Incinerator goes to planning

The planning application has gone in, the
number is 08/2616 and was submitted on the 27th November.

Details of the application are up on Viridor's website:
http://www.viridor-consultation.co.uk/index.php?contentId=128

We have at least 8 weeks in which to raise objections.

The planning Officer in charge is: Andrew Bates His home number is: 02920 871704

Objections should be sent to:
FAO: Andrew Bates Development Control
Strategic Planning & Environment City Hall Cathays Park
Cardiff CF10 3ND

If we get over 50 objections, then it is considered as a petition and
can be heard before committee.

Cardiff Council steamroller dodgy proposal for incinerator through

The Cardiff report smacks of desperation and looks like an attempt to steamroller a dodgy proposal through as quickly as possible before anybody checks their maths. It may be easy for them to blame the assembly but wasn’t their original timeline to complete the Outline Business Plan by December 2007 and to put the advert in the OJEU by March 2008 [1] but they still say it isn’t finished yet and now won’t go into the OJEU until Mar 09. In which case isn’t it really the project team and their (£ 250,000 + to date) consultants who are to blame for the full year slippage to date? And if the project can slip a full year between the July 2007 Cardiff Council Executive meeting and now what are the realistic prospects for it being delivered on time and to budget in the longer term?

Obviously the final draft OBC raises a lot of questions. Why, for example, have they placed so much emphasis on landfill penalties (at £ 200/tonne [2]) in the letter to Jane D, and in the OBC, when all the authorities will meet the Landfill Directive Diversion targets through complying with the National recycling targets?


The growth rates are unrealistically high – and a quick check shows the total MSW has fallen again in each of the authorities. The argument they use (in Appendix 4b and not 2a as they incorrectly reference in para 2.3.2) is a silly one:

“there is concern with basing projections on the high negative growth seen over the last few years, at is not completely understood how this reduction has come about. It would be more prudent to base projections on a higher growth rate in early years”

The ‘prudence’ together with the reduction of the recycling target by 5% means they are pitching for 35% of 575,000 tonnes - which they then add another 10% to, presumably for ‘prudence’ to justify 220,000 tpa.

Prosiect llwyd is not necessary to comply with European targets and adds only 1.2% [3] to recycling – and that is low grade post incineration steel which could be recovered with higher quality at a landfill with a magnet. It is therefore difficult to understand why it is considered so important to concentrate on this residual waste project at this stage as it seems to requires a rather perverse mentality to prioritise this rather than the the main event of meeting the recycling targets,

A more realistic assessment of the residual waste need would, in any case, be 30% of 500,000 tonnes ie 150,000 tonnes. The proposal is therefore probably 50% too big with profound impacts on the costs assessments. This is a shoddy way to play with £ 1 billion of our money.

Even the proposed option with ash recycling would still need landfill for 36,500 tonnes of rejects; 6,300 tonnes of hazardous APCD residues (table 4.4). They should also add the requirement for at least half the bottom ash to be landfilled as this is the level being achieved in Hampshire. If we can demonstrate that the bottom ash is hazardous then even more would be landfilled. Thus the total landfill requirement of the Project would be 42,800 + 16,650 = 59,450 tonnes. The reduction in landfill compared with do nothing thus reduces to c. 90,000 tonnes. These corrections would make a large difference to the cost assessments.

The WRATE assessment is typically awful, but as expected given the fundamental flaws and limitations of the model.

The report has far too much redacted information

[1] Cardiff Council (2007). EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING: 5 JULY 2007 MUNICIPAL RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR AGENDA ITEM: 8 PORTFOLIO: ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Prosiect Gwyrdd procurement.
[2] I think it will be difficult in any case for Wales to maintain the threat of a £ 200 penalty given that the English financial penalty was reduced to £ 150 by Environment Minister Elliot Morley on 9 December 2004 “as part of a package of measures designed to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to meet challenging targets for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill without increasing pressure on council tax”. It follows that landfill will never reach £ 200/tonne when LATS penalties are set at £ 150 in England – authorities would simply pay the penalty or export the waste to English landfills where the LATS can be traded and the market price for landfill would be below £ 150.
[3] The 1.2% is for metal recovery. More worrying is the comment at: 4.4.16 “It has recently (although unofficially) been suggested by the Assembly Government that bottom ash recycling may count towards future recycling targets”. This could add another 5.2% they claim – this is wrong because only half the ash is likely to be recycled and it is, in any case, an approach that has recently been rejected in England.

