North Yorkshire Waste Action Group
http://www.nywag.org/
22nd August 2012
Permit Application:
Allerton Waste Recovery Park
EPR/NP3034CG/A001
Comments on AmeyCespa’s
Application
Contents
1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................4
1.1: Who We Are ..............................................................................................................................................4
1.2: Our Motivation ..........................................................................................................................................4
1.3: Our Evidence .............................................................................................................................................4
2: Q6: “OTHER INFORMATION” ............................................................................................................................5
2.1: Sustainability, What Sustainability? ..........................................................................................................5
2.2: An Integrated Solution?.............................................................................................................................5
2.3: Waste Hierarchy and the European Dimension ........................................................................................6
2.4: Consequences of Overcapacity .................................................................................................................7
3: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 1: Emissions to Air; Modelling and Data ................................................................8
3.1: Emissions and Dispersion Models .............................................................................................................8
3.2: Technical Context ......................................................................................................................................9
3.3: Atmospheric Dispersion Models ............................................................................................................ 11
3.4: AmeyCespa’s Data and Methodology .................................................................................................... 11
3.5: Data Input and Associated Uncertainties ............................................................................................... 13
3.6: Inadequate Scope of Model ................................................................................................................... 14
3.7: Inadequate Representation of Meteorological Conditions .................................................................... 15
3.8: Implications of Weather Patterns in the Vale of York ............................................................................ 15
3.9: Implications of Modelling Uncertainty ................................................................................................... 16
3.10: Sub-Optimal Operation ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.11: Baseline Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 17
4: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 2: Airborne Pollution: Flaws in AmeyCespa’s Results ......................................... 18
4.1: Oxides of Nitrogen .................................................................................................................................. 18
4.2: Particulate Matter .................................................................................................................................. 18
4.3: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ...................................................................................................... 19
5: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 3: Conclusions on Modelling and Airborne Emissions ........................................ 20
6: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 4: Critique of AmeyCespa’s Analysis ................................................................... 20
6.1: Methodological Flaws............................................................................................................................. 21
6.2: The HHRAP Approach ............................................................................................................................. 23
6.3: Identification and Summary of Key Impacts .......................................................................................... 24
6.3.1: Non-Cancer Risks ............................................................................................................................. 24
6.3.2: Cancer Risks ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Page 1 of 69
6.3.3: Dietary Intake of Trace Metals ........................................................................................................ 28
6.3.4: Comparison of Dioxin/Furan Exposure with UK and the WHO Tolerable Daily Intakes ................. 28
7: Q1: PREVENTION OF EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................... 28
7.1: Inadequate Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 30
7.2: Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
7.3: Odour...................................................................................................................................................... 32
8: Q2: HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................... 32
8.1: Overview................................................................................................................................................. 32
8.2: Climate Change....................................................................................................................................... 33
8.3: Damage to Ecosystems ........................................................................................................................... 35
Table 1: Effects of air pollutants on human health, the environment and the climate ................................ 36
9: Q4: HARM TO THE RNVIRONMENT - LOCAL FACTORS .................................................................................. 39
9.1: Wildlife and Water ................................................................................................................................. 39
9.2: Aquifers and Water Supply..................................................................................................................... 40
9.3: Damage to Materials and Buildings ........................................................................................................ 40
9.4: Harm during Construction and Decommissioning ................................................................................. 41
9.5: Incinerator Bottom Ash .......................................................................................................................... 41
9.6: Fly Ash..................................................................................................................................................... 43
9.7: Traffic Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 43
10: ACCIDENT PREVENTION / LIMITING THEIR CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................... 44
10.1: Transport .............................................................................................................................................. 44
10.2: Operational Safety ................................................................................................................................ 44
11: Q6 (Part 2): ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................... 45
12: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 45
ANNEX 1: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ............................................................................................................. 47
ANNEX 2: RANGE OF EMISSIONS BY INCINERATORS......................................................................................... 49
Table A1.1 Some Emissions by Incinerators .................................................................................................. 50
ANNEX 3: CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................................................. 51
A3.1: COMPARING INCINERATION WITH OTHER WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS .................................... 51
Figure A3.1 - GHG Emissions per tonne of waste – using the “waste systems” methodology ................. 53
Figure A3.2 - GHG Emissions per tonne of waste – Including Biogenic CO2 emissions ............................. 54
Figure A3.3: Relationship between cost and CO2 emissions ..................................................................... 54
A3.2: Comparing incineration with fossil fuel technologies .......................................................................... 55
Figure A3.4: Fossil CO2 pollution from power generation now and in 2020 ............................................. 55
Page 2 of 69
Figure A3.5: Includes Biogenic Carbon - 2020 Scenario ............................................................................ 57
A3.3: Implications of High Carbon Emissions ................................................................................................ 57
A3.4: The Benefits of Recycling ..................................................................................................................... 58
ANNEX 4: COMMUNITY LIAISON ....................................................................................................................... 59
GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 60
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................... 62
Page 3 of 69
1: INTRODUCTION
1.1: Who We Are
1.
North Yorkshire Waste Action Group (NYWAG) is a group of concerned residents in the towns and
villages surrounding the proposed Allerton Waste Recovery Park (AWRP). We have submitted a petition
of over 10,000 signatories who oppose the AWRP proposal to both Government and to North Yorkshire
County Council. We therefore represent a major body of opinion that would ideally wish to see an
Environmental Permit refused or, failing that, stringent conditions attached.
2.
NYWAG believes that the AWRP proposal is ill-judged because the application runs counter to the UK’s
national and international commitments on climate change; will cause harm to the environment and
human health and well-being, to the economy and to sustainability; that harm cannot be mitigated;
and the applicant fails to prove a need that overrides the harm.
1.2: Our Motivation
3.
Our motivation is positive; we would wish to see cleaner, cheaper and more environmentally friendly
alternatives to AWRP. We emphasize that we have never, at any time, opposed suitable development at
the Allerton Park site but are firmly of the belief that AWRP would not be a suitable development.
4.
We believe that there is now an opportunity to create an environmentally sound strategy for waste
management in North Yorkshire. This would reduce the amount of waste produced and maximize re-use
and recycling and treat residual waste using technologies such as Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)
and Anaerobic Digestion (AD). It would avoid incineration, in part because of the associated
environmental and health risks. Refusing an Environmental Permit for AWRP would be a major step
towards this goal.
1.3: Our Evidence
5.
We fully understand that the existence of pressure groups such as ours will not of itself influence your
judgment and that you grant or refuse an Environmental Permit based on legal requirements. For that
reason, we are submitting evidence relating to the environment and to health impacts that has either
not been included in AmeyCespa’s application or where we consider they have misrepresented or
judged pertinent information incorrectly.
6.
Our representatives at the 2nd August consultation event at Knaresborough House were advised that
considerations of Planning per se are not germane to your decisions and we have therefore kept these
out of our evidence. However, we note that some of the material submitted by AmeyCespa is taken
directly from their planning application to NYCC and we must therefore advise you that we do not agree
with or accept many of their statements and interpretations around planning policies1.
7.
We understand that road traffic is outside the Environment Agency’s remit. We have therefore excluded
it from this evidence despite the fact that the technology choice at AWRP leads to a single site “solution”
and therefore to more traffic than other solutions which admit to greater proximity to the source of
waste. This in turn damages the safety and security of residents and North Yorkshire road users (not
your concern) and leads to emissions which exacerbate the environmental and health harm associated
with AWRP. Emissions cannot be seen in isolation and traffic adds to the environmental insults resulting
from the AWRP emissions.
1
For details of our Objection to AWRP on Planning grounds see http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=17992
Page 4 of 69
8.
Fundamentally what matters to you in deciding on the Environmental Permit is whether or not there are
errors and/or omissions in the application made by AmeyCespa. This Chapter critically reviews
AmeyCespa’s evidence in a number of areas and highlights deficiencies in their methodology and
assumptions and in their use of data.
9.
We will cover most of the six questions on the response form (hereafter Q1 to Q6 in the titles below) but
not in the order presented. Instead we prefer to start with general considerations relating to
environmental harm (your Q6, “other information”).
2: Q6: “OTHER INFORMATION”
2.1: Sustainability, What Sustainability?
10.
The UN’s Brundtland Commission and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly
defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". The AWRP would not meet this
definition. The 25 to 30 year contract will fundamentally compromise the ability of future generations to
meet their needs and lead to the destruction of valuable resources that could have been reused or
recycled, necessitating the exploitation of virgin resources. The incinerator dominates the facility in cost
and treatment volumes and, once built, cannot be reduced in size and its capital-intensive nature forces
the operator to run it at full capacity even where there is no need within the county to do so. Its use
would cause harm by emitting substances harmful to man, wildlife or the environment and damage the
Council’s ability to increase recycling to anywhere near to best practice. It also causes irreversible
environmental damage (e.g. climate change) as well as damaging human health (especially vulnerable
are babies and young children, the future generation whose interests a sustainable development would
protect).
2.2: An Integrated Solution?
11.
AmeyCespa have made great play of AWRP being an integrated facility for waste management and it is
therefore worth asking these questions when considering an Environmental Permit:

Why is the Mechanical pretreatment plant recovering so little of the waste before it is burnt?
AWRP will include a large MT facility which will recover a pitifully small amount of municipal solid
waste before it goes into the AD and incinerator. Why is there so much non-combustible material
going into the EfW and why is there so much recoverable waste being burnt?
 Why is the Anaerobic Digester not producing useful product, as so many plant of this type can? The
digestate is simply burnt, effectively driving waste further down the waste hierarchy than is
necessary.
 Why is all of the C&I waste and all of the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) waste going
straight into the EfW incinerator without any effort to recycle? The proposer (AmeyCespa) have
stated that “The EfW facility will receive the mixed RDF and Digestate from the Mechanical Pretreatment and AD facilities, as well as directly receiving the HWRC residual and C&I wastes”. This is
contrary to the Waste Hierarchy because the applicant is failing to maximise recycling. Since one of
the objectives of the Waste Hierarchy is to reduce environmental impact, this would appear to be
unacceptable.
12.
Answering these questions honestly means accepting that that neither the design nor the operation of
AWRP properly conforms to the Waste Hierarchy. As you know, the Waste Hierarchy is set out in Article
4 of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) - see DEFRAi and EAii and 15. The
Page 5 of 69
Waste Hierarchy has been transposed into UK law through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations
2011 which came into force on 29 March 2011. The provisions relating to the Waste Hierarchy (set out in
Regulations 12, 15 and 35) came into force on 28 September 2011. The further up the hierarchy, the
greater the contribution that is made to sustainability. Disposal is not a sustainable option.
13.
The Waste Hierarchy comprises five steps for dealing with waste, ranked according to environmental
impact. While there are limited permissible departures from the hierarchy2, it is not permissible to drive
waste down the hierarchy by reducing recycling (see also below) or burning some waste without even
attempting recycling, both of which AWRP would do. Under these circumstances, granting an
Environmental Permit would seem to be contrary to the intentions of EU and UK law.
14.
Moreover, AWRP is poorly designed and operated from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, in part because it manages waste further down the Waste Hierarchy than is necessary
and in part due to the technology choice. These conclusions hold irrespective of how bad incineration is
for GHG emissions but the reality (despite AmeyCespa’s claims to the contrary) is that incineration is the
worst alternative to landfill (see below for details).
15.
We understand that the Environment Agency role is to judge each technology against other plant of the
same type. Thus the EA would not normally compare the environmental acceptability of different waste
management technologies, for example incineration against Thermal MBT despite the fact that the latter
has markedly fewer and less severe environmental impacts. However, in the case of AWRP this “like with
like” comparison methodology is unjustifiable because AWRP claims to be an integrated whole system of
waste management. It should therefore be compared with other plant of the same generic type, i.e.
other integrated systems of waste management such as Thermal MBT.
16.
If such comparisons were made, as indeed they should be, then it would readily be seen that AWRP is a
bad system from an environmental standpoint and that an Environmental Permit would have to be
refused.
17.
If the Environment Agency is unwilling or unable to accept this inescapable logic due to the legal
requirements under which it must operate, then we would point out that both the mechanical treatment
and AD elements of AWRP perform badly against other plant of the same general type (see above).
Moreover the EfW (incinerator) plant has no market for its heat; a deficiency that in all probability
makes it a disposal rather than a recovery system (most electricity only EfW (incinerator plant are
disposal due to having an R1 value below the threshold). Also important from an environmental
standpoint is the failure to move waste up the Waste Hierarchy.
2.3: Waste Hierarchy and the European Dimension
18.
At a recent seminar organized by the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental
Services3 (FEAD) iii Michel Sponar, policy officer with the European Commission’s Environment
Directorate emphasized the importance of moving waste up the waste hierarchy and said that all
2
Article 4(2) of the Directive allows Member States to depart from the hierarchy for specific waste streams in order to deliver the
best environmental outcome. There are currently three materials where waste management options which are not in keeping with
the waste hierarchy are better for the environment. For:



3
food waste, wet or dry AD is better than other recycling and recovery options
garden waste, dry AD is better than other recycling and recovery options
lower grade wood energy recovery options appear more suitable than recycling
The seminar was held alongside the IFAT ENTSORGA trade fair.
Page 6 of 69
member states should prioritize waste prevention – and must produce Waste Prevention Plans by the
end of 2013. He also said that “member states such as Germany and Denmark which are heavily reliant
on incineration need to change their focus too, by sending more waste for recycling and composting”.
Granting an Environmental Permit in the face of such concerns is unjustified since AWRP creates overcapacity in North Yorkshire and there will be overcapacity both regionally and nationally at about the
time AWRP would come on line (see Eunomia’s National Residual Waste Infrastructure Review – Issue
2iv).
19.
These comments should be set in the context of the Environment Agency recently granting SITA a permit
to export 600,000 tonnes of UK RDF to Amsterdamv a quadrupling of RDF export licenses vi, calls from the
European Commission for the UK to avoid sending recyclable material to incineration and the European
Parliament’s Committee on the Environment calling for “the phasing-out, by the end of this decade, of
incineration of recyclable and compostable waste”. AWRP does not comply with this call.
20.
A European Commission spokesman has admitted to some concern that an over-reliance on incineration
could lead to some recyclable material being burned and called on the UK to ensure that recycling and
reuse remain the priority for waste treatmentvii. “The big challenge is to reduce the amount of waste that
is sent for incineration, which could be recycled instead" the spokesman remarked. "In the UK there is a
decrease in the proportion of waste that is going to landfill, which is good, but this is still a high
proportion of the total waste. To solve this, the UK should look to reuse and recycling and not to overcapacity of incineration, countries like Denmark and Switzerland are burning much more than they
should and that’s not good. There is an opportunity for the UK to take positively; I hope they will move in
the right direction.”
21.
We echo these concerns and suggest that granting an Environmental Permit to AWRP would help make
them a reality. This is because of the financial imperative of running the incinerator close to capacity
which arises because of its high initial cost.
2.4: Consequences of Overcapacity
22.
The high capital costs of AWRP make it imperative both for the county and the operator that it should
operate at full capacity. Yet even on North Yorkshire County Council’s (NYCC) own figures, the MSW
predictions for NYCC by 2039/40 would be c. 380,000 tonnes. If we assume an implausibly low 50%
recycling rate (as NYCC do), only some 190,000 tonnes of waste would require treatment, far lower than
the 320.000 tonne capacity of the EfW (incinerator) at AWRP. This far exceeds the demand for MSW,
even at the end of the contract period.
23.
NYCC’s latest projections now include a new waste stream called “Trade Waste” whose origins and
composition is not specified. This new waste stream was not part of the original 2010 projections on
which the Councils took their decision in favour of AWRP. This means that a very substantial part of the
feedstock for AWRP could be markedly different in composition from that assumed in AWRPs application
for an Environmental Permit. In consequence, the mix and amount of pollutants emitted could be
significantly different which means that the pollutant numbers throughout AmeyCespa’s application are
subject to uncertainty and probable upward revision.
24.
Additionally, overcapacity means that AWRP would have to compete for waste with other waste
management facilities. Its high capital costs mean that gate prices will be around £130/tonne, about
twice that of other waste management facilities in the region. Under conditions of over-capacity and the
concomitant competitive market, AWRP may be unable to attract sufficient waste to run the incinerator
at full capacity all the time. This could lead it to operate under sub-optimal conditions and therefore to
enhance the emissions produced.
Page 7 of 69
25.
These considerations challenge AmeyCespa’s assumed emission data and therefore their input into the
air quality model. The modelling should take account of the range of uncertainty arising from different
waste streams from that envisaged in AmeyCespa’s application and the Precautionary Principle should
be applied when considering the model output. In other words, judgements on acceptability and such
things as the necessary stack height for the EfW (incinerator) should use the upper end of the plausible
range of emissions.
3: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 1: Emissions to Air; Modelling and Data
26.
We do not propose to rehearse the health debate around incineration in any detail. Health impacts
arising from waste incineration (the main technology at AWRP) is a contentious subject for many reasons
(complexity, uncertainty, vested interests, the nature of the ‘scientific method’, difficulties ‘proving’
causal relationships, ‘confounding factors’ including both social factors and other sources of pollution,
etc.). However, non-withstanding the views of the HPA, there is a substantial body of scientific opinion
showing that there are reasonable grounds for concern about potentially dangerous effects of
incinerator emissions on human health, with babies and young children being amongst the most
vulnerable. In this context, we would remind you that in discussing health effects, the extent of scientific
uncertainty renders it essential to take account of the Precautionary Principle which is enshrined in
European law (Annex 1 discusses the Precautionary Principle and the requirements of European Law).
27.
Instead, we discuss AmeyCespa’s methodology and its many deficiencies. Taken together, these are
sufficient to either invalidate their results or caste very serious doubts on their validity. We believe
that until these have been corrected. It is not possible to make a valid judgement on an Environmental
Permit or the conditions that should be attached to one.
28.
For this reason we do not discuss individual results. However, it is worth emphasising that the flaws and
deficiencies in their data and analysis all result in their understating the magnitude of the emissions and
consequently understate the resultant health impacts.
3.1: Emissions and Dispersion Models
29.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incinerators are fed by a variable and uncertain mix of materials so
emissions are not constant but include varying quantities of substances harmful to man, wildlife or the
environment. Emissions include chemicals derived from substances found in the waste or produced
during its decomposition or both together with combustion products (e.g. NOx). Despite emission
control measures, there remain carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or teratogenic emissions (e.g. dioxins and
furans), endocrine disruptors (e.g. dioxins, PCBs, PBDEs) together with the possibility that their effect is
enhanced by their presence on particulates (these can act synergistically with Polycyclic Aromatic
|Hydrocarbons (PAHs )which can deposit on particulates, providing a path for longer term deposition in
the body. Some particulates are sufficiently small to enter the sensitive lung tissue and damage it,
causing premature death in extreme cases. Further, there are acid gas emissions; NOx reacts with
ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapour and related particles, inhalation of
which may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and/or aggravate
existing heart disease.
30.
As we have seen, the picture with the AWRP EfW (incinerator) is complicated by the fact that it will be
fed not just by MSW but also by waste streams including the undefined “Trade Waste”. This means that
the amounts of pollutants (and possibly the range of pollutants) emitted will be different from, and
perhaps higher than, those from an equivalent facility burning just MSW.
Page 8 of 69
31.
Faced with emissions of this nature, it is usual to consider the amounts that are in the air and
subsequently enter the body through various pathways. This is normally addressed through air quality
models (also known as dispersion models); for much of their work AmeyCespa’s chose the ADMS 4.2 air
dispersion model (Note: Chapter 10 of AmeyCespa’s Planning Application covers Air Quality and the
modelling processes and assumptions they used. This appears not to be in the CD pack sent to us but we
must necessarily refer to it because it contains much of the information needed to understand
AmeyCespa’s approach and its deficiencies. It is available on the NYCC website4).
32.
While this model choice is reasonable, there are serious deficiencies in the way that it has been used and
in the way they have derived background values for each pollutant and in their selection of weather data
to represent local conditions, a result of meteorological complexities in the Vale of York area.
33.
Also, AmeyCespa use the EPUK guidelines to discount those cases where using EPR-H1 shows incinerator
emissions to be “not insignificant”. AmeyCespa believe this methodology is sufficient to judge the health
impact of exposure to inhaled pollutants (NOx, SO2, airborne particles, carbon monoxide, and acid
gases). This is false in the case of particulates.
34.
AmeyCespa fail to acknowledge that modelling is subject to error at various points. Deficiencies will
inevitably exist in the model itself which will lead to disagreement between even different advanced
models such as ADMS 4.2 (used by AmeyCespa) and AERMOD when given the same input assumptions.
These modelling errors are testable and we suggest that the Environment Agency should take account of
them, applying the Precautionary Principle as mandated by European law. Using incorrect
meteorological data or too course a grid (or other input errors) also introduces errors and uncertainty. In
the case of the AmeyCespa analysis, such sources of error include:
 Erroneous assumptions such as inadequate spatial resolution and inadequate spatial coverage,
together with inadequate representation of buildings;
 Local meteorological conditions are complex and not well represented in a grid of only 4.5km by
4.5km;
 Uncertainties in the mix of waste that enters the incinerator and hence in the compositions and
quantity of pollutants emitted;
 Failure to make adequate allowance for periods of suboptimal operation.
Allowance must be made for all these uncertainties, though it is not possible to quantify all of them. This
brings the Precautionary Principle into play.
3.2: Technical Context
1.
We are particularly concerned that ultrafine particles (PM0.1 and below) are not separately covered by
the regulations. This is important in two ways:


