Waste Incineration in UK

1. Waste Incineration in UK Recent Developments • Recent reduction in UK’s municipal waste incineration capacity – Compliance with EC Directives for municipal and hazardous waste or close by 1st December 1999. From 28 plants, 5 remain. • Environment Agency (October 1999) published new guidance note for waste incineration replacing 6 previous guidance notes on incineration of chemical waste, clinical waste, sewage sludge, animal carcasses, drum residue and municipal waste. • Reaching the required operational and emissions standards is expensive, Coventry City Council spend £9M on upgrades, while Birmingham spend £95M on a new plant. Attractive Economics, 3 Reasons:- • Introduction of landfill tax expected to boost MWI by 5%. • Subsidy from NFF levy, combined with government’s target to recover 40% of MW by 2005 encourages incineration. • Large MWI plants can generate energy – sold to power companies. All plants still operating generate either electricity or steam for local heating schemes. New Developments – Large Plants • If all proposals accepted then present MWI capacity – 4M t/year in 2000 increased to 7M t/year in 2005. • Economics encourage large plants and since MWI plants can integrate clinical waste incineration – trend towards MWI plants with ancillary CWI. BUT …….. Intense and powerful opposition ………………..

2. Waste to Energy : Dangers to Health? Government • Environment bodies charge that Gov’t encouraging waste to energy schemes under ‘guise’ of recycling. • 1993 Secretary of State Environment and DTI Minister for environmental issues invited packaging industries to recover 50-75% of all packaging waste by year 2000. Wished an industry-led solution. • The Producers Responsibility Group (PRG) proposed :- • Recovery of 58% of packaging waste by building close to home recycling facilities – actually huge incinerators burning waste to generate heat and electricity. • NFFO to cover heat as well as electricity. • Planning process made easier and time limit on public inquiry. • Government requested PRG recommendations to take the issue of emissions out of planning process. • Government + incinerator + related industry – high profile public relations campaign to convince public that incinerators will be entirely safe and regulated to highest possible standards. The Concerns and The Claims • Scientific evidence that incineration is a cause of ill health – tests have shown areas as far as 1,000 miles are impacted directly by chemical particulates, metal, dioxins and products of incomplete combustion. Thus food chain effects? • The scientific information on health impacts of incineration often isn’t available – relevant studies not conducted (e.g. epidemiological or disease and illness patterns). • Toxic effects depends on duration of exposure, concentration in env’t, biological uptake and individual susceptibility (e.g. age) – these would need to be considered. • Concerns: For foetal growth, effects on male reproductive processes, respiratory irritation, etc...

3. “New High Standards” • Government claim process of incineration has undergone major environmental improvements in recent years – now capable of very high standards in terms of reduced emission. • Regulated to very high standards using very latest technology (State of the art = the best we can do today – forced in this case by EC limits. The Claim High temperature will destroy all dioxin and the pollution equipment will take care of the chemical emissions. 90% reduction in volume of waste arriving at the incinerator. The Reality? Some of the emitted elements will pass straight through especially during process upset conditions. The ash produced (typically around 30% of the original waste) by incinerators contains highly toxic substances – for each 3 tons burnt – one ton of highly toxic ash to dispose of. The better the air pollution devices the more contaminated the ash becomes. What an Incinerator Emits Waste to Energy incinerators emit SOx, NOx, HCl, mercury, lead, cadmium, copper, and arsenic at higher rates per kWh generated than a well controlled coal fired plant (Pace Univ, 1990).

4. Perceived “Data Gaps” 1. Associated with the incinerator technology / facility include:- Often inadequate identification and quantification of waste feed as well as fugitive emissions associated with specific incinerator facilities. Deposition rates to soil and water for all potential incinerator stack emissions are not well known. I/D and quantification of emissions during incinerator process upsets are frequently not measured. When stack emissions are analysed for metals the specific metal compounds or species present are not usually identified. Concentrations of contaminates in environmental samples around incinerator facilities (e.g. soil, water and ambient air are typically not measured. There are limitations in the current stack testing, air monitoring and air modelling methods. Some of these methodologies need further validation. Often there is a lack of data on the concentration of contaminates present in foods that are grown near a facility, such as vegetables from gardens, cattle, fish or shellfish, etc.

5. Perceived “Data Gaps” (cont’d) 2. Environmental Health Limited demographic and health data on the surrounding community. Lack of environmental data such as types and concentrations of contaminates present and the environmental media contaminated. Limited number of exposure, health monitoring and surveillance activities in communities living near operating incinerator facilities. Data gaps in our knowledge about the adverse health effects from specific substances. Toxicologic data on the mixture of substances from incinerators. Efforts by federal and state environmental and health agencies are under way to address a number of these data gaps. In addition to these efforts, attempts should be made to co-ordinate and collaborate in order to maximise the results in each individual area of data needed.