Report to Cdf Exec on Thursday 4th
Municipal Residual Waste Treatment (Prosiect Gwyrdd) - Report (169k)
Municipal Residual Waste Treatment (Prosiect Gwyrdd) - Appendix 1 (2.87M)
�h Municipal Residual Waste Treatment (Prosiect Gwyrdd) - Appendix 2-5 (350k)

Note they have reduced the 70% recycling target to 65% and say the Eunomia report is still contested.
Will abandon Prosiect Gwyrdd if WAG does not guarantee funding by March.
Regional Waste Plans held up.

Extracts from the Report

． The review of 2002 National Waste Strategy has been delayed;
． The “Eunomia report” (September 2007) outlining the economic and
achievability assumptions was challenged and a further review of this
work has not produced a clear way forward;
． A review of Regional Waste Plans was completed; but a further
review is apparently planned to include relevant Planning Policies
under TAN 21;

Stakeholder Consultation
33. The principal focus of the Partnership thus far has been internal -
although the Project and individual authorities have engaged with
external stakeholders to an extent e.g. Friends of the Earth. The need for
comprehensive stakeholder/community group engagement is recognised
and similar considerations apply to neighbouring local authorities and other public bodies through established consultative mechanisms. A communications strategy will be the main vehicle for doing this and early outputs will include the establishment of a Prosiect Gwyrdd website which members are asked to approve as part of this report.

Procurement & Timetable
36. For the reasons explained above, this report does not seek authority for procurement to commence;

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Executive is recommended to:
(1) Approve the Final Draft Outline Business Case for submission to WAG based upon the affordability gap described in this report for a Residual Waste Treatment Solution predicated upon a technology neutral assumption.

(2) Agree that the Approved Outline Business Case will remain subject to three conditions:

(i) The Procurement being premised upon a) a publicly owned site
being made available to bidders and as such maintaining
discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government is necessary
until a public authority contractually commits to securing an option in the Project’s control and to note that this does not preclude a private owned site being brought forward by a bidder or b) the
Partnership and WAG become satisfied that adequate private sector competition is available;

(ii) The Welsh Assembly Government providing the Authorities
sufficient comfort that they will fund the Project to at least a
minimum level of funding over the life of the Project as per the Outline Base Case; and

(iii) The partner authorities also approving the Outline Business Case with the same conditions applying.

(3) Agree that if the three conditions in recommendation 2 above are not all
met by 31 March 2009, the approval of the OBC automatically lapses
and the Council will reconsider matters including alternative options
outside of the scope of Project Gwyrdd.

Spot the difference in Bloomfields reports!!

For Surrrey CC
Health Risks of Waste Management Facilities Dr Mark Broomfield, Enviros Consulting Ltd
Surrey County Council’s Environment & Economy Select Committee
Scrutiny Review of Waste: Waste Treatment Technologies
Memorandum Dr. Mark Broomfield Technical Director Enviros Consulting

For Viridor
The environmental and health impacts of Energy from Waste, the myths and the truth?
T.D. HAMMOND* AND Dr. D.M. BROOMFIELD** Enviros Consulting Limited, Shrewsbury, England

References ..The UK Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2004) Review of the Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: municipal solid waste and similar wastes, Enviros Consulting Ltd with Birmingham University and others, May 2004.

Enviros Greenwash for viridor?

VIRIDOR Greenwash "The environmental and health impacts of Energy from Waste, the mythsand the truth?"
   A study by Enviros consulting into myths about incinerator - CO2 emissions, health effects,
particles and preventing recycling. 

Beppe et al, this is what Dr Dick van Steenis has to say about Dr Mark Broomfield, Technical Director of Enviros, The UK's travelling salesperson of EfW incinerator. Different EU country, Dr Paul Connett's county, same fine to nano particle issue and denial from government officials and waste corporates.

Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS 31 January 2008 at Surrey County Council councillors, Surrey MPS & Capel Action Group.

I have been requested to correct false accusations, ignorance and misinformation in the Enviros planning briefing note of 24 January sent to MPs & councillors, and the waste treatment technologies memorandum written by Mark Broomfield of Enviros for Surrey CC Environment & economy select committee scrutiny review of waste.

