skip to content
Ffos-y-Fran from the air
   

Welcome to the

Residents Against Ffos-y-Fran (R.A.F.F.)

.

INCINERATOR INFORMATION PAGE

.

Tuesday, 16th June 2009: Still waiting on answers to questions sent to Covanta

At their request, I sent off a list of questions (29 off) to Covanta Engineering that form the core issues with their proposal as I see it. These went off to them on 7th May 2009; I'm still awaiting the reply...

Here are my questions:

Questions for Covanta – Chris Austin 

In the spirit of openness and transparency, could you please improve my understanding of your proposed incineration project by answering the following questions? :

 

  1. How much fuel oil/diesel do you use to start up and maintain the incineration process? Per week/month/annum, whichever is easier. Obviously, the amount of  saving this plant makes over recycling and landfill depends on the energy it uses, and the waste products (solid and gaseous) that it produces and hence have to disposed of, laid off against the electricity it produces

 

  1. What is the work cycle of the incinerator? I was informed that it runs on a one yearly cycle, but that seems quite a long period to run an incinerator continuously. How often does it have to be taken down for maintenance? Will it use all 3 streams continuously?

 

  1. How long are the start-up and shut-down periods? How long does the incinerator run below optimal temperature with waste on the grate? I am trying to determine how long the incinerator would be producing dioxins, heavy metals, NOx, and particulates above accepted levels, if  it does at all.

 

  1. What is ‘business waste’? What does it consist of? With the latest announcement from the WAG on their intention to raise the recycling figures for Business waste up to unprecedented levels, what will you be burning? I realise that there will be some ‘residual waste’ with business waste, but what are the projected figures when we are looking at taking recycling to 70%?

 

  1. What is residential residual waste? What does it consist of? With recycling improving day-by-day we are finding that we throw out very little after we’ve recycled. We are currently recycling paper, cardboard, plastic, plastic bags, glass, metal, and food waste here in Merthyr. What will be left for you to burn after our recycling, and your further recycling efforts? Disposable nappies were used as an example, but nothing else; let’s hope there’s a baby boom in South Wales…

 

  1. As you can guess from the above questions, I’m finding it very difficult to see how you can justify the size of your plant. Recycling is getting far more effective now, is increasing dramatically, and has a lot more to achieve. How do you propose to feed this plant 750.000 tonnes of waste per annum across the proposed 30 year operating period?

 

  1. We have been told that the train line to Cwmbargoed is working near to capacity with the coal trucks for Ffos-y-Fran. How do you propose to transport the waste to keep a 750,000 tonnes per annum incinerator operating using this line? [There are bottle-necks on this line. It’s not just the straight run up from Caerphilly. Of course, there is a far wider question of transport if waste has to come in from all over Britain]

 

  1. The proposed Cardiff incinerator has been termed by many as over specified at less than half this size? It was conceived to burn the residual waste from the Project Gwyrdd authorities, which consisted of the largest waste producers in Wales, but was still over specified at 350,000 tonnes/annum. You say that your proposed incinerator is a Wales only solution, but I can’t see there being anywhere near enough waste being produced in this country to continuously feed an incinerator of the size you propose. Wouldn’t this mean that you would be bringing waste from across Britain to feed the thing, with all the attendant transport issues? [bearing in mind that the railway is only effective if the waste was always at a railhead, and the railway could handle the load]

 

  1. What is the proposed smoke stack height at the Merthyr site? I am attempting to estimate the sites sphere of influence on the surrounding communities taking into account the prevailing weather conditions.

 

  1. You have been fined heavily on many occasions and across several states in America (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, and Indiana) for breaching emissions laws. What is different about this operation that will ensure that this doesn’t happen here? I was informed that the problems have only been with plants that Covanta inherited (18 off), and not the plants it built and maintained itself (19 off). Could you provide me with the names of the sites you inherited, and details of the transgressions and their locations so that I can confirm that this is the case?

 

  1. What will you be doing to ensure that you are not emitting dangerous levels of toxins or particulates? I was told by your staff that there would be continuous monitoring of the flu gasses. However, I have given information that it is not unknown for the CM equipment to be ‘adjusted’ or turned-off whilst still appearing to be working correctly. You say that the Environment Agency can, and do perform frequent checks, but how frequently? The details on their site are a little non-specific on this.

 

  1.  What makes the technology in your proposed plant ‘modern or cutting-edge? How does it compare with the combined plasma-gasification and anaerobic digester plant proposed for the old Tower Colliery site in Hirwaun by EnviroParks Limited?

 

  1.  What will the local authorities responsibility be in this project? Are they/we to be tied into a supply contract?

 

  1. You have some major employment issues in America. In fact, Covanta are in a major dispute in America with trade unions (and the state?) accused of significant labour law transgressions. How do you explain this, and what will be different here in Merthyr?

 

  1.  What is the projected cost per tonne (ton?) of processing waste at Brig-y-Cwm? Your charge for processing our waste, per se.

 

  1.  The 100 jobs projected for the site at Merthyr? How many of these jobs will be sourced locally? Wouldn’t you need quite a number of skilled operatives? Or are you planning to train up locals to meet all the staffing here? What will be the skill profile of these jobs? You state that as far as creating quality employment opportunities are concerned, you are ‘…committed to utilising local skills and resources where possible’. How far will Covanta go to ensure that it is possible?

 

  1.  To date, and without exception as far as we can determine, all community liaison panels have been manipulated by the operators to make them completely ineffective. How do you propose to ensure that this doesn’t happen? Will the community get the opportunity to vote for their own representatives from across the area? This would be the fairest solution. What will be the make up of this panel (i.e. how many community reps, how many council reps, etc…).

 

  1. It has been suggested that the incinerator is only sized this large to ensure that the decision on whether it goes ahead is removed from the local authority and the WAG, and will in fact be made by a non-governmental committee in London? That in actuality, the plant will never or almost never run at full capacity, using only one or two of its processing streams at any one time. How does Covanta counter these suggestions?

 

  1.  It is further suggested that a plant of this size would discourage further recycling as it needs to be fed its 750,000 tonnes/annum to keep operating, and more effective recycling would make sourcing the levels of waste that you require more-and-more difficult with time. How do you answer this?

