Norfolk incinerator: who stands where

Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:00 AM

Debate over the King’s Lynn incinerator plans is already raging and will only become more intense as the consultation and decision-making process goes on.

Norfolk County Council and its preferred bidder, the Anglo-US consortium Cory Wheelabrator, have already set out their stall. They maintain that an energy-from-waste incinerator at Saddlebow, just south of the town, makes good sense, providing a safe and efficient way of disposing of the county’s waste.

Opponents, meanwhile, including the local KLWIN (King’s Lynn without Incineration) and Farmers’ Campaign, argue that emissions from the plant would pose an unacceptable risk to public health, and that an incinerator would lead to greatly increased traffic movements and remove any incentive to improve recycling rates across the county.

Cory Wheelabrator are expected to submit their applications for planning permission and an environmental permit in March. Decisions are expected in the winter.

People living in West Norfolk will get to have their say next month when the borough council holds a poll to determine their views, although, since the decision will be decided by the county council, the result will not be binding.

Ann Steward, cabinet member for sustainable development at Norfolk County Council, said: “This project is about doing the right thing for Norfolk.

“The technology being proposed is in use all over Europe and in the UK. About 16 million people in the UK already live within 10 miles of an incinerator and it makes sense that Norfolk should also turn its waste into extra recycling and energy.

“Where there are legitimate questions, they can be asked – and answered – through the formal processes that lie ahead of us. However, a proposal that is approved by the Environment Agency with input from NHS; is backed by hard cash from the Government; will deliver a 20pc increase in recycling rates and millions of pounds in savings for council taxpayers must be good for Norfolk.”

Dan Smyth, senior director at RPS, consultants for Cory Wheelabrator, said the plant would be regulated continuously through the Environment Agency’s environmental permit.

“Ultimately, if the operator doesn’t comply with the conditions of the permit they can close it down. It’s in the interests of the operator to operate to the highest standards,” he said.

“The standards are set to meet the very high level of protection for people and the environment. Not only will the planning authority have to be satisfied there are no significant harmful effects, so will the Environment Agency in its determination of the environmental permit application.”

And he added: “You are more likely to be murdered than to have a health effect that would result in a fatality from this type of facility.”

Mike Knights, who has an arable farm at Middleton, near King’s Lynn, runs the Farmers’ Campaign. He said: “Having initially been persuaded that the technology would be safe, I’ve subsequently found there is a great deal to show that it won’t be. There are good reasons to be concerned over public health and the impact on farms.

“I’ve seen examples of other modern incinerators that have released significant amounts of pollutants that we were told they wouldn’t, including Dundee which was found to be releasing over 100 times the permitted level of dioxins and didn’t receive a fine.”

And he said he had no faith in the Health Protection Agency’s position that modern, well-run and regulated incin-erators posed no significant threat to public health since it was based on a report for Defra by consultants Enviros, whose core business includes helping incinerator projects win planning permission.

While the Conservative-run administration at County Hall is backing the project, its enthusiasm is not shared by opposition parties.

Tim East, Liberal Democrat spokesman for environment, roads, transport and waste, said: “The Liberal Democrats are implacably opposed to incineration when there are alternatives that are environmentally-friendly, that don’t pose a threat to public health and do the job just as well.”

Andrew Boswell, spokesman on environment and transport for the Green Party, said: “The health issues with incineration, and with any type of burning, have not been properly sorted. There is conflicting research. There is no conclusive evidence that says incineration on that scale is safe.”

One of the most vocal critics of the plan has been Henry Bellingham, Conservative MP for North West Norfolk. He said: “This is easily the biggest issue I have known in 30 years as a candidate and an MP.

“I was open-minded to start with and went to a number of meetings and listening to what the county council had to say and the case against. I think the county council have put a woefully poor case forward and my concern is threefold.

“If you are building a county-wide facility, you don’t put it at the far western end of the county - that’s just bad planning and plain barmy.

“There are bound to be extra vehicle movements and that is going to impact heavily on the communities of East and West Rudham, East and West Winch, Middleton and Setchey.

“Regarding the health implications, my instincts tell me it’s going to be safe, but the county council, Cory Wheelabrator, the Environment Agency and NHS Norfolk all say very small micro- or nano-particles won’t be filtered out. No-one has been able to say with absolute certainty that it will definitely not affect the health of people who has asthma, for example.

“I’d have thought on the precautionary principle alone, you don’t put it upwind of the third biggest population centre in Norfolk.”

He said he would be asking Defra to extend the time limit on the £169m PFI credit it has given the county council, which would enable other options to be explored.

Elizabeth Truss, Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, said: “I don’t think there was enough consultation but one of the issues Norfolk faces is that different authorities are responsible for taking in waste and disposing of the waste. We need a proper end-to-end process to make sure recycling is increasing and that we’re reducing the amount of waste - that’s what I’m very keen to see happening as soon as possible.

“Then we need to look at the waste-to-energy plant and if it’s needed. I’m in favour of extending the consultation process and looking at looking at the alternatives fully before any decision is made.”