Readers should be made aware that Broomfield has worked for ICI and 4 incinerator companies (WRG, Sita, Biffa & HLC) and hence his 2 reports above read like a lobbyist’s PR stunt.

There is not a single proper journal reference for his wild claims. (*I have 337 journal references backing up my report.). Broomfield fails to present any data whether health data (eg ONS, PCT, hospital or coroner) or PM2.5 data, when it is only PM2.5s emitted by incinerators. His amazing claims comprise make-believe propaganda. His claims are in defiance of the laws of physics regarding PM2.5s, toxicology regarding effects of inhalation (known in USA since 1943) and physiology in not knowing it takes a time lag of say 20 years for most cancers to be obvious enough to be diagnosed.

Broomfield alleges no cancer problem from modern incinerators (presumably post 1997) so most cancers would be diagnosed between 2010 and 2023 (as not all modern ones were built in 1997). He quotes the fraudulent Elliott report, which looks at old 1960s incinerators with safer fuel & content and compares some people affected with others also at risk of being affected and looks in circles instead of upwind vs. downwind for only about 10 years exposure. Most cancers found in excess were then conveniently got rid of by sleight of hand removal for “deprivation” when the Health Effects Institute May 2000 & other reports have proved deprivation does not cause diseases caused by PM2.5s.

Broomfield ignores journal reports of French & Belgian incinerators. His table of emissions is labelled “estimated” so must be ignored. He calls PM10s “fine” particulates when fine particulates are in reality PM2.5s in journals. Does he know anything about PM2.5 content, health effects at various concentrations and spread?? He makes comparisons with coal fired plant but incinerators release PM2.5s only compared to coal plant emissions averaging PM5 and makes comparisons with motorways when road fuel PM2.5s are much less contaminated and less toxic than incinerator PM2.5s. 70% of road PM1s settle by 110 yards while the incinerator emissions in your proposal will ground mostly within 16 miles downwind with prevailing SW, NW & SE winds.

In the briefing note he alleges incinerators “make a negligible contribution to PM2.5s”. He meant PM10s. Oops. The National Atmospheric Inventory quoted consists again entirely of ESTIMATES hence cannot be relied upon except by those living in the world of make-believe. Broomfield alleges you must consider socio-economic factors, again displaying total ignorance. He then moves onto the Michael Ryan study quoted by CAG. Broomfield it appears cannot tolerate looking at wind roses and government data plotted out on a map. As his presumptions are totally without foundation, he cannot understand that proper measurement of grounding of particles published by Harvard proves that the high infant mortality plotted out in Ryan’s maps is EXACTLY where wind rose and Harvard data predict it would be with the incinerator emissions as causative. There are no exceptions.

He does not tell you that even DEFRA, for whom he writes, state in their July 2007 report that PM2.5s CAUSE a range of illnesses and premature deaths. He then alleges Ryan’s report was reviewed by Woodward & Harrison. This is malicious libel and untrue as Ryan’s report to parliament was published afterwards so was not seen. Woodwards report had no proper control and only looked at 4 wards compared with the same area including the 4 wards when most of the area had the health damage. She could have examined Dothill ward upwind versus Ironbridge gorge and other wards downwind. Her own PCT age standardised mortality proves the death rate in Ironbridge gorge almost TREBLE that of Dothill, with Dothill infant mortality zero compared with as high as 29 per1000 births in Ironbridge. Childhood asthma incidence in Dothill was 1.9% compared with 24 to 100% in schools downwind.

A secret meeting of regulators with the power company was called by the Health Protection Agency 17 Nov.2005 purely to formulate a joint propaganda to hide the illnesses and deaths from the public in order to protect company profits. Prescott downgraded IPPC law in 2000 to mean “anything will do” so the Environment Agency declined to really regulate industrial air pollution. The regulations were kept at PM10s (meaning monitoring PM10 down to PM4), which do not get into your lungs. In USA the USEPA introduced PM2.5 laws in 1997 and tightened them in 2006, as it is PM2.5s that really get into your lungs.

