Up in the air

University to decide course of action for hospital incinerator

Every year, the University Medical Center's incinerator burns almost six million pounds of waste. In the smoke that rises out of the incinerator, toxic and carcinogenic particles of mercury and dioxins are released into the environment.

To fight the problem, the University is expected to make a decision this year on whether it will replace the incinerator with a newer, more efficient model or whether it will use alternative waste disposal methods.

Students for a Healthy Hospital, a small group of University students, is attempting to influence the process by calling for an end to incineration at the University.

DANA LINNANE/Daily LSA senior Jeffrey Firestone stands in the Diag yesterday to raise awareness about the University Hospitals' incinerator.

Some critics said they see incineration as the worst of two options. SNRE senior Anne Leavitt-Gruberger, a member of SHH, said sending the majority of waste to landfills would be better because it would not disperse harmful substances into the air.

"It's preferential to send it to the landfills because there isn't anything being sent into the air," Leavitt-Gruberger said. "It's the lesser of two evils."

The Medical Center incinerates almost three-fourths of the waste it produces in a year. The Environmental Protection Agency only requires that hospitals burn 2 percent of their medical waste, including bodyparts, to ensure public safety.

"Currently, the University is burning almost everything," said Tracie Easthope, director of the Environmental Health Project at the Ecology Center. "They don't have to do this."

Leavitt-Gruberger also argues that the University has failed to engage in more innovative methods of waste disposal.

"I think there's a lot they could do to be as environmentally progressive as they are progressive in the operating room," Leavitt- Gruberger said.

Other hospitals use technologies such as microwaving or autoclaving to eliminate the emittance of toxic chemicals into the air. Microwaving involves spraying water on infectious waste and using microwave energy to kill microbes while autoclaving uses steam heat.

Critics said they consider the lack of a substantive recycling program at the Medical Center a sign of the University's lack of commitment to environmental health.

As an example to the Medical Center, critics point to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Ypsilanti, which has garnered awards for its progressive recycling program.

Pierre Gonyon, hazardous substances specialist for St. Joseph Mercy, said when the hospital was faced with the incineration dilemma a few years ago, St. Joseph Mercy decided to focus on a recycling program.

Instead of buying a new incinerator for $3 million, Gonyon said, the hospital opted for a $300,000 compactor. Their decision was based in part on then-new EPA regulations regarding incinerator emissions.

"More and more, we felt it was the right thing to do to concentrate on recycling materials," Gonyon said.

In addition to recycling a greater amount of its waste, St. Joseph Mercy also autoclaves much of its medical waste. The hospital received an overall environmental excellence award from Washtenaw County.

"The U-M is a premier health care institution and we want them to be a premier institution in the field of waste management," Easthope said. "Until now, it hasn't been a priority."

Anthony Denton, director of operations at University hospitals, was unavailable for comment.

02-24-99