2.
4
The smallest particles are also the most dangerous;
AmeyCespa’s approach of simply ticking the relevant box )PM10 OK, in this case) rather than looking
at the science and where the risks are most likely to lie means that there is scope for undue health
risks being imposed.
In this context it is notable that the European Environment Agency have emphasised the importance of
particulate matter (PM) reportviii “Air quality in Europe — 2011 report”. They wrote:
For AWRP Planning Application details see http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=17992
Page 9 of 69
Epidemiological studies attribute the most severe health effects from air pollution to PM and,
to a lesser extent, ozone. For both pollutants, no safe level has been identified. Even at
concentrations below current air quality guidelines they pose a health risk (WHOix).
Health effects of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are caused after their inhalation and
penetration into the lungs. Both chemical and physical interactions with lung tissues can
induce irritation or damage. The smaller the particles, the further they penetrate into the
lungs. PM's mortality effects are clearly associated with the PM2.5 fraction, which in Europe
represents 40–80 % of the PM10 mass concentration in ambient air. However, the coarser 2.5–
10 μm fraction of PM10 also has health impacts and affects mortality. Although evidence is
growing that PM2.5 is perhaps a greater health concern, ambient air quality measurements and
emissions data are often only available for PM10 at present.
The current levels of PM exposure experienced by most urban and rural populations have
harmful effects on human health. Chronic exposure to particulate matter contributes to the
risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as lung cancer. Mortality
associated with air pollution is about 15–20 % higher in cities with high levels of pollution
compared to relatively cleaner cities. In the European Union, average life expectancy is 8.6
months lower due to exposure to PM2.5 resulting from human activities (WHOx, 2008).
3.
According to Professor C. V Howard5 , epidemiological studiesxi worldwide have consistently
demonstrated links between ambient particulate matter exposure (PM10 and PM2.5) and adverse health
outcomes, including increased rates respiratory and cardiovascular illness, hospitalizations, and premature mortalityxii,xiii. He also states that successive studies have concluded there is no threshold, i.e. no
level of fine-particle pollution below which no deaths occur. We therefore think that particular attention
should be paid to these ultrafine particles when considering AWRP’s emissions.
4.
Emission standards used by AmeyCespa are expressed in terms of a single pollutant and supposed to
ensure acceptable risk for even sensitive individuals. For a technology such as incineration which emits a
multiplicity of pollutants this is inadequate. For example, it ignores synergy. This arises from the
combination of substances that can cause toxicity even when the individual chemicals are at a level
normally considered safe. Howardxiv points out that the toxicity of chemically-coated particles can be
enhanced over expectations for single chemicals, because of synergies. Synergy can occur even at
concentrations below the activity threshold of the individual chemicalsxv,xvi,xvii,xviii when it is known as the
coalitive effectxix. Still other toxic effects are cosynergism (when two agents enhance the toxicity of each
other) and potentiation (when one agent with no toxicity enhances the toxicity of the other).
5.
Some of the emissions from incinerators do not follow the usual rectilinear or sigmoidal dose-response
relationship, with its assumption that higher doses produce greater toxic responses. For such substances,
there is usually (although not always) a threshold below which no observable adverse effect occurs does
not hold. As Deardenxx points out, it has been known for many years that some toxicants could exhibit
high toxicity at very low doses. In such cases a graph of toxicity (on the vertical axis) versus dose (on the
horizontal axis) passes through a minimum; this phenomenon is termed hormesis. Dearden cites several
papers which have found that the cancer risk from dioxins appeared to follow a hormetic pattern, with
toxicity increasing at very low doses.
6.
In their Chapter 12 (included with the material in the EA pack sent to us) AmeyCespa point out that
health impacts arising from the majority of air pollutants arise via inhalation and they claim that “the
potential health impact of exposure to these pollutants can be assessed by comparison of predicted
exposure concentrations with air quality standards set for the protection of human health”. The above
5
Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath.
Page 10 of 69
considerations mean that this claim is not true, particularly as standards tend to relate to what is
technologically achievable rather than necessary from a health point of view.
7.
Synergy in all its forms and hormesis together mean that standards set for individual substances may not
be adequate to minimise risk. Add to this the fact that incinerators emit literally hundreds of pollutants
(For a partial list see Annex 2) and the risk from the failures in AmeyCespa’s methodology should be
obvious. Together with the epidemiological and other risks reviewed above and the fact that US EPA and
WHO standards are stricter than UK standards for some pollutants, this means that it is vital to invoke
the Precautionary Principle. An attempt should be made to allow for these effects when considering the
appropriate stack height (AmeyCespa do not do this) and the possible issuing of an Environmental
Permit.
3.3: Atmospheric Dispersion Models
8.
The starting point of AmeyCespa’ analysis is estimate the quantities of emissions produced and then to
calculate the necessary chimney height using air dispersion modelling together with the deposition of
individual pollutants at points deemed to contain critical “receptors” (i.e. people). The first step in this
process is air dispersion modelling. AmeyCespa used the ADMS 4.2 model developed and supplied by
Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC)xxi (see also their Chapter 10, op cit).
9.
There are a variety of models which attempt to represent the physical reality of dispersion but they do
not agree with each other (e.g. Tranxxii, BRExxiii). This introduces an element of uncertainty into the results
from any given model; a factor of 2 on pollutant levels in the air appears perfectly possible. This should
be taken into account when setting conditions such as stack height. Other uncertainties are how well the
input parameters represent the physical reality of the site and surrounding territory under examination
and whether or not a sufficiently large area is modelled to get an adequate representation of the
emissions and their dispersal.
10.
It is essential to take account of the inherent uncertainties when considering the model results and
their interpretation. This consideration must recognise and apply the Precautionary Principle.
3.4: AmeyCespa’s Data and Methodology
11.
Air dispersion models require wind data and data on the pollutants to be dispersed. Both are subject to
uncertainty.
12.
AmeyCespa used various surveys and national modelling to get background data for many of the
pollutants they see as being of most concern. Some (e.g. those for dioxins, furans and PAHs) show such
wide variability that the selection of a typical background measurement is non-obvious and therefore
particularly prone to error. Particulates are only measured as PM10, the least dangerous fraction6. The
use of city centre data from Leeds and York (and other cities) is wholly inappropriate for a rural area. In
summary, background values derived in AmeyCespa’s Table 10.14 (in their Chapter 10) are unconvincing.
Thus, the information on background levels (subsequently used in their air quality modelling) is poor or
inappropriate and this matters because of the role that background levels play in AmeyCespa’s
methodology to assess the “significance” of emissions.
6
While PM10 includes smaller size, the mass of the larger particles dominates. This means that the same mass of PM10s can contain
very different numbers of particles, depending on the ratio of smaller to larger particles.
Page 11 of 69
13.
The use of weather data covering 10 years of data supposedly representative of the Vale of York area is
less than ideal. It comes from two different Meteorological Office Weather data sites neither if which
provide a full 10 year run. The Weather data used are:


For the years of 2004-2008 from Linton-on-Ouse Weather Station, around 10km east of AWRP;
For the years of 2003-2007 from Church Fenton Weather Station, around 25km south-east of
AWRP.
14.
The data sets are unduly short-run and Church Fenton is a significant distance (25 km) away from AWRP
while the weather data from Linton-on-Ouse has a data capture rate for some of the weather properties
of only 85%. This means that the data is too short-term and insufficiently firm to allow the specific
weather conditions in the Vale of York to be taken into account or to assess the impact of fluctuations in
weather conditions adequately.
15.
Both these stations are East of the site so no weather data is available from the West. This means that
AmeyCespa’s claim that “the location of both observing stations has allowed the specific weather
conditions in the Vale of York to be taken into account” is not justified. Moreover, the correlation
between observations at the two sites is not discussed despite the fact that this might give some
indication of how representative these data are of wind and other parameters in the area they cover
(which does not necessarily include the AWRP site). Thus the claim that “Both sets of weather data are
considered representative of the area around the Site” is unsupported
16.
Likewise the claim that “by using 10 years of weather data, the impacts of fluctuations in weather
conditions have adequately been taken into account” is in error. Firstly, there is not ten years of weather
data but rather two sets of five years covering 6 years in total which may or may not be well correlated.
Also, the low capture rate (85%) for some (unspecified) properties at Linton-on-Ouse can only be taken
into account for four of the five years of data. Thus a maximum period of six years is covered, not ten as
claimed. This is a very short run of wind data that is not adequate to take account of, or even fully
indicate, the range of natural variation which can extend over decades.
17.
AmeyCespa’s claim that the 2007 Linton-on-Ouse weather data was the worst case weather data for the
long term nitrogen dioxide ground level concentrations rather implies that the weather at the two
weather stations may not be well-correlated.
18.
Thus, there is no indication of how typical this weather date is of Allerton Park or what variation there is
around the AWRP site. We doubt whether using such short-run data sets will adequately represent the
likely future variability of weather over 30 years or indeed truly represents conditions at the AWRP site.
Moreover, wind is variable from one decade to another and climate change will almost certainly mean
that weather conditions change over the next three decades. All this introduces error which places the
validity of AmeyCespa’s air quality modelling in doubt.
19.
AmeyCespa’s assessment considers the impact of substances released by AWRP that are ‘persistent’ in
the environment and have several pathways from the point of release to the human receptor on the
health of the local population at the point of maximum exposure. These substances are dioxins/furans,
PAHs and metals which are present in small quantities but are bio-accumulative and so have the
potential to cause effects through long term, cumulative exposure. These are typically evaluated over a
lifetime, generally taken as 70 years.
20.
Other emissions from the proposed facility include a number of substances whose health impacts cannot
be evaluated simply by reference to ambient air quality standards. For these substances health effects
could occur through exposure routes other than purely inhalation. This necessitates assessing the overall
human exposure to the substances by the local population and hence the risk caused by this exposure.
Page 12 of 69
21.
AmeyCespa claim that the exposure scenarios they use represent a highly unrealistic situation in which
all exposure assumptions are chosen to represent a worst case. While it is probably true the probability
of individual high-end exposure estimates converging on one individual is extremely low, that is not the
point; even for an incinerator that fully meets European emissions standards, the calculated risks based
on epidemiological evidence is unacceptable high.
22.
AmeyCespa’s methodology is quite different from that of epidemiology and focuses only on the
immediate vicinity of the site. It neglects important factors such as synergy in all its forms and hormesis
(see above). It also neglects the epidemiological evidence and the fact that low concentrations over a
wide area produce risk at unacceptably high levels even where incinerators keep within emission limits.
3.5: Data Input and Associated Uncertainties
23.
24.
We have no way of knowing how accurate the emission (pollution) data fed into the model actually is.
However, at least some of it derives from data from other (presumably modern) incinerators and
therefore comes from their own monitoring. This may not be fully representative because the data will
be taken from a place prior to the fumes entering the stack. This is important for some pollutant
emissions since chemical processes take place in the stack that are not captured by such monitoring.
Thus:

Pollution abatement equipment, installed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, may actually
increase emissions of the PM2.5 particulatesxxiv. The ammonia used in this process reacts with
sulphurous acid formed when steam and sulphur dioxide combine as they travel up the stack,
leading to the production of secondary particulates. These secondary particulates are formed
beyond the filters and emitted unabated: they can easily double the total volume of particulates
emitted

If combustion takes place at temperatures of about 850ºC, any dioxins already formed are
destroyed, but can re-form again post-combustion, predominantly in a post-combustion zone where
flue gases are somewhat cooler (typically in the range 250OC to 450OC), including in such processes
as MSW combustionxxv. The post-combustion re-synthesis of dioxins can mean dioxin levels at the
waste heat boiler outlets being 11–14 times higher than at the furnace outlets, whilst water spray
cooling was very effective at removing dioxins. The effect is to significantly increase dioxin levels in
the flue gases prior to treatment, thus making reduction of dioxin levels more difficult.

When Greenpeace examined the public registers, it quickly became apparent that, despite the
enormous numbers of breaches reported for substances which are continuously monitored, there
are virtually no reports of other substances exceeding legal limits. They found it difficult to accept
that this is truly the case. High levels of pollutants in the gases often indicate a malfunction in the
system or poor combustion of waste7.
It is unlikely that the emission data used to drive the air dispersion model would include such periods of
sub-optimal running or allow for processes that take place after the routine monitoring equipment. It is
also unlikely that the data from other incinerators included data from those which have experienced
high levels of pollution such as Dumfries. It is therefore not truly representative. In as far as the data is
unrepresentative it affects every result from the dispersion modelling.
7
For example, high levels of carbon monoxide would indicate poor combustion conditions under which increased production of
dioxins, particles of incomplete combustion and other pollutants might be expected. Similarly, high levels of hydrogen chloride may
be the result of large amounts of chlorine in the system, which again would provide improved conditions for dioxin formation.
Page 13 of 69
3.6: Inadequate Scope of Model
25.
Like any other model, air dispersion models can suffer from errors arising from erroneous assumptions
and wrong data input. For example, it is necessary to use adequate spatial resolution to represent the
local topography. Inadequate spatial resolution makes it is easy to get misleading results from the model
and interpret them as more reassuring than they are. One approach (used in some hydrodynamic
models) could be to use high resolution modelling where necessary (e.g. close to the chimney and major
nearby topographical features) and move to a courser resolution beyond it.
26.
AmeyCespa’s Chapter 10 (10.7.3 et seq) gives minimal detail of the dispersion modelling. It states that
the primary dispersion modelling grid was taken as 3km by 3km for the main EfW (incinerator) stack
emissions, centred on the Core Application Area. While they found that the highest impacts occurred
within this area, this needs further assessment due to the complexity of weather conditions in the Vale
of York which such a small modelling area cannot properly represent.
27.
AmeyCespa also stated the grid spacings chosen were of comparable sizes to the stacks being modelled:



A grid spacing of 100m was used for the EfW (incinerator) stack height assessment
A grid spacing of 25m was used for the odour stack height assessment
A grid spacing of 25m was used for the gas engine stack height assessment.
We think this grid resolution for stack height is too course given that the spacing is actually larger than
the stack height being assessed.
28.
A grid spacing of 50m was used for the combined impact assessment over a 4.5km by 4.5km area, to
illustrate the dispersion patterns over a larger area and the nearby environmentally-protected areas and
sensitive receptors. This small area excludes the nearby major population centres such as Harrogate and
York as well as some nearer settlements of more modest size. It is of course true that risks for an
individual in such areas will be lower as the pollution is more dispersed but there are an awful lot more
individuals. In consequence, the risk of causing mortality and morbidity among the wider population may
actually be higher (trade-off between more people and lower individual risk)
29.
Allowance is made in the model for surface roughness and for buildings. Building height is an issue as it
affects wind flows and therefore dispersion. The model ignores buildings less than one third of the stack
height and this assumption must be questioned. A finer grid spacing coupled with better representation
of buildings could help resolve the extent to which this affects the model output.
30.
We contend that these grid spacings and assumptions made in the representation of buildings and the
area covered by the model are all inadequate and could therefore lead to misleading results. All
models necessarily have boundaries and associated boundary conditions. It is axiomatic that these
should be chosen so that the phenomenon under investigation does not affect the results and that
nearby meteorological driving functions and topographical effects are fully taken into account. It is
reasonable to suggest that the grid spacing used for stack height assessments should be small compared
with the likely stack height. This certainly did not apply for the EfW (incinerator) plant stack height and
was marginal for the other two. This introduces unnecessary uncertainty into the results.
31.
Epidemiological evidence shows that health risks extend far beyond the area covered in the air
dispersion model. While the model’s primary purpose was to assess chimney height and the
consequences for people in the immediate vicinity, failure to model over an area which covers, at the
very least, Harrogate and York implies that AmeyCespa have not properly considered the health risks in
this wider area and beyond.
Page 14 of 69
32.
Modelling results are only given for nitrogen dioxide with an assurance that other pollutants follow a
similar trend. While in the case of other gases this seems plausible, one must question whether or not
nitrogen dioxide has been chosen because it gives the most favourable results for the applicant.
3.7: Inadequate Representation of Meteorological Conditions
33.
Local meteorological conditions are not well represented in a grid of only 4.5km by 4.5km. The Vale of
York is in the rain shadow of the Pennines so has a lower rainfall total than areas to the west. It is also
subject to more fog and frosts in winter than other areas because of the tendency of cold air to drain
into the Vale from surrounding higher ground. In the case of the Vale of York it would be necessary to
have adequate modelling of thermal inversions (an atmospheric condition in which the air temperature
rises with increasing altitude, holding surface air down and preventing dispersion of pollutantsxxvi). In
any season, rapid ground-level cooling can lead to night-time fogs when air temperatures are lowered
beyond the dew point. Such radiation fogs develop beneath local temperature inversions but are usually
dispersed by the Sun’s heating during the following day but may persist when deep and well-developed.
Any extensive low-lying area such as the Vale of York is notably subject to these conditionsxxvii. Also,
during periods of lee-wave activity in westerly flow, the Vale is often subject to high degrees of nearsurface horizontal wind shear and gusty winds whose strength is poorly forecast by numerical weather
prediction (NWP) modelsxxviii. Trapped lee waves commonly occur in westerly flow in this region and
experimentally apparent flow separation indicates the formation of lee-wave rotors.
34.
All this serves to demonstrate that the AWRP site is situated in a meteorologically complex area. Since
NWP models do not predict this well, it places strong doubt over the validity of results from a model
which is run over a small grid (4.5km by 4.5km) and does not even attempt to model them over the
necessary area. This doubt is exacerbated by the fact that wind data to the West of the AWRP site was
not used and by the fact that much of the modelling was done using an even smaller area.
35.
The results of models such as ADMS are subject to uncertainty. The modelling parameters chosen are
too limited and place the results in jeopardy. Moreover, there is certainly a possibility of harm from
the various pollutants, though there is no scientific consensus over the magnitude of the concomitant
health risks. Under these circumstances, the Precautionary Principle must be applied, as required by
European law.
3.8: Implications of Weather Patterns in the Vale of York
36.
Weather patterns in the Vale of York are complex and not well modelled, as discussed above. Features
such as thermal inversion layers and the formation of fog which can extend over several days are
indicative of air being trapped beneath an effective ceiling. Pumping pollutants into such a trap means
that instead of being dispersed as well as predicted by the ADMS model they will tend to accumulate for
a period of a few days (recall the smogs which we experienced before Clean Air Acts ameliorated the
cause).
37.
Given that meteorological models do not represent these conditions well, it is difficult to predict what
the effect will be but it is reasonable to suppose that pollution levels could be significantly higher than
AmeyCespa claim, at least on a daily dose basis. (Annual average levels at the ground would also rise, but
perhaps not greatly). Allowing for the likely duration of such weather events (several days, sometimes
longer), it is reasonable to suppose that pollution levels on a daily basis could be a higher than
AmeyCespa’s figures would indicate for a significant period each year. Allowance must be made for this
in accord with the Precautionary Principle.
38.
While the effects of these weather patterns and those of modelling uncertainty and sub-optimal
operation are multiplicative the effects on annual doses is small. Much more important for individual
Page 15 of 69
receptors is the effect on the daily dose. This would become increasingly important if, as AmeyCespa
state, smog incidents increase (their Chapter 10, paragraph 10.10.14).
3.9: Implications of Modelling Uncertainty
39.
Applying the Precautionary Principle means making allowance for the fact that the air dispersion model
may underestimate emissions even if the EfW (incinerator) plant performs to specification. It also means
that allowance must be made for periods of operation when emissions are outside normal parameters.
40.
AmeyCespa’s Chapter 10, Para 10.13.13 describes the sensitivity of model results to changing the height
of the main EfW (incinerator) stack (obtained by re-running the model with stacks between 40m and
80m at 10m intervals). The only give results for NO2 and assert that the results for other pollutants show
a similar trend. They fail to take account of all the many uncertainties discussed above so there is little
hard evidence that as low a stack height can be justified
41.
Taking proper account of the meteorological conditions in the Vale of York would probably change the
results significantly. Moreover, the possibility that pollutants could be trapped under the thermal
inversion layer for some days means that they would accumulate under this layer rather than be
dispersed as assumed in dispersion modelling. This increases the dose at ground level and seems to
imply the need for a significant increase in chimney height.
42.
The visual impact of the AWRP plant is already unacceptable and that the EfW (incinerator) chimney is
a major contributor to this. However, health and safety and the impact of pollution on the local
environment and the local populace must take priority over visual intrusiveness.
3.10: Sub-Optimal Operation
43.
Incinerators have to be shut down on occasion, both for routine maintenance and because of operating
problems (i.e. planned and unplanned outage). AmeyCespa estimate that the plant will be offline for
10% of the year for planned outages and perhaps more for unplanned outages. The latter is a somewhat
open-ended amount.
44.
Shut-down and start-up are associated with markedly greater emission of some pollutants so that this
hardly constitutes a worst-case assumption. During shutdown and start-up, the levels of dioxins and
other pollutants can be much higher than under optimal operationxxix. Tejima et alxxx tested the dioxin
stack emissions of an MSW incinerator under conditions of start-up, steady state and shutdown. They
found concentrations of WHO-TEQ8 dioxin of 36-709 µg.m-3 during start-up, 2.3 µg.m-3 during steady
state operation and 2.5-49 µg.m-3 during shutdown. They estimated that 41% of the total annual
emissions could be attributed to the start-up period, assuming three start-ups per year. Wang et alxxxi
found that a single start-up could contribute about 60% of the PCDD/F emissions for one whole year of
normal operations; hence, assuming three start-ups per year, 64% of total annual emissions could come
from start-up. H.C. Wang et alxxxii found that during start-up the PCDD/F removal efficiency was only 42%
with selective catalytic reduction, compared with > 99% during normal operation. Added to this,
incinerators do not, for various reasons, run under optimal conditions all the time.
8
Dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are chemicals with different degrees of dioxin-like toxicity. The use of Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs)
allows concentrations of the less toxic compounds to be expressed as an overall equivalent concentration of the most toxic dioxin,
2,3,7,8-TCDD. These toxicity-weighted concentrations are then summed to give a single concentration expressed as a Toxic
Equivalent (TEQ). The system of TEFs used in the UK and a number of other countries is that set by the World Health Organization
(WHO), and the resulting overall concentrations are referred to as WHO-TEQs.
Source: Food Standards Agency http://www.food.gov.uk/subscribe/
Page 16 of 69
45.
Manifestly, levels of pollutants emitted from incinerators can vary greatly, and can exceed the statutory
limits placed upon their emission. The above figures suggest that an allowance of a factor of 2 in the
annual average emissions for planned and unplanned outages would be reasonable. This allowance is
multiplicative with those for modelling uncertainty above. Such effects appear not to have been properly
assessed by AmeyCespa.
46.
The effect on the daily dose over the period of start-up and shut-down is much more dramatic. The
above figures suggest that over a period of about 6 days in the year something like the equivalent of
annual emissions over and above those allowed for in AmeyCespa’s assessment would take place. This
would multiply the daily average over these short periods by about 60. This markedly alters
AmeyCespa’s conclusions concerning their methodology since it is now necessary to consider both daily
and annual dose.
47.
This argues strongly for a yet taller stack, as does the possibility that the air pollution control equipment
does not work as it should at all times (this can happen even with modern incinerators). While daily does
limit values are slightly higher than annual dose limits, the difference is not huge. This suggests stack
height needs to be increased substantially above that in the present proposal. Again the Precautionary
Principle must be applied and the chimney height, especially of the EfW (incinerator) increased
accordingly.
3.11: Baseline Conditions
48.
AmeyCespa have used results from AEA Technology who modelled the background concentration of
pollutants throughout the UK on a 1km by 1km grid on behalf of Defra. This model is based on known
pollution sources and background measurements and they used the average predicted concentrations at
the closest grid point to the Site (440500,459500) as given below:
Nitrogen dioxide 16.3μg/m³ for 2010
PM10 17.0μg/m³ for 2010
PM2.5 9.8μg/m³ for 2010
Benzene 0.23μg/m³ for 2003
1,3-butadiene 0.118μg/m³ for 2001
Carbon monoxide 250μg/m³ for 2003
Some of these data points are rather ancient so their applicability is open to question.
49.
In addition to using these model results, AmeyCespa have used measurements whose applicability is
somewhat in doubt. This arises because there is limited air quality monitoring carried out in the vicinity
of Allerton Park. T he closest relevant continuous monitoring stations are over 20km away from the Site:

York Bootham, a new urban background site, located 21km east of the Allerton Park Site, measuring
PM10 only. This site only started operation in 2008.

Leeds Centre, an urban centre site, located 28km south of the Site, measuring Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter – PM10s ,Particulate matter – PM2.5s, Carbon monoxide and Sulphur dioxide
Neither of these sites is properly representative of a rural site (albeit one close to a motorway)
This large distance was the reason AmeyCespa only used these data as comparison values. One must
question whether even this is reasonable in that not only are they both distant but are also of very
different nature to the rural areas and villages surrounding the AWRP site. The monitoring carried out by
Harrogate Borough Council is old (pre-2007) and not close to the site.
50.
With these deficiencies in mind, Enviros Consulting Limited was commissioned in early 2007 to
undertake an air quality survey to provide background information for the site. It started on 11th July
2007 and included measurements of PM10, NO2, SO2, dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls
Page 17 of 69
(PCBs) and PAHs. These measurements were recorded with the Site operating as an active gravel pit
which would be replaced by AWRP. They included emissions from landfill gas engines used to generate
power on the north-western edge of the adjacent the landfill site together with the contribution from
the A1(M). These measurements are probably reasonably representative of the background levels
around the Site for the limited range of pollutants measured, while those in surrounding villages away
from the A1(M) may be lower.
51.
However, there are serious deficiencies in what was measured and in the way that data was interpreted,
as discussed in the next sections.
4: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 2: Airborne Pollution: Flaws in AmeyCespa’s
Results
52.
AmeyCespa present a large number of conclusions, all of which seek to show that the consequences of
emitting various pollutants are either insignificant or imperceptible. However, the many deficiencies and
flaws in the modelling discussed above invalidate their results and conclusions.
53.
AmeyCespa failed to carry out any sensitivity analysis in reaching their conclusions; essentially they
treated the model as the one and only “right” answer and failed to calculate or take account of the range
of uncertainty in the background levels they assumed/derived. Indeed, many of the background levels
are open to challenge.
4.1: Oxides of Nitrogen
54.
AmeyCespa only assess nitrogen oxide and have failed to assess other oxides of nitrogen. High
temperature combustion processes such as incineration are the major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx).
NOx refers to NO and NO2 which are produced during combustion, especially at high temperaturexxxiii. NO
makes up the majority of NOX emissions. NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)9 in the
presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. Indeed, this is the main source of tropospheric ozone.
Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in
susceptible populations yet AmeyCespa have failed to consider it or the reactions that lead up to it.
4.2: Particulate Matter
55.
Particulate matter (PM) or particulates are tiny particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas or liquid.
PM is the general term used for a mixture of aerosol particles (solid and liquid) with a wide range in size
and chemical composition. PM is either directly emitted as primary particles or formed in the
atmosphere from oxidation and transformation of primary gaseous emissions. The latter, formed from
condensed material, are called secondary particles. The most important precursors for secondary
particles are SO2, NOx, ammonia and VOCs. These react in the atmosphere to form ammonium and other
forms of sulphate and nitrate compounds that condense and form particles in the air, called secondary
inorganic aerosol (SIA). VOC are oxidised to less volatile products, which form secondary organic aerosol
(SOA).
56.
AmeyCespa used data derived from the continuous monitoring of other incinerators, making it unlikely
that the full range of secondary particulates (which can form well after the APC equipment) were
9
VOCs are organic chemical compounds that have high enough vapour pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize
and enter the atmosphere.
Page 18 of 69
included in the input data for the air dispersion model. The model will therefore underestimate the
impact of the PM.
57.
The smaller the size of the particles the more dangerous are the health effectsxxxiv. Data from the World
Health Organisation shows that PM2.5 particles have a greater effect on daily mortality than the larger
PM10. However, the smaller the particle the less likely it is to be filtered out. Thus, information from a
multi-national waste management company (Veolia) show that “…bag house filter collection efficiency
was 95-99% for PM10s, 65-70% for PM2.5s, and only 5-30% for particles smaller than 2.5 microns, even
before the filters become coated with lime and activated carbonxxxv. Virtually none of the ultrafine
particles (PM0.1) are removed.
58.
The result of this differential filtering is that the composition and size mix of the remaining PM10
particles after filtration is very different from that before filtration. The mass of particles may be reduced
by a certain percentage but the number of particles is reduced by a much smaller percentage. This is
important because the highest degree of health risk is associated with these particles. Relying on the
mass of particles as a proxy for health risk therefore gives a distorted picture.
59.
The smaller particles are not filtered out by the nose and bronchioles and their miniscule size allows
them to be breathed deeply into the lungs and to be absorbed directly into the blood stream where they
can persist for hours. They can then travel through the cell walls and into the cell nucleus affecting the
cell’s DNA. The WHO state that there is no safe level of PM2.5s and health effects have been observed at
surprisingly low concentrations with no thresholdxxxvi,xxxvii.
60.
The smallest particulates, particularly the ultrafine particulates (PM0.1) are highly chemically reactive, a
property of their small size and large surface areaxxxviii. Moreover, there are thousand more of the
smallest particulates per unit weight. In incinerators heavy metals, dioxins and other chemicals can
adhere to their surface, increasing their toxicity – this means that particulates have a role to play in
promoting cancer. The body does not have efficient mechanisms for clearing the deeper part of the lung
as only a tiny fraction of natural particles will be as small as this. Toxic metals accumulate on the smallest
particulates while 95% of PAHs are associated with fine particulates (PM3 and below)xxxix,xl,xli. Health
effects are determined by the number and size of particles and not the weight. Measurements of the
particle size distribution by weight will give a false impression of safety due to the higher weight of the
larger particulates.
61.
These facts tend to invalidate both AQOs based purely on particulates rather than taking account of the
toxins they carry into the body. They also invalidate the focus that AmeyCespa have placed on the larger
particulates.
4.3: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
62.
VOCs comprise a variety of elements but AmeyCespa only look at two compounds: benzene and 1,3butadiene and relate the annual average ground level concentration of VOCs purely to these
compounds. They then argue that in reality, only a small fraction of the VOCs released from the plant will
be benzene and 1,3-butadiene and use this to suggest that the contribution of the plant to the benzene
and 1,3-butadiene levels in the atmosphere can be considered insignificant. This is misleading because
there are risks associated with a range of VOCs, though not all have a stated AQO. The Precautionary
Principle means that some allowance should be made for these risks.
63.
Incinerators emit literally hundreds of different compounds (Annex 2) and this includes a range of VOCs.
The potential of many of them to cause harm is unknown so that it could be unwise to dismiss them
Page 19 of 69
summarily from consideration (as AmeyCespa do). The Precautionary Principle would demand a
somewhat more cautious approach.
5: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 3: Conclusions on Modelling and Airborne
Emissions
64.
Bearing in mind the harmful nature of many of the pollutants indicated, it is essential to model air
dispersion to indicate likely effects. Unfortunately the modelling done is subject to a number of flaws
(outlined above) which together place the validity of the results in such serious question that reliance
cannot be placed on them. In consequence parameters such as stack height are probably in error and
should be recalculated with due regard to the Precautionary Principle.
65.
There are also doubts over some of the background levels assumed and the way in which data has been
interpreted. The most serious concern must arise over the treatment of particulates and the oxides of
nitrogen.
66.
AmeyCespa’s review of the current background air quality monitoring collected by the UK Government
and by local authorities actually showed significant variability and some inappropriate sites were
included. This meant that their assessment of current levels of pollutants in the atmosphere close to the
Site is less than precise. Moreover, the weather data they used was not necessarily typical of the Vale of
York and not necessarily representative of the long term weather. There is also the question of
systematic error in the input data and disagreement between air dispersion modelling which adds to
uncertainty in considering their results.
6: Q3: HUMAN HEALTH Part 4: Critique of AmeyCespa’s Analysis
67.
AmeyCespa say that their chapter 12 and the supporting HHRA (Human Health Risk Assessment Appendix 12A) are provided to supplement the assessment of health impacts arising from inhaling
airborne pollutants (Chapter 10). The HHRA uses the output from the emissions dispersion model, as
annual average ground level concentrations and annual average deposition rates to ground10 to assess
human exposure to substances emitted to air from AWRP. In consequence, the values they use are
subject to the many uncertainties and errors discussed above.
68.
AmeyCespa assessed the potential health impact of exposure to airborne pollutants by comparing
predicted exposure concentrations with air quality standards set for the protection of human health and
covered(NOx, SO2, PMs, carbon monoxide, and acid gases. Treating particulates (PM) in this way is
unjustified due to the crucial role played by particulate matter in various forms of synergy and in
facilitating the entry of other pollutants into the respiratory tract including the lungs.
69.
AmeyCespa say that the principal focus of the HHRA was to assess risks to health from exposure routes
other than inhalation (both direct and indirect). They consider the impact of certain substances released
from the proposed EfW (incinerator) plant on the health of the local population at the point of maximum
exposure. This repeats the same conceptual error that they made in Chapter 10 – they consider the
impact on a small number of people who live very locally whereas health impacts are primarily caused by
10
The annual average ground level concentration is the mean concentration over a year to which a person may be exposed at
ground level. The annual average deposition rate is the mean transfer of contaminants from the air to ground surfaces.
Page 20 of 69
small but nonetheless unacceptable risks for a much larger number of people as the pollutant cloud
affects major centres of population.
70.
These substances AmeyCespa consider are those that are ‘persistent’ in the environment and have
several pathways from the point of release to the human receptor. They considered substances that can
accumulate in soil and other media and which have potentially chronic (long term) health effects essentially dioxins/furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals, all emitted from the EfW
(incinerator) only. AmeyCespa admit that the EfW (incinerator) is the significant sources of
dioxins/furans, PAHs or metals within the local area but wrongly claim a cumulative impact assessment
of emissions from the EfW (incinerator) plant with other emission sources is not required.
71.
The above substances (and others not considered) have the potential to cause effects through long term,
cumulative exposure over a lifetime, typically evaluated over 70 years. Since many of them are
carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or teratogenic the effects are complex and some involve a latency period11,
typically 15 to 20 years. This, together with the bio-accumulative nature of many of the emissions means
that symptoms from adverse health impacts will build up over time.
72.
The claim that “all exposure assumptions are chosen to represent a ‘worst case’ and should be treated as
an extreme view of the risks to health” is false. The risk is neither about looking at individual high-end
exposure estimates nor about making the presumption that somehow they all accumulate in one
unfortunate individual. The reality is better reflected in the fact that doses and hence risks are spread
across a large population, not just a relatively small population in the immediate vicinity of the
incinerator. Thus the claim that intakes presented in Chapter 12, even if correct, should be “regarded as
an extreme upper estimate of the actual exposure” is incorrect.
73.
More importantly, AmeyCespa’s methodology is open to question.
6.1: Methodological Flaws
74.
The “Human Health Risk Assessment” (HHRA) in AmeyCespa’s Chapter 12 uses the output from the air
dispersion model, as annual average ground level concentrations and annual average deposition rates to
ground12, to assess human exposure to substances emitted to air from AWRP. In order to consider
selected substances released from the proposed EfW (incinerator) on the health of the local population
they use the HHRA model. The substances considered are both ‘persistent’ in the environment, have
several pathways from the point of release to the human receptor (AmeyCespa fail to consider risks to
other animals or ecosystem damage more generally in this chapter). While AmeyCespa admit that these
are substances can accumulate in soil and other media this hardly constitutes a recognition that they are
bio-accumulative including into the human food chain.
75.
Saying that these substances “have potentially chronic (long term) health effects” is misleadingly bland.
Several of the leading chronic diseases in developed countries include those that are linked to
incinerator emissions such as cardiovascular disease (including heart attack and strokes) and cancer.
Many of these conditions lead to death, including death among the young. Others blight lives and/or
lead to people being unable to reach their full potential.
11
The time between first exposure to a cancer-causing agent and clinical recognition of the disease is called the latency period. Latency periods vary by
cancer type, but usually are 15 to 20 years, or longer.
Source: US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/
12
The annual average ground level concentration is the mean concentration over a year to which a person may be exposed at ground level.
The annual average deposition rate is the mean transfer of contaminants from the air to ground surfaces.
Page 21 of 69
76.
AmeyCespa’s approach involves a long chain of reasoning and assumptions and there is uncertainty at
every step. Johnsonxlii of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, in congressional
testimony given on 24.1.1994 drew attention to key data gaps relating to incineration technology. These
include limitations in the current stack testing, air monitoring, and air modelling methods. Point
emphasised by Bellxliii. As Dearden points out, modelling approaches usually require inputting a large
number of parameters, many of which have to be estimated – he cites an example: “one scenario for
estimating the carcinogenic risk to a subsistence farmer involves the determination or estimation of 42
parameters, including such values as daily poultry consumption rate and air-plant bio transfer rate for
2,3,7,8-TCDD”. Bell commented, not surprisingly, that the impact of most variable changes is not
intuitively obvious.
77.
Howard et alxliv have termed these modelling approaches "fact-free modelling", because most or all of
the input data are calculated or theoretical values. Some key calculated parameters, such as partition
coefficients, are then used to calculate other parameters, which themselves may then be used to
calculate yet more parameters. Each time this is done, predictions errors increase, so that the final
answers yielded by the model may bear little relation to reality. Dearden et alxlv assessed the
performance of a number of software programs for the calculation of partition coefficients, and found
that the best had a standard error (s) of 0.271 log unit (a factor of 1.9), whilst the worst had s = 0.654 (a
factor of 4.5).
78.
Considering pollutants in isolation fails to take account of various synergistic effects and hormesis and
will therefore give misleading results. There are literally hundreds of chemicals emitted by incinerators,
When two or more chemicals are present in an organism they sometimes act synergistically (i.e., their
combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects) and this can occur even at
concentrations below the activity threshold of the individual chemicals. The AmeyCespa approach
ignores these well-known phenomena and therefore understates the health risk. By focussing on just a
few of the chemical omitted it may miss other health impacts.
79.
There are other severe doubts which cover:
80.

