-specific regulations that fail to address questions about cumulative exposures that arise from repeated use of pesticides in different settings. More than 230 lakes and ponds are treated with pesticides each year to manage invasive weeds, and these recklessly dangerous incidents of legal pesticide dumping threaten drinking water and the environment. Pesticides are also sprayed across Massachusetts highways, along rail lines and electrical lines throughout the Commonwealth and applied to parks, landscapes and lawns. The Children and Families Protection Act was passed in 2001, positioning Massachusetts at the forefront of a movement to reduce children’s exposure to harmful pesticides by restricting pesticide use in private and public schools and daycare centers and increasing right-to-know. Unfortunately, the law has been implemented unevenly across the state. The Massachusetts State Legislature should adopt legislation strengthening this Act to end pesticide use on school grounds and inside school buildings, and also enact legislation including requirements for pesticide use broader reporting, the establishment of buffer zones restricting pesticide use around surface water bodies, and the end to the use of pesticides on State of Massachusetts property. Furthermore, state agencies should phase out pesticide use along rights-of-ways throughout the Commonwealth, including MBTA rails, Massachusetts highways and the Massachusetts Turnpike. Protect Water Quality and Quantity Clean, fresh water is a critical resource for the Commonwealth. Our rivers and streams provide drinking water for millions of people, serve as an economic resource for residents and tourists, bringing in $1.5 billion each year in revenue, and support a unique ecology with more than 100 endangered species. Unfortunately, the way Massachusetts residents live and work has profound impacts on the state’s water quality and water quantity. Leaking septic systems, phosphorous run-off from farmland, and urban stormwater runoff containing automotive fluids, lawn chemicals, pet waste, and sediment also threaten Massachusetts’s environment. Groundwater is threatened by active hazardous waste sites, active and closed landfills, underground storage tanks, and pesticides. Water quantity is threatened by unwise development, suburban sprawl and global warming. These threats decrease water levels causing streams like the Ipswich River to dry up almost every summer. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council predicts that 44 communities will face drinking water shortages by 2020. To protect water quality and quantity, the State of Massachusetts should take initiative to enforce existing laws and ensure that water sources meet current water quality standards. The state should also work proactively to prevent future contamination of ground water and manage water use. We need to establish science-based standards for how much water should be left in our rivers, and use the water we do withdraw as wisely as possible. In addition, the state should support the Clean Water Restoration Act at the federal level to strengthen the Clean Water Act and ensure that water quality is protected. This bill would restore Clean Water Act protections weakened over the last decade to protect all waterways. Take Action with an Environmental Organization Toxics Action Center provides assistance to residents working to prevent or clean up toxic hazards in their communities. Since 1987, Toxics Action Center has helped over 625 communities clean up hazardous waste sites, reduce the use of industrial toxicants, decrease industrial pollution, curb pesticide spraying, and oppose the siting of dangerous facilities. When the government won’t take action and the company denies that there is a problem, we are a resource for residents concerned with toxic hazards in their communities. We provide residents with information about environmental laws, strategies for organizing, a network of activists throughout the state, and access to legal and technical experts. For more information on the programs available through Toxics Action Center The organizations listed below offer additional opportunities to learn about and get involved with environmental, environmental justice and community action issues. They represent a sampling of environmental and health organizations in Massachusetts. Acton Citizens for Environmental Safety Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE) American Lung Association of New England Massachusetts Audubon Berkshire Environmental Action Team Beyond Pesticides BU Superfund Research Program Charles River Watershed Association Citizens Leading Environmental Action Network Clean Power Now Clean Water Action Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life Coalition for Social Justice Concerned Citizens of Russell Conservation Law Foundation Corporate Accountability International Environment Massachusetts Environmental League of Massachusetts GreenCAPE Green Century Funds Green Decade Coalition Green Futures Green Roundtable Haverhill Environmental League Health Care Without Harm Healthlink Housatonic River Initiative League of Women Voters Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition Massachusetts Coalition for Clean Air Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (MASSCOSH) Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) Massachusetts Public Health Association MassRecycle Massachusetts Sierra Club Neighborhood Pesticide Action Committee Networking Friends People of Ayer Concerned about the Environment Pilgrim Watch Regional Environmental Council in Worcester Residents for Alternative Trash Solutions (RATS) Salem Alliance for the Environment Saugus Action Volunteers for the Environment Saugus River Watershed Council Silent Spring Institute Stop the Power Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield Sudbury Earth Decade Committee Taunton River Watershed Alliance Toxics Use Reduction Institute Water Not Waste Wellesley Cancer Prevention Project