14/04/2008
Today the European Commission has introduced measures to improve air quality throughout Europe. A new directive sets binding targets for reducing concentrations of fine particles which can cause asthma, chronic bronchitis and reduced life expectancy.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "The European Union has today taken a decisive step in tackling a major cause of environmental and health problems. The new directive on air quality addresses this concern by providing ambitious but realistic standards for fine particle PM2.5 pollution in the European Union."
Under the directive EU Member States are required to reduce exposure to PM2.5 in urban areas by an average of 20% by 2020 based on 2010 levels. It obliges them to bring exposure levels below 20 micrograms/m3 by 2015 in these areas. Throughout their territory Member States will need to respect the PM2.5 limit value set at 25 micrograms/m3. This value must be achieved by 2015 or, where possible, by 2010.
Air pollution is caused by the emission to the atmosphere of certain substances. The pollutant which causes the most damage to human health is ground level ozone and airborne fine dust, known as particulate matter (PM). Ozone is not emitted directly but is formed through the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunshine. Fine dust can be emitted directly to the air (primary particles) or can be formed in the atmosphere by certain gases (secondary particles) such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia.
Air pollution has impacts on human health ranging from minor effects on the respiratory system to reduced lung function, asthma, chronic bronchitis and reduced life expectancy. Air pollution in the European Union, notably from fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone, causes the premature death of almost 370,000 citizens every year, reducing average life expectancy by an average of 9 months.
Background
The new directive on air quality (see Commission welcomes EP vote on the air quality directive and Questions and Answers on the new directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) is one of the key measures outlined in the 2005 Thematic Strategy on air pollution adopted by the Commission in September 2005. It establishes ambitious, cost-effective targets for improving human health and environmental quality up to 2020.
Council facing ’waste’ lawsuit
MORE TROUBLE FOR CRYMLYN BURROWS INCINERATOR: SHROPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILLORS - TAKE NOTE!
Martin Shipton, South Wales Echo 1st May, 2008
A SOUTH Wales council is facing a £5m lawsuit over a waste processing and incinerator plant, it has emerged.
Bridgend council is understood to be locked in a secret battle with neighbouring Neath Port Talbot over problems relating to the Crymlyn Burrows Materials Recovery and Energy Centre (MREC).
The row, which is believed to involve Neath Port Talbot suing Bridgend to the tune of £5m, may even see Bridgend being banned from sending waste to the plant.
Domestic rubbish from both council areas are disposed of at the facility, which processes material for recycling and incinerates other waste.
It is also understood that during the course of legal arguments between the two councils, Neath Port Talbot has threatened to ban Bridgend from sending waste to the plant.
A political source told the Echo: “Leading politicians were told about this last week but they are all keeping tight lipped. I find it incredible that it has been allowed to get to this stage. Neath Port Talbot is apparently demanding that Bridgend pay up its fair share of the costs involved with various aspects of the MREC plant which have accrued since the collapse of the plant’s original operating company HLC.
“I understand that Bridgend has failed to pay an invoice for millions sent to them by Neath Port Talbot.”
The Crymlyn Burrows waste-processing plant, near the border of Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, has been hugely controversial since before it was opened in 2002.
Residents opposed it on health grounds, claiming there was no truly safe limit for the dioxins emitted by the incinerator. But councils, who point out that the incinerator has to comply with emission standards, saw it as a means of reducing the proportion of waste sent to landfill.
From the outset the plant processed about 150,000 tonnes of domestic refuse a year from Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend.
Much has been recycled, but an estimated 50,000 tonnes a year is burnt off in the incinerator.
The two councils issued a joint statement saying: “Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot councils are in discussions concerning a contractual matter related to waste disposal arrangements and both are hopeful that an early resolution will be possible. At this stage, neither council is prepared to make any further comment.”
martin.shipton@mediawales.co.uk
Martin Shipton, South Wales Echo 1st May, 2008
A SOUTH Wales council is facing a £5m lawsuit over a waste processing and incinerator plant, it has emerged.
Bridgend council is understood to be locked in a secret battle with neighbouring Neath Port Talbot over problems relating to the Crymlyn Burrows Materials Recovery and Energy Centre (MREC).
The row, which is believed to involve Neath Port Talbot suing Bridgend to the tune of £5m, may even see Bridgend being banned from sending waste to the plant.
Domestic rubbish from both council areas are disposed of at the facility, which processes material for recycling and incinerates other waste.
It is also understood that during the course of legal arguments between the two councils, Neath Port Talbot has threatened to ban Bridgend from sending waste to the plant.
