2002_0603_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Dennis Welsch Page 2 of 4 May 17, 2002 Based upon our review of the material and previous discussions with you, the City Council and various Roseville residents had several concerns regarding the Proposed Roselawn Crematory Facility. The most critical concerns appeared to involve the emissions from the proposed facility and the potential long-term health effects of these emissions. DPRA will attempt to present the critical e�sting information regarding these concerns in lay terms to clarify the impact of the proposed facility. Crematory Facility Emissions To comply with Section 129(a)(1)(E) of the amended Clean Air Act, which discusses EPA requirements for crematory facilities, the EPA conducted emission testing at a representative crematory at the Woodlawn Cemetery in New York The specifications of the cremation equipment used at Woodlawn were similar to the proposed Roselawn equipment. The results of this testing, which were presented in the Emission Test Evaluation prepared by MRI, present specific emission concentrations of each of the pollutants from a similar crematory. The proposed facility will emit pollutants at identified concentrations; these pollutants include particulate matter, carbon mono�de, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dio�de, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hydrogen chloride, cadmium, lead, mercury, and total chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins (TCDD). Generally speaking the emission concentrations of the criteria pollutants and toxic pollutants from the proposed facility are defined and predictable. Based upon DPRA's review, two statements in the City Council Meeting Minutes regarding these emissions should be clarified. First, according to information provided by Industrial Equipment and Engineering Ca (IEE), typical cremation systems are unable to control hydrogen chloride and nitrogen o�de emissions. This should not be interpreted to mean that crematory emissions are unknown, unpredictable, or uncontrollable. It does mean that air pollutant removal systems will not affect these two pollutants; however, the EPA Study results clearly identified the emission concentrations of hydrogen chloride and nitrogen oxide. In addition, DPRA provides clarification of a statement from the NIl'CA regarding crematory emissions being unregulated. According to Ms. 7ackson, the reason that crematory emissions do not require a specific air permit from the NIl'CA is that the EPA Study and other experience indicates that actual crematory emissions are well below any NIl'CA risk-based thresholds. Various concerns were raised by residents and the City Council involving the potential emission of radioactive material from patients that were treated with brachytherapy seeds. Based upon the information provided by Mr. Douhitt, Cincinnati College of Mortuary Science, it is critical that the operator of the crematory facility determines if brachytherapy seeds were implanted in the patient, inquires to the type of seeds used, and, if they remain radioactive at the time of cremation, ensures that they are removed by a trained professional.