This article by Yvonne Cookpeers was published by the Independent on September 02, 2009. Thank you to Michael Ryan for drawing it to our attention. See also http://markwrite.co.uk/Incinerator.htm
Clean air could save thousands of lives
Pollutants take a huge toll on human life, and are estimated to cost £20bn a year in ill-health and time off work.
If someone was killing thousands of UK residents every year, you’d expect no effort would be spared to bring them to justice. Not so, according to a report entitled Crime is in the Air to be published tomorrow by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Its author, Reece Walters, Professor of Criminology at The Open University, argues that industries who poison the air we breathe are getting away virtually scot-free.
Air pollution is a health threat that is only now coming to prominence in the run-up to the 2012 Olympic Games. The situation is sufficiently serious that earlier this year the European Union threatened to take the UK to court for consistently breaching pollution limits. The Government’s advisory committee on the medical effects of air pollutants (Comeap) estimates that as many as 24,000 UK residents may be dying prematurely every year as a result of air pollution, and thousands more are hospitalised. The cost from ill- health and time off work is thought to be in the region of 20bn a year.
And the blackspot is London, where air quality is among the worst in Europe, according to a report by the London Assembly’s cross- party environment committee in May. Living in London will take, on average, three years off your life, according to Walters. “We’re not talking about people getting sick and dying in a few weeks, it’s a long-term process. We’re talking about people dying prematurely, sooner that they would do if the air conditions were better.”
Road traffic is often blamed for air pollution, and much attention has rightly been focused on cutting vehicle emissions. But a significant amount also comes from industry, particularly manufacturing industry and power stations. Another important source is the gas and oil-based fuels we use in our buildings. Between them, they throw into the air a cocktail of harmful substances linked to respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis, heart and circulatory disease, cancer, neural damage and even birth defects. [see details in red (SWIS' emphasis, below]
Among the pollutants causing the most concern are the fine particles which are inhaled into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, which can cause cancer and heart disease. A major source is diesel engines, not just in vehicles but in factories and offices which use diesel to power heating and air-conditioning.
Another major cause of harm is sulphur dioxide, which can damage lungs even at moderate levels. It’s produced by vehicle emissions and also by commercial activity – factories with the appropriate permit can legally burn off sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere
Ironically, when it comes to air pollution monitoring the UK is regarded as something of a model by other countries, particularly for its National Air Quality Archive which has sites all over the UK. And there is almost an embarrassment of legislation controlling emissions, founded on the landmark Environmental Protection Act 1990 and supplemented later by EU-inspired laws. So what’s going wrong?
“Firstly, the levels of permitted pollution under current legislation are too high,” says Walters. "They need to be reduced across all industries. That would really have a dramatic effect.
“Then the regulatory authorities need more resources, so they can do more in terms of knocking on the doors of those industries that are producing the air pollution. They need to conduct unexpected site visits, which doesn’t happen to any extent at the moment.”
In practice, most authorities go after the “easy pickings”, which means small-time polluters rather than major ones, says Walters. “We see individuals getting prosecuted for causing black smoke by burning off a few rubber tyres in their backyard. Whereas if you have a factory exceeding its emission limits, you’ll more than likely get a warning letter.”
At the root of the problem, argues Walters, is a regulatory system which treats air pollution by industry as an administrative slip-up rather than a crime. The model is not one of punishment but of partnership, negotiation and self-regulation, resulting in a system which favours the polluter.
“If you open a factory to produce, say, plastics, you have a lot of residue from what you produce. What do you do with this waste? You burn it off into the atmosphere and it causes pollution. You’re allowed to do this by law, provided you have a permit from the local council that says you can release no more than a certain amount on each day for a certain number of days per year,” he says.
"If you exceed that permitted amount, firstly, you have to be detected, and most of the time you’re not because there is no really effective monitoring arrangement. But if you are, you will be referred to as ‘exceeding air pollution standards’ – it’s not a crime, it’s simply an ‘exceedance’.
“The authority will write you a letter saying effectively: ’You’re going to have to do something about this’. A few weeks later, they come back and check. If you start doing it again, you might get a second letter, and a third letter, and a fourth letter. By the time it gets to prosecution, we’re talking about a very, very small percentage of polluters.” And for the few who do end up being prosecuted, the penalties are relatively light.
Walters says the present system is too industry-led, and needs to be made more independent and transparent. “Industries get their own scientists to come in and write reports for government on what they consider to be best available practice. There’s not enough government oversight. The partnership model works well if everyone is doing the right thing, not so well if everyone is not.”