 

  1.  It was said by yourselves that this is a very tightly regulated industry, but it has been suggested that in reality this is not the case. Is it true that:

 

·         The environment agency are only required to check the flue gasses twice a year (dioxin, heavy metals, PCBs, PAH, and hydrogen fluoride levels)?

·         That PM2.5 nano-particles and smaller are not required to be monitored at all, even though their adverse health impact is well understood?

·         That the emissions at start-up and shut-down times of the incinerators are not required to be monitored even though this is the time that heavy pollution levels can occur if the burn temperature falls too low?

·         That spot checks and auditing by the environment agency are fairly infrequent, as there is not enough resource to carry them out?

 

 

  1. Not too many people were able to attend these drop-in sessions due to work and family commitments. Do you have plans to put all this information up on a website? Not too difficult or expensive a task and the people of Merthyr deserve to understand what it is that they are getting themselves into with the proposed incinerator.

 

  1. Covanta say that – “We operate on a policy of honesty and transparency…” - . So, could you please tell me why hasn’t the company put any information out in the local paper; sent out any flyers; or set up a website giving out the information with a blog for people to air their views?

 

  1. Could you supply me with the projected smoke-stack emission levels at optimal working temperature and maximum throughput for the following:

·         CO2

·         Dioxins

·         PCBs

·         PAHs

·         Toxic metals

·         NOx

·         Nano Particulates (PM2.5, PM1)

 

  1.  Covanta’s UK MD, Mr Malcolm Chilton stated recently that he would look to burn waste supplied from anywhere in Britain to maintain the required throughput of this plant. This was refuted by Covanta personnel in the drop-in meetings last Wednesday (29/04/2009). Could you confirm whether this incinerator is an all Wales, or a British solution?  I’m inclined to believe that the MD would have more of a grasp of corporate strategy than his subordinates, but how do you answer this? This is looking like an all Britain solution, and this raises some significant transport issues, as rail could no longer be the overall solution.

 

  1. It was originally proposed that there would be a further level of recovery or recycling of the residual waste; this was not confirmed by your staff at the drop-in meeting. They indicated to me that it was unlikely that the plant would have a pre-processing facility for further recycling of the residual waste. This was quite an attractive feature, and would improve the recycling figures; would reduce the amount of plastics burned; and hence reduce the amount of toxic emissions produced. Of course, it would further reduce the amount of waste available for burning in the incinerator. It could be inferred that this is the first step to confirming the detrimental impact that this plant would have on the recycling policy in Wales. What is Covanta’s line on this?

 

  1.  How will the waste products be transported off-site? I.e. the bottom ash, and the more toxic fly ash? Are trains to be used for this? If so, how many? Or if by road, how many lorry loads are estimated each day? Will all trucks be sealed?

 

  1.  Your original proposal didn’t include the use of the waste heat from the plant, but your latest documentation talks about making this heat available to local industry. How do you plan to realise this opportunity? Is the facility to be supplied from Day 1, or is the plant to be built so that it can be implemented readily at some point in the future?

 

  1. At the drop-in meeting I was told that there would be only 4 trains a day bringing waste to the incinerator. You stated previously that ‘most’ of the waste would be coming in by rail, the rest by road. Could you tell me what the proportions are of rail to road in your proposed transport solution?

 

  1. Your presentation in the drop-in meeting said that you would be reducing the amount of landfill by 96%. Surely, the bottom ash and the fly ash come to about 40% of the original waste (by weight, or volume?). Now you may claim that you would be turning a percentage of this into road building material, or building blocks, but as the percentage currently utilised is approximately 40-50% of the current bottom ash output, there’s not much chance of any significant amounts of this plant’s waste product being used. What figures are you using to show that only 4% now goes to landfill?

 

 

 

Tuesday, 10th March 2009: Week-In Week-Out: Comment on the impact of the proposed incinerator on Merthyr Tydfil

Merthyr is being sold down the river once again with this incinerator.

Trecatti, Ffos-y-Fran, and now Brig-y-Cwm - watch this program

.

Part 1 of the Week-In, Week-Out program - on the impact of the proposed incinerator on Merthyr Tydfil - A Burning Question:

.

.

.

Part 2 of the Week-In, Week-Out program - on the impact of the proposed incinerator on Merthyr Tydfil - A Burning Question:

.

.

Part 3 of the Week-In, Week-Out program - on the impact of the proposed incinerator on Merthyr Tydfil - A Burning Question:

.

.

.

Monday, 16th February 2009: Information gathered, and our Comments on the proposed incinerator in Merthyr Tydfil

We believe that the people of Merthyr are being sold a pup with this incinerator.

Here's an information dump culled from the internet. We've interwoven our comments.

Issues with the Brig-y-Cwm incinerator – Merthyr Tydfil:

The proposed incinerator is being sold as a producer of cheap energy by burning rubbish. Reducing the need for landfill and the reduction of methane and CO2 that comes from not burying that waste.

Too good to be true? We think so.

Superficially, it’s a fantastic idea, but… that there are serious concerns over the output from this type of incinerator:-

• hazardous smoke stack gasses:

• organic chemicals (over 200) containing

• dioxins – these are carcinogenic (can cause Cancer)

• other carcinogens

• mutagens – a chemical that affects DNA and causes genetic mutations

• fine particulates – fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is not separately regulated in the European Waste Incineration Directive, even though they are repeatedly connected with infant mortality

• toxic metals – incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels. These can enter the food chain.

• bad smells (though this seems a bit insignificant in this company! Everything is relative I suppose)

• hazardous solids:

• flue gas treatment residues (fly ash) – highly toxic, strongly alkaline and high in dioxins and heavy metals

• bottom ash or grate ash - this ash also contains levels of dioxins and heavy metals

Statistically, a number of residents within the sphere of influence of this incinerator will die as a result of the toxic output from this incinerator. Many more will develop chronic illnesses, and many more again will suffer from illnesses to varying degrees.

