An incinerator for Norfolk - the case for and against

Tuesday, January 25, 2011
11:25 AM

THE CASE FOR

Norfolk County Council may be supporting the incinerator scheme, but the authority insists it is “technology neutral” and only chose it as the preferred option after considering other schemes and methods of dealing with waste.

Mike Jackson, director of environment, transport and development, said the council had carefully assessed 17 bids, including technologies such as mechanical biological treatment (MBT), anaerobic digestion, gasification, pyrolosis and autoclave, as well as incineration. Criteria used included quality, affordability, costs and commercial considerations. “We haven’t decided incineration is the best-value solution: we have decided this particular proposal, which happens to be incineration, is the best proposal,” he said.

“We had two very good proposals, both using incineration. Cory Wheelabrator’s bid was slightly ahead on points. The others were some way behind on value for money. We have been looking at the issues for a long time. We know the market, we know the techonologies inside out.

“We have ended up where we are, with the best proposal against the criteria the council set. We have ruled nothing out.”

The problem the council is attempting to solve is what to do with the residual waste left over after recycling. This totalled 225,000 tonnes last year and with strict government targets on how much can be sent to landfill, along with increasing financial penalties, the authority must find other ways to deal with it. Under the incinerator proposals, the council would be contracted to provide 170,000 tonnes of waste a year.

The most recent figures show Norfolk recycled or composted 43pc of its waste, putting it 13th in the league table of English counties. The council aims to increase this figure to 63pc, and argues that an energy-from-waste (EFW) incinerator at Saddlebow will help its efforts.

“We believe recycling rates of 75pc can be achieved... There’s a residual amount of waste that just can’t be recycled and there always will be. Landfill is an awful way of dealing with the problem. This is positive and will deliver enhanced rates of recycling. Even if we get to the point where our own household waste is not enough, we can look at commercial waste, and look at waste from the offices of the council and district council and look at putting that through.”

The council points out that the facility will recover about 5,000 tonnes of metals for recycling, and provide about 55,000 tonnes of ash for recycling as aggregates each year, as well as producing enough electricity to power 36,000 homes, plus steam and heat which could be used in the paper-making process at nearby Palm Paper.

Mark Allen, assistant director of environment and waste, said: “The site hits all the key planning criteria. It takes a lot of the risk out of the proposal for the bid. It’s very close to the trunk road network; it’s very close to the National Grid; it’s a former industrial site.”

Now that Cory Wheelabrator has been chosen as the council’s preferred bidder for the PFI (private finance initiative) scheme, estimates of the total cost have fallen from between £525m and £668m to less than £500m over the course of the 25-year contract. The council estimates it will save at least £200m in landfill costs over the same period.

Leaked details have revealed the council could have to pay up to £20.5m in compensation should the deal fall through.

The council has dismissed health fears over the incinerator, citing advice from the Health Protection Agency and Defra that well-run and regulated incinerators do not pose a significant threat to public health.

Mr Jackson said: “The levels of emissions are so low they are not measurable. Objectors say we can’t demonstrate there’s not an impact. Modern well-run EFW facilities produce such a low rate of emissions we’re not capable of measuring it. It’s safe, proven technology that operates safely all over England.”

THE CASE AGAINST

A campaign against the proposed incinerator is already up and running in and around King’s Lynn and is focused on two main groups, KLWIN (King’s Lynn Without Incineration) and Farmers’ Campaign.

Their arguments centre on health concerns related to emissions, and they also say the incinerator will lead to increased traffic and will hamper efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle waste.

The groups have already held a series of public meetings, and will be stepping up their campaign ahead of a poll being organised by West Norfolk Council for Feburary 14.

“As people have come and listened and discussed it with their neighbours, and understood the pros and cons, the vast majority of people are going away thinking it’s not a good idea,” said Michael de Whalley, of campaign group KLWIN.

While the authority itself will not rule on planning permission – that decision will be taken by Norfolk County Council’s planning and regulatory committee later this year – it is a statutory consultee. The county council has said that while the numbers of people who vote for or against the proposals will not make any difference, any planning considerations raised as part of the process will be listened to.

