West London Threat From Belvedere Incinerator
|
Waste |
Monster incinerator planned for Belvedere
Hammersmith & Fulham FOE have found out that a huge new incinerator is proposed in Belvedere. This might seem a long way from West London, but it would have major impacts on us. The incinerator would be so large it would need to be fed from many boroughs including Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea. Huge amounts of waste would have to be transported many miles; air pollution would drift back to us when winds are from the east; and recycling initiatives would be compromised.
See Press Release below from Hammersmith & Fulham FOE. Note - this is a 2003 press release, so the public inquiry and some other details (but not the principles) will have been superseded. See later news.
Communities say no to incinerators
Cory Environmental Limited (our current waste disposal agency) have had messages of opposition from the GLA (Greater London Authority), residents, councillors and the local MP for a new incinerator to be build in Belvedere. This is the third time in 12 years that the residents of Belvedere have faced a proposal for an incinerator.
If built, the incinerator would be the biggest in the UK with a capacity to deal with over 800,000 tonnes of waste per year. MOREOVER, THE INCINERATOR WOULD BURN WASTE FROM THE WEST LONDON BOROUGHS OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA, HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM, LAMBETH AND WANDSWORTH.
This incinerator is opposed for a variety of reasons:
- Air pollution: People are concerned about the potential impact incineration may have on their health. Although modern incinerators are designed to reduce polluting emissions, they still emit chemicals that cause concern. Smoke, gases and toxic ash can contain dioxins which are harmful even at very low levels. Dioxins are known to cause cancer. Toxic ash from the burning also needs to be disposed of in landfill sites, where it can release harmful chemicals into rivers and streams to pollute the water table. A Friends of the Earth information briefing is available: www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/incineration_health_issues.pdf
- Waste creation: Rather than reduce waste, incinerators can actually create a demand for it. They need a minimum amount of waste to operate, and a long term supply to make a profit on the plant's investment. Building an incinerator demands long-term waste delivery because it takes 15-25 years for a waste management company to make a return on their capital investment; the contract between a council and a waste management company requires the council to provide an agreed amount of waste for at least 25 years. Many incinerators will not actually be used to their full capacity in the very near future as increased recycling targets kick in. If local authorities don 't think wisely now, they could end up with big problem on their hands. Indeed some councils have had to meet this demand by bringing in waste from other areas and have abandoned plans to reduce and recycle.
- It doesn't save energy: The incinerator is promoted as a "waste to energy" plant because they can generate electricity. But it is not an energy saving option. Reusing waste and recycling saves more energy because it means that fewer new products have to be made and fewer raw materials have to be used.
Karen Rogers, Waste Campaigner at Hammersmith and Fulham Friends of the Earth said: "The Bexley Communitiy are fighting vigorously to prevent this incinerator being built to burn our waste. They are deeply worried about the potential impacts on their health and recognise that burning our waste is harmful to the environment. The Government must get to grips with this problem by calling a halt to new incinerators, reducing waste and dramatically improving our record on recycling."
Please send any letters (objections can still be sent until the end of September) to The Programme Officer, Belvedere Public Inquiry, Marriott Hotel, 1 Broadway, Bexleyheath, DA6 7JZ. Your letter of Evidence does not need to be technical; a short statement saying you object because of, for instance, existing asthma rates is enough to count.
More information on the Belevedere incinerator proposal and the action being undertaken to oppose it can be found on the web at http://www.badair.org.uk/
End of 2003 Press Release
Further information
In response to the considerable press interest, Hammersmith & Fulham FOE provided further information:
To the fact that there will always be some residual waste - Cory.
Yes, it is true that there will always be some residue; however this does
not mean it has to be incinerated. Recent research for the Community
Recycling Network has reviewed some of these newer technologies, comparing
them with landfilling untreated waste and with incineration. This suggests
that MBT processes provide the greatest flexibility:
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) which separates recyclable materials
mechanically and puts the mixed waste containing biodegradable material
through a composting process (aerobic or anaerobic) to produce a stabilised
material. This can be landfilled or used for energy recovery.
* MBT equipment has a lower capital cost than incinerators and can operate
on a smaller modular basis. It does not require long-term contracts for
guaranteed large inputs of waste.