Latest News

6 comments

WHEELABRATOR SCAM An independent audit has fueled allegations that Wheelabrator Spokane Inc (subsidiary of Waste Management) and American Recycling Corporation have bilked the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System out of millions of dollars in recovered steel sales since 1993. Results of Wheelabrator Scrap Iron Recovery Audit The contract between the City of Spokane and Wheelabrator (Waste Management) to operate the Waste-to-Energy Facility requires that Wheelabrator provide all the personnel, and perform all the services consistent with a waste-to-energy facility [i]. Removal of ferrous metal from the ash falls under this category, as the Magnetic Separating System was included in the original plant construction and operated by Wheelabrator since the facility was first built. Even the original City permit states that Wheelabrator is responsible for cleaning ash from the metal [ii]. Metal recovery is also listed as one of Wheelabrator’s Performance Standards [iii]. This service is paid for, and the work to be performed by Wheelabrator, from their very lucrative Operations Fees ($12,739,406.29 in 2006). But by 1993, after just 2 years of operations, Wheelabrator looked to eliminate the expense of loading recovered steel into shipping containers, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So Wheelabrator concocted a "requirement" in the O&M Agreement that the steel needed to be processed (baled). With their new "requirement" in hand, Wheelabrator and American Recycling Corp (ARC) presented a contract to the Spokane City Council, and claimed it fulfilled this new "obligation". And of course the City voted for the contract, accepting as "fact" Wheelabrator's imagined "requirement". The truth is, the O&M Contract never mentions processing (baling) the recovered metal, but it does state that metal shall be sold at a competitive price, and the only costs that can be deducted from the sales price are for transportation, fees and taxes [iv]. This means that the Regional System should receive ½ of market rate for the recovered metal, minus ½ the cost of transportation, fees and taxes. Wheelabrator has NEVER gone out for a competitive price bid for this metal. To pay off ARC in this shady scheme, Wheelabrator sells ARC the metal at the drastically reduced rate of $15 per ton ($5 per ton prior to Sep 2006, 1.5% of market value before 2004), keeping half of proceeds from the sale for themselves, and giving the other half to the Regional System. A conservative value for the metal recovered is $100 per ton. Annually, the facility produces about 9,000 tons of ferrous metal, meaning Wheelabrator has wrongfully shortchanged the Regional System at least $380,000.00 for the year 2006, and several millions of dollars over the life of the contract. This Wheelabrator scam saves their company hundreds of thousands of dollars in union labor costs each year, and ARC collects about the same from the metal sales, while the ratepayers in Spokane County continue to pay the highest tipping fees in the State.

Report this comment

Maggie

Friday, February 4, 2011
It is a pity Norfolk doesn't have its own pet volcano. We could dump all the rubbish down its throat, and the problem will disappear in a puff of smoke. We could allow private people to reverse their 4x4s full of rubbish up to the brow of the volcano, and with a bit of luck, the whole lot goes over the edge. I am at present designing a portable volcano, and if NCC are listening, I only need $100,000 to do a feasability test on a scale model in my back garden.

Report this comment

popeye

Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Thanks for this important information Maggie, facts our conservative councillors obviously took into account when they signed the compensation clause for 20.6million. With the self controlling regime, on a day to day basis, a certification from the EA means very little, it does not regulate constantly changing temperatures, and the emission testing regime should not be done inhouse, two vital points of distrust which happen to be echoed by the company's record, its not been made up by protesters. And before NCC wants to try and blame protesters for not getting this DEFRA promoted scheme on the ground and having to pay the fine, they should start with a close look at their scrutiny and lack of communications when it matters.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Monday, January 31, 2011
Again and again power wins,the so called call to public opninion with Expos and PR efforts for the developers is all,its cut and dryed,as the ssheme will go ahead in spite of all the objections

Report this comment

Albert Cooper

Sunday, January 30, 2011
It is good that Mr Bellingham and Mr East are both showing genuine concern for the health and wealth of the communities they represent. Ms Truss I believe is looking at things in a fleeting manner as I know she is doing a sterling job trying to fight the closure of RAF Marham, I feel she probably has little time to look indepth at the in's and out's of this very complicated issue. One thing I want to get across though MBT was ruled out AS A TECHNOLOGY by NCC in 2009. They have not considered it fully as they have rejected the technology itself as economically unviable. I have an email from Derrick Murphy telling me that was why the Costessey MBT facility was thrown out. NCC have made up their minds, as Mr Murphy pointed out in a recent newspaper article the referendum being held in February is not legally binding!! In other words they will do whatever they want to do despite what the people of West Norfolk say.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Saturday, January 29, 2011
Air pollution limits tightened on Baltimore incinerator, Owned by WHEELABRATOR EPA says Maryland improperly relaxed permit on trash-to-energy plant April 19, 2010|By Timothy B. Wheeler, The Baltimore SunThe Environmental Protection Agency has ordered air pollution limits tightened on a Baltimore trash-to-energy incinerator after finding the state improperly relaxed them and did not require adequate monitoring of the plant's toxic emissions. Siding with environmentalists who had complained that the state was going easy on a major polluter, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson directed the Maryland Department of the Environment to revise the permit it had issued the RESCO incinerator in South Baltimore. The facility, owned by Wheelabrator Techologies, burns trash from Baltimore and Baltimore County. MDE spokeswoman Dawn Stoltzfus said state regulators would comply with the EPA's order to revise the incinerator's permit. This is what you get for your money SAY NO TO INCINERATION sign petition at www.klwin.com SUPPORT OUR NORFOLK FARMERS

Report this comment

Maggie

Saturday, January 29, 2011