Incinerator

[hank]

An incinerating plant is being proposed in my area. A protest group has already been set up. However; I think they may be going ‘over the top’ with their facts.
This is what they are claiming –

Numerous studies confirm that a typical incinerator releases a cocktail of known toxic chemicals, including dioxins, lead, cadmium and mercury. Other pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and fine particles are also released into the atmosphere.
Depending on the height of the incinerator chimney, these harmful particles can spread up to 15 miles.

Whilst sympathetic to the cause, I cannot believe that in this day and age, any such plant would be allowed.
Does anyone have any experience of these plants?

Keith.

[snowdrop]

I used to live within half a mile of one. Toxic chemicals weren't spoken of then but oh, the smell when they burned amputated body parts and used dressings/swabs. Acrid isn't the word. Ugh..I can still recall the taste of it.

[Country lover]

Incinerator outputs are governed by the EU Waste Incineration Directive and you would release over 20 times the dioxins from your household chimney than you would in an incineration plant.

Modern incineration plants have very effective emission cleaning systems.

Germany used to have the highest number of waste incineration plants and they were a concern in the 80's and early 90's because of the level of pollutants they emitted. In the late 90's they replaced their flue gas cleaning systems and reduced the emission levels from incineration plants from a wopping 30% of the countries output to less than 1%.

Basically the waste is burnt at very high temperatures .. this produces ash, particulates, heat and flue gases.

Without getting too technical, there are a number of filtration systems in modern incineration plants to deal with filtering the flue gases, waste water, the fly ash (bottom ash just goes into landfill but fly ash contains heavy metals) and the collection of particulates.

Most of the old concerns are now dealt with by the filtration system, however about 1 in 500 parts of particle emissions are still being released. Also the fly ash is toxic and still of concern, it must be disposed of in special landfill sites.

I remember going to do some work at the Tysley waste incinerator a number of years ago and they had just received the results of their flue emissions ... it was actually cleaner than the air we normally breath.

Here's some further reading for you:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...d-guidance.pdf

scoot down to Annex 2 on page 77 and you will see the Waste Incineration Directive

Annex 4 on page 81 shows the emission limits for waste water discharges.

Annex 5 on page 82 shows the emission limits for air.

It's not an easy read as you need some scientific understanding but the emissions are stringently monitored by the Environment Agency.

There is no easy solution to waste ... yet ... we produce masses of the stuff, our landfills are rapidly running out of room and we have to find new ways of disposing of the waste we produce.

If I had a choice of living next to a landfill or an incinerator I would choose the incinerator, as long as it was a modern one.

[hank]

Snowdrop: Thanks, I hadn't thought of the smell issue, that would certainly be annoying.

Country lover: Thanks. That's a real detailed document. I thought that may be the case. The protest group does itself no favours by using scare tactics. If they campaigned along the lines of Snowdrops objection, i.e. no one wants a smelly incinerator on their backyard, I think they would get more sympathy and support.

Keith.

[Country lover]

I'm afraid the smell argument won't work really, at the end of the day every household in the UK produces some kind of waste and yes nobody wants the waste on their doorstep but these plants and landfills have to go somewhere and are usually sited for operational ease.

If I was to campaign against one in my area I would use the fly ash argument, it's a much stronger argument.

[kiltoncomp]

Originally Posted by Country lover

I'm afraid the smell argument won't work really, at the end of the day every household in the UK produces some kind of waste and yes nobody wants the waste on their doorstep but these plants and landfills have to go somewhere and are usually sited for operational ease.

If I was to campaign against one in my area I would use the fly ash argument, it's a much stronger argument.

i dont know how accurate this is , but the power stations in the trent valley used to pipe their fly ash into lagoons where it was stored, these were later used for production of something called "cemsave" which was something mixed with cement to lower costs etc,
i was told this information by a lorry driver who was transporting the fly ash, after asking him what it was being used for,
it would seem there is a use for every waste product, but some are not economical to recover and use so are "disposed" of , often in ways that may not always be good for the enviroment

[Country lover]

Fly ash is used for a few things but my concerns are about the transport of toxic ash, as you said Kiltoncomp you spoke to a lorry driver that transported it ... have you ever seen anything loaded, transported and unloaded by lorry that doesn't have any chance of ash escaping?

To be honest it's not a huge concern of mine because I understand the waste industry but if I was campaigning against an incinerator it's where I would be looking for something solid to base my argument on.

[nightshade]

The way to go is possibly the sheer volume of road/rail traffic 24-7 as not only the counties waste but other areas too negotiate contracts to make the plant a good economic prospect

[pressld2]

They're currently building one about a mile from me...



I'm monitoring the progress because there was a population of water voles on the site that are currently being hotelled and I'm keeping an eye on how well the replacement habitat is developing.

The people of Belvedere spent 15 years protesting against this development, not (at least in my case) because of any particular opposition to energy from waste incineration plants but because a) it's being built to burn rubbish from Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea and all three of these boroughs have sites on which it could have been built so don't you DARE call me a NIMBY , b) this particular stretch of the Thames estuary is already the most heavily polluted area in western Europe so it's someone else's turn - our back yard is full, and c) although they'll be bringing the rubbish in by barge on the Thames they'll be taking the ash away by road. Leaving aside the dangers of fly ash spillage this will mean a 30%+ increase in heavy lorry movements through Belvedere.

But if you do object, here's how it's going to go...

1. Plans to build an incinerator published, local opposition group set up, lots of campaigning, public inquiry, plans thrown out, whoopee, much rejoicing.
   
2. Slightly different plans to build an incinerator published, local opposition group resurrected, lots of campaigning, public inquiry, plans thrown out, whoopee, much rejoicing.
   
3. Repeat step 2.
   
4. And again.
   
5. Slightly different plans to build an incinerator published, local opposition group resurrected, lots of campaigning, public inquiry, plans thrown out, secretary of state overrules public inquiry, incinerator gets built.

Okay, call me a cynic if you like but that's what happened here. And it was such a perverse decision that I'm left in no doubt that someone, somewhere got a very hefty backhander but I don't know who and I can't prove anything so I didn't just say that.

Dave P.

[Paul mabbott]

The problem is not the incineration per se but what will be incinerated. [Some of the past and possible problems are given at: Education - Industrial air pollution ]
For sure a lot of the hazardous substances which were burned and spread all over the neighbourhoos are now not used in industry (or not supposed to be used .... ) especially heavy metals (Cadmium, Arsenic, Lead, Mercury &c &c). However the products or components of the vast range of plastics (which make up the majority of incinerated waste) only need to be voided in tiny quantities to be a severe chronic hazard.
Someone else may have mentioned that of course incinerators have well defined criteria for what they can accept and they wouldn't lie or be sloppy would they? However, they have to take the word of waste disposal firms who are paying their wages and (many of whom) have not the slightest regard for health and safety ..... so, I think, everyone is right to be very, very worried ....