Studies have shown that communities living close to incinerators suffer higher rates of cancer, respiratory problems, birth defects, heart disease, and infertility. Merthyr Tydfil is already very high up (2nd to the North East?) in the UK league of chest complaint sufferers.

Protecting the health and well being of the people of Merthyr is paramount, and its residents cannot be treated as collateral damage. There can be no compromise here!

Let us have a look at what is on offer here.

Here is a list of health problems that may be caused by the pollution output from incinerators. The following list is taken from ‘The Country Doctor’ web site compiled by Dr Dick van Steenis . He has culled this information from many sources and shows traceability back to each source; but here is an unqualified list as a precis.

• Birth defects ---terminations, live defects, miscarriages. (See McMaster experiment 2004) .

• Premature deaths of babies, infants and adults including stillbirths.

• T-lymphocyte diversion/depletion causes SIDS, cot deaths, autism, MS, AIDS, GBS • Attention Deficit Disorder & Behavioural problems.

• Lower IQ & educational achievement eg 1or 2 classes down, worse GCSE grades.

• Asthma, COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), viral & other respiratory or other infections (85% younger boys)

• Coronary artery disease, heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, strokes, SADS

• Diabetes, Type 2 (and sometimes diabetes type 1) - massive rise in UK under tong.

• Multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies and arthritis.

• ME (gasses affect P450 & T-lymphocytc diversion) and CFS

• Clinical Depression. (9x rise Pembs), suicides, apathy, part of obesity problem.

• Hypothyroidism (part of obesity problem)

• Endometriosis & other hormones disrupted.

• Cancers - leukaemias, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, breast, colon, lung, bladder, kidney, liver. (For childhood cancers see Knox report January 2005 and Perera, et.al report July 2004). Cancer incidence has reached some 80% of deaths in Pembroke downwind of oil complex.

 

This proposed incinerator is part of a large waste management scheme coming out of a joint initiative (Project Gwyrdd) between five councils in South Wales (Cardiff, Newport, Monmouth, Vale-of-Glamorgan and Caerphilly). None of these councils want an incinerator in their neighbourhood; but are quite happy to dump one on Merthyr and expect us to burn their waste for them.

Attempts to get an incinerator built in Cardiff (half the size of this one!) are failing or may already have failed. Since Cardiff is one of the largest contributors of residual waste to this scheme, and the incinerator was to be on a prime site in central Cardiff with very good road and rail links; why has it been decided not to build it there? Why propose one more than twice its size in Merthyr Tydfil? Why use dangerous old technology when safer and newer technologies are available, like the Plasma Gasification plant currently awaiting planning consent at Hirwain? [we need to research this option - webmaster]

 N.B. - The following figures have been extrapolated from other incinerator sites as attempts to get the full details of the proposed Brig-y-Cwm incinerator have so far been fruitless! I don’t believe that they are very far out, but I welcome any input that would help me refine them.

The proposed incinerator would make Merthyr the Waste Capital of South Wales, and well beyond…

The proposal is for mass-burn incineration (producing 70 Mega Watts of electricity at ~20% electrical efficiency) producing an immense amount of waste heat (~ 140MW). Covanta or the WAG have not proposed to provide a combined heat-and-power solution so this heat is just wasted into the atmosphere.

The 750,000 tonnes/yr capacity will far exceed totals of residual domestic waste, (currently 330,000 tonnes from the five Project Gwyrdd counties – 2007/2008 figures), once levels of recycling and composting increase. When recycling and composting levels are raised to approximately 70%, the residual waste tonnage would shrink to less than 120,000 tonnes per annum, (assuming present trends continue) which is approximately 1/6th of the plants required annual throughput. To make up the tonnage, huge amounts of waste will have to be imported from an ever wider area. The incinerator has to be fed its 750,000 tonnes per annum no matter what, or it will stop working.

The local authority will be locked into a contract to supply this level of waste for the next 25-30 years. If they (we!) fail to supply, they/we will suffer punitive legal and financial repercussions.

Councils drawn into such long-term incinerator contracts such as at Crymlyn Burrows and Newhaven have been badly stung and are still trapped despite bitter legal battles. The company behind the Crymlyn Burrows incinerator went bankrupt leaving Neath Port Talbot council with the liability of running the plant and leading to them launching a £54m lawsuit against their advisers. The Crymlyn Burrows plant was recently issued with a site warning, by the Environment Agency, following a breach of permitted pollution limits and was warned that it could be liable for prosecution.

The bottom ash from this type of incinerator contains leachable metals and may be classed as hazardous. Not only the ~37,500 tonnes fly-ash (5% of input weight), but perhaps half the ~200,000 tonnes of bottom ash (25-30% of input) would have to go to hazardous waste landfill (n.b. - bottom ash is disliked for construction purposes, and less than half of the present production finds a market), so the five counties would have to provide one. Guess where we have a massive hole in Merthyr Tydfil? Yes, Ffos-y-Fran, right where the incinerator is proposed! How convenient!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Comments:

1. Why has the WAG stopped moving forward with the proposed Cardiff incinerator, (about least two years in the consultation)?

2. The proposed Cardiff incinerator is in a prime position in Trident Park with very good road and rail links. So why have they now decided that Merthyr would be a better site?

3. The residual waste from Cardiff for incineration would form up the largest amount, so it would have the shortest distance to travel to the Cardiff incinerator. So, why is Merthyr now the better option?

4. The proposed Cardiff incinerator was over-specified at 300,000 tonnes of residual waste burned per annum and would have had to bring more waste in from across Wales and possibly England to operate. Why is the proposed Merthyr plant more than twice the size at 750,000 tonnes?

5. Why is Covanta engineering saying that it will adhere to the tougher American emission laws when:

• They have failed to meet these standards in America and have been fined heavily on several occasions, and in different states, recently for their transgressions

• They can’t be held accountable for this, or be prosecuted, under British law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Covanta Energy, who will run this plant, have been prosecuted and fined heavily in America on several occasions quite recently for contravening air pollution laws. Covanta was fined:

• For emitting excessive amounts of carbon monoxide from its plant at Alexandria, and for failing to submit environmental reports (2003).

• [Repeatedly fined!] for releasing excessive amounts of dioxin and other toxic emissions.