The area covered by the assessment: AmeyCespa have only considered potential health impacts to
local residents and farmers in the immediate vicinity by which they mean Coneythorpe (about 1.6km
to the SW of the EfW (incinerator)) and Arkendale (about 1.6km to the NW of AWRP). Also to the SW
is Knaresborough, some 5km from the Site. There are also some isolated properties. This they
consider only a very small population forgetting that pollutants travel much greater distances, albeit
at lower concentrations. However, risk of adverse health impact is stochastic in nature and applies to
a much wider, and larger population

Choosing a “worst case receptor”, assumed to be farmer receptors, is contrary to the nature of the
problem. Moreover, farmers are not the worst case receptors - babies (including those in utero),
young people and the chemically sensitive are. That changes risk factors markedly.

Agricultural produce from the area affected by the emissions from the EfW (incinerator) - a much
larger area than modelled by AmeyCespa - will be sold to people living in the York and Harrogate
area and beyond. This is important; farming is extensive and is a major factor in the local economy.
This and bio-accumulation indicate that the products of agriculture will spread effects over a much
wider area. Taken with the lack of a threshold for adverse health impacts and the non-linear doseresponse relationship of some pollutants, this means the approach does not represent the true scale
of the health impacts.
AmeyCespa methodology does not represent a “worst-case scenario”, as claimed. It is not adequate to
confine the study to residential areas within 3 km of the incinerator. The selected exposure routes (via
inhalation, ingestion of above ground vegetation (e.g. home-grown vegetables) and incidental ingestion
Page 22 of 69
of soil) do not recognise the role of particulates as vectors to the respiratory tract and fail to take
account of the ability of some pollutants to cross the placenta or reach the baby through breast milk.
6.2: The HHRAP Approach
81.
AmeyCespa’s risk assessment was based on the US EPA Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol
(HHRAP) which dates from 2005. As the EPA say “Risk assessment is a science used to evaluate the
carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards to human health that are attributable to emissions from
hazardous waste combustion units. These risk assessments include the evaluation of both direct and
indirect risks. There is sufficient guidance available regarding the performance of direct inhalation risk
assessments. On the other hand, indirect risk assessments are newer and more complex”. EPA
documentationxlvi makes it clear that the various parameters in the model are for average American
conditions of various types. Also, there are many parameters required and changing one to suit local
conditions can have knock-on effects which may not be fully anticipated.
82.
AmeyCespa used a commercially available model - Industrial Risk Assessment Program (IRAP, Version
4.0) - marketed by Lakes Environmental of Ontario. Their use of a Canadian codification of an American
model reinforces our concern that:
 The input data for the IRAP model should be based on UK data rather than US data to avoid skewing
the output. There is a need for a more transparent reference for the data used.
 This is also true for the receptor information e.g. fractions consumed by each receptor group will
vary based on continent, i.e. UK vs. US differentials may apply.
83.
In using the model AmeyCespa have excluded some pathways that IRAP could consider:

ingestion of water where there is a surface source of drinking water (e.g. reservoir) that could be
contaminated by emissions from the EfW (incinerator). Although contaminants are rapidly diluted in
rivers, possible contamination at water extraction sites and for animals drinking from rivers and
streams should be considered as this can lead to ingestion via the human food chain. Similarly, any
contamination of the local aquifer could lead to exposure at some future date were it to be decided
to extract water from this aquifer. If the aquifer were to become contaminated it could rule out its
exploitation as a water resource.

dermal contact with water and/or soil was seen as an insignificant exposure pathway on the basis of
the infrequent and sporadic nature of the events yet gardeners typically get soil on their hands as do
some children when playing outside.

ingestion of drinking water from surface water: While the pollution from AWRP diminishes with
distance, it is reasonable to consider that drainage from within the 3km radius as well as drainage
over a much wider area will reach local watercourses and rivers. The route to contamination is thus
through run-off and potentially into the local aquifer. Both could matter, especially if the climate
gets drier and this route to contamination and ingestion should have been considered.
84.
The exposures arising from ingestion was limited; for example no consideration was given to exposure to
mutton/lamb, fruit and crops such as oil seed rape, wheat and barley. Even if the chosen receptors
(farmers and their families) do not eat their own produce directly, it does enter the human food chain
and therefore adds to risk. Thus AmeyCespa’s claim they include all food groups the assessment is
invalid.
85.
AmeyCespa consider only a limited number of what they call “Compounds of Potential Concern
(COPCs)”. The following COPCs were considered:
 Dioxins and furans – i.e. PCDD/Fs (individual congeners
Page 23 of 69


Metals : Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr, both, trivalent and hexavalent),
Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), Nickel (Ni) and Thallium (Tl)
PAHs as benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]P).
86.
This list omits polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), many of which are endocrine disrupters,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs). It is surprising that
AmeyCespa call PCDD/Fs ‘authorised emissions’ (especially as they are banned under the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
87.
Although benzo(a)pyrene is a typical marker species for PAHs, it seems that not all routes to humans
have been considered. For PAHs these include

Breathing air containing PAHs in the workplace including in MSW incineration facilities.

Breathing air containing PAHs from smoke

Coming in contact with air, water, or soil near hazardous waste sites.

Eating contaminated cereals, flour, bread, vegetables, fruits, meats; and processed or pickled foods.
It seems that the last two of these are excluded from AmeyCespa’s assessment.
6.3: Identification and Summary of Key Impacts
6.3.1: Non-Cancer Risks
88.
It is unclear what non-carcinogenic health problems were considered and how this is reflected in the
various parameters which enable the various HQs to be calculated, There are many diseases linked to
incinerator emissions and it is by no means certain that all of them have been taken into account. To give
a rough indication, non-carcinogenic diseases include but are not necessarily limited to:








Birth defects - terminations, live defects, miscarriages.
Premature deaths of babies, infants and adults including stillbirths
Respiratory Disease &Asthma, COPD13, making one a degree more prone to viral and other
respiratory or other infections
Coronary artery disease, heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, strokes, SADS (Cardiac arrhythmia14, also
known as "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome" and "Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome") This may be
in the form of aggravating existing problems
Multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies and arthritis
Endocrine system problems such as
 Hypothyroidism (part of obesity problem) - endocrine glands
 Endometriosis & other hormones disrupted.
 Diabetes 2 (and sometimes diabetes 1) through effect on endocrine glands
Lower IQ and educational achievement, heavy metals produce symptoms such as memory loss,
poor concentration and poor sleep as well as behavioral problems that could account for this
Behavioral problems such as Attention Deficit Disorder, noting the similarities between heavy
metal poisoning and conditions such as autism and ADD/ADHD.
13
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) refers to chronic bronchitis and emphysema, a pair of two commonly co-existing
diseases of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed
14 A large and heterogeneous group of conditions in which there is abnormal electrical activity in the heart The heart beat may be too
fast or too slow, and may be regular or irregular.
Page 24 of 69
89.
In addition to uncertainties introduced by the unknown parameterisation of the factors used in
calculating the HQs and His, there are a number of generic problems. The overall procedure using IRAP is
subject a number of criticisms:

It ignores synergy which is known to play an important role in leading to adverse health effects). For
example:
o The proportion of metals to particulates allowed to be emitted by incinerators is very high, being
much higher than found in emissions from cars. The selective attachment of heavy metals to the
smallest particulates emitted from incinerators increases the toxicity of these particulates.xlvii
However, IRAP does not consider particulates or this synergistic effect.
o Synergy arises from the combination of substances that can cause toxicity even when the individual
chemicals are at a level normally considered safe. The toxicity of chemically-coated particles can be
enhanced over expectations for single chemicals, because of synergiesxlviii Two or more chemicals
present in an organism sometimes act synergisticallyxlix (i.e. their combined effect is greater than the
sum of their individual effects), and this can occur even at concentrations below the activity
threshold of the individual chemicalsl,li,lii,liii (the as the coalitive effectliv). Still other toxic effects are
cosynergism (when two agents enhance the toxicity of each other) and potentiation (when one
agent with no toxicity enhances the toxicity of the other).
o The IRAP methodology means IRAP will not have considered agents which are important in the
disease process.

It ignores hormesis as the method seems effectively to depend on a linear dose-response relationship.
This applies to both cancer and non-cancer risks. The cancer risk from dioxins appeared to follow a
hormetic pattern, with toxicity increasing at very low doseslv,lvi,lvii while Kaiserlviii showed that endocrine
disruptors such as dioxins follow this pattern. Compounds such as PCBs often possess dramatically
different toxicities at low dose than at high doselix because of their potency as enzyme inducers.

The method appears to ignore the role of sensitisation. A proportion of the population react to
chemicals and pollutants at several orders of magnitude below that normally thought to be toxiclx;
indeed some individuals react to levels of toxins previously considered safe (e.g. benzene and leadlxi).
There is a tenfold difference between different individuals in the metabolism of benzo(a)pyrenelxii. Also
studies in both toxicology and epidemiology have recognised that chemicals are harmful at lower and
lower doses and that an increasing number of people are having problems. A significant percentage of
the population have been found to react this way (15 to 30% in several surveys).

The IRAP method depends on the proper identification of all potentially harmful pollutants and the
establishment of the model parameters described above for all of them. In practice AmeyCespa only
consider ten heavy metals, one PAH and 17 PCDD/Fs. There are a significant number of pollutants which
were not considered in IRAP. These include, but are probably not limited to:
o Many dioxins and furans: There are 49 chlorinated dioxins and 87 chlorinated dibenzofurans. The
2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2378TCDD) is the most toxic. Toxicity of dioxins and furans
depends upon the number of chlorine atoms and their position on the ring structures. Each has been
assigned a TEQ or Toxicological Equivalent to 2378TCDDlxiii.
o Other Organochlorines, which includes polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), many of which are
endocrine disrupters, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs).
These are known to be toxic and to bio-accumulate (in people, in animals and in the environment)
o Only one polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) is considered (benzo(a)pyrene). PAHs comprise a
group of compounds consisting of fused aromatic ringslxiv. There are several hundred of these
chemically-related environmentally persistent organic compounds of various structures and varied
Page 25 of 69
o
toxicity15. Failure to take account of all of them means that the carcinogenic effect from PAHs is
underestimated.
In all Jay and Stieglitzlxv identified 227 individual organic compounds corresponding to ca. 42% of the
total organic carbon (TOC) in flue gas from an MSW incinerator. This shows that there are potentially
many more harmful compounds that were not considered in the IRAP methodology.

The method ignores bioaccumulation. This is important in two ways. Firstly bio-accumulative pollutants
accumulate in the human food chain so that the dose received by the human depends on the integrated
dose that the animal from which meat is taken has received through all routes. Secondly, the
bioaccumulative pollutants build up in people over a long period - these pollutants can remain in the
body for years (cadmium has a 30 year half-life). These effects mean that harm builds up over a period
and basing assessment on the dose received in just one year seriously understates the harm received in
later years.

It ignores the fact that many pollutants are actively transported across the placenta from the mother to
the foetus. This occurs with heavy metals which the body mistakes for essential minerals. This is
particularly critical for mercury where 10% of women already have body stores of mercury which can
lead to neuro-developmental problems in the newbornlxvi. Recent research found that this prenatal
exposure to PCBs has a subtle negative effect on the neurological and cognitive development of children
right up to school age. PAH and metabolites cross the placenta and are excreted in breast milklxvii, putting
the foetus and babies at risk.

It ignores the mutagenic and teratogenic properties of many pollutants. Only 7% of high volume
chemicals have been tested for neuro-developmental toxicitylxviii and very few pollutants have been
tested for teratogenicity

As discussed above, not all pathways have been considered so some risks are missing.
90.
Chaolxix comments that even though a large number of atmospheric dispersion models exist and are
readily available for use, the risk assessor is generally faced with little or no data on the atmospheric
particle size distribution of PCDDs and PCDFs. Lohman and Seigneurlxx conclude that “it is essential to
obtain accurate characterizations of the particle size distribution of particulate PCDD/F because the dry
deposition flux is very sensitive to the particle size distribution”. Without such data accurate risk
assessment is not possible and yet there is no evidence that it has been collected or used in relation to
this application.
91.
This demonstrates that there are flaws in the IRAP methodology that mean that it will seriously
understate the disease effects. Moreover, there are a number of sources of harm that it does not
appear to consider. For example, some organochlorines have mutagenic and teratogenic properties that
appear not to fall into any of the categories considered. The same may be true of their properties as
endocrine disrupters. This reinforces our conclusion that the methodology will seriously understate the
various types of harm.
92.
Moreover, the calculations ignore synergistic or antagonist health effects arising from the release. The
role of particulates in acting as a vector is therefore also ignored. Such affects are very important and
help negate the conclusions that AmeyCespa have reached.
15
PAHs known for their carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic properties are benzo[a]anthracene and chrysene ,
benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[j]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene (notable for being the first chemical carcinogen
to be discovered and one of many carcinogens found in cigarette smoke), benzo[ghi]perylene, coronene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene
(C20H14), indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (C22H12) and ovalene
Page 26 of 69
93.
We do not believe that the calculations are meaningful in the face of all the uncertainties and
methodological flaws discussed above coupled with the long and uncertain chain of reasoning which has
associated errors at each step and the fact that a number of important disease processes have been
ignored. This we believe that the health impacts have been seriously underestimated.
6.3.2: Cancer Risks
94.
The total lifetime risk calculated by IRAP for typical emissions from the EfW (incinerator) for each of the
receptors (adult and child) is presented in AmeyCespa’s Table 12.3. It depends on the ADMS dispersion
modelling predictions which are themselves open to error.
95.
AmeyCespa state that the highest carcinogenic risk is predicted for Farmer North 1 (adult) and Resident
Allerton Mauleverer 1 (adult). The additional, total, lifetime risks to these receptors are 1.1 x 10-5 (1 in
90,900) for the farmer and 3.4 x 10-7 (1 in 2,941,200) for the resident. This risk for the Farmer is well
above the internationally accepted risk of 1 x 10-6 (one in a million) despite the fact that important
pollutants have not been considered.
96.
AmeyCespa go on to say that “Expressed as an annual risk, these risk estimates become 1 in 6,363,000
for Farmer North 1 and 1 in 205,884,000 for Resident Allerton Mauleverer 1, assuming a lifetime of 70
years. Such risks are well within an annual risk of 1 x 10-6 (1 in 1 million)” This is a case of special
pleading against an awkward fact (something with which Chapters 10 and 12 are replete).
97.
To illustrate this point, consider a paper by Roberts and Chenlxxi. They derived a quantitative measure of
risk from a modern waste incinerator, based on current allowed emission levels. The authors calculated
that the overall risk of dying in any one year from incinerator emissions is 2.49 x 10-7, with the main
contributors to that risk being cadmium (72%), dioxins (17%), arsenic (10%) and PAHs (1%). The risk of
dying from incinerator emissions over the 25 year operating life of an incinerator is 25 times the annual
risk, or 6.23 x 10-6, and the 70-year lifetime risk is 1.74 x 10-5. As Dearden (op cit) states, “both of these
values are well above the de minimis acceptable lifetime target level of 10-6 (i.e. 1 in a million) used by
the US Environmental Protection Agencylxxii and recommended by the Committee on Toxicity of
Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environmentlxxiii”.
98.
The obvious point here is that Professor Dearden16, a well respected expert is in agreement with the EPA
and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment that the
correct comparator is the lifetime risk and that the de minimis acceptable lifetime target level is 10-6. In
other words, the special pleading of AmeyCespa is wholly unjustified.
99.
To reinforce this point, in their recent planning application for an 850,000 tonne/year EfW (incinerator)
plant with CHP at Runcorn, IneosChlor included a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) prepared by A.
Hashm of RPS consultants, Chepstowlxxiv . The HHRA included an assessment of the cancer risk to local
populations from the proposed incinerator; 37 "sensitive receptors" (e.g. a child, a farmer) at different
locations in the villages and other areas around the IneosChlor site were selected, and the mortality risk
for each was calculated using commercial software. For 23 of the 37 "sensitive receptors" the calculated
lifetime risk of cancer from the proposed incinerator was greater than 10-6, showing that the plant would
indeed pose an unacceptable health threat to local populations.
16
Professor Dearden (BSc, MSc, PHD) is Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry at Liverpool John Moores University. He is an
honorary member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, for contributions to pharmaceutical research. In 2004 he
received the biennial International QSAR Award for Research in Environmental Toxicology and has written about 250 scientific
publications in computational toxicology and related fields. He served on a European Commission working party in connection with
the recent REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) legislation, and was invited to give evidence to the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2001.
Page 27 of 69
100. We conclude that the cancer risk from incineration is above the de minimis acceptable lifetime target
level of 10-6 and is therefore unacceptable.
6.3.3: Dietary Intake of Trace Metals
101. AmeyCespa compare the predicted additional contribution of the EfW (incinerator) to the intake of
metals against the UK Total Diet Study intakes (see their Table 12.5). Data for the Farmer North 1 and
Resident Allerton Mauleverer 1 adult receptors are presented as a percentage of the TDS dietary intake
in their Figure 12.3. Relative to background intakes of the metals considered, highest intakes from the
EfW (incinerator) are predicted as follows:


Thallium for the farmer receptor at 90.0% of the total UK dietary intake
Thallium for the resident receptor at 0.6% of the total UK dietary intake.
These figures are, of course, subject to an unacknowledged uncertainty arising from their air dispersion
modelling (as discussed above).
102. For the Farmer North 1 receptor, the intake of thallium is relatively high compared
with the existing
dietary intake. AmeyCespa argue that this receptor is a hypothetical maximum exposed individual as
they assumed that the exposed individual lives in the area of maximum impact and consumes most of
his/her animal, dairy, vegetable and cereal products derived from this area where maximum deposition
is predicted to occur. While this assumption may overstate the case a little, farmers may make
considerable use of their own product. Against this, deposition could be higher arising from uncertainties
discussed earlier with respect to the ADMS model output.
6.3.4: Comparison of Dioxin/Furan Exposure with UK and the WHO Tolerable Daily Intakes
103. AmeyCespa present their estimates of the average (lifetime) daily intake of dioxins/furans for the farmer
and resident receptors is presented in their Table 12.6. The numbers they present are at the end of a
long chain of reasoning with errors at each step and using models of unknown applicability in the UK
context so the reliability of the numbers is open to doubt. According to their figures (which are almost
certainly a serious underestimate) the predicted additional intake of dioxins and furans from the EfW
(incinerator) represents at most 20.3% of the 2001 UK mean dietary intake for farmers receptors
(though one would expect this to be a somewhat higher percentage of 2011 intake). The figure is about
a tenth of this for resident receptors. This the intake for the Farmer receptors looks like it could reach a
major proportion of the 2011 UK mean dietary intake
104. While continuous monitoring of dioxins/furans and trace metals is not possible, the requirement to
monitor them twice per year is not adequate. Markedly more frequent monitoring should be part of the
conditions attached to any Environmental Permit.
7: Q1: PREVENTION OF EMISSIONS
105. The air pollution control equipment in modern incinerators undoubtedly reduces emissions markedly
compared to earlier incinerators. However, some emissions remain and there is always the suspicion
that more could be done if cost were no object.
106. AmeyCespa propose using bag house filters for the removal of particulates. However, there is an
alternative technology. Electrostatic precipitation has been a reliable technology since the early 1900's.
Page 28 of 69
They were originally developed to abate serious smoke nuisances. Today electrostatic precipitators are
found mainly on large power plants, cement plants, incinerators, and various boiler applications. Why
are they not being installed together with filters in order to improve the removal of particulates and to
protect the environment and the public in the event of one of the filters failing? It is always useful to
have some backup on safety-critical systems.
107. While emissions cannot be prevented, a sufficiently high stack would ensure sufficient dispersion to
reduce the concentration of pollutants to levels adequate to meet current air quality objectives.
However, this begs several important questions:




Given the many flaws in the analysis presented to the Environment Agency, are the stacks
sufficiently high, especially for the incinerator?
Given that the calculations presented to the EA are based on incinerating Municipal Solid Waste,
how far will the inclusion of Trade Waste (an undefined waste stream) and other known waste
streams alter the emissions profile and quantity?
The trend in the UK has been for increasingly stringent air quality limits ever since the original Clean
Air Act. However, the UK has fallen behind international best practice, as exemplified by the more
stringent standards in the USA imposed by the EPA to protect the health of Americans. Given that
this implies a range of scientific uncertainty over how stringent regulations need to be, why is the EA
not prepared to apply the Precautionary Principle as required by European law?
Given the trend towards more stringent regulations, the stack height should be set at a height
sufficient to meet the likely future regulations. Given that it is easier to design and build a stack of
suitable height ab initio than to add to an existing stack, why is this not done?
108. For the people living around AWRP, the systems that control emissions are safety-critical systems. Yet
there appears to be no failsafe mechanisms and no built-in redundancy. It is therefore important to
consider what happens if one or more of these systems fails. The paper by Fichtner entitled “Air Quality
Addendum: Abnormal Emissions makes an attempt to do this. They consider the following examples of
abnormal operating conditions:
109. Fichtner based their assumed abnormal emission levels primarily on data from modern plants or used
what they call “conservative assumptions”, though these are undefined. Moreover, they also claim that
they assumed “worst case” weather conditions, again without defining them. In reality, the worst case
weather conditions are likely to be during conditions of thermal inversion, something that the air
dispersion models have not taken into account. Even with these caveats, emission levels exceed
permitted levels greatly as shown in Fichtner’s Tables 1 and 2. Correcting for the deficiencies in
AmeyCespa’s methodology is likely to increase calculated ground level concentrations even further.
During conditions of thermal inversion these concentrations are likely to build up fairly quickly due to
the trapping effect. This largely invalidates the calculations reported in Fichtner’s Table 3.
110. As if these results were not bad enough, they ignore the possibility of two or more of the occurrences
happening at the same time. Such eventualities are commonly taken into account in safety engineering.
Page 29 of 69
Doing so in this instance would increase emissions significantly above those calculated. The duration of
such elevated emissions is a significant parameter that is not even discussed. Possible failure of
instrumentation leading to the fault going undetected for some time is not addressed.
111. One might normally think of dual sets of instruments with appropriate control rules automatically closing
the system down as the failsafe option. This may be inappropriate because emissions are generally high
during shut-down. We have already mentioned the possibility of adding electrostatic precipitation to the
system and this would do much to overcome the failure of bag filters (as well as potentially improving
particle capture). Dual instrumentation17 and electrostatic precipitation are examples of the concept of
built-in redundancy of systems (though the latter could perform a useful function during normal
operation. The SNVR system could have dual injection lines so that
112. Not being specialist engineers, we are not aware of whether or not it would be possible to fit an
alternative route to the stack to give the option of back-up air pollution control systems. If this is
possible then the SNCR system could be matched by an alternative proven technology, namely catalytic
reduction. The activated carbon system would have to be duplicated.
113. Power stations commonly use flue gas desulphurisation equipment which is a proven technology of long
standing. Surely it should be fitted to reduce SO2 emissions.
7.1: Inadequate Monitoring
114. Monitoring is a key component of minimising pollution; if you don’t know there is a problem then how
can you do something about it?
115. AmeyCespa say in their Planning Statements (paragraphs 1.7.48) that “Air Pollution Control processes are
monitored using a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS). This system will continuously
monitor emissions from the stack for: particulate; carbon monoxide (CO); ammonia (NH3); sulphur
dioxide (SO2); hydrogen chloride (HCl); hydrogen fluoride (HF); oxygen (O2); nitrogen oxides (NOx); and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)” and paragraph 1.7.49 states that “In addition, periodic sampling and
measurement will be carried out for metals, including: cadmium (Cd); thallium (Tl); mercury (Hg);
antimony (Sb); arsenic (As); lead (Pb); chromium (Cr); cobalt (Co); copper (Cu); manganese (Mn); nickel
(Ni); vanadium (V); dioxins; furans; and Polychlorinated Biphenyls”.
116. This list clearly does not cover all the many pollutants that are emitted by incinerators. Notable
emissions are dioxin-like substances, for example polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). The list also
excludes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
117. AmeyCespa’s Para 10.13.9 states that “Notwithstanding the continuous monitoring detailed above,
ambient air quality monitoring is proposed to be undertaken in the vicinity of AWRP for a 12-month
period once the facility is fully commissioned. This monitoring will provide evidence to verify the
dispersion modelling work”. This is wholly inadequate. Firstly, there is significant risk and much of it is
cumulative so continuous monitoring over the lifetime of the facility (if built) would be needed.
Secondly, the extent, scope and frequency of the year’s monitoring are not defined and may be
inadequate. Thirdly, if monitoring proves the air dispersion model to be significantly in error then it is
too late to find out at that stage. Much better to impose adequate monitoring by an independent
17
We note that AmeyCespa say that the EfW bag filters are supported by a dust analyser to detect any failures. In
addition to the “duty” dust analyser a standby analyser is provided to provide resilience in the event that the “duty”
analyser fails.
Page 30 of 69
organisation as a condition of the Environmental Permit with the condition that the plant will be
closed if it problems are revealed.
7.2: Noise
118. Noise can occur during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. Our main concern is
with the operational phase since this will be imposed on local communities for 25 years or so. Noise
from which there is no escape is much more likely to be unacceptable than intermittent noise (e.g.,
during construction)
119. At para 5.6.7 on Noise Impacts, AmeyCespa state that AWRP will operate on a 24-hour basis, seven days
a week with waste deliveries occurring between 08:00–22:00 from Monday–Friday and 08:00-17:00
Saturdays/Sundays and Bank Holidays. They also say that “The noise assessment undertaken as part of
this EIA (Chapter 8 of the ES) has assessed the impacts of noise at a series of receptor sites. This impact is
considered permanent and will continue for the operational lifetime of the facility”. They do not,
however, say that Chapter 8 stated that ‘Significant operational vibration effects are unlikely and a
quantitative assessment has not been conducted’ nor admit that the lack of such an assessment renders
any evaluation by themselves of the effects (if any) of vibration meaningless.
120. The AmeyCespa noise assessment was mechanistic in nature as it only looked at changes in dB levels and
failed to take account of the fact that human sensitivity to noise is frequency dependent and varies
significantly from one person to another. Also, duration of noise is a factor in people’s ability to tolerate
it. Moreover, transmission of noise through the atmosphere is frequency dependent and also varies with
meteorological conditions. To say, as Chapter 5 does, that “the increase in noise levels are negligible
relative to the existing noise environment” without qualification is therefore unsupportable. This means
that the Applicant’s assessment of the magnitude of the noise impact is open to question.
121. AmeyCespa’s Chapter 8 para 8.6.25 states that:
“The walls and roofs of the buildings are modelled as area sources based upon the internal
noise sources, the sound reduction index of the façades and the reverberation time of the
buildings. The noise reduction index that has been used in the noise model for the walls and
roof of the main buildings are commensurate with that of 1mm thick trapezoid profile steel
with no insulation. The noise reduction index that has been used in the noise model for the wall
of the turbine hall is commensurate with that of a clad steel framework”.
122.
While this is claimed to be a “worst Case” scenario it does produce what AmeyCespa call “Minor
Adverse Permanent” impact, which can reasonably be taken as the least severe interpretation of the
data. This would no doubt build up over time to become intensely irritating for the people called on to
suffer it involuntarily. The solution is noted in the last sentence of para 8.6.25: “The use of acoustic
insulation and low noise plant would further reduce the sound emission levels and the sound levels at
noise sensitive receptors”.
123. Any Environmental Permit should be conditional on the use of acoustic insulation and sound-absorbing
materials on all external walls and on any windows being double glazed. Doors should carry
soundproofing and should not be left open when not actually in use.
124. Additionally, there will be a significant amount of traffic noise on-site as well as off. Since the amount of
noise produced from the road surface as vehicles pass over it depends on the nature of that surface, it is
essential that the road surface be of a type that produces little noise.
Page 31 of 69
125. Finally, it is of concern that AmeyCespa have supplied in the Letters and Response Document 270612.IC
that the Applicant supplied the Environment Agency with information that the EA cannot verify as it
does not have the software to verify the noise modelling files. Submitting the files in a format that the
EA can read is all very well but the true need is for independent verification. Bearing in mind the flaws in
other modelling (e.g. air quality), it would be unwise to take this data entirely on trust.
7.3: Odour
126. For the most part the odour management plan in Appendix D appears sensible. However, the 28m stacks
may be too low, especially at times of thermal inversion and that needs to be examined in the light of
realistic meteorological data and using higher resolution (smaller grid spacing) on the air dispersion
model.
127. It is unclear from AmeyCespa’s description whether or not every part of each process is connected to the
air management system and whether or not it has been designed so that fresh air is constantly being
sucked into the building. If so, then when the doors are opened briefly to allow trucks access, air would
flow in, not out, owing to the fact that there is a slightly lower air pressure inside the building.
8: Q2: HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT
128. This section addresses harm to the environment generally. Local factors (EA Question 4) are covered in
the next section and include harm to both the environment and to heritage.
8.1: Overview
129. AmeyCespa’s assessment of the impacts of AWRP is confined to the immediate locale of the proposed
AWRP. Their environmental and ecological data is incomplete and contains errors. They fail to
acknowledge that emissions from the EfW (incinerator) would contribute to ecological damage and
damage to materials (and therefore buildings) over a wide area. Even within the narrow confines of what
they do discuss, they tend to understate the effects of the various environmental insults of the proposed
AWRP on local ecosystems. Thus they understate the impacts during the construction phase,
downplaying both the ecological value of that which they propose to destroy and the impact on
remaining ecosystems (e.g. through pollution, noise dust and contamination).
130. Climate change is exacerbated by choosing incineration. This technology
is the worst alternative to
landfill from a climate change standpoint. Incineration releases high levels of CO2 with nearly all the
carbon content in the waste being emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere. Incineration is comparable in
terms of CO2 per unit of power to energy produced from fossil fuel. In addition, NOx emissions include
N2O, another powerful greenhouse gas. Choosing incineration runs counter to the UK’s national and
international commitments on climate change.
131. Emissions from the AWRP EfW incinerator would cause harm to the environment and ecology:



acidification of ecosystems, both terrestrial and aquatic, which leads to loss of flora and fauna
eutrophication in ecosystems on land and in water, which can lead to changes in species diversity;
damage and yield losses affecting agricultural crops, forests and other plants due to exposure to
ground-level ozone;

impacts of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants on ecosystems, due to their environmental
toxicity and due to bioaccumulation;
damage to materials and cultural heritage due to soiling and exposure to acidifying pollutants and
ozone

Page 32 of 69
132. Some of these impacts would affect both wildlife and agriculture.
Many of the pollutants from
incinerators are bio-accumulative and enter the food chain. Thus the health of birds and animals as well
as humans is affected (though the dose-response relationship may be different for different species).
Damage to animals health impacts on the health of ecosystems. Moreover, the effects of the emissions
from the EfW (incinerator) increase effects arising from other sources of pollution.
133. Pollutants in water courses can enter into aquifers (e.g. the Sherwood Sandstone) and pollute them. This
would tend to be a cumulative process (the pollutants are persistent and residency time in aquifers can
be long) and could render them unsuitable for any future water extraction.
8.2: Climate Change
134. Given the importance of emissions Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), particularly methane, from landfill
of MSW, alternatives to landfill for MSW are often viewed as having a positive effect on global warming
by reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill. However, such a view (which seems
implicit in many statements in AmeyCespa’s material) is too simplistic. It is essential to consider the
merits of various alternatives to landfill to arrive at a proper perspective and there is much evidence to
show that incineration is particularly bad in a GHG/global warming context. Examples of this evidence
are given in Annex 3.
135. Flaws in the WRATE model which was used by AmeyCespa and Fichtner to examine GHG emissions from
AWRP are now well-known. For example the respected environmental consultants Eunomia identify
significant deficiencies with the WRATE model18:
“The Environment Agency’s software tool WRATE is often used to assess the environmental
impacts of waste management treatment methods… we believe the model contains
fundamental errors, both in regard to the behavior of landfilled wastes, and with respect to its
treatment of the stabilised output from MBT facilities. In the case of the latter, WRATE assumes
a proportion of the carbon is degraded within the biological part of the MBT process. However,
when this stabilised material is subsequently landfilled, the methane emission is assumed to be
exactly the same as that of the non-stabilised material – the model only accounts for the
reduction in mass which occurs in material which is biologically pre-treated (occurring as a
result of moisture loss). The model, therefore, significantly underestimates the extent to which
the biological component of the MBT process reduces the biological activity of material
subsequently sent to landfill”.
This means WRATE under-estimates the benefits of MBT as alternatives to landfill and to incineration for
reducing GHG emissions and misleadingly suggests incineration is superior to other approaches.
136. In view of these flaws, AmeyCespa’s results cannot be taken at face value and certainly do not mean that
the EfW (incineration) plant is acceptable. These flaws are present in all the documents referring to GHG
emissions, including those modified in respect of Letter and Response document 279612.IC/
137. AmeyCespa have tried to show that AWRP would result in a net saving in CO2 emissions but their
methodology is flawed and their assumptions unrealistic; in consequence the reverse is true. Firstly, the
thermal efficiencies assumed for the various types of electricity generating technologies are open to
question – for example the overall efficiency of CCGT plant is well above 50%lxxv (typically 56-60%)
against the 47% assumed in by AmeyCespa 19Appendix B4 while that of coal-fired plant is typically
18
See http://www.ineosbio.com/media/files/INEOS%20Bio%20Life-cycle%20Assessment.pdf
The assumptions quoted in this section are taken from Supplementary Planning Application and associated documents recently
submitted by AmeyCespa, in particular Appendix B4 WRATE Model Report. They are available at
http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=17992
19
Page 33 of 69
33%lxxvi, not the 35.7% assumed in Appendix B4. Secondly the electricity mixes assumed are not realistic;
in particular an all-hydro mix is unobtainable bearing in mind England and Wales known paucity of hydro
resources and equivalents such as a 60% nuclear / 40% renewables are unobtainable on a reasonable
timescale while the variable nature of renewables would present security of supply and grid stability
problems in such a scenario. Also, their method of extrapolation to a “decarbonised” 2030 mix is overly
simplistic and does not properly take account of the way that the load-duration curve operates. Roughly,
the order of plant on the grid is determined by its marginal operating costs which are strongly related to
the fuel costs – thus the marginal costs of nuclear and renewable electricity generation are low while gas
turbines and coal are high with CCGT intermediate. Hence nuclear and CCGT are base load while coal
operates on generally lower load factors (fewer hours per year).
138. Plant at the margin at any time is determined by the market20 and this in turn influences the carbon
intensity of the marginal plant. Since both the shape of the load-duration curve and total demand varies
throughout the day and seasonally, different plant will sit at the margin at different times. The electricity
from the EfW and AD plant at AWRP would displace the marginal plant among other electricity
generators. For some of the time this will be coal which is broadly comparable with incineration (as EfW)
in terms of CO2 emissions (see Annex 3) but for much of the time it would replace generation sources
that are less harmful in terms of GHG emissions. Indeed, for some of the time (e.g. summer nights) it
would displace nuclear plant that emits no CO2.
139. The means that the AWRP EfW (incineration) plant would result in an increase in the overall CO2
emissions from the electricity sector. In consequence, granting an Environmental Permit for AWRP
would run counter to the UK’s obligations and policy on GHG emissions.
140. In calculating the difference between GHG (mainly CO 2) emissions from AWRP and that which would have been
generated by other electricity generators, it is essential to choose the correct energy mix on the electricity
generating system. AmeyCespa used a 2015 date for the energy mix comparison and used the somewhat
specious justification that by this date the facility should be up and running. This presents a misleading
impression of the alleged “benefits” of incineration because the efficiency of other forms of energy
generation will significantly improve in the future, alongside national targets. A more realistic date
would be 2020 or, preferably 2030.
141. When considering climate change it is essential to look forward to an appropriate time period. The
carbon intensity of incineration is more than 300 gCO2/kWh21 and will increase above this level as
recycling increases and plastic becomes a more significant element of the waste that cannot be recycled
if recycling is held artificially low at 50% maximum (as AWRP would do).and is burnt. This means that
EfW (incineration) such as that proposed by AWRP will rapidly be out of line with national targets - Defra
estimates a 75% reduction in carbon intensity from over 300 to about 80 g CO2/kWh by 2030. This
suggests re-running the model with 2030 as a baseline as this is mid-way through the contract period.
142. AmeyCespa’s claim that using a “carbon-free” electricity mix “as a comparison to the predicted 2020 mix
because the differences in environmental impact between a these two cases should represent the effects
of offsetting” is not justifiable. The reality is that if more plant is built over the next eight or so years (as
it needs to be) it would include some renewable energy technologies and, for 2020, plant with
reasonably short planning and construction lead times (the lead times for new nuclear plant make it
20
For a discussion of the electricity market and its history see
http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/cri/pubpdf/Industry_Briefs/Electricity_Gillian_Simmonds.pdf
There are currently proposals for further reform of the market – see for example
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/electricitymarketinfo/ and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/15/reform-electricity-market-unworkable
21
Environment Agency, Biomass: Carbon sink or carbon sinner? 2009.
Page 34 of 69
unlikely that such plant could be online by 2020). Broadly, new plant is likely to be more efficient than
the old plant that it replaces, much of which is coal or oil fired. This means that the amount of coal-fired
plant on the system is likely to fall and that the coal-fired plant at the margin is likely to be more
modern, and more efficient (and therefore less CO2 intensive) than at present.
143. AmeyCespa have failed to consider the situation later in the life of AWRP; there is no realistic 2030
scenario (and their use of a carbon-free scenario is not justified). This is necessarily subject to much
uncertainty, depending on the pace of replacement of aging plant on the current electricity generating
system. However, it is reasonable to suppose that the system will move towards a lower CO2 intensity
and that, as a consequence, the mix of plant at the margin (with which AWRP’s EfW should be
compared) will also become less CO2 intensive. Since the CO2 emissions from the EfW incinerator are,
and will remain, comparable with coal-fired plant this means that AWRP will increasingly displace plant
that emit less CO2 (in 2030 and even 2040
144. AmeyCespa’s conclusion in the report on GHGs submitted to the EA that “It is clear that the two EfW
options provide a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to displaced power in comparison to the
landfill option” is entirely false, being an artefact of erroneous assumptions. Since incineration is the
worst technology other than landfill from a climate change standpoint, the proposed AWRP represents a
very poor choice for waste management. Moreover, since all electricity generation technologies except
perhaps coal are better from a GHG emission standpoint than EfW (incineration) the tendency is for
AWRP’s incinerator to become increasingly unattractive over time.
145. AmeyCespa (and Fichtner) present a choice between AWRP (predominantly incineration) against the “do
nothing” scenario, in other words landfill. Choosing between two very bad options – landfill or AWRP
with its EfW incinerator – is not sensible when cleaner cheaper and more environmentally friendly
options exist. Such false choices is one of the reasons why we recommend (see Section 2) that
consideration of an Environmental Permit should take account of other integrated waste management
systems such as Thermal MBT.
8.3: Damage to Ecosystems
146. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA) in their 2011 reportlxxvii problems arising from air
pollution include:

effects on human health caused by exposure to air pollutants or intake of pollutants transported
through the air, deposited and accumulated in the food chain;

acidification of ecosystems, both terrestrial and aquatic, which leads to loss of flora and fauna

eutrophication in ecosystems on land and in water, which can lead to changes in species diversity;

damage and yield losses affecting agricultural crops, forests and other plants due to exposure to
ground-level ozone;

impacts of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants on ecosystems, due to their environmental
toxicity and due to bioaccumulation;

effects on climate forcing (not just the greenhouse effect);

reduction of atmospheric visibility;

damage to materials and cultural heritage due to soiling and exposure to acidifying pollutants and
ozone
147. Emissions from incinerators like the EfW (incinerator) at AWRP include acid gases (e.g. NOx, SO2 and HCl),
leading to the formation of ozone. Ammonia (NH3) from agriculture and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from
combustion processes are now the main acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants, as sulphur pollution
Page 35 of 69
has fallen in recent years. The AWRP EfW plant, like other incinerators also emits aerosols, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) such as dioxins, particulates (also called particulate matter, PM) and heavy metals.
148. As the EEA say, air pollution damages the environment. For example, ozone can damage crops and other
vegetation, impairing growth. These impacts can reduce the ability of plants to take up CO2 from the
atmosphere and indirectly affect entire ecosystems and the planet's climate. The atmospheric deposition
of sulphur and nitrogen compounds has acidifying effects on soils and freshwaters. Acidification causes
disturbances in the function and structure of ecosystems with harmful ecological effects, including
biodiversity loss. Likewise, deposition of nitrogen compounds can lead to eutrophication, which
constitutes an oversupply of nutrient nitrogen in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Consequences
include changes in species diversity, invasions of new species and leaching of nitrate to groundwater.
The impacts on the environment depend not only on the air pollutant emission rates but also on the
location and conditions of the emission and the location of the receptor point. Factors determining the
transport, chemical transformation and deposition of air pollutants, including meteorology and
topography, are also important. Further, the environmental impacts of air pollution also depend on the
sensitivity of ecosystems to acidification, eutrophication, heavy metal deposition and direct ecosystem
exposure to pollutant concentrations.
149. As we show below, incineration is the worst of the alternatives to landfill for climate change. More
generally, the Earth’s climate system is complex and a range of other air pollutants interfere with the
Earth's energy balance; these are known as 'climate forcers'. These can either be gases (e.g. CO2, nitrous
oxide, ozone) or airborne particulate matter (aerosols). Some climate forcers reflect solar radiation (e.g.
sulphate aerosols) leading to net cooling, while others (e.g. black carbon aerosols) absorb solar radiation,
thereby warming the atmosphere. In addition, aerosols influence the formation, microphysics and
optical properties of clouds, resulting in indirect climatological effects. Deposition of certain aerosols
(e.g. black carbon) may also change the Earth's surface reflectivity (albedo), especially on ice- and snow
covered surfaces, thereby accelerating melting.
150. Table 1 (below) is drawn from the EEA report. It summarises the main effects of a range of air pollutants,
each of which is emitted by incinerators, on human health, the environment and the climate. Each
pollutant produces a range of effects, ranging from mild to severe as concentration or exposure
increases.
151. The effects of the emissions from the EfW (incinerator) increase effects from other sources of pollution.
Thus, for example, nitrates and phosphates used in agriculture are a major cause of eutrophication so
that eutrophying chemicals from the incinerator emissions reinforce and increase these other effects.
Since plants do not generally absorb the chemicals emitted by incinerators, the emissions from the EfW
(incinerator) at AWRP would enter the soil, enter groundwater or run off into water courses. This
happens over a substantially wider area than AmeyCespa even consider and so ecological effects would
likewise extend over a much wider area. Similarly, acid gas emissions from the EfW (incinerator) act
together with acid gases already in the atmosphere from other sources to damage materials and
therefore buildings and our architectural heritage.
Table 1: Effects of air pollutants on human health, the environment and the climate
Pollutant
Health effects
Environmental effects
Page 36 of 69
Climate effects
Particulate
matter (PM)
Can cause or aggravate
cardiovascular and lung diseases
(e.g. reduced lung function,
asthma attacks, chronic
bronchitis, susceptibility to
respiratory infections), heart
attacks and arrhythmias. Can
affect the central nervous
system, the reproductive system
and cause cancer. The outcome
can be premature death.
Can affect animals in the same
way as humans. Affects plant
growth and ecosystem processes.
Ozone (O3)
Irritates eyes, nose, throat and
lungs. Can destroy throat and
lung tissues, leading to decrease
in lung function; respiratory
symptoms, such as coughing and
shortness of breath; aggravated
asthma and other lung diseases.
Can lead to premature mortality.
Damages vegetation by injuring
leaves, reducing photosynthesis,
impairing plant reproduction and
growth, and decreasing crop
yields. Ozone damage to plants
can alter ecosystem structure,
reduce biodiversity and decrease
plant uptake of CO2.
Ozone is a greenhouse gas
contributing to warming of
the atmosphere.
Nitrogen
oxides (NOX)
NO2 can affect the liver, lung,
spleen and blood. Can aggravate
lung diseases leading to
respiratory symptoms and
increased susceptibility to
respiratory infection.
Contributes to the acidification
and eutrophication of soil and
water, leading to changes in
species diversity. Enhances
sensitivity to secondary stress
(such as drought) on vegetation.
Acts as a precursor of ozone and,
particulate matter, with
associated environmental effects.
Can form nitric acid and damage
buildings by surface recession.
Contributes to the
formation of ozone and
particulate matter, with
associated climate effects.
Can cause damages and soiling of
buildings, including monuments
and objects of cultural heritage.
Reduced visibility.
Climate effect varies
depending on particle size
and composition: some
are reflective and lead to
net cooling, while others
absorb solar radiation
leading to warming. Can
lead to changed rainfall
patterns. Deposition can
lead to changes in surface
albedo.
Note
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a
powerful greenhouse gas
and is covered by the
Kyoto protocol
Sulphur oxides
(SOX)
Aggravates asthma and can
reduce lung function and inflame
the respiratory tract. Can cause
headache, general discomfort
and anxiety.
Contributes to the acidification of
soil and surface water.
Contributes indirectly to the
transformation of mercury to the
bioaccumulative methyl-mercury,
which is toxic. Causes injury to
vegetation and local species
losses in aquatic and terrestrial
systems. Contributes to the
formation of inorganic particulate
matter with associated
environmental effects. Damages
building materials.
Contributes to the
formation of sulphate
particles, cooling the
atmosphere.
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
Can lead to heart disease and
damage to the nervous system
(e.g. personality and memory
changes, mental confusion and
loss of vision). Can cause
headache, dizziness and fatigue.
May affect animals in the same
way as humans, although
concentrations capable of
causing these effects are unlikely
to occur in the natural
environment, except in extreme
events such as forest fires.
Contributes to the
formation of greenhouse
gases such as CO2 and
ozone.
Arsenic
Inorganic arsenic is a human
carcinogen. May cause decreased
production of red and white
blood cells, damage to blood
Highly toxic to aquatic life, birds
and land animals. Where soil has
high arsenic content, plant
growth and crop yields may be
No specific effects.
Page 37 of 69
vessels, abnormal heart rhythms,
and liver and kidney damage.
May damage the peripheral
nervous system.
reduced. Organic arsenic
compounds are very persistent in
the environment and subject to
bio-accumulation.
Cadmium
Cadmium, especially cadmium
oxide is likely to be a carcinogen.
It may also cause reproductive
damage and is toxic to the
respiratory system. Exposure can
cause permanent kidney damage,
anaemia, fatigue and loss of the
sense of smell. It can also cause
lung damage, shortness of
breath, chest pain and
accumulation of fluid in the lungs.
Toxic to aquatic life, as it is
absorbed by organisms directly in
water. It interacts with
cytoplasmatic components such
as enzymes, causing toxic effects
in cells. Cadmium is highly
persistent in the environment
and bio-accumulates.
No specific effects.
Lead
Can affect almost every organ
and system, especially the
nervous system. Can cause
premature birth, impaired mental
development and reduced
growth. It can also have
cardiovascular and renal effects
in adults and effects related to
anaemia.
Bio-accumulates and adversely
impacts both terrestrial and
aquatic systems. Effects on
animal life include reproductive
problems and changes in
appearance or behaviour.
No specific effects.
Mercury
Can damage the liver, the kidneys
and the digestive and respiratory
systems. It can also cause brain
and neurological damage and
impair growth.
Bio-accumulates and adversely
impacts both terrestrial and
aquatic systems. Can affect
animals in the same way as
humans. Very toxic to aquatic
life.
No specific effects.
Nickel
Several nickel compounds are
classified as human carcinogens.
Non-cancer effects include
allergic skin reactions, effects on
the respiratory tract, the immune
and defence system and on
endocrine regulation.
Nickel and its compounds can
have highly acute and chronic
toxicity to aquatic life.
No specific effects.
Benzene
A human carcinogen, which can
cause leukaemia and birth
defects. Can affect the central
nervous system and normal
blood production, and can harm
the immune system.
Has an acute toxic effect on
aquatic life. It bio accumulates,
especially in invertebrates. Leads
to reproductive problems and
changes in appearance or
behaviour. It can damage leaves
of agricultural crops and cause
death in plants.
Benzene is a greenhouse
gas contributing to the
warming of the
atmosphere. It also
contributes to the
formation of ozone and
secondary organic
aerosols, which can act as
climate forcers.
Benzo-apyrene
Carcinogenic. Other effects may
be irritation of the eyes, nose,
throat and bronchial tubes.
Is toxic to aquatic life and birds.
Bio-accumulates, especially in
invertebrates.
No specific effects.
Can affect animals in the same
way as humans.
Page 38 of 69
9: Q4: HARM TO THE RNVIRONMENT - LOCAL FACTORS
9.1: Wildlife and Water
152. Pollutants in water courses arise directly from run-off from the surrounding land and indirectly from the
emissions from the EfW (incinerator). This section considers some of the affected areas, first recognising
that some of the statements made by AmeyCespa are in error.
153. AmeyCespa’s para 5.5.4 says that “There are 16 non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Importance
(SNCI) within the 5km study area (the closest of which is in Upper Dunsforth Carrs, located approximately
4.7km to the north-east of the Site) and two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Only a single Special
Area of Conservation (SAC), Kirk Deighton, exists within 10km of the Site” This is misleading. Upper
Dunsforth Carr is the nearest Site of Special Scientific Interest not SNCI. The most affected SNCI is
Ouseburn Carr, this is about 3.8km from the site and water from the site flows into this SNCI and is
hardly considered by AmeyCespa. The nearest otters to AWRP are not on the Nidd (as AmeyCespa state
in para 5.5.7) but Ouseburn Carr and the associated Ouse Gill Beck where they breed and have been
seen with their young.
154. There is a risk of pollution of Ouse Gill Beck by run-off from the AWRP site especially during construction
and decommissioning of the facility (as recognised implicitly in AmeyCespa’s para 7.2.5). No
consideration has been given to the washing of soil contaminated from airborne contamination from the
surrounding area into the drainage system and consequently Ouse Gill Beck. Water from the site area
flows quickly to Ouse Gill Beck due to the fall of the land and is not diluted by any other water courses
before entering the Beck. Ouse Gill Beck has a slow water flow and the result is the deposition of
waterborne particulates in the SNCI. This is evidenced by the current deposition of particulates from the
quarry site. In consequence, the proposed AWRP would harm the ecosystem in Ouse Gill Beck and
therefore put the otters at risk.
155. Otters are strictly protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the EC
Habitats Directive, (transposed into domestic law through the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c)
Regulations 1994 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations)lxxviii. Under the Habitats Regulations otters are
classed as a European protected species and therefore given the highest level of protection. As well as
prohibiting the deliberate capturing, disturbing, injuring or killing of an otter, this legal protection
includes damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place (for example an otter holt). Legal
protection requires that due attention is paid to the presence of otters and that appropriate actions are
taken to safeguard the places they use for shelter or protection or breeding.
156. Otters are fully protected under UK and European law and developments affecting otters or their resting
places may require a European protected species licence before bank-side works can commence. In
general terms, mitigation depends upon the nature of the development, but in the case of habitat loss it
might include habitat creation, possibly including construction of artificial 'holts' along watercourses.
However, the pervasive nature of emissions from the proposed AWRP EfW (incinerator) and the natural
flows of water in the area mean that effective mitigation would not appear to be possible.
157. The Harrogate Draft “Habitat Action Plan” for Reedbeds includes the SNCI at Ouse Gill Beck and this is
one of only a small number of this type existing in the district. It also notes the threat of pollution on
these habitats.
Page 39 of 69
9.2: Aquifers and Water Supply
158. Pollutants in water courses (including those emanating from the proposed AWRP) can enter into aquifers
and pollute them. This would tend to be a cumulative process (many of the pollutants are persistent and
there can be a significant residency time in aquifers) and could render the aquifers unsuitable for water
extraction either now or at some point in the future. Although the geology in the immediate surrounding
area of the AWRP site is claimed by AmeyCespa to make pollution of the aquifers they identify (their
Chapter 7) unlikely, what happens in the immediate surroundings of AWRP is not the only consideration.
This is because run-off containing pollutants from deposition on to the ground would cover a rather
larger area.
159. This is particularly the case for the Sherwood Sandstone. The fact that there are currently no extraction
points within 1km of AWRP is of little relevance since water can move within aquifers and residency
times could be such that extraction is precluded at some future date if and when it becomes desirable.
160. The Applicant’s response to Q25 in Letter Response document 279612.IC attempts to justify the use of
mains potable water as a back-up for stored non-potable water collected on site from various sources.
While we agree that a borehole would be inappropriate due to the risk of contamination, it is not
acceptable to use potable water in this way because it inevitably risks non-availability or reducedpressure supply to householders and others who need it. This is because periods of reduced availability
of stored water on-site are likely to coincide with periods of low rainfall or drought. Proper design would
consider the probabilities and base the amount of on-site storage to suit, say, the 25 year event – in
other words it would seek to ensure that any use of potable water was very rare (the assurances given at
Q26 are not, in our view, adequate.
161. The conditions attached to the Environmental Permit should specify adequate storage to meet at least
the 25 year (preferably 100 year) event and further specify that agreement with the water company
should specify the right of said water company to refuse supplies should others such as householders
need that supply. In other words, the agreement must be on an interruptible supply basis to protect the
interests of householders and others reliant on that water.
162. Non-withstanding the assurances that the attenuation pond will not drain off-site and how
contaminated vehicles will be managed (Q26 et seq), we are concerned that such drainage could take
place during periods of exceptionally heavy rainfall and that such drainage carries a pollution risk.
9.3: Damage to Materials and Buildings
163. The EEA report (op cit) reminds us that air pollution damages materials. They say that “It is generally
recognised that air pollutants have greatly accelerated the degradation of buildings and physical cultural
heritage, such as historic buildings, works of art and archaeological treasures. The two main forms of
damage are corrosion or erosion (caused by acidifying and oxidising compounds) and soiling (caused by
particulate matter)”. Since incinerators emit both acid gases and particulate matter, it is reasonable to
expect that both these forms of harm would result from the EfW (incinerator) at AWRP.
164. It seems that AmeyCespa have given no consideration to the acidic nature of the gases emitted and their
impact on buildings. Their Chapter 3 (in the Planning application) Archaeology and Cultural Heritage is
too limited in scope. It only considers sites within 3km of the proposed AWRP site and thus disregards
Great and Little Ouseburn, villages that contain the largest number of listed buildings of villages in the
area (including a number of grade I and II*) and also lie in the wind direction most affected by emissions.
English Heritage has suggested a radius of 5km which includes Great and Little Ouseburn.
Page 40 of 69
165. Further afield, but still within the acid gas plume lie such architectural gems as York Minster (the largest
gothic cathedral in Northern Europe) and Ripon Cathedral (one of the oldest sites of continuous Christian
worship in Britain, having been founded over 1300 years ago by St Wilfrid) and the World Heritage Site
of Fountains Abbey. Acid gases and particulate deposition from the AWRP EfW (incinerator) would
enhance the rate of damage to buildings and heritage such as these.
9.4: Harm during Construction and Decommissioning
166. AmeyCespa are somewhat disingenuous in describing the AWRP facility as a small to medium
construction project. Admittedly it is not on the scale of the London sea defences or Drax but it is
nevertheless a large construction, especially for a rural location. Also, while the particulates emanating
from a construction site are generally course, they can be seen as a nuisance; air quality is one issue but
dust in residential properties makes for unwelcome additional work. Thus the measures proposed to
minimise this nuisance are welcome in so far as they go.
167. Other nuisance such as noise during construction is treated somewhat dismissively and could well cause
annoyance during such operations as piling. Such work should only take place for a limited period each
day and avoid starting at times when some people (e.g. those who are retired) may still be asleep. We
suggest limiting such operations to between 9.00a.m and 5.00 p.m. Monday to Friday only as a condition
attached to any Environmental Permit.
168. The details given for site closure and decommissioning do not give sufficient detail to judge whether or
not they would avoid any pollution risk and do not define what is meant by returning the Core
Application Area to a “satisfactory state” (whatever that may be). Saying that good practice will be
followed and keeping machinery in good working order to avoid any reduction in air quality says but
little. What further techniques will be applied over and above those cited for the construction phase will
be adopted to reduce the possible effects on air quality? Bearing in mind that demolition is liable to
produce more dust than construction and that parts of the plant will be contaminated with toxic
materials, it is insufficient merely to say that “it will be the responsibility of the appointed
decommissioning contractor to produce the necessary plans to demonstrate that effective controls will be
applied during the works”. This is somewhat akin to a climber making a difficult ascent with no clue how
he or she is going to get down, the height of irresponsibility. Granting an Environmental Permit should
depend, among many other things, on AmeyCespa producing detailed decommissioning plans that are
judged satisfactory by independent experts not appointed by AmeyCespa.
169. The main plant that is likely to be contaminated with toxic materials and to cause serious problems
during decommissioning is the EfW (incinerator). Detailed plans of how that is to be decommissioned
are needed before an Environmental Permit can be granted. Following such plans should be a
condition of the granting of any Environmental Permit for this plant.
9.5: Incinerator Bottom Ash
170. AmeyCespa’s Chapter 10 speaks only of minimising the effect of incinerator bottom ash (IBA) on air
quality without discussing the property of that ash. In fact, there is controversy over whether or not it is
hazardous and therefore over whether it represents an environmental hazard. Manifestly, pollutants
such as heavy metals in the original MSW do not burn and are therefore concentrated and that IBA does
contain small amounts of toxins such as dioxins and organo-halogens.
171. There are also concerns over the extent to which IBA is ecotoxic. Whether or not IBA is seen as ecotoxic;
depends on the view taken on difficult to identify zinc and lead compounds but it is wrong for the
Page 41 of 69
Applicant simply to assume that the IBA does not exceed ecotoxicity thresholds and therefore treat it as
non-hazardous.
172. Concern over IBA’s ecotoxicity dates from October 2005 when the Health and Safety Executive
reclassified zinc oxide (a potential compound in ash) as ecotoxic, joining zinc chloride and all lead
compounds. Zinc oxide has been given an ecotoxic classification (H14 by R50/53, very toxic to aquatic
organisms and may cause long-term effects in the aquatic environment). If tests show that some IBA is
ecotoxic, it would call into question the classification of IBA as ‘inactive waste’. It would, for example
breach part if the definition of inert waste in the Landfill Directive:
"Waste is considered inert if:
1) It does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations;
2) It does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely
affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental
pollution or harm to human health; and
3) Its total leachability and pollutant content and the ecotoxicity of its leachate are insignificant and,
in particular, do not endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater."
173. IBA is subject to a number of potential health and environmental risks and appears to have caused some
actual harm. As there are financial incentives to use it as a replacement for naturally occurring raw
materials, it is particularly important that testing for and judging the ecotoxicity of IBA should be
carried out regularly and independently, as is the practice in the USA. This should be made a condition
of any Environmental Permit.
174. Leaching of hazardous and/or toxic materials could take place either from waste prior to it going into the
incinerator or from any IBA left out for weathering. Leaching could include hazardous and/or toxic
materials present in the rubbish and leachate could enter the local land and groundwater and hence
affect people, crops and animals. Leaching from any ash left out to weather should be monitored over a
period.
175. AmeyCespa recognise the potential for dust to be generated through the processing of IBA at AWRP and
state that it will be mitigated through use of water sprays on the processing plant and the stockpiles,
using recycled water from the lagoon to minimise dust generation and by carrying out the processing
within an enclosed building as to contain any dust. This use of water sprays begs the question of what
happens to the water after it is sprayed since that water will then be contaminated.
176. AmeyCespa state that “the equipment used to process IBA will be similar to standard quarrying and
recycling operations, and similar in nature to the current quarrying activities on-site, consisting of
screens, conveyors and metal recovery equipment”. The difference is that the material from the quarry is
not contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins. Greater care is therefore needed. Admittedly they
say that “dust will be minimised in the initial stockpiling of the IBA by transportation while wet from the
water quench at the EfW (incinerator) (typically 15 to 20%) by a covered conveyor to an enclosed IBA
processing building”. Such a building should be designed to operating at a reduced atmospheric pressure
to help ensure that dust does not escape. This is in addition to the anti-dust measures that AmeyCespa
say they will undertake.
177. AmeyCespa say that the “IBA will be stockpiled, before the material undergoes the process of screening
and metal recovery” and that “similar dust control measures to those considered during the construction
phase could [not will] be implemented to prevent the occurrence of dust problems”. The measures they
say they will incorporate are a good start but are themselves insufficient. Apart from working at reduced
pressure to prevent dust escaping, it is essential that measures are taken to ensure the health and safety
Page 42 of 69
of any workers in this facility the incorporation of an air extraction plant into the design of the IBA
processing building to further reduce any fugitive dust emissions should be mandatory, not optional as
AmeyCespa suggest.
9.6: Fly Ash
178. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers much of the toxic load, notably that of
dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash (10-20% of total ash). Fly-ash is known
to sorb chemicals from the flue gases. Around half of emitted dioxins are sorbed on fly-ashlxxix . Fly-ash is
also responsible for the so-called dioxin memory effectlxxx whereby slow de novo synthesis of dioxins
occurs on the surface of the fly-ash; the dioxins then slowly desorb into the flue gases for prolonged
periods after the implementation of beneficial changes to the incineration process. There is recent
evidencelxxxi that fly-ash from larger incinerators (into which category the AWRP EfW incinerator plant
would fall) has higher content of volatile components and higher leaching toxicity.
179. Fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents more of a potential health
hazard than IBA because it often contains high concentrations of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium,
copper and zinc as well as small amounts of dioxins and furanslxxxii and the combination of pollutants in
fly ash can amplify their toxicitylxxxiii (via synergistic effects). Indeed, fly ash (and APC residues) is highly
toxic and listed as an absolute hazardous substance in the European Waste Catalogue (BSEMlxxxiv ).
180. PCBs, PBBs and PBDEs can be present in waste materials. Dioxins (PCDDs and PCDFs) are not normally
present in waste, but are formed when chlorine-containing organic substances (e.g. PVC) are burned. If
combustion takes place at temperatures of about 850C, any dioxins already formed are destroyed, but
can re-form again post-combustion. Cunliffe and Williamslxxxv found that "formation of PCDD/PCDF on fly
ash deposits in the post-combustion plant of incinerators can result in the release of significant amounts
of PCDD/PCDF to the flue gas stream". Littarrulxxxvi has shown that about 57% of emitted dioxins (in
terms of TCDD equivalents) are in the flue gases, with about 43% sorbed on the fly-ash.
181. There is a trade-off with modern incinerators. The less air pollution produced, the more toxic the ash.
Today, an incinerator burning 400,000 tonnes of waste annually over 25 years would produce about half
a million tonnes of highly toxic fly ash. The safe disposal of the highly toxic fly ash usually involves
additional waste miles and the need for specialist toxic waste landfill elsewhere; sometimes with
concerns for local residents as has been the case in Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire, UKlxxxvii.