A political source told the Echo: “Leading politicians were told about this last week but they are all keeping tight lipped. I find it incredible that it has been allowed to get to this stage. Neath Port Talbot is apparently demanding that Bridgend pay up its fair share of the costs involved with various aspects of the MREC plant which have accrued since the collapse of the plant’s original operating company HLC.
“I understand that Bridgend has failed to pay an invoice for millions sent to them by Neath Port Talbot.”
The Crymlyn Burrows waste-processing plant, near the border of Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, has been hugely controversial since before it was opened in 2002.
Residents opposed it on health grounds, claiming there was no truly safe limit for the dioxins emitted by the incinerator. But councils, who point out that the incinerator has to comply with emission standards, saw it as a means of reducing the proportion of waste sent to landfill.
From the outset the plant processed about 150,000 tonnes of domestic refuse a year from Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend.
Much has been recycled, but an estimated 50,000 tonnes a year is burnt off in the incinerator.
The two councils issued a joint statement saying: “Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot councils are in discussions concerning a contractual matter related to waste disposal arrangements and both are hopeful that an early resolution will be possible. At this stage, neither council is prepared to make any further comment.”
martin.shipton@mediawales.co.uk
Incinerator chemicals ‘might be good for you’
SAFE WASTE COMMENT: 'The claims referred to by Professor Jim Bridges at an incinerator planning enquiry in Cheshire presumably include those made by the likes of Dr Harold Shipman, Dr Crippen, the Borgias and members of the royal house of Denmark (as told in 'Hamlet')!'
Report by Paul Mannion, Chester Chronicle 28 April, 2008
A COCKTAIL of chemicals released from a proposed incinerator will pose no danger to its neighbours, a planning inquiry heard. The claim was made by international health expert Professor Jim Bridges in week two of the inquiry into Peel Holdings’ proposed incinerator, waste plant and technology complex in Ince.
He went on to suggest that at low levels of potency, some of the dioxins released through industrial processes could even provide health benefits. Giving evidence for Peel, Prof Bridges said: “It can be concluded that the operation of the proposed incinerator plant, according to the statutory emission limits, will not result in adverse health effects in the local population.
“It has been concluded that airborne emissions of the chemicals of interest constitute a negligible risk to the health of the local community.”
In his proof of evidence for the inquiry at Forest Hills Hotel, Frodsham, he said: “Vitamins and essential minerals are examples of chemicals that have adverse effects at high exposure levels but beneficial effects at lower levels. It is apparent that a considerable number of chemicals fall into this class – indeed there are even claims that dioxins should be included.”
Referring to the build up of pollutants in locally grown produce, Prof Bridges added: “In the case of dioxins, an assessment has also been carried out of the possible contamination of locally grown food and the potential health implications of this. The risk, even to individuals whose diet throughout the year involves a substantial contribution from locally grown food, will not constitute a significant risk.”
Cross-examining for protest group Residents Against Incineration, chemical specialist Professor John Dearden questioned the accuracy of the existing scientific tests on the effects of incinerators. He also suggested there isn’t enough research into incinerators to know the full health impact.
In response, Professor Bridges said: “I would never say we know enough about anything from a scientific point of view.”
Next week, witnesses for Peel will continue their evidence. The public inquiry is running from 10am-5.30pm Tuesdays to Fridays.
There is a public meeting on Wednesday, May 14, at 7pm when the public can attend and give evidence if they first register with programme officer Jane Coslett on 01928 735255.
Where's Response to Incinerator Concerns? -
THIS CHALLENGE TO SCC AND VEOLIA WAS PRINTED IN THE SHREWSBURY CHRONICLE ON 1st MAY:
The Chronicle printed a letter of mine in its March 13 edition.
It related to Shropshire County Council's plans for a waste incinerator to be built at Battlefield.
I commented on the serious health concerns associated with such a facility that have been identified by pollution expert, Dr Dick van Steenis. He had given a talk on the subject at a public meeting in Sundorne, organised by the Safe Waste in Shropshire group.
I find it very odd that there has been no attempt by the council or Veolia, their waste contractor, to respond in public. Surely, local people are entitled to wonder, in the absence, whether both parties have something to hide.
Furthermore, Veolia chose to hold their public roadshow on the subject at the Lantern Centre in Sundorne. Whilst this is a pleasant venue, it is out-of-centre and I doubt whether more than a handful of people attended the two-day event.
One wonders whether this was Veolia's intention, to limit public involvement. In my view, this exercise should be repeated, but this time at a a centreal location in Shrewsbury. This would enable far more people to view the presentation.
This incinerator proposal is highly controversial and I believe the debate should be widely-aired.
So, come on Shropshire county council and Veolia, let us have a public response to the health concerns that have been raised.