.
* MBT can be easily converted from residual mixed waste input to
source-separated waste for clean composting or recycling.
* The output from MBT can be put to a variety of uses: for landfill,
landscaping, for energy recovery through pyrolysis/gasification; or for
energy recovery through co-incineration in coal-fired power stations or
cement kilns (though this use would be controversial).
The research results indicate that the best route for the residual waste from this treatment is landfill. Friends of the Earth is supportive of this but will keep this under review as new technologies develop or as policy frameworks change.
Promoting of recycling - Cory
We are supportive of any recycling awareness raising and education. We are very pleased to see wastewatch working in schools with children.
We are aware that Cory have a community fund which is managed by Rethink Rubbish where community groups can promte recycling. We would be interested to know how many people have actually taken this up.
Environmental Agency would not let licence incinerators if emissions were at
risk to health - Cory
The Government own planning guidance urges local authorities to ensure that
their waste management approach represents "the best balance of social,
environmental and economic costs and benefits, after full consideration of
the BPEO and the principles of sustainable development."
"This solution does not benefit the people of Hammersmith and Fulham or
Bexley in terms of protecting their environment, producing jobs or saving
tax payers money . It is an expensive, dirty and inflexiable solution and it
undermines recyling." - Paula White, Hammersmith and Fulham Friends of the
Earth.
A Community Recycling Network study compared various waste management
options and found that in terms of human toxicity, untreated waste going to
landfill was by far the worst option for managing our waste, followed by
'standard' UK incineration. There are a number of health concerns associated
with both the air emissions from incinerators and the solid emissions, or
ash.
Incinerator chimneys emit organic substances such as dioxins, heavy metals
such as cadmium and mercury, dust particles and acid gases such as sulphur
dioxide and hydrochloric acid. These can have the following health effects: One of the main arguments put forward for incineration is that it saves on
landfill space. But a significant amount of ash is produced which still has
to be landfilled and typically occupies 40-50 per cent of the space that
compacted unburnt waste would. Incinerator ash contains toxic heavy metals
and dioxins. This particularly applies to ash which is caught by pollution
abatement equipment and prevented from going up the chimney, known as 'fly
ash'. However, the main volume of the ash - 'bottom ash' - also contains
some toxins, including heavy metals which are present in ash in a form more
liable to leach than if they were in unburnt waste.
In May 2002, the Environment Agency published a report on the safety of
incinerator ash. It followed well-publicised problems about the use of ash
from incinerators at Edmonton in North London and Byker on Tyneside. The
report concluded that handling of fly ash is enough to keep risks within
permitted limits. It also reported that bottom ash can be safely used in
construction materials, although bottom ash and fly ash should no longer be
mixed, as occurred at Edmonton. Friends of the Earth had a number of
concerns with the report including the fact that it did not consider heavy
metals, organic carbon and other toxic materials apart from dioxins. It did
not consider the variability of ash, nor did it acknowledge our already high
intake of dioxins.
Reasons why building this incinerator should be ruled out:
1) We believe Hammersmith and Fulham council/WRWA should adopt a flexible
approach and consider the best practicable recycling and composting targets
in the longer term, not just statutory targets set for 2005; The borough
could set high recycling and composting targets: 50 per cent by 2010 and 75
per cent by 2015. We are supportive of the new dorrstep recycling scheme and
are pleased that the council has started to recycle some plastics. We would
like to see the council do more. e.g. extending the range of materials that
can be recycled at the doorstep. e.g. foil, yellow pages and kitchen waste.
In order for the bought to achieve these high recycling and composting
rates, the waste authority needs a
more flexible approach. The amount of residual waste in a region will reduce
year on year, as recycling and composting increases, and improvements are
made in product design and packaging. This ridicuously large-scale and
long-term contract
which is necessary for mass burn incineration to be profitable will be too
inflexible to deal with this change. The need for this incinerator is based
on assumptions that we will continue to recycle
a very low level even with the new curb side collection scheme.
The government refused the expansion of Edmonton incinerator in north London
for exactly this reason i.e. on the grounds that no waste management
facility should be permitted which would pre-empt recycling or composting,
or reduce the ability to increase recycling in the future, or which might
lead to waste being imported from other areas, contrary to the Proximity
Principle.