Mr de Whalley added: “The idea of landfill tax was meant to be to stop us throwing things away and burying them. It’s hotly debated whether incineration is better than landfill... Lots of other things – reducing, reusing and recycling waste – are much better. I accept that landfill is the wrong thing to do. I’m saying incineration isn’t any better.”

Opponents of the incinerator cite two main health concerns: particles (or particulates), and dioxins. The former are microscopic specks of dust linked with cancer, heart attacks and asthma. While pollen-sized particles are mostly trapped by filters, smaller bacteria-sized particles are released. Campaigners cite European law detailing their “significant negative effects on human health” and requiring their reduction in urban areas.

Environmental consultant Richard Burton, who is working on the anti-incinerator campaign, said the smaller particles covered by the European law reached the lower lung and were absorbed into the bloodstream.

“Norfolk County Council says the emissions of particles from incinerators are small, compared to those from traffic and other sources,” he said. “But they are comparing totals for England, and therefore comparing 25 energy-from-waste incinerators to emissions from 34.5 million vehicles, and millions of household boilers. Locally, an incinerator does make a big contribution, and it is from a single concentrated location with King’s Lynn immediately downwind on many days.”

Dioxins are among the most carcinogenic chemicals known to science. They are created when materials are burnt, and in particularly large numbers when plastics are burnt.

Mr de Whalley said: “It’s not something we want to add into the environment. Once it enters the food chain it stays there for generations.”

Mr Burton said council claims that technology in modern energy-from-waste incinerators stopped the formation of dioxins were incorrect. He said while they were destroyed in the furnace, they reformed at 300-400C later in the incinerator, and that while some were trapped by pollution filters, others were released into the atmosphere. He said Cory Wheelabrator’s monitoring of dioxin levels, while in accordance with the law, would be insufficient to give an accurate picture of dioxins entering the air.

He also challenged the council’s reliance on advice from the Health Protection Agency that modern, well-run incinerators posed no significant threat to public health. He said it was based on a 2003/4 report written for Defra which predated the latest knowledge about particulates and EC law, saying it had been co-written by a consultancy that delivered planning permission for incinerators.

Latest News

13 comments

In response to awbwretton; my facts come from the Environment Agency officers who state dioxins reform in incinerators, the annual Performance Monitoring Reports that show their emission, the UK's national dioxin emission inventory, consultancies who advise incinerator operators, peer-reviewed scientific papers, and Wheelabartor themselves. It is a common consensus and proven fact that dioxins reform within incinerators at 300-400oC, a process known as novo synthesis. NCC stand in isolation on this. Much of their information is incorrect, as too is Mr Jackson's bizarre claim that emissions are not detectable. I would encourage anyone to check the facts for themselves. Simply call the Environment Agency and ask for a Pollution Control officer for any mass burn incinerator.