However, the main thrust of his argument is that air pollution should no longer be viewed as an “exceedance”, but as an eco-crime. "Calling it an eco-crime elevates the seriousness of air pollution as a social concern and an environmental concern.
“It takes it from the realm of misdemeanour or administrative error and places it firmly within the rhetoric of a serious action that requires significant government intervention. And until we start shifting the rhetoric, I don’t think we are going to get a shift in the regulatory practice.”
Getting industry to clean up its act would be costly, Walters acknowledges. “Trade and development are crucial to the way in which we want to live our lives, but they come with a cost, and that includes air pollution. The question is, how do we weigh the balance between trade and health?”
Professor Walters is a specialist in green criminology. He contributes to the OU courses Crime and Justice (DD301); and Earth in Crisis: environmental policy in an international context (DU311). The report, Crime is in the air, will be downloadable at www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
Invisible killers: the main components of man-made pollution
Sulphur dioxide, from burning sulphur in fossil fuels and oil. Damages lungs.
Nitrogen oxides, from vehicle emissions and the production of electricity. Causes respiratory and viral illness, particularly in children.
Toxic organic micro-pollutants (Tomps), chemicals in waste from industry smoke stacks, and vehicular and engine emissions. Includes dioxins and others linked to cancer, lung disease, immune deficiency and cerebral dysfunction in young children.
Fine particles. Carcinogenic, causing inflammation and more serious conditions such as heart disease.
Lead and heavy metals from smoke and vapour waste, emitted in industrial areas. Can cause mental, neurological and visual problems in children, and birth defects.
Butadiene, released by burning rubber and synthetics and emissions from petrol- and diesel-operated machinery. Can cause birth defects, organ damage and also reproductive disorders.
Carbon monoxide from petrol engines. Reduces the supply of oxygen to major organs, including the heart, and causes heart disease.
Ozone and volatile organic compounds (Vols). Causes damage to the natural environment as well as asthma and lung disease.
© 2009 Independent, The; London (UK). Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Cheshire East refuses Covanta EfW proposal
Cheshire East council has rejected a proposal by American-owned company Covanta Energy to develop a 370,000 tonnes-a-year capacity energy-from-waste facility at Middlewich over concerns about overcapacity in the region.
One of the two designs put forward by Covanta for the 370,000
tonnes-a-year capacity facility which was refused planning permission
in Middlewich
However, Covanta has today vowed to appeal the unitary authority's decision and claimed that "not one of the grounds for refusal is justified".
At a meeting of the strategic planning board held yesterday (April 26) in Middlewich, councillors followed planning officers' recommendations to refuse the application and voted unanimously to block plans for the large-scale energy-from-waste facility.
The facility is earmarked for a site off Pochin Way in Middlewich and is designed to treat municipal and commercial and industrial waste from both Cheshire East and Cheshire West councils.
Officers had claimed that the proposal was not at a preferred site under its Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan, which outlines the council's strategy on waste management and treatment, and that the firm had failed to demonstrate that existing waste treatment capacity was inadequate to meet the council's waste needs.
The officers added that creation of the site could lead to overcapacity in the region and, potentially, necessitate material being imported to Cheshire for treatment. [SWiS comments: Shropshire Council, please take note.] Furthermore, the officers claimed that the applicant had "not satisfactorily demonstrated" how energy generated by the site would be recovered and exported.
The proposal was also recommended for refusal on the grounds that the impact of the site on the surrounding landscape would "outweigh the benefits".
Commenting on the refusal, chairman of the strategic planning board, councillor Hilda Gaddum, said: "After careful consideration the members concluded that the Covanta scheme conflicted with development plan policy in a number of key areas - namely that with the approval of other waste facilities elsewhere in Cheshire there is not a clear need for the development."
The meeting was prompted by Covanta's stated intention to appeal for non-determination of the planning application - which allows applicants to appeal a decision if the planning authority takes longer than eight weeks to deliberate.
However, the council maintained that they retained the power to determine the outcome of the application until May 1, 2010.
Determination
Covanta, which has UK headquarters in the West Midlands, first unveiled plans for the facility two years ago with the intention of winning the PFI-backed waste treatment contract for all of the former Cheshire county council's household waste and generating 35MW of power (see letsrecycle.com story).
And, Covanta preserved with the proposal for the site despite not
being among the final two bidders shortlisted by Cheshire county council the waste treatment contract in February 2009, after claiming that it believed there was still sufficient residual waste arisings in the region (see letsrecycle.com story).