Keith O'Neill, Shropshire Green Party
FOR THE RECORD - WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT DR VAN STEENIS WOULD BE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN A PUBLIC DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE (Safe Waste in Shropshire).
More information about the health effects of incinerators at www.ukhr.org.
The Chronicle printed a letter of mine in its March 13 edition.
It related to Shropshire County Council's plans for a waste incinerator to be built at Battlefield.
I commented on the serious health concerns associated with such a facility that have been identified by pollution expert, Dr Dick van Steenis. He had given a talk on the subject at a public meeting in Sundorne, organised by the Safe Waste in Shropshire group.
I find it very odd that there has been no attempt by the council or Veolia, their waste contractor, to respond in public. Surely, local people are entitled to wonder, in the absence, whether both parties have something to hide.
Furthermore, Veolia chose to hold their public roadshow on the subject at the Lantern Centre in Sundorne. Whilst this is a pleasant venue, it is out-of-centre and I doubt whether more than a handful of people attended the two-day event.
One wonders whether this was Veolia's intention, to limit public involvement. In my view, this exercise should be repeated, but this time at a a centreal location in Shrewsbury. This would enable far more people to view the presentation.
This incinerator proposal is highly controversial and I believe the debate should be widely-aired.
So, come on Shropshire county council and Veolia, let us have a public response to the health concerns that have been raised.
Keith O'Neill, Shropshire Green Party
FOR THE RECORD - WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT DR VAN STEENIS WOULD BE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN A PUBLIC DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE (Safe Waste in Shropshire).
More information about the health effects of incinerators at www.ukhr.org.
ANOTHER PLANNED INCINERATOR IS SCRAPPED
PLANS to build a massive incinerator in Renfrewshire have been scrapped. The
proposals were to create a waste-treatment plant, capable of burning 140,000
tonnes of rubbish a year, in Linwood. But after announcing a U-turn, council
bosses have promised to reduce landfill by increasing recycling..
proposals were to create a waste-treatment plant, capable of burning 140,000
tonnes of rubbish a year, in Linwood. But after announcing a U-turn, council
bosses have promised to reduce landfill by increasing recycling..
PROPOSED NEW INCINERATOR FOR TELFORD
Sita has announced plans for an incinerator in Granville, Telford, and it looks like the planning application will go in within the next 2 months (!) Read the report in the Shropshire Star, below.
This means that people living in a large area of North and East Shropshire now face suffering the effects of emissions from 2 incinerators. One can only speculate as to why Sita, which used to hold the waste contract for Shropshire is now proposing to rush through an incinerator planning application in Telford and Wrekin. Sita reportedly lost the contract in Shrewsbury because their waste management proposals for the county, which included an incinerator, were seen at the time as unacceptable. Subsequently the contract was awarded to Veolia, including - guess what?
Both these companies know that there will be a waste shortfall. Veolia claims that only municipal waste will be burned in the Harlescott incinerator with the shortfall being made up by 'similar' kinds of commercial waste. Since incinerators need to burn 24/7 to be efficient, how are 2 incinerators going to be kept fed - you work it out!
Keith Kondakor, an anti-incinerator campaigner from Mansfield has worked out that raising recycling rates to 70% could mean that incineration is never the cheapest option - despite the much-vaunted 'energy from waste'. Keith commented on the Star website:
'Telford and the Wrekin only recycle and compost only 35% of their waste. Almost all of the waste is recyclable (93.5% in one study) and if its not recycleable or compostable we should not be making it.
An incinerator just moves the problem from dirty hole in the ground to dirty air we breath. The first aim must be to massive reduce the amount we produce. There are then modern plants that can clean the waste before a small clean and safe residual is landfilled. They are building these types of plant in Norfolk and Lancashire.'
Shropshire Star Thursday April 3, 2008-04-07
Multi-million pound proposal for borough incinerator unveiled
Plan to Burn Town Waste By Peter Johnson
MULTI-MILLION pound plans to build an incinerator in Telford - which aims to tackle the borough's growing mountain of waste - wereunveiled today. The incinerator, planned for a site at Granville tip, on the outskirts of the borough, would be able to process 62,000 tonnes of non-recyclable rubbish every year. It would also create 17 new jobs if the plans were given the go-ahead. Bosses at SITA UK, a French-owned waste management company, and its partner Cyclerval, which are behind the plans, are expected to submit a planning application to Telford & Wrekin Council in the next twomonths.
A SITA UK spokeswoman would not reveal the exact cost of the borough plant but said it would run into "millions of pounds". Company chiefs said the "energy from waste" facility would provide electricity for homes and businesses across the borough. Geraint Rees, SITA general manager, said: "The proposed plant would not only provide a long-term-facility for treating residual waste following recycling, but also has the potential to support local businesses and secure jobs by providing affordable and reliable heatand power."