If LBHF are being locked into a long-term incinerator contract which make it
difficult to increase their recycling rates, they run the risk of not
meeting their statutory recycling targets. This could occur them a penalty
either way - from the incinerator company for not delivering the waste
through-put agreed, or from the Government for failing to meet statutory
targets.
Nottingham City Council's long-term contract with WRG's municipal waste
incinerator - agreed in 1973 - has
seriously constrained recycling. Part of the contract allows WRG to demand
that up to 100 per cent of all municipal waste collected by the City Council
is brought to the incinerator until 2032. The City Council is among the
worst unitary councils in England for recycling.
2) It is bad for climate change.
3) It is deeply polluting. Incineration produces emissions containing
nitrogen dioxides, particulates, heavy metals and dioxins, all of which
potentially threaten human health. It also produces toxic fly ash,which is
classified as hazardous waste, and contains dioxins and heavy metals.
4) It is a waste of resources. See below about resource use.
5) It is bad for Jobs. Incineration creates very few jobs compared with
recycling, and is more capital-cost intensive. See below.
People have the right to choose how their waste is treated. If WRWA
consulted with the public effectively they would soon discover Incineration
is very unpopular with people. Local elections have been won and lost on
this issue in the past few years in places such as Guildford and
Kidderminster.
Make your views known!
If you are are unhappy with WRWA approach there is a public
consultation until the 1st November.
Please send comments directly to Western Riverside Waste Authority: Background information:
Interesting facts - jobs per one million tons of waste processed: Reference: Energy saved by recycling rather than burning waste Material Energy saved: The global impacts of our resource use: For further information on the campaign contact Hammersmith & Fulham FOE
News on Belevedere incinerator
* Dioxins - dioxins may be associated with cancer, hormonal effects such as
endometriosis in women and reduced sperm counts in men, and reduced immune
system capacity. They may also affect foetal development.
* Heavy metals - cadmium may cause lung and kidney disease, and mercury can
affect the nervous system.
* Dust particles - these exacerbate lung diseases such as asthma or chronic
bronchitis, and heart disease.
* Acid gases - these also exacerbate lung disease.
The General Manager
Western Riverside Waste Authority
Smugglers Way
Wandsworth
London
SW18 3JU
* Landfill
40 - 60
* Incineration
100 - 290
* Composting
200 - 300
* Recycling
400 - 590
* J Renner / Worldwatch, Jobs in a Sustainable Economy, 1991. Cited in Friends
of the Earth, Working Future, 1994.
* Paper 3 times
* Plastic 5 times
* Textile 6 times
* Food & garden waste None
* Paper - Half of Europe's forests have already disappeared and natural
forests are still in decline. Logging for paper production is moving into
wildlife-rich forests in places like the Carpathian Mountains, home to 481
plant species and 45 per cent of Europe's wolf population as well as Brown
bear, lynx and the globally threatened Imperial eagle. These forests are
seriously threatened by clear-cutting and planting of unstable forest
mono-cultures.
* Timber - Sarawak, home to the indigenous Penan, has been ravaged over the
past two decades by the logging of ancient forests by a number of Malaysian
timber countries. They export raw logs, plywood and wood chips to Japan,
South Korea, the UK, China and the US. The Penan people are plagued by
frequent food shortages and poor health. Their rivers are polluted with
silt, oil spills and wood preservative chemicals. The staples of their
diet - game, fish, fruit and wild sago palms - are almost depleted.
* Aluminium - The planned Alumysa project will site an aluminium plant,
three hydroelectric dams and a new port in one of the most pristine areas
remaining on earth. The company behind the scheme, Noranda, is a notorious
environmental offender. The massive amounts of waste generated by the
project (over 1 million tonnes a year) will pollute pure rivers, streams and
lakes. Only 10 per cent of the jobs created will be local.
* Plastic packaging - plastic production accounts for 4 per cent of oil
consumption; oil is a non-renewable resource. It has been estimated that, at
current projected consumption rates, and allowing for likely future oil
discoveries, we will run out of oil by the middle of this century.
Contacts
Links to other pages
Colnbrook incinerator
Back to introduction to incineration
Back to waste, recycling and incineration introduction