So to wind up his deceitful propaganda Broomfield quotes Health Protection Agency to say incinerators contribute little to regulated items, deliberately omitting that incinerators only emit PM2.5s TOTALLY UNREGULATED. What a deceit!!! In fact analysis of ONS data proves Basingstoke incinerator, the newest, has a slightly worse infant mortality differential downwind compared with London’s incinerators so it seems most modern UK incinerators are worse rather than better than very old ones. The evidence stares you in the face but the regulators & Enviros are clearly not daring to look. Harrison told HPA/DEFRA in 2005 not to do any studies. The zones of high infant mortality also have low birth weight babies, asthma, depression & suicides, diabetes 2, heart attacks, cancers etc. as listed in my report. It is easy not to look, then say there is no credible evidence. Just look—its there.

In conclusion the incinerator proposal breaks the IPPC law as it is no longer BAT or BATNEEC as plasma gasification is cheaper to build, to run, and the safest with no ash for disposal. The Canadian government is working with one, they are found in USA including one being built by Veolia. Panama & Puerto Rico and others are having them too. Why is the UK fobbed off with unsafe plant, when you can and should have the best for less cash and less maiming and killing. Its time to sort out the regulators. Check everything out so you are not fobbed off with mis-information. I am published in 4 peer-reviewed journals. My references are available for you.

...................................................................

Dr Dick van Steenis comments on Dr Mark Bloomfield from Enviros consulting

in a Transcript of a Lecture given by Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and of a Question and Answer session at a Public Meeting held on Tuesday 5^th February 2008 at The Weald School, Beare Green. Surrey [DOC]

Van Steenis transcript Page 07/05/08 Transcript of a Lecture given ...

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
Transcript of a Lecture given by Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and of a Question and ... We were on Southern County Radio last week, when Dr. Mark Broomfield ...

Capel Action Group has made a lot of impact in Surrey about the health issues around incineration...we’ve had great coverage in the Press. We were on Southern County Radio last week, when Dr. Mark Broomfield – Surrey County Council’s consultant on air policy – frankly admitted, at long last, that emissions from incinerators were not good for you.

That is quite the reverse to what he said a year or so ago when he told the County Council that the health effects were good. And you may remember at an earlier meeting, David Munro famously said that incinerators did not need chimneys because all they emitted was steam! If you look at the earlier Planning Application that they originally claimed that it was only steam, but they now admit that they do emit PM2.5s.

Allan Smallwood, Beare Green: You’ve obviously done a huge amount of work; are you a lone voice in the wilderness? Shouldn’t this be published and sent to the various planning authorities in Surrey County Council?

DvS: Both Michael and I have both presented reports to the Head of Surrey County Council and it was answered by Dr, Broomfield’s report that was ten pages of rubbish plus another three pages to the Council to refute the allegations. We have to answer all this tosh that’s thrown around. We have science and the facts. There are very few scientists in the UK who will come out of the woodwork and agree, although secretly they may well might. It’s because they are all employed by the Government and if they don’t toe the line then they will get sacked. That’s happened to Dr. Wakefield and other professors who didn’t toe the party line. They got sacked, and their departments shut down. In America, the policy is much more enlightened, because there are a lot more scientists who are free over there. The Journals are muzzled now by Government decree from 2 or 3 years ago, every Journal article has to agree with Government policy. How can we have DEFRA saying in July last year, finally, that PM2.5s do cause heart attack and respiratory illnesses and cause many deaths from allergic conditions. The long term Harvard study said that it cut 3% of total deaths when particulates are lowered. That’s a very big deal. That’s equivalent to 20,000 deaths.

Surrey Cllr repsonse

The health effects of incinerators

1 Should provision be made for independent monitoring especially of health risks?

1.1 We commend the British Society for Ecological Medicine's approach to this matter (Extract from British Society for Ecological Medicine's response To Enviros evaluation (2) at www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php):

"We believe that incinerators should be regulated carefully and in detail. Most people would consider a carefully regulated system to be one that monitors the most dangerous pollutants for the majority of the time and one where most of pollutants emitted are monitored. They would also expect a regulatory system with frequent unannounced inspections and effective deterrents for breaches of regulations.

The BSEM consider continuous monitoring of dioxins should be an absolute requirement for all incinerators. The study by De Fre and Wevers has shown that spot monitoring, as done at present, is unrepresentative and that continuous monitoring has found actual emissions to be 30 - 50 times higher. We previously pointed out that a worst case scenario, using recent data that has found dioxins 9 times over the limit, could mean dioxin levels remaining at over 400 times normal for a period of 6 months. This would put an entire population at great risk.