Westminster for an Environmentally Safe Town (WEST) Women’s Community Cancer Project Toxic Users & Releasers Introduction The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) document the release of toxic chemicals into our environment through tracking Large and Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators, the Toxics Release Inventory, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The accompanying map shows Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators in Massachusetts. Other toxic users and releasers not shown on the map include Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators, Toxic Release Inventory Sites, and Permitted Water Pollution Sources under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators (LQG) are defined by the EPA and MassDEP as facilities that generate 1,000 kilograms per month (2,200 lbs) or more of hazardous waste, or more than one kilogram per month (2.2 lbs) of acutely hazardous waste. LQG are monitored by the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) passed by Congress in 1976 to address the increasing amounts of hazardous waste being generated. In 2009, 1,103 LQG site locations existed in Massachusetts. Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators (SQG) are defined as facilities that generate between 100 kilograms per month (220 lbs) and 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lbs) per month of hazardous waste. Massachusetts’s inspection requirements for LQG and SQG are more stringent than EPA’s. (Source: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities include hazardous waste generators of any of 650 specified toxic chemicals used, manufactured, treated, transported, or released into the environment. The locations and quantities of chemicals stored are reported to the EPA and are listed in the TRI database. There are more than 85,000 chemicals on the market today that are used in consumer products, a tiny minority of which are tested fully for effects on human health. (Source: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/tris/tris_query.html) Permitted Water Pollution Sources and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. This piece of legislation set a goal of eliminating pollution for all of the country’s lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that this law keeps more than 900 million pounds of sewage and a billion pounds of toxic chemicals out of our waterways each year. Many of these bodies of water provide drinking water to residents throughout the United States. The EPA sets national standards for tap water through a three-step process: Identifying contaminants that may adversely affect public health and occur in drinking water with a frequency and at levels that pose a threat to public health Determining a maximum contaminant level goal for contaminants it decides to regulate Specifying the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in drinking water that is delivered to any user of a public water system This process works to ensure consistent quality in the nation’s water supply. However, in 2003 the EPA decided not to regulate any new contaminants in tap water. The EPA has set standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water under seven major categories: Microbes- Microbes include Coliform bacteria and E. coli bacteria, among others Radionuclides- Radionuclides include radioactive materials (alpha, beta/photon emitters), Radium 226 and 228 and Radon Inorganic Contaminants- Inorganic contaminants include asbestos, mercury, copper, cadmium, lead, arsenic and fluoride, among others Synthetic Organic Contaminants- Synthetic organic contaminants include pesticides and herbicides Volatile Organic Contaminants- Volatile organic contaminants include benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene and styrene, among others Disinfectants- Disinfectants include those found in household cleaners such as chlorine and chlorine dioxide Byproducts of Disinfectants- Byproducts of disinfectants include bromate, chlorite and haloacetic acids, among others The Water Permits Division of the EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management leads and manages the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program in partnership with EPA Regional Offices, states, tribes and other stakeholders. You can find out more information. And you can search for NPDES sites in your town through. Toxic Map: Large Quantity Generators in Massachusetts Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators (LQG) are defined by the EPA and MassDEP as facilities that generate 1,000 kilograms per month (2,200 lbs) or more of hazardous waste, or more than one kilogram per month (2.2 lbs) of acutely hazardous waste. LQG are monitored by the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) passed by Congress in 1976 to address the increasing amounts of hazardous waste being generated. In 2009, 1,103 LQG site locations existed in Massachusetts. Air Pollution Point Sources Introduction The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set national health-based air quality standards for six common pollutants. These six “criteria pollutants” and, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, their related human health effects, are listed below: Carbon Monoxide- Cardiovascular effects, vision problems with repeated exposure or high concentrations; premature death related to extremely high concentrations Nitrogen Dioxide- Respiratory effects, lung disease, and emphysema related to nitric acid and other particles; asthma and lung disease related to ground level smog; visibility impairment Sulfur Dioxide- Breathing difficulty and respiratory symptoms related to sulfate particulates Lead- Kidney, brain, liver, nerve damage, and reproductive damage; high blood pressure especially in men, related to lead exposure; seizures, mental retardation and behavioral problems associated with very high concentrations Ozone- Respiratory problems, wheezing, coughing associated with ozone exposure; permanent lung damage related to repeated exposure Particulate Matter- Aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis and other respiratory problems associated with particulate matter Ambient Air Quality Standards are set for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards: Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings. For each of the six pollutants listed above, EPA tracks two kinds of air pollution trends: Air concentrations based on actual measurements of pollutant concentrations in ambient (outside) air. Emissions based on estimates of the total tons of pollutants released into the air each year. Individual states are required to develop state implementation plans explaining how they will clean up polluted areas. Despite the progress made in the last 30 years, millions of people live in counties with monitor data showing unhealthy air for one or more of the six common pollutants. Power Plants Introduction: Nuclear power facilities generate large quantities of toxic, radioactive waste that is difficult to store safely for the long-term. In the event of a waste or operation accident, nuclear emissions release harmful radioactivity into the air and water. Increased rates of thyroid cancer, blood disorders, miscarriages and birth defects have been linked to radiation exposure. Fossil fuel power plants burn coal, oil and natural gas, which are finite in supply. These fuels cause a variety of environmental problems when burned such as acid rain, which has left hundreds of lakes unable to sustain life, soot and smog pollution that causes asthma and respiratory problems, and mercury contamination, a neurotoxin that is now found in all our waterways. Massachusetts is the only New England State that relies significantly on coal-fired power plants, with coal accounting for one-fourth of electricity generation. The Everett and Offshore Boston liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facilities are the only LNG terminals located in the United States serving the Northeast. The State of Massachusetts’s electric power generation in 2007 was broken down as follows: 30% Natural gas generation 28% Oil generation 16% Coal generation 13% Nuclear generation 13% Other (Pumped storage, hydro, municipal solid waste incineration, renewables, etc.) Electrical plants pollute the air quality in Massachusetts. The majority of these plants are internal combustion, gas turbines, and steam turbines. These plants mostly utilize natural gas, fuel oil, and coal as their fuel sources. As a result, they emit pollutants such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, particle pollution, and lead. Operating nuclear power plants release large quantities of low-level radiation that have been linked to cancer, genetic defects, and immune deficiencies, and create long-lived, high-level radioactive waste. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth is the only nuclear plant in Massachusetts. Toxic Map: Filthy Five Power Plants Coal- and oil-fired power plants are Massachusetts’ worst industrial air polluters. The “Filthy Five”—the state’s oldest and dirtiest plants—are responsible for about 90 percent of all power plant pollution. For more than 30 years, these plants exploited a loophole allowing them to avoid cleaning up to modern emissions standards. Toxics Action Center, Clean Water Action, MASSPIRG, Conservation Law Foundation and other groups convinced the state to clean up these dirty, outdated plants in 2001, releasing a mandate to reduce mercury pollution from these plants by 90 percent, global warming pollution by 10 percent, and smog and soot pollution by more than 50 percent. Today, despite significant reductions, these power plants remain significant sources of pollution. Brayton Point Station in Somerset, Salem Harbor Station in Salem, Mt. Tom Station in Holyoke, Mystic in Everett, and Canal Station in Sandwich all continue to operate. NRG Somerset Station in Somerset shut down indefinitely on January 2, 2010. Filthy Five power plants are shown on the accompanying map. Toxic Map: Incinerators in Massachusetts The toxic sources represented on the accompanying map are incinerators, major point pollution sources. Incinerators are noxious emitters of air pollution, known to release sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, lead, particulate matter, dioxins, and carbon monoxide. Massachusetts has seven active municipal solid waste incinerators in Haverhill, Pittsfield, Agawam, Millbury, North Andover, Saugus, and West Wareham. Approximately 38% of the waste generated in Massachusetts is burned in incinerators. Incinerators pollute the air with toxic chemicals, and hazardous toxicants are also left over in ash that must be landfilled. A new generation of waste-to-energy technology, including gasification, pyrolysis and plasma arc, is no better, and is still considered incineration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These facilities release the same toxic chemicals into the air as traditional incinerators, and produce hazardous slag which ultimately must be disposed of in landfills. Incineration also directly competes with recycling. iii Incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour than coalfired, natural-gas-fired, or oil-fired power plants.iv Health studies have demonstrated that residents closer to incinerators have higher rates of cancer including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma.v Burning trash releases ultra-fine particulate matter, dioxins, mercury and other heavy metals, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide at similar levels. Many of these chemicals are carcinogenic and threaten the public health even at low levels.vi Landfills and incinerators are often sited in lower income and minority neighborhoods. The rate of exposure to environmentally hazardous facilities and sites is four times greater for lower income communities and over twenty times greater for high minority communities.vii