Report this comment

Richard Burton

Friday, January 28, 2011
It is interesting that this article implys that Norfolk County Council had looked at all options and actually states they are "Technology Neutral" as I have an e mail from Mr Murphy which was talking about whos waste was going where. I was told that Yarmouths is going to Suffolk some of Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshires will come to Kings Lynn. I thought that Cambridgeshires should go to Peterborough and got this reply. I quote directly "One small point the MBT facility planned for Costessey was rejected by NCC because:- a) It would have produced 40% waste which would have had to go to landfill or burnt. b) The planned incinerator at Peterborough will no doubt handle the 40% residual waste from the MBT facility at Waterbeach, a technology you may remember NCC rejected". NCC are not technology neutral at all.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Friday, January 28, 2011
WHEELABRATOR TAKEN TO COURT BOSTON AMERICA AT SAUGUS PLANT On Tuesday, January 4th, the Boston Globe reported that Attorney General Martha Coakley was investigating RESCO for “alleged environmental violations including the discharge of hazardous chemicals into the air and water.” The allegations are brought forward by two RESCO employees under the Massachusetts False Claims Act. This law is actually designed to protect the taxpayers from being defrauded by vendors. In this instance, the claimants are suggesting that RESCO is charging 15 communities to dispose of waste in a certain manner that they are not doing. In other words, the communities are paying for services not rendered. According to the Globe, the allegations in the suit against RESCO include: Knowingly violating environmental laws for years. · Endangering the public health. · Defrauding the 15 communities, including Saugus, that send their trash there for proper handling and disposal. · “Knowingly, illegally, secretly, and systematically’’ allowing toxic pollutants such as mercury and lead, contained in the ash produced by waste incineration, to enter the environment · Failing to use adequate amounts of lime to neutralize the toxicity of the ash. · Having inoperable equipment that is supposed to control air pollution. · Failing to treat runoff from the landfill on the property before discharging it into the Lynn sewer system We should rely on the fact that RESCO produces carcinogens and emits heavy metals, including Mercury, that are present in the air emissions and the ash emissions. We should rely on the fact that cancer rates remain elevated in Saugus, Lynn and especially Revere. We should rely on the fact that it was only through the efforts of Precinct 10 citizens and groups such as SAVE, Mass PIRG, Mass Fair Share and Greenpeace that Saugus RESCO was mandated to install scrubbers. We should rely on the fact that RESCO has and will continue to lobby for and seek a third burner that would add more carcinogens and heavy metals to the environment. We should rely on the fact that RESCO knew about the most recent allegations and chose not to tell the Board of Health. We should rely on the fact that in spite of a town meeting vote that RESCO pay the same water rate as everyone else, the town manager continues to provide RESCO with a discounted water rate. We should rely on the fact the Board of Health admits it is incapable of analyzing RESCO emissions reports and that calls for independent town sponsored inspections date back to the 1980’s and they are still not being done.

Report this comment

Maggie

Thursday, January 27, 2011
The toxic ash goes to landfill in the Midlands and now local councils will be responsible for it to be dumped locally. This will have to go to your local landfill like Black borough end and West Dereham has been mentioned.

Report this comment

Choice

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Strange the USA has not allowed these so called modern incinerator plants to be built since 1995! Strange our Prime minister has rejected incineration in his own constituency! And George Osborne is the leader of his constituencies anti incineration campaign. Manchester were that worried about nano partials that stay in your body for life, so they have banned incinerators and building five Mechanical Biological Treatment Plants, the remaining incinerator at Dunham Massey will be converted to MBT so they are aiming for zero waste with no air pollution. All of Scotland has done similar as Wheelabrator are building all MBT plants! We had a meeting with Richard Burton and Wheelabrator the question was asked about dioxin, as you may not be aware this is chemical reaction like a catalyst. This was explained by wheelerbrator very worrying they admitted it does reform in the second stage, when asked by a member of the public. Some of the non toxic ash is mixed in building blocks and how many blocks have been made for the last 3 years! Did you know the toxic ash may end up at local tips as the big tips in the Midlands are nearly full? There is talk that it could be dumped in disused salt mines. Wheelabrator had explained the ash is carefully loaded into sealed containers and dumped on a secure tip. They had shown a photo of where the ash ends up. It was on a tip in the Midlands, a lady said to one of the advisors and asked what that powder being blown with the wind and is it going in to the next field. He said that is just steam! The lady then said why the road sign entering the tip is coated in the same powder. Radio Norfolk yesterday Wheelabrators top brass was asked about the dioxin that cannot be filtered that enters your lungs is it safe. Same as Watlington meeting, a deadly silence, ask again deeper silence and then she was informed she should ask somebody else in the group because it was out their expertise!!!!

Report this comment

CleanAirPlease

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
@ awbwretton: Some dioxins are broken apart by heat (so technically no longer dioxins), but then they reform during cooling. NCC use of the word 'destroyed' in this context, is as misleading as me removing the wheels of my car and saying my car has been 'destroyed' because it no longer functions as a car! Mr Burton has continually requested that NCC withdraw their misleading information and they have refused. How are people like yourself meant to judge this issue fairly when the council have no intention of providing accurate information?