Carillion parent company of Stop A57 bypass

Yes, Carillion, the main contractor for the bypass. Seemingly joined at the hip with the Highways Agency. And notice when it was registered. Before the PI even started.
http://nomottrambypass.blogspot.com/2007/08/parking-domain.html

PM2.5 said...

Viridor are coming to blows with local communities with it's monstrous incinerator plans all over the UK. Scotland, Wales, Cheshire and Oxford

Viridor spin and PR attacks, in Scotland

I'd like to air about a totally inaccurate statements that misleads of the public by Viridor PR man Dan Cooke. Dan Cooke was unscientific and span recklessly with waste of energy spin, that he hopes will bluff his company to win a lucrative and big bucks waste contract, with dangerous yesteryear technology. There is only one epidemiological study done by Elliott, and this was set up wrong. So not many. The only time and time again has been the waste of energy spin that the public are fed up to the back teeth of from waste incinerator companies and organisations like COSTA.

He said "Time and time again government studies, independently commissioned studies have looked at this in detail and experts have carried out research that has demonstrated that there is no link between energy from waste or any other well-run waste management facility and health impact. There are some people out there who are recklessly scaremongering and putting forward unfounded claims."

WHAT STUDIES?

Firstly only One epidemiological study was undertaken by Elliot in the 1990's using old incinerators, and using concentric circle health parameters rather than downwind /upwind studies that pick up, rather than hide downwind clusters and affects. Secondly no other studies have been done scientifically with PM2.5 monitors. THe HPA Nov 2005 report was not a study but a statement of opinion. It did not study or conclude on PM2.5 health affects. Elliott was not independent he was in the pay of the government to justify their then EfW incinerator direction. Dan Cooke spins out these reports "time and time again" that have no scientific basis, whereas Dr van Steenis's 237 scientific references totally prove and back up what he is stating, with US EPA greats like Pope, Dochery, Costa behind him.

Members of COMEAP who prepareed the HPA report it has been proven have all vested interests in the industry, and like Profs. Roy Harrison and Geoff bridges have acted for waste incinerator companies like WRG or Sita. Again no independence. Who pays the piper Dr Mark Broomfield of Enviros Consulting is also in the pay as consultant to Sita and WRG and he bases much of his spin from 1960s PM10 estimates rather than 2000-2007 recent and actual PM2.5 monitoring. Two wholly different things. So no studies Dan Cooke referes to prove or demonstrate anything other than spin makes money from using waste of energy plants.
The US EPA say Dan Cooke is wrong and talking scientific garbage. So do
Italian Doctors federation
Irish Doctors Association
British Ecological Medicine Society
EU funded Nanodiagnostical

Dr van Steenis who has ONS government data on infant mortality to hand, and to quote around every modern incinerator in the UK, and has mapped 10 of them into downwind/upwind wards can and has proven everything he said, more than I can say for Viridors Dan Cooke.

MBT/AD or Autoclaving/Plasma Gsification are the cleaner,present and future, modern viable residual alternatives. Zero waste is fine, has a place in the debate, but doesn't talk the same language for funding or Landfill Directive in delivering tonnage. Falkirk is building an MBT/AD plant (Oaktech using Arrowbio process)

So well done Diana Milford and STV.TV. I hope Richard Locklead and Alex salmond kick Viridors burner planning application into to touch due to their spin and mirrors, rather than the scientific truth.

Rob Whittle NAIL2 Norwich Norfolk Warning over incinerator plan

Broomfield work

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes”, Report prepared by Enviros Consulting Ltd and others

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/content/IncineratorSurrey.pdf

256 lorries a day to Cardiff Bay incinerator!

Project Gwyrdd...Project Green...more Cardiff Council greenwash...

From the Splott PACT meeting last week, I have been told that Viridor confirmed 
that 256 lorries would be required every day to transport the waste (26 per 
hour) which is a 3% increase in traffic. 
They plan to submit planning application in the next two 
weeks. 

