EPcase Issues

Case Study: El Puente & the Struggle Against the Navy Yard Incinerator in Brooklyn, NYC

Basis for Opposition to the Project

Opponents were especially concerned about the potential public health impacts of air pollution from hazardous chemicals such as lead, dioxin, mercury and nitrogen oxides that can cause cancer, respiratory diseases and learning disabilities. Given the high incidence of lead poisoning in children and asthma in the neighborhood, community residents were alarmed that a significant health hazard be added to the many other existing environmental burdens.

Another point of contention was the disposal of residual ash, which is considered hazardous waste, and would endanger people's health. The proposed incinerator would generate over 900 tons of residual ash, which cannot be disposed of with household waste. In addition, the city's ash fill capacity is significantly more limited than landfill space.

Opponents also argued that incineration competed with recycling, since incinerators rely on recyclable trash as fuel. In their view, waste reduction, reuse and recycling are preferable solid waste management alternatives. With waste reduction, for example, the volume and/or toxicity of waste is reduced before it enters the waste stream. The anti-incinerator position adopted by a number of local environmental groups is reflected in the “Reduce and Recycle First” Bill to oppose the Mayor Guiliani's solid waste management plan. The bill would “prohibit burning of recyclable materials and would require New York City to demonstrate that it has reached the New York State recycling and waste reduction goals before it could receive a permit for a trash incinerator.” Later, in 1996, amendments to the conservation law were passed, adding provisions for solid waste management which restrict landfilling and construction and operation of incinerators.

Throughout the long struggle against the incinerator several important additional issues surfaced, including:

1. The need for a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which takes into consideration the changing circumstances in the area and of the project since the original Final EIS was approved in 1985. Opponents demanded a re-assessment of the economic and health impacts of the proposed project. Factors cited include:

Newly discovered information from scientific studies on the health effects of incinerator emissions which was not previously addressed. (For example, that dioxins are not only potent carcinogens but also a threat to the human reproductive system, hormonal system and immune system; that lead is toxic to children at levels 2-1/2 times lower than previously thought).
The character of the site: initially intended as a heavy industrial area, it became the location of light manufacturing and assembly industries and import businesses.
The new Federal Clean Air Act and State Clean Air Compliance Act require the City to reduce overall pollution in the area prior to building and operating the Navy Yard incinerator. This would require the city to show a reduction in air pollution from other sources by more than the amount emitted by the new incinerator before the State could issue a permit.
New Clean Air Act requirements requiring increased pollution controls will increase the city's costs to operate the proposed facility.

2. The identification of toxic substances on-site. The samples taken from the site showed contamination with toxic chemicals in soil and groundwater, including polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs and petroleum compounds. As a result of community pressures, a half-acre of the Navy Yard was placed on the Superfund list of hazardous waste sites. In 1994, the State Department of Environmental Conservation found that officials knew about this toxic contamination since 1988 but failed to inform the State. The possibility of an official coverup created anxiety in the community. Although it was initially believed that this contamination was due to prior manufacturing uses, a 1994 report commissioned by the NYPIRG using government databases indicated the presence of toxic waste on the site as a result of practices during the past 10 years.

3. The burial ground issue. In 1992, a map located at the New York Public Library, documented a mass grave of Revolutionary War prisoners at the proposed site. This mobilized a number of civic groups that had not been previously involved in the anti-incinerator campaign, such as the Society of Old Brooklynites, George P. Davis American Legion Post #116, and Wallabout Landmarks Preservation Committee.