Outcry
The proposal is expected to create an outcry among public health andenvironmental campaigners who claim such schemes are potentially hazardous.
Telford Friends of the Earth has already expressed opposition to an incinerator, claiming it would produce potentially harmful fumes. Council bosses said the borough is running out of space for rubbish burial. It has significantly boosted recycling despite initial grumbles from householders. It faces hefty Government "fines" if it does not reduce landfill rates.
Councillor Steve Bentley, cabinet member for environment, said: "We are very keen that the whole issue of waste disposal is opened for consultation with the community at this very early stage. Supporters of burning rubbish say the latest generation of incinerators are a clean and cost effective way of dealing with waste and producing electricity. A possible alternative for Telford is mechanical biological treatment – sorting and processing waste, some of which would go to landfill and some for use as fuel.
This means that people living in a large area of North and East Shropshire now face suffering the effects of emissions from 2 incinerators. One can only speculate as to why Sita, which used to hold the waste contract for Shropshire is now proposing to rush through an incinerator planning application in Telford and Wrekin. Sita reportedly lost the contract in Shrewsbury because their waste management proposals for the county, which included an incinerator, were seen at the time as unacceptable. Subsequently the contract was awarded to Veolia, including - guess what?
Both these companies know that there will be a waste shortfall. Veolia claims that only municipal waste will be burned in the Harlescott incinerator with the shortfall being made up by 'similar' kinds of commercial waste. Since incinerators need to burn 24/7 to be efficient, how are 2 incinerators going to be kept fed - you work it out!
Keith Kondakor, an anti-incinerator campaigner from Mansfield has worked out that raising recycling rates to 70% could mean that incineration is never the cheapest option - despite the much-vaunted 'energy from waste'. Keith commented on the Star website:
'Telford and the Wrekin only recycle and compost only 35% of their waste. Almost all of the waste is recyclable (93.5% in one study) and if its not recycleable or compostable we should not be making it.
An incinerator just moves the problem from dirty hole in the ground to dirty air we breath. The first aim must be to massive reduce the amount we produce. There are then modern plants that can clean the waste before a small clean and safe residual is landfilled. They are building these types of plant in Norfolk and Lancashire.'
Shropshire Star Thursday April 3, 2008-04-07
Multi-million pound proposal for borough incinerator unveiled
Plan to Burn Town Waste By Peter Johnson
MULTI-MILLION pound plans to build an incinerator in Telford - which aims to tackle the borough's growing mountain of waste - wereunveiled today. The incinerator, planned for a site at Granville tip, on the outskirts of the borough, would be able to process 62,000 tonnes of non-recyclable rubbish every year. It would also create 17 new jobs if the plans were given the go-ahead. Bosses at SITA UK, a French-owned waste management company, and its partner Cyclerval, which are behind the plans, are expected to submit a planning application to Telford & Wrekin Council in the next twomonths.
A SITA UK spokeswoman would not reveal the exact cost of the borough plant but said it would run into "millions of pounds". Company chiefs said the "energy from waste" facility would provide electricity for homes and businesses across the borough. Geraint Rees, SITA general manager, said: "The proposed plant would not only provide a long-term-facility for treating residual waste following recycling, but also has the potential to support local businesses and secure jobs by providing affordable and reliable heatand power."
Outcry
The proposal is expected to create an outcry among public health andenvironmental campaigners who claim such schemes are potentially hazardous.
Telford Friends of the Earth has already expressed opposition to an incinerator, claiming it would produce potentially harmful fumes. Council bosses said the borough is running out of space for rubbish burial. It has significantly boosted recycling despite initial grumbles from householders. It faces hefty Government "fines" if it does not reduce landfill rates.
Councillor Steve Bentley, cabinet member for environment, said: "We are very keen that the whole issue of waste disposal is opened for consultation with the community at this very early stage. Supporters of burning rubbish say the latest generation of incinerators are a clean and cost effective way of dealing with waste and producing electricity. A possible alternative for Telford is mechanical biological treatment – sorting and processing waste, some of which would go to landfill and some for use as fuel.
BRITAIN'S DIRTY BUSINESS
'But secrecy seems to be about more than just defence. The evidence is that the department doesn’t want us to know what it’s thinking. ....... as the business principles involved are ethical outlines, they cannot be concealed as commercially sensitive'
In the Sunday Times magazine, 6 April, 2008, Brian Appleyard uncovers some very murky and environmentally damaging projects funded by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3666273.ece
In the Sunday Times magazine, 6 April, 2008, Brian Appleyard uncovers some very murky and environmentally damaging projects funded by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3666273.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)