• For illegal emissions of toxic air pollutants in Massachusetts.

• For toxic nickel emissions from a municipal waste incinerator in Pennsylvania (2008).

• For failing Indiana’s particulate emissions standards.

 

In 2003 Covanta was fined $14,695 by Virginia for emitting excessive amounts of carbon monoxide from its plant at Alexandria, and for failing to submit environmental reports. In New Jersey Covanta has been repeatedly fined for releasing excessive amounts of dioxin and other toxic emissions. Massachusetts cited Covanta Energy for illegal emissions of toxic air pollutants. In October 2008 Covanta was fined $45,600 for toxic nickel emissions from a municipal waste incinerator in Pennsylvania. And in the early 1990s the city of Indianapolis, Indiana agreed a “consent decree” with Ogden Martin under which the company agreed to pay $25,000 for failing the state’s particulate emissions standards.

 …and there does not appear to be any new technology in the proposed plant over and above those in use in the USA that would eliminate these dangerous pollutants

 

Covanta are currently in a major dispute in America with trade unions and the government accused of significant labour law transgressions.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- n.b. - The British Society for Ecological Medicine in 2006 observed that - incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including carcinogens, mutagens and hormone disputers, which can bio-accumulate, enter the food chain and cause chronic illness over time and across much wider geographical areas. Pretty damning stuff! Incineration not only releases high levels of CO2 but also NOx and ultrafine particles. In addition, emissions are not limited during start-up and close-down when high levels of dioxins have been found to be emitted.

 

n.b. - Dioxins are still an issue: officially these most toxic products are restricted to very low emission levels by incinerator filters, but studies overseas show that high levels are emitted during start-up and close-down when dioxins are not monitored in the UK

 

Incinerators emit DIOXINS and toxic FLY ASH as well as other contaminates that can travel up to a 30 to 40 mile radius. The pollutants are absorbed into water, soil and vegetation. Humans and mammals are high up the food chain and so absorb the greatest concentrations, (United Nations Environment Programme, 2004).

Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.

In other EU countries cows milk and cattle had to be destroyed due to pollution from an incinerator. The 1999 Belgian dioxin crisis caused huge restrictions on trade of milk, dairy products, beef, pork, poultry and eggs based foods. ( Brussels, 2001).

High temperature combustion processes such as incineration generate nano-particles with metallic, dioxin, and aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) coatings, which may be much worse for health.

Although incinerator fumes pass through expensive filter systems, modern incinerators still emit significant levels of NOx and of ultrafine particles. The latter includes nano-particles which are of great concern because they can pass through the lung lining, causing internal inflammation and penetrating to organs (even to the foetus in a pregnant mother)

There is no safe level of exposure to fine particulate air pollution, University of Ulster professor, Vyvyan Howard, told the College Proteins oral hearing last week. The toxicological research academic claimed evidence was emerging that no current incinerator design sufficiently abated dangerous nano-particles from potential emissions, and recent European studies pointed to such emissions as a source for between 3% to 6% of deaths in larger urban centres. The lungs and blood/brain barrier had been shown to be the routes these nano-particles could penetrate, all of them man-made chemicals which human evolution gave our normal defence mechanisms no history of tackling, said the Coleraine professor. There were findings to suggest they caused protein misfolding, making them toxic. The potential for such defective proteins contributing to the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease was the basis of the EU grant of €2.5 million his group was currently researching, he added.

 **************************************************************************************** Source - The Country Doctor :

Industry heavily influences UK-policies. Many committee members & lobbyists in pay of Glaxo etc. Wyeth/ABPI control health & vaccine programs. Govt. has mandated so drug co. freed of litigation. Selenomethionine etc. banned Aug. 2005. Govt. & industry control Guys PU now Health Protection Agency, who advise public health drs.& PCTs. Their "knowledge" is at least 64 years out of date. Birth defect data and cancer registers have been fraudulently massaged down and real causes of death altered. So-called studies are often fraudulent by fiddling data, dates, areas or controls, and omitting key references. Govt.check & censor media & UK medical & scientific journals. Truth is hidden, only is spin allowed. Subsidiary of BP/Amoco Oil Co. set up FoE c.1973 to protect oil cartel etc.& to control action groups (3 x £2000pa each) = £642000 of £8.1m income 2002. Many patient "charities" are controlled by drug co. donors and refuse to look at causes of the illness for which they collect money. Blair gave judges £1.5million each pension fund (possibly causing loyalty conflict of interest), Blair's crony Hodge runs Legal Aid. Solicitors have been influenced to lose cases. NHS Whistle blowers have been sacked or suspended.

Result, £46bn spent on NHS 1996 risen to £67bn 2005 (plus trust overdrafts plus capital savings less fees on PFI hospitals etc) meaning £11bn above inflation with only 1.5% extra output meaning £11bn extra costs from pollution due to "Tony's cronies" on top of previous £19bn, ie. £30bn current NHS pollution cost of which £24bn could be realistically saved, including disbanding corrupt committees/quangos. Invalidity benefit is now paid to 3% of population in parts of West Berkshire & North Hampshire relatively less polluted, compared with 20% Merthyr Tydfil & 40% above Port Talbot being more polluted areas, so scope for more savings.

Particle average sizes emitted from burning coal are alkaline PM5, heavy oils acidic PM2, orimulsion & waste mixes PM1. Only smaller than PM3 enters lungs. 90% of PM1 retained in lungs. Hence UK govt. only measures PM10 down to PM4 in monitors -totally irrelevant. At the new Grundon incinerators (Colnbrook) there will be no monitoring of PM2.5s, radioactivity or (after first year) dioxins. Power stations & oil refineries have unlimited emissions, cement works virtually the same, and incinerators unlimited PM2.5s, PM1s & PAHs at least. Even trains burn very substandard fuels, thanks to the Rail Regulator until 2011, without emission controls.

The only proper long-term study of health from incinerators was at St. Niklaas 2001 which was officially within EC directive but closed by court judge in court due to deaths & illnesses. Av. 12 years was taken off lifespan. Cancer incidence rose 480% on top of Belgian national increase. Slough had SMR 88 in 1990. After 5 years operation of Grundon's radioactive incinerator the SMR rose to 122 equal to 11 years off lifespan by 1995 and was again SMR121 in 2001. This meant a cull of population especially 50s.