Responding to the council decision to refuse the application, Covanta said it would be proceeding with an appeal. And, the firm claimed that, despite the five points raised by planning officers, it was important that no objection was raised on the basis of health or traffic grounds.
Malcolm Chilton, managing director of Covanta, said: "Covanta believes that not one of the grounds for refusal is justified, and that the full range of benefits the development would bring was not sufficiently examined.
"It is, however, worthy of note that in raising no objection on either health or traffic grounds, the view of Cheshire East Council's Strategic Planning Board is entirely consistent with the Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust, the Health Protection Agency, the Environment Agency, the Highways Engineer, and the Highways Agency." [Surprise, surprise! - SWiS]
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=55197§ion=local_authorityCheshire
One of the two designs put forward by Covanta for the 370,000
tonnes-a-year capacity facility which was refused planning permission
in Middlewich
However, Covanta has today vowed to appeal the unitary authority's decision and claimed that "not one of the grounds for refusal is justified".
At a meeting of the strategic planning board held yesterday (April 26) in Middlewich, councillors followed planning officers' recommendations to refuse the application and voted unanimously to block plans for the large-scale energy-from-waste facility.
The facility is earmarked for a site off Pochin Way in Middlewich and is designed to treat municipal and commercial and industrial waste from both Cheshire East and Cheshire West councils.
Officers had claimed that the proposal was not at a preferred site under its Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan, which outlines the council's strategy on waste management and treatment, and that the firm had failed to demonstrate that existing waste treatment capacity was inadequate to meet the council's waste needs.
The officers added that creation of the site could lead to overcapacity in the region and, potentially, necessitate material being imported to Cheshire for treatment. [SWiS comments: Shropshire Council, please take note.] Furthermore, the officers claimed that the applicant had "not satisfactorily demonstrated" how energy generated by the site would be recovered and exported.
The proposal was also recommended for refusal on the grounds that the impact of the site on the surrounding landscape would "outweigh the benefits".
Commenting on the refusal, chairman of the strategic planning board, councillor Hilda Gaddum, said: "After careful consideration the members concluded that the Covanta scheme conflicted with development plan policy in a number of key areas - namely that with the approval of other waste facilities elsewhere in Cheshire there is not a clear need for the development."
The meeting was prompted by Covanta's stated intention to appeal for non-determination of the planning application - which allows applicants to appeal a decision if the planning authority takes longer than eight weeks to deliberate.
However, the council maintained that they retained the power to determine the outcome of the application until May 1, 2010.
Determination
Covanta, which has UK headquarters in the West Midlands, first unveiled plans for the facility two years ago with the intention of winning the PFI-backed waste treatment contract for all of the former Cheshire county council's household waste and generating 35MW of power (see letsrecycle.com story).
And, Covanta preserved with the proposal for the site despite not
being among the final two bidders shortlisted by Cheshire county council the waste treatment contract in February 2009, after claiming that it believed there was still sufficient residual waste arisings in the region (see letsrecycle.com story).
Responding to the council decision to refuse the application, Covanta said it would be proceeding with an appeal. And, the firm claimed that, despite the five points raised by planning officers, it was important that no objection was raised on the basis of health or traffic grounds.
Malcolm Chilton, managing director of Covanta, said: "Covanta believes that not one of the grounds for refusal is justified, and that the full range of benefits the development would bring was not sufficiently examined.
"It is, however, worthy of note that in raising no objection on either health or traffic grounds, the view of Cheshire East Council's Strategic Planning Board is entirely consistent with the Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust, the Health Protection Agency, the Environment Agency, the Highways Engineer, and the Highways Agency." [Surprise, surprise! - SWiS]
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=55197§ion=local_authorityCheshire
Veolia's proposed Notts incinerator now looking unlikely
Speculation that Veolia may withdraw controversial Rainworth incinerator plans
Ruth Faulkner 30 Apr 2010
http://www.mrw.co.uk/page.cfm/action=Archive/ContentID=1/EntryID=6570
A public inquiry into a controversial energy recovery facility proposed for Nottinghamshire has been adjourned for a second time amid speculation that Veoila Environmental Services could pull out and abandon its plans for the site.
The plans, submitted by Veoila, to build an incinerator on the former Rufford Colliery in Rainworth have been the subject of fierce local opposition, prompting a public inquiry which resumed in April following a six-month postponement.
After just one week of the inquiry, Veoila requested a second adjournment following a submission of evidence from Natural England surrounding whether the site should be designated as a Special Protection Area due to the protected woodlark and nightjar birds living there.
