аЯрЁБс>ўџ KMўџџџJџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС7 №П*bjbjUU e<7|7|ф%6џџџџџџlp p p p p p p $” оооP.J” Й/2rr(šššuuu8/:/:/:/:/:/:/$ы0  3 ^/p uuuuu^/Ћp p ššлs/ЋЋЋu6p šp š8/Ћu8/ЋАЋ[2J*.p p 8/šf `œУ/ХЌФ” JоЋЪx,.8/‰/0Й/І,’4u648/Ћ” ” p p p p йThe Colnbrook Incinerators These incinerators have the potential to affect the lives of 5 million people- that's 10% of the population of England. The sad fact is that our children will suffer the most. Is this ethical? Isn’t it reasonable to expect that a decision of this magnitude, which appears to have a number of major flaws, can be cross-examined? Reasons to be concerned about the Colnbrook Incinerators A wealth of scientific data exists that raises serious concerns about the health impact of incinerators. Those at greatest risk are children. The population in this area is already vulnerable, with some of the highest mortality rates from heart disease and lung cancer in the South-East. The financial case for incinerators is fatally flawed - even government data proves it. The proposed technology is outdated and has been criticised by independent consultants engaged by the West London Waste Authority as "not best available technology". Corporate profits are being put above public health. The safety assessments which were critical to obtaining an IPPC license were flawed and could be claimed to have been misrepresented. Processes put in place by the Environment Agency to safeguard public safety have been flouted by incinerator operators - 550 pollution offences have resulted in only a single prosecution. For further details, see the following pages. Please contact Kathy Arnold at mail4.sain@virgin.net for further information. Health Concerns Independent modelling has shown that these incinerators will produce large increases in dangerous particulates which could have a devastating effect on the health of up to 5 million people. The WHO consider that 4% of deaths in children under 4 can be attributed to particulates and have stated that "particulate pollution is one of the most important contributors to ill health in Europe". Five scientific papers have linked birth defects with incinerators. The steep rise in birth defects in both Hillingdon and Hounslow are strongly suspected to be linked to the existing incinerator in Colnbrook. Particulate pollution is associated with 18 different diseases and the WHO Air Quality Guidelines clearly show that mortality, hospital admission rates and asthma increase as particulate pollution increases. The particulates in question are known carcinogens. At a time when cancer has reached a lifetime risk of 1 in 3 it is simply not ethical to add to the carcinogenic load in this way when safer alternatives are readily available. At least 10 scientific papers have found an association between incinerators and cancer. Worryingly, the only long term study of an individual incinerator (Sint Niklaas) was omitted from the DEFRA report. The Knox study demonstrated a doubling of children's leukaemia and cancer for those living within 5km of an incinerator. Pollution is already over the statutory limits in the Colnbrook area for both particulates and nitrogen di oxide. No one appears to have considered that the statutory limits for particulates will be sharply reduced in 2010 and it will not be possible to meet these stricter limits in this area with the current levels of pollution, let alone increased levels from these two new incinerators. In addition, the area around Heathrow was designated an Air Quality Management Area in 2001. This means that efforts should be