Health effects result as expected around chimneys (2 miles) & downwind (highest rate 7miles per 100ft.chimney, total spread PM2.5s over 28 miles per 100ft., PM1s also cause dimming of sun. Health damage occurs within 3 mile of hazardous waste sites where for example incinerator fly-ash is dumped. One example is near Bishops Cleeve (Cheltenham) where radioactive fly-ash is dumped from Colnbrook & Bolton plus hazardous flyash from 3 other incinerators, without current liner, with cancer of ovary in two 30-year olds & another SADS victim noted recently.

PM2.5s set up inflammation in lungs, which are handled by macrophages & T-Lymphocytes. Excess or insoluble items walled off (fibrosis leading to COPD) soluble items travel via bloodstream. PAHs & heavy metals are amongst worst affecting heart & causing mutations of DNA leading to increase in birth defects and cancers. COPD now common in women.

 TOTAL EFFECTS INCLUDE

Birth defects ---terminations, live defects, miscarriages. See McMaster experiment 2004 .

Premature deaths of babies, infants and adults incl.stillbirths.

T-lymphocyte diversion/depletion causes SIDS, cot deaths, autism, MS, AIDS, GBS

Attention Deficit Disorder & Behaviour problems.

Lower IQ & educational achievement eg 1or 2 classes down, worse GCSE grades.

Asthma, COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), viral & other respiratory or other infections (85% younger boys)

Coronary artery disease, heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, strokes, SADS

Diabetes 2 (and sometimes diabetes 1) - massive rise in UK under tong.

Multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies and arthritis.

ME (gasses affect P450 & T-lymphocytc diversion) and CFS

Clinical depression. (9x rise Pembs), suicides, apathy., part of obesity problem.

Hypothyroidism (part of obesity problem)

Endometriosis & other hormones disrupted.

Cancers - leukaemias, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, breast, colon, lung, bladder, kidney, liver. For childhood cancers see Knox report Jan 2005 and Perera et.al report July 2004. Cancer incidence has reached some 80% of deaths in Pembroke downwind of oil complex.

Analysis of just birth defects, premature deaths all ages, childhood asthma, COPD, diabetes, suicides, heart attacks & cancers in Telford 2005 proved only worst wards had high pollution.

PROTECTION MEASURES.

Campaign & pray for revival with return of morality. Take selected public health directors to GMC for breaches of duties & fraud. Move house to less polluted zone. (Would it were possible!) Install HEPA filter in home. Some may like Airoma diffuser (reduces PM1s) Avoid pesticides and fluoridated water as much as possible as cocktail effects. Take added selenium, zinc, coenzyme Q10 and vitamins C. Public Health directors have orders from the GMC to protect the public, know their subject, keep up to date, listen to and be prepared to justify every sentence of all documents signed by them. The public health director at "XX" like many of his fellow directors are in breach of each of these rules, instead signing warrants for unlawful killing!

(© Dr Dick van Steenis – ‘The Country Doctor’) ****************************************************************************************

Are the waste industry, the Government and local councils making clear the climate problems of incinerators? From Government literature to brochures from incineration companies, the spin is that energy from waste is part of the solution to climate change. However, as we have discussed, the term energy from waste covers a wide range of different technologies and although some of these technologies do bring benefits in terms of climate change, not all of them do.

In fact incineration with electricity generation only – which is the main form of energy from waste in the UK at the moment – performs worse in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than a gas fired power station (Electricity-only incinerators emit 33 per cent more fossil CO2 than gas power stations). However, this has not stopped both the industry and the Government trying to sell this technology as “green” to the public.

In fact, studies show that for electricity-only incinerators (incinerators that do not optimise the use of the heat they produce) such as the one proposed in Merthyr Tydfil, energy production is so inefficient that, from a climate change perspective, incineration is worse than gas-fired or coal-fired power stations!

The Landfill Directive set down by the European Union led to the Government of the United Kingdom imposing waste legislation including the landfill tax and Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. This legislation is designed to reduce the release of greenhouse gases produced by landfills through the use of alternative methods of waste treatment. It is the UK Government's position that incineration will play an increasingly large role in the treatment of municipal waste and supply of energy in the UK. So, they have to comply or be fined by the European Union. They will drive these incinerators through because they believe that they have no option, but there are some very viable options…

Established waste treatment technologies:

• Composting

• Incineration

• Landfill

• Recycling

• Windrow composting

Advanced waste treatment technologies (Also called alternative waste treatment technologies) :

• Anaerobic digestion

• Alcohol/ethanol production o Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels (pilot scale)

• Biodrying

• Gasification

• GasPlasma:Gasification followed by syngas plasma polishing (commercial test scale)

• In-vessel composting

• Mechanical biological treatment

• Mechanical heat treatment

• Plasma arc waste disposal (commercial demonstration scale)

• Pyrolysis

• Sewage treatment

• Tunnel composting

• UASB (applied to solid wastes)

• Waste autoclave

Alternative technologies are available or are in development such as Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Autoclaving or Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) using steam, or Plasma arc gasification PGP, or combinations. Erection of incinerators block out the development and introduction of other emerging technologies. A UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK median incinerator costs per metric ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by £18 per metric ton ; and £27 per metric ton most for modern (post 2000) incineratiors.

 

A safer way of processing waste [this needs to be researched - webmaster] is plasma-gasification which runs on electricity, produces vitrified gravel, hydrogen & electricity – all of which is safe and saleable - and has very low emissions at a net cost of £23 - £32 per ton compared with incinerators of c.£63 per ton plus the attendant health damage plus huge volumes of toxic ash for disposal. Hirwain (the old Tower Colliery site?) has a current planning application in for an incinerator using this technology at the moment .

 

******************************************************************************************

The Welsh Assembly Government is dumping on Merthyr yet again! Trecatti, Ffos-y-Fran, and now Brig-y-Cwm Projects that no-one else will have - given to the town that no-one cares about. They’re just heaping heartache upon heartache.

