KAREPOVAC 1964. - 2007... 2010...

Aktivno je od 1964. godine, služi Gradu Splitu i okolnim gradovima,
bez potrebnih dozvola za rad, bez zaštite zdravlja, okoliša, voda....
tamo je bačeno/uništeno, preko 9 milijuna m3 raznovrsnog opasnog otpada, bio otpada, sekundrnih sirovina.....
Površina odlagališta je otprilike 120.000 m2, a brdo otpada je preko 40 m visoko.

na Karepovac se svaki dan baci oko 300 tona
smeća jer stanovnici splita nemaju mogućnost odvojenog
prikupljanja otpada kako to zakon propisuje:

Zakon o otpadu, Članak 25.
Otpad čija se vrijedna svojstva mogu iskoristiti mora se odvojeno skupljati i skladištiti kako bi se omogućilo gospodarenje tim otpadom u skladu s odredbama ovoga Zakona.

na Karapovac se svakodnevno baci/uniši
oko 100 tona bioopad
oko 100 tona papira,
20 tona plastike,
20 tona, stakla,
20 tona metala...

sanacija, uništenih sekundarnih sirovina, Karepovca 52 0000 000 eura.
tko je odgovoran ?

KAZNENE ODREDBE ZA OVAKAV NAČIN PRIKUPLJANJA
Zakon o otpadu
Članak 91.

(1) Novčanom kaznom u iznosu od 150.000,00 do 400.000,00 kuna kaznit će se za prekršaj pravna osoba koja:

(...)
7. otpad čija se vrijedna svojstva mogu iskoristiti ne skuplja i ne skladišti odvojeno radi omogućavanja gospodarenja tim otpadom sukladno odredbama ovoga Zakona (članak 25

Članak 88.

(1) Novčanom kaznom u iznosu od 300.000,00 do 700.000,00 kuna kaznit će se za prekršaj pravna osoba koja:

1. opasni otpad ne skuplja, skladišti i prevozi odvojeno od ostalih vrsta otpada (članak 26. stavak 1.),

2. prilikom skupljanja komunalnog otpada iz njega ne iz­dvaja opasni otpad i njime ne gospodari u skladu s odredbama ovoga Zakona (članak 26. stavak 2.),

(...)

Kroz par godina kad se predloženi oblik primarne selekcije razvije može se očekivati da će se na ovaj način odvajati do 25% od ukupnog komunalnog otpada. Taj će materijal, razvrstan u pogonu, ponovo ići u reprodukciju.

Gradsko poglavarstvo Split stoji na stanovištu da je predloženi oblik i dimenzija primarne selekcije primjerena ukupnom stanju tretmana komunalnog otpada danas, mentalitetu stanovništva i materijalnoj moći (kontejneri i sredstva sakupljanja-pražnjenja kontejnera koštaju dosta novaca).
Gradsko poglavarstvo Split, polazeći od navedenog, izdat će nalog da se izradi program, a onda i projekt primarne selekcije na navedeni opseg, a za okvire grada Splita.

Problematika koja se ovim programom poćima rješavati izuzetno je složena i zaslužuje organiziranu i kontinuiranu pažnju. U tom smislu će Gradsko poglavarstvo Split pokrenuti inicijativu da se osnuje Savjet (ili sličan organizacijski oblik) koji bi se bavio ukupnim problemom komunalnog i tehnološkog otpada
(i opasnog otpada) i koji bl predlagao usmjeravanje napora za rješenje problema. Savjet bi trebao biti sastavljen od stručnjaka i znanstvenika.

Ukupna problematika toliko je narasla i istovremeno toliko je zrela za rješenje da je nužno formirati i odgajati ekipu mladih stručnjaka koji će se sistematski baviti ovim problemima. Da bi ovo moglo funkcionirati nužno je, makar i minimalnom stavkom, ovo imati predviđeno godišnjim gradskim proračunom.

iz zaključka Gradskog poglavarstva Split, na sjednici od 3. veljače 1999.

Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration

What are waste gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma treatment/disposal technologies?
Gasification, pyrolysis and plasma technologies heat waste materials to high temperatures, creating gas, solid and liquid residues. The gases are then combusted, releasing hazardous pollutants. These technologies are considered "incineration" by the European Union, and are being considered in the U.S. for medical, municipal and hazardous wastes, which could reverse decades of progress in pollution prevention, waste prevention, and recycling. Other forms of municipal solid waste incineration (mass burn and refuse-derived-fuel) are no longer being built in the U.S.

Releasing Toxics: The same toxic byproducts can be released from these
incinerators as from other incinerators, including dioxins and furans, mercury and other heavy metals, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and more, as well as toxic contaminants in the char or ash residues, and contaminated waste water. Many of these pollutants are carcinogenic and threaten public health even at very low levels. Recent tests from municipal solid waste (MSW) in a test pyrolysis facility in southern California found more dioxin, VOCs, NOx, and particulate emissions than existing mass burn incinerators in the region.

Some companies claim that these technologies are "pollution free" or have "zero emissions," but these claims have been shown repeatedly to be untrue. Since 2003 numerous proposals for waste treatment facilities hoping to use plasma arc, pyrolysis, catalytic cracking and gasification technologies failed to receive final approval to operate when claims of the companies did not withstand public and governmental scrutiny. Companies using or promoting these technologies claim that they are not incinerators, ignoring the fact that the toxic gases created by heating the waste are in fact combusted - incinerated.

Wasting Energy: These technologies require a great deal of energy to operate, and some facilities have consumed more energy to operate than could be produced. Like classic incinerators and landfills, energy savings from waste prevention and recycling is likely greater than the energy produced in these disposal facilities.

Technical and Financial Problems: The financial and technical feasibility of these incinerators is questionable. The only medical waste facility in the U.S. that uses plasma arc (the Hawaii Vitrification Facility run by Asia Pacific Environmental Technologies) has had serious and repeated operational problems as well as permit violations. A largest MSW gasification facility (Thermoselect, located in Germany) recently closed after only a few years of operation with chronic technical problems and losses of $500 million.

The Big Picture: Even if gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc could be made safe, the question remains: could they be made sensible? As with traditional incineration and landfilling, these approaches lead to exploiting more natural resources, rather than resource and energy conservation.

Incineration is disposal to air Although the volume of garbage appears to be greatly reduced by gasification and incineration, no technology can make anything actually disappear. Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed.* The gas, smoke, and liquid and solid wastes that leave a facility will have the same mass as the solid materials entering the facility. Masses of gas and particulates will go up the stack, toxic ashes and solid wastes will need to go to landfill, and liquid wastes will also need to be managed.
*Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocld=49377

Read case studies of gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incineration that illustrate concerns about
emissions, energy and expense at
www.no-burn.org and
www.greenaction.org

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA):
mwilson@no-burn.org,
no-burn.org
Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice:
greenaction@greenaction.org,
greenaction.org