Viridor proposal would turn Cardiff into South Wales waste capital

Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm Posted in Campaign Updates, News, South East Wales FOE Waste Network,

LetsRecycle reports that:

Plans to develop a new incinerator in Cardiff have come under fire because of concerns it will not be limited to burning non-recyclable waste. Waste firm Viridor (Pennon Group)has been selected as preferred partner by the owners of a site near the Cardiff docks to take forward the £150 million project to build a “waste management and resource recovery facility”.

According to a letter from Cardiff Friends of the Earth local people are concerned that the proposed facility would be over-sized, as 350,000 tonnes per annum equates to some 2.5 times the amount of residual waste Cardiff produces. Continue Reading “Viridor proposal would turn Cardiff into South Wales waste capital” »

Incinerator fighters won't stand idly by
WalesOnline, United Kingdom - 20 Oct 2008
Councillors for Splott and Tremorfa in Cardiff have been gathering support against plans by Viridor Waste Management to build the waste-burning incinerator ...

Viridor's proposed incinerator in Cardiff Bay

To: Your local councillor

From: Cardiff Friends of the Earth

Date: 3^rd November

Subject: Viridor's proposed incinerator in Cardiff Bay

The proposal

Viridor Waste Management are poised to submit a planning application for a large “energy from waste” incinerator plant in Cardiff Bay. According to their Community Consulation Brief the proposed plant will be situated on Trident Park, between Ocean Way and the Docks and designed to process 350,000 tonnes of waste per year.

Our concerns

l Over-sized – 2.5 times the amount of residual waste Cardiff produces

In 2007/2008, the total amount of residual waste from Cardiff was 133,000 tonnes[1]; the total from five local authorities[2] in the region is still less than 330,000tonnes[3]. With rates of recycling set to increase this leaves the question of where the shortfall would come from. Viridor imply that the household waste could be topped up using business waste but incinerators can't cope with too high a proportion of business waste[4]. This means the waste would have to be either diverted from recycling or sourced from further afield still which is against the proximity principle.

l Transport – more than 100 trucks per day on Cardiff's roads

In order to meet the demands of the incinerator, over 1000tonnes of waste per day would have to be transported to the site - this could result in over 100 trucks per day having to be accommodated on Cardiff's roads. This amount of traffic would have a significant impact on congestion and result in a corresponding increase in pollution from the vehicles.

l Toxic waste – 120,00 tonnes of waste ash per year

Every year the incineration process would produce about 17,500tonnes of toxic fly ash[5] which would have to be transported to a hazardous waste site in Cheltenham; and around 100,000tonnes of bottom ash[6] which contains leachable metals. Although theoretically the bottom ash can be recycled as secondary aggregate, only half the current production of bottom ash finds a market, meaning the rest would need to be landfilled.

l Emissions – NOx, ultrafine particles, dioxins

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.

Alternatives

l Incinerators are a very inefficient way of recovering energy from waste ~20% electrical efficiency. Other residual waste treatments such as anaerobic digestion generate energy more efficiently and the greatest energy efficiency of all would be achieved by maximising recycling.

l Due to the long waste contracts associated with incinerators, they are very inflexible. Modular and flexible alternatives are available – able to adapt to changing volumes and composition of waste as recycling improves and increases. These include Mechanical & Biological Treatment (MBT), Anarobic Digestion, Autoclaving, Gasification and Pyrolysis.

---

[1] http://dissemination.dataunitwales.gov.uk/webview/index.jsp?language=en

[2] Cardiff, Newport, Vale of Glamorgan, Caerphilly and Monmouthshire – members of Prosiect Gwyrdd

[3] Ibid

[4] http://www.ukwin.org.uk/?p=117 in Sheffield, too much business waste caused a Veolia plant operational inefficiencies and they had to resort to sourcing household residual waste from further afield

[5] About 5% of waste input

[6] About 25-30% waste input

News

Expert - 'No incinerator design can remove dangerous nanoparticles’ By John Feeney

Kevin Lawlor, project manager at College Proteins, arrives at the Newgrange Hotel where the inquiry was adjourned after five acres on the proposed site turned out to be owned by a local farmer.

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 nanoparticles from potential emissions that would emerge from the proposed Nobber plant, and recent European studies pointed to such emissions as a source for between three to six per cent of deaths in larger urban centres.

The lungs and blood/brain barrier had been shown to be the routes these nanoparticles 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.