There are commercially viable, cheaper, and safer alternatives to this type of waste processing, but for some reason the WAG appear to be ignoring the options.

It’s time to draw the line! The people of Merthyr have been oppressed for far too long and have become submissive and accepting as they believe that there’s nothing that they can do to affect anything! The people we’ve spoken to don’t want this incinerator, and believe that we’re just being used again by the government (at all levels), but they don’t think that it’s worth fighting it because it’s just going to happen anyway!

This may be all to true in this case, as many of these incinerators have been driven through against fierce local opposition, but we can’t let this one have an easy ride.

The health authority representatives know at least as much as we know about the health risks to the people in the local community (and probably far more…) of this incinerator, so if they sign this thing off at the planning stage they will know that statistically they will be signing peoples death warrants and seriously impacting the health of a significant number of residents in Merthyr, Fochriw, and surrounding areas.

I think that the key health officials need to be reminded of what it is that they are about to do, and if they still go ahead that they can be held to account for their actions.

******************************************************************************************

 

The Western Mail features an article entitled: Incinerator giant hit by states’ fines, describing how:

[Covanta] the firm behind a huge incinerator planned for South Wales has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US for emitting cancer-causing chemicals from similar plants.

 …news of the company’s track record of law-breaking in the States has horrified local residents in Merthyr, where it would next to the controversial Ffos-y-Fran opencast coal mine.

Covanta was fined:

• For emitting excessive amounts of carbon monoxide from its plant at Alexandria, and for failing to submit environmental reports (2003).

• [Repeatedly fined] for releasing excessive amounts of dioxin and other toxic emissions.

• For illegal emissions of toxic air pollutants in Massachusetts. • For toxic nickel emissions from a municipal waste incinerator in Pennsylvania (2008)• For failing Indiana’s particulate emissions standards.

Elizabeth Condron, who mounted an unsuccessful legal challenge against the mine, is quoted as saying:

How can we be expected to have confidence in a company that has broken the law on numerous occasions in America? We are already suffering the effects of the mine. Now we have another battle on our hands to stop this going ahead.

R Jones, Chairman, Swansea Friends of the Earth, has written to the paper expressing the concerns of many:

It is with concern that we hear that a huge incinerator plant is being planned near to the Trecatti Tip and the Ffos y Fran opencast mine (“£400m waste incinerator ‘sprung’ on community blighted by mine,” Jan 29).

The people of Merthyr are, it seems, being singled out yet again for an environmentally unfriendly development. It appears that Covanta Energy, a US-owned company, is behind the project. In October last year the American branch of the company was fined $45,600 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for exceeding the permissible limits for emissions of toxic nickel and related compounds. Incineration in Wales does not have a good reputation either. The company behind the Crymlyn Burrows incinerator went bankrupt leaving Neath Port Talbot council with the liability of running the plant and leading to them launching a £54m lawsuit against their advisers. The Crymlyn Burrows plant was recently issued with a site warning, by the Environment Agency, following a breach of permitted pollution limits and was warned that it could be liable for prosecution. Merthyr badly needs jobs but it needs good, healthy and clean jobs. Having a reputation for being the dumping ground of Wales is not going to encourage good employers to want to set up in the town.

 

A similar report was included in the South Wales Echo:

Incinerator giant hit by states’ fines

Feb 9 2009 by Martin Shipton, South Wales Echo

The firm behind a huge incinerator planned for South Wales has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US for emitting cancer-causing chemicals from similar plants. Last week Covanta unveiled plans for an incinerator at Merthyr Tydfil that would generate electricity and burn around 750,000 tonnes of waste a year. But news of the company’s track record of law-breaking in the States has horrified local residents in Merthyr, where it would next to the controversial Ffos-y-Fran opencast coal mine. In 2003 Covanta was fined $14,695 by Virginia for emitting excessive amounts of carbon monoxide from its plant at Alexandria, and for failing to submit environmental reports. In New Jersey Covanta has been repeatedly fined for releasing excessive amounts of dioxin and other toxic emissions. Massachusetts cited Covanta Energy for illegal emissions of toxic air pollutants. In October 2008 Covanta was fined $45,600 for toxic nickel emissions from a municipal waste incinerator in Pennsylvania. And in the early 1990s the city of Indianapolis, Indiana agreed a “consent decree” with Ogden Martin under which the company agreed to pay $25,000 for failing the state’s particulate emissions standards. Elizabeth Condron, who mounted an unsuccessful legal challenge against the mine, said: “How can we be expected to have confidence in a company that has broken the law on numerous occasions in America? “We are already suffering the effects of the mine. Now we have another battle on our hands to stop this going ahead.” Scott Whitney, president of Covanta-Europe, said: “Covanta Energy is the world leader in the operation of energy from waste facilities. “We operate on a policy of honesty and transparency and believe in active dialogue with existing and potential neighbours. Covanta fully supports the concept of the three Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle and will commit itself to these principles in Wales. “We have no problem with people and campaigners voicing their opposition – debate is the foundation of consensus. “The company’s global track record in safety is excellent and this can be verified by a wide range of awards and acknowledgements the company has received in recent years from environmental and governmental bodies. “The plant proposed at Merthyr will take much of the waste across Wales after recycling; it will greatly reduce truck movements as most waste will be moved by trains in sealed containers; produce enough electricity to meet the needs of 180,000 homes and provide employment for 500 people during construction and a further 100 jobs once it is operational. “Most importantly, we will work with the local community, as we have in our other partner communities, to establish monitoring of the plant in a meaningful way that will allow them to see what’s going on for themselves and to verify that it will operate within strict environmental guidelines. “In addition a community liaison panel will be established to help inform Covanta of how best it can operate within the Merthyr Tydfil area and be a good neighbour.”

 martin.shipton@mediawales.co.uk

 

The Merthyr Express!!

