A public exhibition of the Willows Power and Recycling Centre go on display at the Dukes Head in King's Lynn - the artist impression of the new incinerator.
Norfolk incinerator - special report
Monday, January 24, 2011
7:14 PM
Controversial proposals to build a waste incinerator just outside King’s Lynn will feature heavily on the news agenda this year. Environment correspondent JON WELCH kicks off a week-long series of features by looking at what is proposed, how we got here and what happens next.
The statistics are staggering. Last year, Norfolk produced 395,000 tonnes of household waste – enough to fill one-and-a-half Olympic-sized swimming pools each day.
Although 43 per cent of this waste was composted and recycled, some 230,000 tonnes remained to be put into landfill.
But landfill space across Norfolk is running out and this method of waste disposal creates significant quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas contributing to climate change.
With strict targets laid down by the European Union and the government to reduce the amount of waste that can be disposed of by landfill, local authorities are under pressure. Landfill tax is currently £48 per tonne, and increasing by £8 per tonne each year. It will cost Norfolk £11m this year, and that figure is set to rise by almost £2m a year. For every tonne of waste above its allowance that the council puts into landfill, the council faces potential fines of £150.
The so-called “waste hierarchy” promotes the principles of “reduce, reuse and recycle”, and while rates have improved in recent years, there will still be a large amount of residual waste that needs to be dealt with.
During 2007/8 the county council reviewed 260 potential sites across Norfolk for suitability for a waste facility and in January 2008 its cabinet approved the purchase of land at The Willows Business Park, Saddlebow, on the southern edge of King’s Lynn, and bought the site last March before applying for PFI (private finance initiative) credits from the government.
That grant, which works out as £169m of support over the life of the 25-year contract, was confirmed in the government’s comprehensive spending review last October, and the following month Anglo-US waste consortium Cory Wheelabrator was announced as the council’s preferred bidder with an incinerator scheme.
The total cost over 25 years was initially estimated at between £525m and £668m, but the council believes this has now reduced to less than £500m. It estimates the scheme would save at least £200m in landfill costs over the same period.
Norfolk County Council would supply 170,000 tonnes of household waste per year, with a further 98,000 tonnes coming from businesses. Recycling would continue, and some waste would still end up in landfill.
The plant would also generate electricity and heat that could be used to power local homes and businesses, including the nearby Palm Paper mill. Cory Wheelabrator says that about 55,000 tonnes of ash could be recycled each year for use in construction, and that about 5,000 tonnes of metals could also be recovered for recycling.
According to the council, the plant would support between 300 and 350 jobs during construction, creating about 40 new jobs once up and running and another 100 in linked businesses.
Now the company has embarked on a series of public meetings and presentations as part of the community engagement process ahead of its application for both planning permission and an Environment Agency permit, due to be submitted in the spring.
First, however, the recommendation to award the contract to Cory Wheelabrator must be approved by the council’s cabinet. If all goes according to plan, construction work would begin next year with the plant becoming operational in 2015.
But already there is disquiet about the proposals, with two protest groups Farmers’ Campaign and KLWIN (King’s Lynn Without Incineration) forming to fight the scheme.
Objectors argue that microscopic specks of dust, called particulates, emitted from the incinerator pose a health risk, causing cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and other related conditions. Highly toxic substances called dioxins, linked with cancer, would also be emitted, they say.
Opponents also say the prevailing wind will blow emissions from the plant directly over Lynn, and that they could be spread over 15-mile radius, potentially contaminating agricultural land, the cockle beds of The Wash and other environmentally sensitive areas, including Roydon Common and the Nar Valley.
They claim the plant, with its 85m (279ft) chimney stack, could devalue homes and affect tourism, and that lorry movements to and from it would be excessive.
They also claim the choice of incineration shows a lack of ambition over increasing recycling rates, since the council would be contracted to supply a fixed amount of waste for the plant.
While it will not be determining the outcome of this planning application, West Norfolk Council is a statutory consultee and will next month take the unusual step of organising a poll of 116,000 people across the borough to seek their views.
The county council, however, maintains that the incinerator will not damage health, citing a statement from the Health Protection Agency that well-run incinerators do not pose a significant threat to public health.
“The evidence suggests that any potential damage to health of those living close to incinerators is likely to be very small, if detectable,” it said.
Tomorrow: we examine the cases for and against the incinerator, looking at the health implications and asking whether it is the best option to deal with our waste.