made to reduce pollution in this area, not increase it. Financial Concerns Incinerating waste is financial folly. The people who make the financial case in favour of incinerators are those who stand to make corporate profits or those who are not responsible for the consequential costs incinerators cause. This is both a tragic and unnecessary situation as technology exists which will greatly diminish pollution and make better financial sense. The Government's own data in Waste Strategy 2000 shows that every tonne of waste incinerated imposes an environmental cost of Ѓ10, whereas every tonne going to landfill costs Ѓ3 and every tonne recycled gives environmental benefits of Ѓ160. The figures speak for themselves. A study by the European Commission found that an incinerator of the size proposed for Colnbrook would cause between Ѓ9 million and Ѓ57 million worth of health and environmental damage each year. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that their policy of strict control of air pollution led to a saving of health costs of between $120 and $190 billion between 1992 and 2002. Scientific research has estimated that regulating small particulates and keeping them within the 15mcg/m3 air quality standard would lead to savings in health cost of between $14 and $55 billion per year. An incinerator would have the exactly opposite effect and increase small particulates. Best Available Technology Grundons are intending to use an outmoded version of an outmoded technology when the existing pollution levels in the area dictate that the very safest method of waste disposal should have been chosen. These plans have been criticised by independent consultants in a recent report commissioned by the West London Waste Authority. Lives are being put at risk for no other reason than to boost corporate profits. This is unacceptable by any standards. Firstly, corners are being cut in the all-important area of pollution abatement technology: Grundons intend to use SNCR (selective non catalytic reactors) for the removal of nitrous oxides even though they are aware that the alternative technology of SCR (selective catalytic reactor) is considered best practice in Europe. Grundons intend to use the semi-dry scubbing system for removing pollutants. This again does not constitute best available technology and gives a relatively poor performance compared to the best European incinerators which use the wet scrubbing process. This will add to the load of toxic and carcinogenic substances being emitted into the air we all breath. Both of these decisions reduce investment in pollution abatement and therefore reduce the direct costs of waste disposal. However, the European Commission, in 1999, estimated that each pound spent in pollution abatement saved six pounds in health costs and four pounds in social security costs. Not only is the decision to cut comers unethical, it is also a further example of financial folly. Secondly, and more importantly, traditional incineration is now not considered best available technology: At the Public Enquiry at Hull, the best available technology was considered to be gasification. The reasons given for this were that this technology produced less particulate pollution, emitted fewer heavy metals (many of which are known carcinogens), and was no more expensive over the long term (as more electricity is produced). That conclusion is still valid and applies to Colnbrook. In addition the Environment Agency's own report suggested that gasification is the Best Available Technology for clinical waste. Safety Assessment The process of