Veoila has until May 18 to respond to the planning inspector about whether it wishes to continue with the inquiry. If it does, none of the parties are available to resume until late September, almost a year after the inquiry first began in October 2009.
MRW understands from insiders close to the inquiry that it is unlikely that Veolia will continue with their application.
UK Without Incineration national co-ordinator Shlomo Dowen said: “Some campaigners are celebrating already as no one believes Veolia can come back from this. It is being seen as a victory for the People Against Incineration campaign which has fought against the plans.”
The point over which Veolia requested the adjournment from Natural England said: “Natural England would advise the competent authority on the matter that the ERF development, in combination with other plans and projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interest features of breeding nightjar and woodlark by reason which the Sherwood Forest site may be considered to be a potential Special Protection Area.”
If an area is designated as an SPA then it is necessary to apply habitats regulations as a matter of law, which means that planning permission is automatically refused unless the applicant can show overriding need.
Nottinghamshire County Council planning applications manager Mike Hankin said: “Veoila’s request to adjourn the inquiry was based on the supplementary proof from Natural England being submitted.”
The Council had been supportive of the plans for the incinerator but in light of the evidence from Natural England it issued a statement to the planning inspector which said: “The County Council’s recommendation will now be that the Secretary of State should not grant planning permission without first making an Appropriate Assessment of the in-combination effects.”
Natural England has since written to the planning inspector to say that its supplementary proof was misinterpreted but the adjournment had already been granted with many believing that, despite this admission by Natural England, Veolia will find it difficult to come back from this.
Dowen said: “It will want to avoid a judgement by the Secretary of State because it wants to open other incinerators in other areas and a catastrophic failure at an inquiry could affect some of its other applications. It would probably be happy to sacrifice this one to protect some of the others.”
Veolia were unavailable to comment on this issue but are expected to issue a formal statement to the planning inspector on May 18.
Ruth Faulkner 30 Apr 2010
http://www.mrw.co.uk/page.cfm/action=Archive/ContentID=1/EntryID=6570
A public inquiry into a controversial energy recovery facility proposed for Nottinghamshire has been adjourned for a second time amid speculation that Veoila Environmental Services could pull out and abandon its plans for the site.
The plans, submitted by Veoila, to build an incinerator on the former Rufford Colliery in Rainworth have been the subject of fierce local opposition, prompting a public inquiry which resumed in April following a six-month postponement.
After just one week of the inquiry, Veoila requested a second adjournment following a submission of evidence from Natural England surrounding whether the site should be designated as a Special Protection Area due to the protected woodlark and nightjar birds living there.
Veoila has until May 18 to respond to the planning inspector about whether it wishes to continue with the inquiry. If it does, none of the parties are available to resume until late September, almost a year after the inquiry first began in October 2009.
MRW understands from insiders close to the inquiry that it is unlikely that Veolia will continue with their application.
UK Without Incineration national co-ordinator Shlomo Dowen said: “Some campaigners are celebrating already as no one believes Veolia can come back from this. It is being seen as a victory for the People Against Incineration campaign which has fought against the plans.”
The point over which Veolia requested the adjournment from Natural England said: “Natural England would advise the competent authority on the matter that the ERF development, in combination with other plans and projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interest features of breeding nightjar and woodlark by reason which the Sherwood Forest site may be considered to be a potential Special Protection Area.”
If an area is designated as an SPA then it is necessary to apply habitats regulations as a matter of law, which means that planning permission is automatically refused unless the applicant can show overriding need.
Nottinghamshire County Council planning applications manager Mike Hankin said: “Veoila’s request to adjourn the inquiry was based on the supplementary proof from Natural England being submitted.”
The Council had been supportive of the plans for the incinerator but in light of the evidence from Natural England it issued a statement to the planning inspector which said: “The County Council’s recommendation will now be that the Secretary of State should not grant planning permission without first making an Appropriate Assessment of the in-combination effects.”
Natural England has since written to the planning inspector to say that its supplementary proof was misinterpreted but the adjournment had already been granted with many believing that, despite this admission by Natural England, Veolia will find it difficult to come back from this.
Dowen said: “It will want to avoid a judgement by the Secretary of State because it wants to open other incinerators in other areas and a catastrophic failure at an inquiry could affect some of its other applications. It would probably be happy to sacrifice this one to protect some of the others.”
Veolia were unavailable to comment on this issue but are expected to issue a formal statement to the planning inspector on May 18.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)