 Incinerator firm’s law-breaking past Feb 12 2009 by Ian Caleb,

Merthyr Express

The American firm behind the Merthyr Tydfil incinerator has been repeatedly fined for emitting cancer-causing chemicals from similar plants. Last week Covanta Energy unveiled plans for the Brig-y-Cwm incinerator, able to generate enough electrical power for up to 180,000 homes and creating up to 600 jobs for the borough. But news of the company’s track record of law-breaking in the States has horrified residents, of where it would sit next to the controversial Ffos-y-Fran opencast coal mine. Five separate cases have come to light in the wake of Covanta’s announcement of fines levied against the company, with a six-figure total accrued over the last two decades. Their offences include the emissions of excess carbon monoxide, dioxins and nickel from plants as far afield as Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. They have also received fines for failing to submit vital environmental reports, although they have reached consent with several authorities to pay fines for their faults. Scott Whitney, president of Covanta-Europe, defended the company and said they were the world leader in the operation of energy from waste facilities. “We operate on a policy of honesty and transparency and believe in active dialogue with existing and potential neighbours. Covanta fully supports the concept of the three Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle and will commit itself to these principles in Wales,” said Mr Whitney. “We have no problem with people and campaigners voicing their opposition – debate is the foundation of consensus.” He added the company’s global track record in safety is excellent, and can be verified by a wide range of awards and acknowledgements the company has received in recent years from environmental and governmental bodies. “We will work with the local community, as we have in our other partner communities, to establish monitoring of the plant in a meaningful way that will allow them to see what’s going on for themselves and to verify that it will operate within strict environmental guidelines,” said Mr Whitney. “In addition a community liaison panel will be established to help inform Covanta of how best it can operate within the Merthyr Tydfil area and be a good neighbour.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Myths of the Iincineration Industry October 2001 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk

Great myths of the incineration industry

Emissions from modern incinerators pose no health risk

Anyone who says modern incinerators are safe is either misinformed or lying. Everyone knows the chemicals created and released during incineration process are dangerous. No one knows if the volumes discharged – even from the most modern incinerators – are safe.

The Environment Agency has conceded that it is "generally accepted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe" and that "the health effects which result from an incinerator's emissions are not yet fully known".

Environment Minister Michael Meacher admitted in June 1999 that: "emissions from incinerator processes are extremely toxic. Some emissions are carcinogenic… We must use every reasonable instrument to eliminate them altogether".

The incineration industry is the most tightly regulated and monitored industry in the UK?  This is a complete red herring! The regulations are meaningless and the monitoring is a joke. The regulations, as noted above, are based on what is technically feasible rather than what is safe. There is little to no monitoring of some of the most toxic substances created by incineration. Dioxin monitoring occurs no more than twice a year. Incinerator operators regularly break their legal limits with impunity.

{n.b. - Dioxins are still an issue: officially these most toxic products are restricted to very low emission levels by incinerator filters, but studies overseas show that high levels are emitted during start-up and close-down when dioxins are not monitored in the UK}

A report released by Greenpeace this year, based on the Environment Agency's own records of emissions breaches reported by incinerator operators, revealed that England's 10 operating incinerators had exceeded their 1999 and 2000 pollution limits 553 times. Only one Environment Agency prosecution resulted. The report reached the inevitable conclusion that incineration is an unreliable and dangerous technology incapable of being regulated with proper regard to human health and the environment.

There are more dioxins released during bonfire night than incinerators release in a year

This is the incineration industry's favourite response to accusations that it is unnecessarily polluting the population with dioxin, the most toxic manmade chemical ever identified.

There is some limited evidence to suggest that dioxin levels in the atmosphere do rise after bonfire night. This appears to be caused by both the fireworks and the bonfires. Fireworks contain PVC, combustion of which creates and releases dioxins, and the average bonfire often contains plastic, waste motor oil, and treated timber, to name but a few of the dubious items people chuck in to the mix. Combustion of all these materials can lead to dioxin formation.

Bonfires may indeed be a significant source of dioxin to atmosphere. This simply illustrates the pollution problems created when mixed materials are burned, as they are in incinerators. The most recent study of dioxin emissions in the UK concludes that, of all industrial sources of dioxins, municipal waste incinerators contribute between a third and a half of the total.iii

In making claims about bonfires, the industry ignores the fact that no one really knows how much dioxin is discharged into the environment every year by incinerators, as dioxin measurements are only taken twice a year. A Belgian study shows that dioxin levels, if continuously monitored, may very well be 30–50 times higher than the figure extrapolated from semi-annual monitoring. Whatever the real total is, the fact remains that incinerators are highly polluting and no attempt to divert attention to bonfires, barbecues or bush fires will change that.

The UK cannot meet EU landfill targets without increasing incineration

Landfilling of municipal waste has to be reduced for a variety of reasons, foremost among them is the European Union Landfill Directive. Some local authorities claim incineration is necessary to meet the UK's commitments under the Directive. This position is untenable. In order to meet the landfill directive targets the UK need do no more than recycle or compost 30% of household newspaper, card and organic waste by 2010. This target and the targets for 2013 and 2020, can easily be met and exceeded with technology currently available and in use in other parts of the world. Cities and regions around the world have already achieved much more than this.

Incineration does not make rubbish magically disappear, it simply turns rubbish into something else. If you put 100 tonnes of rubbish into an incinerator you get many tonnes of dangerous air pollution and 30 tonnes of contaminated ash. There are two types of ash. The largest amount is 'bottom' ash, the solid residual of the combustion process. Depending on what has been burned, this ash can be contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants. The other type of ash is 'fly' ash, the highly toxic particles captured in the pollution controls of the incinerator's chimney. The greatest reduction in mass that an incinerator can achieve is 70%, having turned the bulk of the rubbish into air pollution.

Currently operating, state-of-the-art screening and composting systems are already achieving 70% or more reduction in the mass of waste in Canadian and Australian cities. At the same time as they are eliminating the pollution problems associated with incinerators, they are providing a useful, sometimes marketable, product. These technologies could easily be used here.

Incineration is more environmentally friendly than landfilling Burning and burying are not the only options for waste materials, most of which can be reused or recycled. One of the biggest environmental problems posed by landfills is the leaching of decomposing organic material. If kitchen and garden waste were dealt with by composting, this problem would be largely resolved. If, in addition, all other reusable and recyclable materials such as paper, metal, glass and textiles were collected separately, the volume of waste in most communities would have been reduced by over 70%.