safety assessment surrounding one of the largest incinerators in Europe is full of gaping holes. A large scale incinerator of this type needs a thorough and robust assessment for safety and potential health effects. This has not been done. There were several unsatisfactory aspects to the Environment Agency's approval of the IPPC licence in December 2003: Slough PCT admitted they had no experience in the field of preparing an IPPC Application report. They therefore asked the London Division of Chemical Hazards and Poisons for a report. They, in turn, issued a CIRS report which was simply a rehash of Grundon's Environmental Impact Assessment. The report was based upon data derived from Grundon's original modelling data. Modelling data is an inexact science and can easily be skewed in favour of the polluter. The Environment Agency's own report on modelling confirms that the process is unreliable and that there are wide variations between different models. Independent modelling has demonstrated a very different picture with sizeable increases in particulates at levels which would cause significant health effects. In effect, the applicant wrote his own "independent" report based upon easily manipulated data from an intrinsically inaccurate methodology. Another unsatisfactory aspect was that the PCT wrote a report on only the clinical incinerator and omitted to do one on the energy to waste incinerator. The Environment Agency later accepted this as a combined report. Slough PCT have also raised concerns about synergistic effects of the pollutants and were concerned enough to ask for longitudinal health studies to assess the impact of the incinerators. The Environment Agency chose to interpret the report as stating no health effects would occur. Public Safety One of the greatest concerns regarding incinerators is the lack of adequate regulation and a third-world record on enforcement. A report on 10 incinerators in 1999 and 2000 demonstrated that they were responsible for over 550 pollution offences in that two year period alone. These were all criminal offences but resulted in only one prosecution. No one can have any confidence in the safety of such as system. In 1999 a report entitled "Who does the Environment Agency Protect?" was sent to the Minister for the Environment and suggested a very cosy relationship between the EA and the waste industry. The fact that senior members of the EA have sometimes worked, at a high level, in industries responsible for some of the most serious pollution offences does little to reassure the public. Which reason do you need to insist upon a full review of the Colnbrook incinerators? Health? Costs? Technology? Due process? Public safety? Ethics?  FILENAME Colnbrookincinerators Page  PAGE 4 [дмнZcdežŸж-jПќHАъёђ-xЌх ‚ Г Д Ф  `   J ь   h Е ь э 7 „ а l­љe‰њђътпђзЯпЪСпМпМпЗпМпЗВпМпМпМп­ЊЅЂЂ˜Ђ“ЂЂ“Ђ˜Ž“ЂЂ“Ђ˜Ђ@ˆўџCJ@ˆєџCJ@ˆјџCJ@ˆљџCJCJ@ˆџџCJ@ˆќџ@ˆ§џCJ@ˆђџCJ@ˆљџCJ@ˆјџCJ5>*@ˆіџCJ\@ˆіџCJ6@ˆєџCJ]6@ˆїџCJ]CJ6@ˆіџCJ]6@ˆњџCJ]6@ˆјџCJ] 6@ˆјџ]7нdežŸ-Пђx4 5 Б В Г Д Ф ‚ K  э б ‰§ћћћћћћъъъъъъћћћћћшћцццццц$" & F„ „рўЄxЄx^„ `„рўф)*§§‰ж mž&UWjЅю=PQЁмМя№ВMp S•АёAн*Sї<‚Щb–жdІіR›п–е*jМo  V!—!С!Т!"E"j"z"ј"џ"@#„#Ÿ# #т#-$w$ћіѓюѓщѓфѓіпѓфпѓпѓкћѓепѓкпѓеѓіаѓащѓкфѓщЫѓщѓкфщѓпѓіеѓЦпѓѓкѓпѓкћѓеѓкщѓюѓіпѓЦѓк@ˆџџCJ@ˆіџCJ@ˆњџCJ@ˆ§џCJ@ˆўџCJ@ˆјџCJ@ˆћџCJ@ˆљџCJ@ˆєџCJCJ@ˆќџCJ@ˆїџCJN‰ŸVWjQн№Гq•АrЮЖ—Ї–*) ž Т!# #-$%§§ћљћћ§§§§љћћ§§§§ћ§§ћљћћ§§§§ћ$w$Ц$#&1&}&А&Б&њ&E'Œ'Ы'Ь'(X(Ё(щ(4)H)I)J)Z)])ž)Ÿ)Ї)Џ)М)к)с)т)ф)х)я)№)** *******ћјјѓјюјѓщјћјфюфѓјпдШдПдВЅ˜дПŠ‚{x{p{0JmHnHu0J j0JUmHnHsH umH sH jUmH sH 56@ˆ§џCJRHf\]56@ˆњџCJRHf\]56@ˆїџCJRHf\]56CJ\]56>*CJRHf\]56CJRHf\]CJRHf@ˆџџCJ@ˆљџCJ@ˆ§џCJ@ˆјџCJCJ@ˆќџCJ*%"&#&1&Б&Ь'I)J)Ÿ)Ї)Џ)М)Ъ)к)т)у)ф)****§ћљћ§§ћћ§§§§§§ћїѕћћї%$2 00PА…. АТA!