Other News Articles
- £90m boost for Norwich Research Park
- Langham Glass could move into Fakenham
- New audio tours give insight into seven market towns in the Waveney Valley
- Beccles and Bungay appoint mayors for the year
- Young band, The Easy Brothers, set to play five Jubilee gigs in 48 hours
- Surfer’s death off Lowestoft was a ‘freak’ accident
- Brain surgery unites brave hospital fund-raisers Alex Pickett and North Walsham mayor Vivienne Uprichard
- Police close down Norwich drugs den
- Anglia Farmers launches finance scheme to support members
- Accountant notches up proud day at Palace
- Cawston boy battles cold to maintain perfect attendance record in final week at Reepham High
- Bridge fears could block new homes attempt in Costessey
- RNLI in Wells trying to find family of mystery woman who gave them £300,000 in her will
- Watton grandmother to take part in skydive for Autism Anglia
- Plan to give Cromer more say in future of its North Lodge Park
6 comments
I think NCC should admit that the information they have delivered to millions of homes about the incinerator is incorrect. NCC should send out the correct information before the referendum. They have made a big mistake, this incinerator will affect peoples health and they know it. There is a new special needs school only a few miles from this proposed site, many of the children there have profound breathing problems. Why on earth would NCC build a brand new school for special needs that cost tax -payers over 12 million then build an incinerator near it. Wake up NCC we are angry you are wasting tax-payers money. And harming the health of thousands of people. I am disgusted. SAY NO TO INCINERATION SUPPORT OUR NORFOLK FARMERS Please sign petition at www.klwin.com
Report this comment
Maggie
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Dear Readers, Please consider the following:- I have spoken to 3 people from Cory Wheelabrator, including Bid Director Paul Green and all have given me an evasive answer regarding the health implications of their propose incinerator -is it 100% safe? NO CLEAR ANSWER !! They cannot give a clear answer because as science progresses -many of the UNKNOWN composites ommitted from burning a multitude of waste products may prove to be far more harmfull than known ommissions are at present. My question progressed to enquire what should be done once the project is built, if in the future it is found we are being pollutedharmed health wise at a far more aggressive rate than believed at present?. Do we, the rate payers, then pay millions more for further modifications to allow 'The Monster' to run, complying with potential new ommission legislation? What method on earth may compensate us for the detriment to our health or worse? The savings quoted by Joe Hull of NCC are £200 million over 25 years -[equating to 2% on current council tax]- by operating this incinerator. If your current council tax bill is £1500year - Joe Hull will save you £30 a year, in exchange for a gamble with your health!!! Please don't say we have to act on present standardsresearch -as nobody would accept 'The Thalidomide' mistake if a gamble were presented! Thanks for your care Joe!
Report this comment
dillan
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Here is a list of questions for journalists to find answers to this week, please. -Did councillors knew of the pending court cases against wheelabrator before they signed the £20 million compensation clause? -Did councillors have sufficient information of other plant designs beforehand to make their considered choice? -Why did NCC fail to send a person to a meeting with 240 people wanting information? -What are the alternatives for the 90.000tons of fly-ash produced if Construction is in an economic downturn, has no need to make lightweight bricks from this contaminated ash? where is it going to be dumped? -Who will benefit from tyhe electricity receipts, when taxpayers ahve alredy paid for the disposal in their council tax? should these moneys be going into NCC's coffers? -Why was there no plan B with regards to the siting of this plant? surely there must have been coastal positions in their posession venting the emissions out to sea.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Could someone please tell me why the plant would need an 85metre chimney if not to dissipate smoke and dioxins into the upper atmosphere! Remember also, nothing good ever comes out of a chimney....
Report this comment
Christine
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The health protection agency is massively overworked and understaffed, incinerators are in charge of their own emissions regime. A well run incinerator's temperature regime must not fall below 1500deg.C, otherwise it will produce dioxins and furins. The company does not say it will refuse recyclables and it will not shut down, unless broke, so it will insatiably burn household waste and import it from mother counties if it has not enough from Norfolk. I do not think that there is a warning system proposed that operates independentlyexternally of Wheelabrators control processes, so when pollution happens it will be expensive court actions, now favouring those with money, which have to sort out disputes. I would advise GP's to prepare a health history of the area that goes back some ten year, for future comparrisson studies. The fly-ash will not be taken up by construction to make lightweight bricks, if it is in an economic downturn, it will get dumped. Did our councillors know of the pending court cases for pollution, before they signed the PFI compensation contract?
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The council say above "well-run incinerators do not pose a significant threat to public health". Look to the U.S. and see how well Wheelabrator run incinerators. They then say "The evidence suggests that any potential damage to health of those living close to incinerators is likely to be very small, if detectable". These are direct quotes from the H.P.A. report The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municiple Waste Incinerators, this report in turn is based on the DEFRA 2004 Review of Environmental & Health Effects of Waste Management. I have read both reports because I have a grandson with severe asthma, The DEFRA 2004 report constantly refers to the facts as follows:- A positive link cannot be proven ( I SAY OR DISPROVEN) because the incinerators are built in areas of high background contamination and socio economic deprevation!! another good little caption is "It is unreasonable to expect local health professionals to interpret number concentrations in quantative health terms when national experts have not yet judged that the evidence is sufficient to do so" The best sum up of all is "It is concluded that in a normal healthy community the effects of exposure will be negligable" My grandson is not a healthy child so I assume that means that he does not matter. Does anyone else out there have a loved one that is not a normal healthy person? These quotes are from the core reports that the council are using to quantify health risks. Ann Steward sent the H.P.A. report to me via The Future of Waste office, that report refered to DEFRA 2004 as main research material. She obviously did not expect me to actually read them!!! Download the DEFRA 2004 report AND READ AT LEAST PAGES 139 to 158 then you can make an informed choice of how safe incineration is.
Report this comment
Joy, King's Lynn
Tuesday, January 25, 2011