Report this comment

Dave321

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Thank you for allowing me to respond, after studying this issue , for many hundreds of hours I concluded the following was the best ,also cheapest as well as the safest way to go. Proff 'Paul Connett on his USA proven 80% seperation of waste technology, Seperation Without Burning. Plasma-gasification has a net cost of £21 per ton, while Incineration cost about £63 per ton,Infant Mortality Rate per 1000 is shown as Downwind 7.9 %Upwind only 2.4% This is a very very Dangerous Dirty Business. The Government may be using the Health Protection Agency to force there Incineration Program through, be of no doubt that Industrial PM2s are one of the most lethal Toxin's man has produced so far, down below polon size they canot be filtered so countless millions are let fly in the atmosphere to be ingested by everyone, then fall to the ground to infect all the land , also all the animals and food we eat. source Birth defects in Greater London 1995-2002 by Michael Ryan Bsc,C Eng, Mice. Infant mortality rates 1998-2005 prepaired by Michael Ryan, UKHR.. Yours sincerely Stanley G Marmont

Report this comment

Stan the IN Sin man

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
All residents of Norfolk, wherever in the county they live, should register their views. The PFI contract will saddle us and our children with a debt of at least £500 million over twenty-five years. Remember the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital deal.

Report this comment

John Martin

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Quote from Mr. Burton,'council claims that technology in modern energy-from-waste incinerators stopped the formation of dioxins were incorrect. He said while they were destroyed in the furnace, they reformed at 300-400C later in the incinerator, and that while some were trapped by pollution filters, others were released into the atmosphere. ' If these dioxins are 'destroyed' in the furnace then I fail to see that they can be 'reformed'. I was always under the impression that destroy meant no longer existing, gone, deleted. Puts me in mind of the Monty Python parrot sketch. If the company operating this incinerator are certain that levels are so low as to be undetectable then surely they would be willing to sign up to an agreement that would see them fined in the £billions range if they release these chemicals into the atmosphere. May I enquire as to where his facts come from?

Report this comment

awbwretton

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Throughout this campaign NCC have been shown up as not being wholly truthful. The latest among many misdirections they have said is that the levels of emissions is so low they cannot be measured; they can but the agencies in charge of commissioning these behemoths choose not to do so. It is curious that they are measuring air quality on site instead of where the fallout of pollutants will fall. This is another misdirection. The indecent haste that this whole project is being pushed suggests a deeper agenda of which we all should be suspicious. Why haven't the NCC considered other cheaper alternatives. Better recycling? Anaerobic waste digestion? This technology they claim "is proven" This is true; it is proven to raise the epidemiological incidence of Cancer, Heart Disease, Asthma, birth defects, suicides, depression, foetal abnormalities and this is just a start. Is this the real reason they didn't want to build it at Costessey? I rather think so. We are supposed to live in a democracy. What is democratic about the people saying a clear NO to NCC and NCC ignoring those who elected them? We don't live in a democracy at all. We live under the rule of people who only think of short term benefits and are incapable of seeing the longer greater heath care costs that will come with the disease that follows building this incinerator.

Report this comment

Carborundum

Wednesday, January 26, 2011
You need not look any further for the lunacy in this proposal than the following quote: "Mike Jackson...... said the council had carefully assessed 17 bids.... Criteria used included quality, affordability, costs and commercial considerations." It's clear that the issues of health, mortality, sickness and disease are of such an irrelevance to the council as not to be considered in the criteria for a waste solution! "Mr Jackson said: “The levels of emissions are so low they are not measurable." 200,000 tonnes of waste per year will be pumped out of a chimney a mile from the town, 23 tonnes an hour and he describes that as "not detectable" ? It's patently clear that our health CANNOT be entrusted to councillors who do not have a clue what they're doing.

Report this comment

Dave321

Tuesday, January 25, 2011
yes is what i think!!

Report this comment

Matthew Ayling

Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Fact is that Mr. Jackson could not get any support from DEFRA for any other option, except for incineratio n. looking at alternatives is not good enough and DEFRA in charge of our environment should be ashamed of themselves to use expensive PFI's, the first step to privatise our waste resources. I thank Mr. Burton for his clarifying words on the resulting pollution and lack of authoritive control over them.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Tuesday, January 25, 2011