А "А # $`%АААА </0PА…. АТA!А€"А€#€$а%АААА <* i`@ёџ` Normal $ЄxЄx5$7$8$9DH$a$!B*OJQJ_HmH phsH tH N@N Heading 1$ & FЄ№Є<@&5;>*CJKHHH Heading 2$$ & FЄ№@&a$ 56CJBB Heading 3$ & FЄ№Є<@&56@@ Heading 4$ & FЄ№Є<@&688 Heading 5 & FЄ№Є<@&DD Heading 6 & FЄ№Є<@& 6OJQJ88 Heading 7 & FЄ№Є<@&<< Heading 8 & FЄ№Є<@&6B B Heading 9 & FЄ№Є<@& 56CJ<A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font@ђ@ Footnote Text$a$ CJOJQJ&)@Ђ& Page Number< @< Footer  Ц9r 6CJOJQJ>>@"> Title$Є№Є<a$5;>*CJKH8B28 Body Text$ЄЄa$CJ6ўB6 Sub head 2 Є№1$56NRN Normal Indent ЦpB„а„а]„а^„а6CJ /b List68&@Ђq8 Footnote ReferenceH*44 TOC 1  Цe$ 5;OJQJBB TOC 2 Цe$ „мЄЄ^„м :OJQJBB TOC 3 Цe$ „ИЄЄ^„И 6OJQJBB TOC 4 Цe$ „”ЄЄ^„” CJOJQJBB TOC 5 Цe$ „pЄЄ^„p CJOJQJBB TOC 6 Цe$ „LЄЄ^„L CJOJQJBB TOC 7 Цe$ „(ЄЄ^„( CJOJQJBB TOC 8 Цe$ „ЄЄ^„ CJOJQJBB TOC 9 Цe$ „рЄЄ^„р CJOJQJ2ў!2 Table title!Є№CJЌ1@"Ќ List Number„"$ & Fџ„ „рўЄ<Є<>ЦTџџ.Tfџ^„ `„рўa$ЂD"Ђ List Continuev# & Fџ„ „рў>ЦTџ №Tfџ^„ `„рўD6@BD List Bullet 2$$ & FЄ<Є<a$,+@R, Endnote Text%6*@Ђa6 Endnote ReferenceH*.ўar. List2'„ ЄЄ^„ hўa‚h List boxF($d%d&d'dNЦџOЦџPЦџQЦџ,’, Header ) ЦрР!Д&<џџџџ4<џџџџнdežŸ-Пђx45БВГДФ‚Kэб  ‰ Ÿ V W j Qн№Гq•АrЮЖ—Ї–*)žТ - !""#"1"Б"Ь#I%J%Ÿ%Ї%Џ%М%Ъ%к%т%у%ф%&&˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ "0€€˜ "0€€˜ "0€€˜ "0€€˜ "0€€˜ "0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜`0€€ 0€€˜0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜ $0€Д˜0€Д 0€€˜0€W ˜0€W ˜ $0€W ˜ $0 €W ˜ $0 €W ˜ $0 €W  0€€˜0€•˜0€•˜ $0 €•˜ $0 €•˜ $0€•˜ $0€•˜0€•˜ $0€•˜ $0€•˜0€• 0€€˜0€˜0€˜ $0€˜ $0€˜ $0€˜ $0€˜0€˜ $0€˜0€ 0€€˜0€€˜ $0€€˜ $0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ $0€€˜ $0€€˜ $0€€˜ $0€€˜ $0€€˜ $0€€˜0€€˜%0€€š@0€€ 05555555558‰w$*‰%** !)0284џ•€!4џ•€№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№ ‡-1ЗСm q r y  • M V   FOАИЮжхщЖОкт‹”ƒцъnr— юїjm‡%%ф%&&V’ГН§9x2&8Š’Яђ? H w€‚”œЇsjџkw.#6#ф%&&33333333333333ФФ{  ‡ ‡ j j ••ААœœ––*+44žžТТjj  ""#"I%J%І%Ї%Ў%Џ%Л%М%Щ%Ъ%й%к%т%у%&џџ Christine Eborall9C:\My Documents\FoE\Incinerator\Colnbrookincinerators.docChristine EborallYC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Colnbrookincinerators.asdChristine EborallYC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Colnbrookincinerators.asdChristine EborallYC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Colnbrookincinerators.asdChristine EborallYC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Colnbrookincinerators.asd Mr N FerridayJC:\My Documents\VarEnv\Incineration\LB of Ealing\Colnbrookincinerators.docƒџџџдњDџџџџџџџџџˆџџџЊ_{џџџџџџџџџћџџџ>Mжю ўџџџRr.Ѕџд%њЭцЇџџџџџџџџџа"б˜И”,џ1gШ˜И”,џџџџџџџџџ~F8BИ$џџџџџџџџ0oЋ˜И”,џ,gb˜И”,џCC˜И”,џ|6z.˜И”,џљ\B˜И”,џ†BЯ!F!№ЅРxxƒ2d^&э&1"2ƒQ№ппџџ>C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\CME2REPORT.dotThe Colnbrook Incinerators John Eborall Mr N Ferridayўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Є˜ Фашє ,8 T ` l x„Œ”œфThe Colnbrook Incineratorshe  John Eborall Inohnohn CME2REPORTlMr N FerridayIn24NMicrosoft Word 9.0e@јМ @tХЌФ@р9џЉЃФ@Кй$ХЌФ{>ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М уф oB^&  The Colnbrook Incinerators Title ўџџџ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789ўџџџ;<=>?@AўџџџCDEFGHIўџџџ§џџџLўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF@eд/ХЌФN€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ4WordDocumentџџџџџџџџe<SummaryInformation(џџџџ:DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџBCompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ@eд/ХЌФ@eд/ХЌФџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq