Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Waste Incineration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environment panel hears pleas to tighten rules before Bristol plant burns medical waste
Summary
Lawmakers, residents and state officials pressed for stricter limits and more frequent monitoring as ReWorld (formerly Covanta) seeks a permit change to combust up to 8% medical waste at its Bristol facility. DEEP staff said state rules can be more stringent than federal standards; community members urged continuous monitoring and tighter review.
ReWorld Inc. (formerly Covanta) is seeking a permit modification that would allow its Bristol waste‑to‑energy facility to combust treated medical waste as part of its feedstock, a change residents and some lawmakers say demands stricter oversight.
Why it matters: Residents who live near the plant, public‑health advocates and several state lawmakers told the Environment Committee on Jan. 31 that medical waste combustion raises distinct concerns — dioxins, mercury and PFAS among them — and that annual stack tests are not sufficient to protect public health. They asked the committee to require the same emission limits, monitoring and permit conditions that apply to standalone medical‑waste incinerators.
Tracy Babbage, bureau chief for the air program at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told the committee the state’s regulatory framework is robust and in many cases "more stringent than the federal standards." She described Connecticut’s combined Clean Air Act and waste rules and noted municipal waste combustors operating in the state are already subject to frequent testing and permitting controls.
But several residents and local leaders disputed that DEEP’s current oversight is adequate. "An incinerator that processes and burns medical waste should be held to federal standards for a medical waste incinerator," said Jody Morrow of Bristol Residents for Clean Air. Morrow noted that, nationally, many incinerators sit in overburdened communities and said Bristol residents have seen noise, odors and other disruptions.
State Senator Martin, who represents the area, told the committee he has asked DEEP to pause any final action on the pending permit to allow lawmakers and the agency time to consider additional protections. "I have requested DEEP to hold off on the pending decision regarding medical waste burning to ensure ultimate transparency," Martin said during his testimony.
ReWorld’s government relations director Fraser Blaylock said the company is not seeking added disposal capacity and is constrained by state law to accept no more than 8% medical or special waste in its Bristol feedstock. Blaylock also emphasized that the proposed activity has undergone the lengthy DEEP permitting process and public hearings.
What’s next: Committee members pressed DEEP staff and ReWorld on whether Connecticut should require continuous emissions monitoring for mercury, dioxins/furans and PFAS — pollutants cited repeatedly by witnesses — rather than relying primarily on annual stack tests. Several speakers recommended Senate Bill 80 be strengthened to make federal medical‑waste incinerator standards apply regardless of the percent of medical waste in the feed stream. Committee action was not taken at the hearing.
Ending: The debate is likely to continue as DEEP completes its technical review and as lawmakers consider changes to statute language. For now, Bristol residents and municipal officials said they will keep pushing for stricter monitoring, faster remediation of noise violations and clearer public reporting about emissions and public‑health risks.
