01 August 2010

UK may have to import rubbish for incinerators

'.. Environmental groups are demanding an end to the building of new waste incinerators, which they say will undermine recycling. Experts question whether Britain will produce enough household waste to fuel energy-from-waste plants as the country improves its recycling efforts. And they warn that waste will have to be diverted from sustainable recycling schemes or imported from elsewhere to keep a rash of new planned waste incinerators working ..'

This is surely just a natural progression from earlier issues about ESCC capping recycling so that more rubbish can be channelled to the Newhaven incinerator

'.. county council has this week (March 17) disputed claims by Lewes Liberal Democrats that its current recycling credits scheme is limiting the amount of waste that can be recycled in the county in order to ensure enough material for the energy-from-waste facility at Newhaven ..'

ESCC plans overhaul of Waste Collection Authority (WCA) recycling incentives

Let us not forget that the major residue with incineration is ash and this is one of the materials ESCC intends to use in land raise sites

'.. for every four tons of trash burned you get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash. ..'

Although we have already addressed this issue in the past a timely reminder might be in order

ESCC Newhaven Incinerator Dangerous Residues and Emissions

Unfortunately having made a questionnable decision in the first place about building the incinerator (in the face of about 14,000 ignored objections) it now seems as though East Sussex County Council (ESCC) intends to compound the the issue by dumping the highly toxic ash residue on land raise sites in the Low Weald

Don't think that you will not be affected because Newhaven is a few miles away from where you live - ESCC Newhaven Incinerator - Do You Think You Are Safe From Contamination

Just how stupid can ESCC get?

We are not just talking about East Sussex land raise proposals but also other forms of contamination - have a look at this map

'.. The toxic and hazardous emissions from modern mixed waste incinerators are very conservatively estimated to contaminate an area ten to fifteen miles from the source. If you live work or spend time in any of the areas shown on this map then you have great cause for concern ..'

Map of Newhaven incinerator contamination area

Paul Connett, PhD

'.. On January 12, 2010 I had the honor of giving a presentation “Zero Waste for Sustainability” to the Division for the Sustainable Development at the United Nations ..'

'.. After 25 years you are no closer to sustainability. All you are left with is a pile of ash of approximately one quarter of the mass of the trash that was burned ..'

'.. Is incineration safe?

This is an issue I have followed for 25 years. The issue that peaked my interest was the incredible fact that simply by burning household trash we make the most toxic substances that we have ever been able to make in a chemical laboratory: polyhalogenated dibenzo para dioxins and furans (PCDDs, PCDFs, PBDDs, PBDFs etc) called “dioxins” for short. There are literally thousands of these substances.

There is no question that over 25 years the industry has got better at capturing these pollutants but we are still hostage as to how well the plants are designed and operated, monitored and the regulations enforced. In addition to this, incineration releases many toxic metals from otherwise fairly stable matrices. At worst these metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium etc) go into the air, at best they are captured in the fly ash in the air pollution control devices (APC).

But it is a truism to state that the better the APC the more toxic the ash becomes. Where is this ash going to go? In Germany and Switzerland the fly ash is put into nylon bags and deposited in salt mines. In Japan a number of the incinerators vitrify the ash, making it into a glass-like material, but that takes a huge amount of energy away from the system.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE ASH IS GOING IN THIS PROPOSAL

For every four tons of trash burned you get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash. ..'

Why incineration is a very bad idea in the Twenty First Century

Clearly East Susex County Council know better than Paul Connett

Where are ESCC going to put 50,000-70,000 tonnes of ash per year?

Newhaven incinerator some facts

The Great Incinerator Scandal

This is an important issue because there are concerns that these waste contracts with ESCC contain 'secret' clauses that could affect the outcome of the land raise proposals

Incinerator Scandal (Lib Dems) - '.. What we do know about the contract is that it guarantees Veolia a minimum stream of waste. If that stream falls below 300,000 tonnes a year (including waste not for burning), East Sussex has to pay Veolia a ‘diversion compensation payment’ – in other words, if the five districts increase their recycling levels, tax payers will end up paying more through ESCC’s compensation scheme! ..'

'.. Although the contract for the incinerator doesn’t have to be put to public consultation, the amount of detail East Sussex County Council has refused to divulge has led to deep suspicions about what is in it. This has done nothing to allay suspicions that the council has been trumped by the contractors (originally Onyx, now Veolia) who have got a better deal for themselves than the council has for the public ..'

References:

• FoE - Waste firm in court batle to keep disposal contract secret from residents

• FoE - Archived press release

'.. Veolia Environmental Services today lost its High Court bid to keep details of its £850 million waste management contract with Nottinghamshire County Council secret from local residents. This is the third time that information about the French-owned company’s activities has been forcibly made public. The judgment sets an important precedent for local authorities with immediate impacts for other councils around the country ..'

Friends of the Earth's Executive Director Andy Atkins said:

'.. The law gives the public explicit rights to see this type of information precisely so that they can hold authorities to account on major issues such as waste disposal.  Companies must realise that members of the public have a right to know how enormous sums of their money is being spent ..'

The salient points would seem to be:

• A member of the public has the right to ask for the information under the Audit Commission Act 1998. 

• That law provides members of the public with legal rights of access to all contracts, books, bills, and accounts of a public authority for a 20 working day period each year so that they can participate in the local audit process.

ESCC Freedom of Information Request - Decision Notice 14 November 2007

ESCC Integrated Waste Management Services Contract and Schedules

Now here is an interesting document Incinerator Scandal that poses a few questions - well worth a read if only to undertand doubts existed about ESCC handling of the situation and it does have a bearing on the current land raise proposals

The contract with Veolia

'.. Although the contract for the incinerator doesn’t have to be put to public consultation, the amount of detail East Sussex County Council has refused to divulge has led to deep suspicions about what is in it. This has done nothing to allay suspicions that the council has been trumped by the contractors (originally Onyx, now Veolia) who have got a better deal for themselves than the council has for the public ..'

'.. What we do know about the contract is that it guarantees Veolia a minimum stream of waste. If that stream falls below 300,000 tonnes a year (including waste not for burning), East Sussex has to pay Veolia a ‘diversion compensation payment’ – in other words, if the five districts increase their recycling levels, tax payers will end up paying more through ESCC’s compensation scheme! ..'

But it actually gets even better

'.. The only way of avoiding this would appear to be if Veolia were allowed to ‘import’ waste from outside the county. This was supposed to be unnecessary when the incinerator was first proposed, and there is no current permission for this). Might a provision for importing waste be among the clauses the county council doesn’t want the public to see? If it is, would it replace the compensation payment from ESCC, or would Veolia cash in twice: once from the county and once from other bodies with waste to get rid of? Until the full contract is made public, no-one can be sure. ..'

Resulting in ESCC 'capping' recycling for the 5 District Councils

'.. ESCC’s chief executive Cheryl Miller wrote an email to them on 4 October 2007 in which she said: ‘If we were to pay recycling credits above the agreed thresholds, then the residents of East Sussex would, in effect, be paying twice for every tonne as we are now paying Veolia to develop the infrastructure to manage this waste.’ In other words, the contract with Veolia includes payments by the county council for services which duplicate the recycling activity in the five districts ..'

Therefore despite denials about 'capping' at the Hailsham meeting (23 January 2010) by ESCC's Tony Cook we now have proof from ESCC Chief Executive that it was occuring - evidently a 'terminological inexactitude' by Mr Cook

'.. There cannot be any commercial sensitivity over the financial terms of a contract aimed at being valid for 25 or 30 years, so why was the county council withholding this information? ..'

Also reference to previous posting ESCC Existing Contract with Veolia