There is nothing environmentally friendly about incineration. Even a supposedly state-of-the-art incinerator,iv discharges a hazardous cocktail of dioxin, greenhouse gases, dust and other pollutants. After the rubbish is burned, a minimum of 30% of what goes in remains as bottom and highly toxic fly ash. Incinerator operators claim – despite unresolved concerns about the safety of this practice – that bottom ash can be "recycled" in road and building materials. It should not be put to this use. Fly ash from the filter systems which capture some pollutants (and comprises more than 10% of total ash) must legally be disposed of in secure hazardous waste landfill sites.

A number of efforts have been made to quantify the environmental costs and benefits of various waste disposal options. According to figures published by the Government,v incineration with energy recovery is bad for the environment, having an estimated environmental cost of £10 per tonne. This compares to an environmental cost of £3 per tonne for landfill. Recycling, on the other hand, provides an overall environmental benefit of £161 per tonne.

Creating energy from waste is good for the environment because it saves fossil fuels and reduces greenhouse gas emissions

A large number of the chemicals released through incinerator chimneys are greenhouse gases. The plastics they burn are made from fossil fuels. Also, for things like paper, card and textiles, it takes considerably more energy to manufacture the product from scratch than it takes to recycle it. This, combined with the incinerator's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is a substantial net loss to the environment. Other materials like metals and glass have no calorific value. Incineration is a very inefficient and polluting way of generating energy.

A certain amount of energy from waste could be captured using naturally occurring methane from community composting facilities based on anaerobic digestion. For the sake of the planet, the rest of our energy needs should be met by truly renewable sources: solar, wind and wave power, for example.

Heat is a by-product of all combustion-based industrial processes. It should be standard industrial practice to capture and utilise this waste heat and energy. There is, however, nothing "green" about doing this.

Incineration and recycling can work together

Cities in the UK that have incinerators often have some of the lowest recycling rates in the country. In order to maximise profits, incinerator operators must have a large and constant supply of rubbish to burn. Many local authorities are attracted to the idea of an incinerator because it means they do not have to change anything. Rubbish can still be collected in the same vehicle by the same workforce and can still be delivered to one location. A polluting technology is being embraced, not because it makes sense from a health or environmental perspective, but because it is easy.

In some cases, local authorities have an ownership interest in an incinerator. In others, they are bound by contracts to supply guaranteed tonnages of waste. In all cases, an incinerator provides an easy option when recycling becomes a little more challenging. In these ways incinerators minimise the incentive to recycle and compost. The capital investment is a structural barrier to doing this, providing a financial imperative to make sure that recycling and composting never reach levels where there is not enough rubbish to incinerate.

An all party Environment Committee, after studying evidence presented by the incineration industry, the government, waste professionals, academics and environmental groups, concluded that large incinerators are “inimical to the prospects for recycling and composting”.vi

Recycling creates more pollution than incineration due to re-manufacturing and increased lorry movements for delivery

There is absolutely no doubt that in almost every instance recycling causes less pollution, saves more energy and more resources than incineration. Environment Minister Michael Meacher has said “the best practicable environmental option in the vast majority of cases is recycling”.

Only a very poorly designed waste strategy would result in increased pollution from lorries. In a well designed recycling/waste reduction scheme, the same number of vehicles should be making the same number of collections. Shipment of collected materials to recycling plants need not involve lorries at all.

Gasification and pyrolysis are not incineration An incinerator by any other name will still pollute. Gasification and pyrolysisviii are unproven technologies that are liable to have many of the same problems as a conventional incinerator, including the production of hazardous pollutants from thermal and chemical reactions, and the discharge of these pollutants in ash and air emissions. Neither gasification nor pyrolysis are solutions to the fundamentally dirty and flawed practice of mixing municipal waste and then trying to dispose of it. Separation of municipal waste at source is the only way to significantly reduce releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Source separation will also end the unacceptable waste of resources represented by incineration. To all intents and purposes gasification and pyrolysis are no different from incineration. Recovery of energy from the process is a misguided attempt to present incineration as a "green" option. Current suggestion by the Department of Trade and Industryix that energy produced from burning organic waste in gasification or pyrolysis plants should count as a contribution to the Government's Renewables Obligation, will only prolong an unnecessary debate. Separated organic waste is much more valuable for composting.

 

 i Department of Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, March 2001, report HC 39-1, Delivering Sustainable Waste Management. ii Criminal Damage: A Review of Compliance by English Municipal Waste Incinerators with Legal Pollution Standards for 1999 and 2000. Greenpeace UK, May 2001. iii Alcock et al, 1998, Organohalogen Compounds Vol 36, "An updated UK PCDD/F atmospheric inventory based on recent emissions measurements programme": iv The most modern incinerator in the UK, the 420,000 tonne capacity South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP), in the year 2000 discharged over 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, over 550 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 22 tonnes of hydrogen chloride, and 19 tonnes of carbon monoxide. After burning all this rubbish and emitting all these pollutants, over 126,000 tonnes of ash remained, requiring disposal. (Source: Environment Agency) http://www.greenpeace.org.uk v Department of Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, Waste Strategy 2000:England and Wales (Part 2), May 2000 vi Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Delivering Sustainable Waste Management vii Evidence before the Environment , Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on 12 December 2000 viii Gasification involves heating waste in the presence of air or steam to produce fuel-rich gases. Pyrolysis involves heating waste in the absence of air to produce a mixture of gaseous and liquid fuels and a solid, inert residue. (Source: Waste Strategy 2000 Part 2, May 2000) ix Department of Trade and Industry Renewables Obligation Statutory Consultation, New & Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century, August 2001. WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change. WRAP is set to go ahead with swingeing cuts across its programmes, after receiving confirmation from Defra today that it must cut its spending by 30%.As part of Defra's Budget Settlement for 2008/09, the Waste and Resources Action Programme has been told its Defra funding will reduce to £43.22 million.

© The Residents Against Ffos-y-Fran Group, 2008 | The Incinerator Page | Last Updated: 16th June 2009 || Design by: The Masked Avenger