9.7: Traffic Noise
182. AmeyCespa’s response to Question 13e of the Letters and Response Document 270612.IC
and para
8.5.14 of the noise assessment submitted with the Environmental Permit application gives spuriously
precise details of, the number of traffic movements as 302 (151 inward and 151 outward) Heavy Goods
Vehicle (HGV’s); 74 staff (37 inward and 37 outward) car and Light Goods Vehicle (LGV); and 52 visitor
(26 inward and 26 outward) car and LGV. The visitor movement numbers must be pure speculation.
More serious, the HGV movements are also highly speculative.
183. The HGV numbers clearly represent a minimum figure, The Transport Analysis (Appendix 11A of the
Planning Permission application) states that ‘In reality, once a site has been chosen for development, the
individual collection authorities will determine whether waste will be direct delivered to the site, or be
subject to bulking prior to onward transmission’. In other words, if any Local Authority (LA) decides to
send their waste direct to the site, traffic volumes would be considerably greater than those stated by
Page 43 of 69
AmeyCespa. (Issues in deciding this could be the perceived cost and impact of double-handling of waste
and of bulking it up and the extra transport costs in first taking wastes to facilities capable of doing this).
Similarly, Commercial and Industrial (C&I ) Waste and the ill-defined Trade Waste could arrive in a
greater number of vehicles than AmeyCespa assume as it up to the sender to determine how it will be
sent and in what size of vehicle. Moreover, it is unlikely that all HGVs would be fully laden at all times.
184. These deficiencies in the numbers almost certainly mean that more noise could be created by having a
greater number of vehicle movements than the Applicant admits to.
10: ACCIDENT PREVENTION / LIMITING THEIR CONSEQUENCES
10.1: Transport
185. Transport on and off site has a potential for accidents. The most serious concern would attach to a traffic
accident involving Fly Ash / Air Pollution Control Residues.
186. Fly/APC ash within the UK is disposed of in special waste landfills due to its lime content and the
concentrations of heavy metals. Transportation of fly ash needs from the incinerator can involve lengthy
journeys which themselves present an important hazard. An accident could potentially make an area
uninhabitable, as happened at Times Beach, Missouri; due to dioxin contaminated oil. The problem is
that the risk of occurrence is small but the consequences potentially large. Thus while it is admittedly a
low probability event, it also a high impact event.
187. We consider that using sheeting/covering of all lorry loads of exported/imported/transferred material
could be insufficient. A more secure enclosure of these materials is needed.
188. While road accidents off-site are not the part of the EA’s brief in deciding on an Environmental Permit,
we would ask you to note the harm that they can cause and that the extent of the risk is exacerbated by
having a single site to cover the whole of North Yorkshire. The large number of HGVs associated with
AWRP will damage the safety and security of residents and North Yorkshire road users. There are serious
safety issues concerning the A59/A168 junction, especially during periods of peak traffic flow giving rise
to enhanced accident risks.
189. However, the possibility of accidents involving HGVs on-site should be included in deciding on an
Environmental Permit. This means that a condition of granting an Environmental Permit should be that
vehicles should be designed not to spill materials, especially fly ash / APC residues, in the event of an
accident. This is necessary to help ensure on-site safety and, of course, would contribute to road safety
outside the site.
10.2: Operational Safety
190. As is very clear from AmeyCespa’s own evidence and Section 7 above, abnormal operation can lead to
severe emissions, well above permissible levels. There is instrumentation to detect this, at least for the
main pollutants (but by no means all pollutants), though we doubt of there is sufficient built-in
redundancy considering that these are safety-critical systems. The Applicant’s evidence also shows that
there will be proper maintenance in place for all systems and we can only take their word for this.
191. However, it is not clear what, if any, contingency plans exist if the kind of failures identified in Section 7
above were to happen. There should be a Risk Register assessing the probability and consequences of
Page 44 of 69
each of the major risks and a contingency plan which sets out clearly what the operatives on duty at the
time should do in case any or several of the risks were to happen. This kind of Emergency planning can
significantly reduce the consequences because operatives can follow well thought out procedures rather
than make it up as they go along, with possible disastrous consequences. We see no evidence of such
planning. Without it, how can Environmental Permit responsibly be granted?
11: Q6 (Part 2): ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
192. The EA wrote to AmeyCespa stating “Since you produced the site condition report, further site
investigations have been undertaken. Consider revising your site condition report to reflect the findings of
these investigations and how this might affect the design of the installation.
193. In response AmeyCespa said (see Letter and Response document 270612.IC) “There will be further site
investigations carried out before construction begins, but these will not be undertaken until a permit has
been issued. This is because commercially, the project cannot proceed without a permit. We would
therefore suggest that any permit which is issued should include a pre-operational condition to update
the site condition report.”
194. This is not acceptable. The proper response would be to say that issuing an Environmental Permit cannot
take place before a revised site condition report has been received and even then would not necessarily
be granted. Moreover, to ensure environmental compliance, site condition reports should be demanded
at various key stages of construction and commissioning and that if the site condition report (preferably
prepared by an independent organisation) is not satisfactory then the Environmental Permit would be
withdrawn.
195. You may gather from the preceding paragraph that AmeyCespa have lost the trust of many in the
community. There was indeed a Community Liaison Group but members felt obliged to distance
themselves from AmeyCespa (Annex 4). Thus promises to set up various community liaison activities
made at several points in the Applicant’s evidence should not be regarded as evidence that such liaison
will work in future. This suggests that the environmental mitigation that the Applicant suggests from
such activities will not happen in practice.
12: CONCLUSIONS
196. We have offered evidence in each of the areas highlighted on the Environment Agency’s Response form,
following the question structure on that form.
197. There are serious concerns in each of the six areas on the response form. Not least among these is the
fact that the Applicant has ignored the meteorological complexities of the Vale of York and has used
weather data only from sites to the east of Allerton Park with unacceptably short-run records. This,
together with other flaws such as inadequate special resolution invalidates the air dispersion modelling
results on which so much of the Applicants’ arguments depend.
198. There are other flaws in the Applicant’s arguments. Their reliance on “fact-free” modelling whereby the
output of one model is used to drive yet further models which may include further flaws or
inappropriate assumptions does no lend any confidence to the output.
Page 45 of 69
199. The many problems highlighted above suggest that an Environmental Permit should be refused. Failing
that, we think that all the stack heights should be increased markedly and that a number of other
conditions should be attached to an Environmental Permit.
.
Page 46 of 69
ANNEX 1: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
1.
In considering what he called "toxic harm allocation", Michaelsonlxxxviii pointed out that toxics present a
classic public choice dilemma: the balancing of desired goods against the threat they pose to human life:
"Though its rules vary with the statutes and substances in question, toxic harm allocation may be
understood as a game with three players—industry, producing the harm; (the regulatory authority),
allocating it; and individuals, receiving it—who cooperate or compete to set, measure, and regulate the
levels of toxins in the environment".
2.
This question of "toxic harm allocation" applies to the EfW (incinerator) plant at AWRP. In considering
the planning application, it is necessary to balance the claimed “benefits” of incinerating NYCC’s and
York’s MSW in the EfW (incinerator) plant at AWRP with the clear interest of local people to avoid the
various categories of environmental and health harm that may befall them (see later). In such situations,
it has become customary to invoke the Precautionary Principle.
3.
The Precautionary Principle22 states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to
the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is
harmful, then the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. This principle
allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm
from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the
matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from
exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be
relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
4.
There are several definitions of the Precautionary Principle. An early definition arose from the work of
the Rio Conference, or "Earth Summit" in 199223. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration notes that:
"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation."
5.
Perhaps the most comprehensive definitions of the Precautionary Principle is the so-called Wingspread
Statement, quoted by Science & Environmental Health Networklxxxix:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures
should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this
context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process
of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include
potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including
no action". The PP does not seek to establish zero risk, since all human activity involves some risk. It does,
however, involve an assessment, either subjective or objective, of both risk and benefit from a proposed
activity, leading to a decision as to whether or not the proposed activity should be permitted. Involved in
such a decision are a number of factors, including whether or not valid and realistic alternatives are
available”.
22
The Precautionary Principle, which is essentially used by decision-makers in the management of risk, should not be confused with
the element of caution that scientists apply in their assessment of scientific data.
23
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, often shortened to Rio Declaration, was a short document produced at the
1992 United Nations "Conference on Environment and Development" (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit. The Rio
Declaration consisted of 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world
Page 47 of 69
The Precautionary Principle does not seek to establish zero risk, since all human activity involves some
risk. It does, however, involve an assessment, either subjective or objective, of both risk and benefit
from a proposed activity, leading to a decision as to whether or not the proposed activity should be
permitted. There are a number of factors involved in such a decision, including whether or not valid and
realistic alternatives are available.
6.
Under the law of the European Union (binding in this country), the application of the Precautionary
Principle has been made a statutory requirementxc,xci. On 2 February 2000, the European Commission
issued a Communication on the Precautionary Principlexcii in which it adopted a procedure for the
application of this concept, but without giving a detailed definition of it. it (Annex 1 gives more details
This pointed out the need to balance the freedom and rights of individuals, industry and organizations
with the need to reduce the risk of adverse effects to the environment, human, animal or plant health in
a proportionate and non-discriminatory manner. Its scope covers situations where preliminary objective
scientific evaluation, indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern about potentially
dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health being inconsistent with the level
of protection chosen for the Community.
7.
Paragraph 2 of article 191 of the Lisbon Treatyxciii states that
"Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity
of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the Precautionary Principle and on
the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be
rectified at source and that the polluter should pay."
8.
The 2 February 2000 European Commission Communication indicates that the Precautionary Principle
should be considered within a structured approach to the analysis of risk which comprises three
elements: risk assessment, risk management, risk communication and that it is particularly relevant to
the management of risk. It is presupposed that potentially dangerous effects deriving from a
phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that scientific evaluation does not allow the
risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. We contend that this applies to risks associated with
emissions from the AWRP EfW (incinerator) plant.
9.
The 2 February 2000 European Commission Communication advises that implementation of an approach
based on the Precautionary Principle should start with a scientific evaluation, as complete as possible,
and where possible, identifying at each stage the degree of scientific uncertainty. We have adopted this
approach in this Chapter. However, it is not possible to give precise ranges of uncertainty because of
different perceptions of the extent of risk and the factors that make up that risk.
10.
The EU Treaty Article 174(2) as amended at Nice 2004 recognized that scientific evaluation can be
inconclusive and accorded priority to public health:
“A precautionary approach must be paramount, as opposed to acting only where proof or very strong
suspicion of harm can be demonstrated. The Precautionary Principle should be applied where the
possibility of harmful effects on health or the environment has been identified and preliminary
scientific evaluation proves inconclusive for assessing the level of risk. Account should be taken of
social and environmental costs in examining the level of risk, but the protection of public health,
including the effects of the environment on public health, must be given priority”.
11.
While there is extensive scientific research into the health effects of incinerator emissions, there is not a
general consensus on its magnitude. Under these circumstances, the Precautionary Principle must apply.
Page 48 of 69
ANNEX 2: RANGE OF EMISSIONS BY INCINERATORS
1. Jay and Stieglitzxciv identified 227 individual organic compounds corresponding to ca. 42% of the total
organic carbon (TOC) in flue gas from an incineration facility of MSW. These are listed in Table A1.1 (on
the next page) but these are by no means all of the chemicals emitted by incinerators; they emit
hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals emitted by incinerators. (Jay and Stieglitz could identify only
42% of the chemicals that they detected.) The identifications exceeded ~50 ng/m3, 500 times higher
than the dioxin emission limit set in the Waste Incineration Directive (Howard op cit).
2. About 3% of the TOC consisted of halogenated compounds, almost all of which were volatile
compounds, while all of the identified semi- and non-volatile halogenated compounds were aromatic
compounds. Besides, 7% of the TOC was aromatic hydrocarbons and 3% of the TOC was phenolsxcv.
3. Highly carcinogenic compounds such as dibenzopyrene isomers have been identified and determined in
Swedish incinerator emissions by other researchersxcvi and it is likely that due to the very heterogeneous
nature of the waste emissions will constantly vary with consequences for the speciation of ultrafine
particulate emissions.
4. Similarly Leachxcvii found a wide range of VOCs in ground level monitoring around the Marchwood
incinerator pre and post shutdowns in November 1996. Although that incinerator has since been
replaced the results are indicative of the range of post-combustion VOCs that are likely to be found in
more modern facilities.
Page 49 of 69
Table A1.1 Some Emissions by Incinerators
(After Jay and Stieglitz)
Emissions include:
acetic acid, acetone, acetonitrile, aliphatic alcohol, aliphatic amide, aliphatic carbonyl,
anthraquinone, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzoic acid, benzoic acid methyl ester, benzoic acid phenyl ester,
benzonitrile, benzophenone, benzothiazole, benzyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol, benzylbutylphthalate, bibenzyl,
bromochlorobenzene, bromochlorophenol, 2-bromo-4-chlorophenol, bromodichlorophenol, 4-bromo-2,5dichlorophenol, butanoic acid ethyl ester, 2-butoxyethanol, butyl acetate, C10H20 HC, C10H22 HC (1),
C10H22 HC (2), C11H15O2N aromatic, C12H26 HC, C12H26O alcohol, C13H28 HC, C15 acid phthalic ester,
C4 alkylbenzene, C5 alkylbenzene, C6H10O2 aliphatic carbonyl, C6H12O, C8H14O cyclohexanone,
derivative, C8H5BrCl3 aromatic, MW, 284, C8H5O2N, C9H18O3 aliphatic, C9H8O aromatic, caffeine,
chlorobenzene, chlorobenzoic acid, 4-chlorobenzoic acid, chloroform, 2-chloro-6-methylphenol, 4(chloromethyl)toluene, 2-chlorophenol, 4-chlorophenol, cholesterol., cyclohexane,
cyclopentasiloxanedecamet, hyl, cyclotetrasiloxaneoctamethy, l, decane, decanecarboxylic acid,
dibenzothiophene, dibutylphthalate, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,4dichloro-6-cresol, dichloromethane, 2,6-dichloro-4-nitrophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, dichloromethylphenol,
1,3-diethylbenzene, diisooctylphthalate, 2,2'-dimethylbiphenyl, 2,3'-dimethylbiphenyl, 2,4'dimethylbiphenyl,
3,3'-dimethylbiphenyl, 3,4'-dimethylbiphenyl, 1,2-dimethylcyclohexane, 1,2-dimethylcyclopentane, 1,3dimethylcyclopentane, dimethyldioxane, dimethyloctane, 2,2-dimethyl-3-pentanol, dimethylphthalate, 2,6di-t-butyl-pbenzoquinone, 2,4-di-t-butylphenol, docosane, dodecane, dodecanecarboxylic acid, eicosane,
ethanol-1-(2-butoxyethoxy), ethyl acetate, 4-ethylacetophenone, ethyl benzaldehyde, ethylbenzene,
ethylbenzoic acid, 2-ethylbiphenyl, ethylcyclohexane, ethylcyclopentane, ethyldimethylbenzene,
ethylhexanoic acid, 1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene, 1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene, ethylmethylcyclohexane, 2ethylnaphthalene-1,2,3,4-, tetrahydro, 1-ethyl-3,5-xylene, 2-ethyl-1,4-xylene, fluorene, fluorenone,
fluoroanthene, formic acid, 2-furanecarboxaldehyde, heneicosane, heptadecane, heptadecanecarboxylic acid,
heptane, 20, heptanecarboxylic acid, 2-heptanone, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobiphenyl, hexadecane,
hexadecane amide, hexadecanoic acid, hexadecanoic acid, hexadecyl ester, 9-hexadecene carboxylic, acid,
hexanecarboxylic acid, 2-hexanone, hydroxybenzonitrile, hydroxychloroacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-3,5-,
dichlorobenzaldehyde, hydroxymethoxybenzaldehy, de, 2-(hydroxymethyl) benzoic, acid, iodomethane,
1(3H)-isobenzofuranone-5-, methyl, isopropylbenzene, methyl acetophenone, 2-methylbenzaldehyde, 4methylbenzaldehyde, methylbenzoic acid, 4-methylbenzyl alcohol, 2-methylbiphenyl, methylcyclohexane,
methyldecane, 3-methyleneheptane, 5-methyl-2-furane, carboxaldehyde, methylhexadecanoic acid, 2methylhexane, 3-methylhexane, methyl hexanol, 2-methylisopropylbenzene, 2-methyloctane, 2methylpentane, methylphenanthrene, nonedecane, 4-methylphenol, 1-methyl-2-, phenylmethylbenzene, 2methyl-2-propanol, 1-methyl-(1-, propenyl)benzene, 2-methylpropyl acetate, 1-methyl-2-propylbenzene, 1methyl-3-propylbenzene, methylpropylcyclohexane, 12-, methyltetradecanecarboxyli, c acid, naphthalene,
Nbearing aromatic, MW, 405, nitrogen compd, MW 269, 2-nitrostyrene, nonane, octadecadienal,
octadecadienecarboxylic, acid, octadecane, octadecanecarboxylic acid, octane, octanoic acid, paraldehyde,
pentachlorobenzene, pentachlorobiphenyl, pentachlorobiphenyl, pentachlorophenol, pentadecacarboxylic
acid, pentane, pentanecarboxylic acid, phenanthrene, phenol, phthalic ester, phthalic ester, propylbenzene,
propylcyclohexane, pyrene, Si organic compd, sulphonic acid m.w. 192, sulphonic acid m.w. 224, 2-t-butyl-4methoxyphenol, tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzofuran, tetrachloroethylene,
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, tetradecanecarboxylic acid, tetradecanoic acid isopropyl, ester, toluene, 1,2,3trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,5-trichlorobenzene, trichloroethene,
trichlorofluoromethane, 3,4,6-trichloro-1-methylphenol, 2,3,4-trichlorophenol, 2,3,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6trichlorophenol, 3,4,5-trichlorophenol, tridecanoic acid, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, trimethylcyclohexane,
undecane, xylene
Page 50 of 69
ANNEX 3: CLIMATE CHANGE
1.
This Annex focuses on the greenhouse gas (GH) emissions arising from incineration, comparing them
with other technologies. It shows that incineration is the worst alternative to landfill for greenhouse gas
emissions.
2.
AWRP has other components which complicate the picture but it is apposite to consider each in
isolation. After all, each of the other activities (mechanical separation and anaerobic digestion) could
equally well be part of some other treatment system. Theoretically at least, it would be possible to grant
an Environmental Permit for the mechanical separation and anaerobic digestion facilities but not the
incinerator.
A3.1: COMPARING INCINERATION WITH OTHER WASTE MANAGEMENT
OPTIONS
3.
The view that incineration is particularly bad for the climate is not confined to environmental groups.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) commissioned Enviro Centre and Eunomia to examine the GHG
impacts of waste management scenarios using lifecycle assessment methodsxcviii. Such methods examine
the environmental and economic effects of a product or activity (in this case residual municipal waste) at
every stage of its existence, from production to final disposal of residual municipal waste (material left in
the waste stream over after recycling and composting has taken place). The aim was to measure and
rank a range of residual waste management scenarios with regard to their performance on GHG
emissions (only CO2 and methane were assessed as they make up over 98% of GHG emissions from
waste management). Each scenario includes a number of waste management techniques and
technologies including AD, gasification, incineration and landfill. Here scenarios included de-centralised
energy generation (electricity and/or heat), the energy generated from these scenarios was assumed to
displace more carbon intense centralised energy generation (e.g. from coal or gas), thus reducing overall
GHG emissions.
4.
The best performing scenarios, in terms of their GHG impact, were those based on either mechanical
biological treatment (MBT) followed by AD or on gasification followed by autoclave, coupled with
hydrogen fuel cell technologies. These scenarios performed particularly well due to MBT or autoclave
processes capturing materials suitable for recycling from the waste stream. Recycling, particularly of
plastics, makes a considerable difference to GHG impacts by avoiding emissions from virgin
manufacturing processes.
5.
Biogas a methane-rich gas derived from treating biodegradable waste (e.g. food and green garden
waste) via AD and syngas24 produced from gasification can be used in either a gas engine or hydrogen
fuel cell to generate energy while the use of biogas in fuel cells is proven at commercial scale for
stationary power generation.25 MBT/AD scenarios coupled with gas engines to generate energy might
currently be affordable to local authorities and, in the right configurations, be practical technologies for
use today26. Finally, scenarios using incineration were amongst the poorest performing and were
considerably worse than the best performers. This is largely due to low levels of recycling along with
24
Syngas or synthetic gas is produced by gasification and pyrolysis processes and is a mixture of nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, and various other hydrocarbon gases.
25
A stationary 250kW Molten Carbon Fuel Cell (MCFC) designed by MTU CFC Solutions is operating at 47% electrical efficiency at an
anaerobic digestion facility in Leonberg, Germany
26
The GLA report finds that there has been limited research into the use of syngas derived from MSW in hydrogen applications.
Their results show that there is significant potential for such technologies to play a key role as they mature to efficiently treat
residual waste and generate de-centralised energy.
Page 51 of 69
significant emissions from wholesale combustion of plastics, which negates the benefits of emission
savings from energy generation.
6.
The clear implication is that waste prevention is the most beneficial option from a climate point of view,
followed by reuse and recycling; while landfill and incineration are worse options.
7.
The GLA report reached a number of key conclusions concerning GHG emissions from waste
 In terms of GHG emissions, waste management scenarios using mechanical biological treatment
(followed by AD) and gasification (followed by autoclave), coupled with hydrogen fuel cell
technologies were the best performing. Pending the commercialisation of hydrogen fuel cells
technologies, scenarios using MBT, AD and gasification linked to CHP gas engines are the best
performing on reducing GHG emissions.
 More research is needed in order to realise the potential of fuel cells to generate energy from
hydrogen converted from syngas from gasification.
 The incineration scenarios modelled were amongst the worst performing on GHG emissions, with all
but one of the scenarios being a net contributor to climate change. This could be improved if the
burning of plastics no longer takes place and there is provision for good quality combined heat and
power (CHP).
 A key advantage of AD and gasification over incineration is that they can be coupled with more
efficient generation technologies, whilst incineration remains locked to the use of a steam turbine.
8.
The conclusions from this report concern minimising GHG emissions but they also indicate future
strategies that would fit well with reducing other environmental impacts of dealing with domestic waste.
They suggest a preference for using AD for treating biodegradable municipal waste and recognising the
GHG benefits of de-centralised energy generation. The results also support the Mayor’s preference for
AD and gasification technologies over incineration for treating residual municipal waste. The GLA is
working with the Government, the London Climate Change Agency and technology providers on
developing potential commercial opportunities for extracting hydrogen efficiently from syngas derived
from residual waste for use in fuel cells.
9.
Similar conclusions can be derived from a recent report by Eunomia which compares GHG emissions
from the proposed INEOS Bio process for producing liquid fuels with a number of competing
technologies including incinerationxcix. Figure A3.1 (next page), taken from the Eunomia report shows
CO2 equivalent emissions generated per tonne of waste for a number of the waste treatment processes
and feedstocks while Figure A3.2 (from the Appendicesc - see next page) illustrates the climate change
impact.. These were modelled according to Eunomia all the ‘waste systems’ approach. The results
excluding any biogenic CO2 emissions and under this approach, the INEOS Bio process outperforms the
others on emissions generated per tonne of waste, for all of the feedstocks considered. When treating
MSW with the INEOS Bio process, offset emissions from recycling are included, along with offsets
associated with the energy generation. Eunomia find that avoided emissions are sufficient to offset all of
the direct emissions from the process, giving an overall negative GHG balance.
10.
Again, landfill and incineration are the worst options from a GHG standpoint. This is reinforced by the
fact that Eunomia carried out the assessment using an assumed high gross efficiency of 27% for
incineration whereas many practical plant have efficiency closer to 22%.
11.
The above examples illustrate the fact that a range of studies have found that landfill and incineration
are the worst options from a climate standpoint. Moreover, they show that among the various
incineration options incineration with electricity generation only (as at AWRP) is the worst.
Page 52 of 69
12.
In conclusion, it is inappropriate and counter-productive to look at any one part of the waste
management chain in isolation. In particular, it is important to consider what happens lower down the
waste management hierarchy. For example:

No technology avoids GHG emissions altogether but landfill and incineration are the worst
technologies for GHG emissions. By contrast Anaerobic Digestion also helps reduce GHG emissions by
displacing industrially-produced chemical fertilizers and, where smaller, local facilities are used by
reducing vehicle movements and by reducing electrical grid transportation losses. As Peter Jones27
has said “All incineration processes will raise CO2 emissions and should therefore be minimized as part
of any successful strategy in managing the waste resource”.
Figure A3.1 - GHG Emissions per tonne of waste – using the “waste systems” methodology
Notes
Windrow Composting is used for processing garden waste, such as grass cuttings, pruning and leaves in either an open air
environment or within large covered areas where the material can break down in the presence of oxygen.
It cannot be used to process organic materials which include catering and animal wastes as these have to be processed via Invessel Composting (IVC) or Anaerobic Digestion (AD) due to their Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR) categorisation.
Source: http://www.wrap.org.uk/composting/production/open_windrow.html
27
Peter Jones OBE is a former BIFFA Technical Director and is an Independent Advisor to Boris Johnson on the London Waste Board.
Page 53 of 69
Figure A3.2 - GHG Emissions per tonne of waste – Including Biogenic CO2 emissions
13.
Figure A3.3 (from a recent presentation by Peter Jones) shows the relationship between cost and CO2
emissions for a number of waste management technologies.
The Zero Waste Game
Figure A3.3: Relationship between cost and CO emissions
Boomerang
Economics per tonne
2
High
100
incineration

80
gasifier
plasma
60
anaerobic
 digestion
40
aerobic 
composting
20
0
Lo0
500
 landfill
High
1000
1500
2000 kgs
CO2 impact/Neutrality per tonne
Note: Process emissions before net off energy
14.
Minimizing pollution, environmental impacts and health risks depends strongly on what alternative to
landfill is chosen. Thus AD can be beneficial but incineration is particularly bad due to the greater
number and toxicity of pollutants, including creation of new ones not present in the original waste.
Combustion, especially high temperature combustion as in an incinerator, leads to emissions that risk
health, making it prudent to choose technologies other than incineration, as discussed below. Moreover,
their economics rely on a high load factor and this tends to discourage reuse and recycling. By contrast,
technologies such as AD reduce the pollution load and produce useful products.
Page 54 of 69
A3.2: Comparing incineration with fossil fuel technologies
15.
The poor performance of incineration in a global warming context can also be seen when it is compared
with gas- or coal-fired power stations. This has been done by Eunomia Research for Friends of the Earth
(For details see Dirty Truths: Incineration and Climate Changeci and A Changing Climate for Energy from
Waste?cii). Figure A3.4 compares fossil fuel generation with incineration using current and 2020
technology.
16.
The analysis was done based on current technology, and on an analysis of what is likely to be possible in
2020 (though not including any carbon capture technologies). Some key conclusions are:
 Electricity-only incinerators emit 33 % more fossil CO2 than gas power stations, but 40 % less than a
coal power station.
 In 2020, the situation will have changed:
o There will be improvements in technology, particularly for fossil-fuel power stations
(including re-fitting of existing coal power stations with more efficient equipment).
o Assuming the Government’s proposed recycling rate of 50 per cent, it is expected that fossilfuel derived plastics will make up a higher percentage of residual waste.
o In 2020 it is predicted that electricity-only incinerators will emit 78 % more fossil CO2 than
gas power stations, and only around 5 per cent less than a coal power station.
Figure A3.4: Fossil CO2 pollution from power generation now and in 2020
17.
Electricity from incineration offsets carbon emissions from substituted generation, but the future
electricity mix should be modeled. Current policy requires a progressive reduction in the carbon intensity
of the future fuel mix, which substantially reduces any benefits from this offset as future electricity
comes with much lower carbon emissions. A guide to this offset could be based on the reductions in
carbon intensity included in current policy as detailed in the UK Low Carbon Transition Planciii.
18.
Even without taking account of biogenic CO2, incineration with electricity generation only (AmeyCespa’s
EfW) is comparable in terms of CO2 emissions with oil and only slightly worse than coal. If coal is at the
margin for around 48% of the time (as assumed for 2015 by AmeyCespaciv) then the EfW would be
displacing less carbon intensive plant (mainly CCGT) for over half the time. While we cannot be sure of
Page 55 of 69
the future generation mix, especially in the latter half of the life of AmeyCespa’s EfW (incineration) plant,
it is likely that the role of non-CO2-producing technologies will increase in line with Government’s aim to
increase the amount of energy from renewable (e.g. wind, wave and tidal power, with some increase in
hydro) and the role of nuclear power is also likely to rise. This implies that coal will be used less than in
2015 and that other technologies (CCGT or nuclear/renewables not producing CO2) would be at the
margin. In consequence, the EfW (incineration) plant would be replacing generation that produces
markedly less or no CO2 for much of the time.
19.
Since the AWRP EfW (electricity-only incinerator) would only come on-line circa 2015, the most relevant
comparison is with 2020 technology (or even 2030 or later) and, even then, the efficiency of fossil fuel
plant will presumably continue to improve. This confirms that the EfW (electricity-only incinerator) is a
poor choice from a global warming standpoint.
20.
Moreover, a 2030 mix is more typical for an incinerator contracted for 25-30 years from 2015. The UK
plan shows approximately 75% reduction in carbon intensity (from over 300 to ~80 g CO2/kWh) is
anticipated between 2020 and 2030. To contribute positively on climate change post-2030, any
incinerator should produce electricity with carbon intensity under 80 gCO2/kWh. However the carbon
intensity of incineration, even if biogenic carbon is ignored, is more than 300 g/kWh. Thus incineration
becomes unarguably, in the words of the Environment Agencycv a “carbon sinner” rather than a “carbon
sink”.
21.
A further issue is whether or not to include Biogenic CO2 that is CO2which is produced by burning carbon
sourced from natural renewable materials such as food waste or paper. Biogenic CO2 is commonly
treated as having no impact on climate change, as it is part of the natural carbon cycle. However, as A
Changing Climate for Energy from Waste? makes clear:
“If it can be argued that it is reasonable to ignore biogenic CO2 when one is comparing energy
from waste incineration with fossil fuel generation for the purpose of understanding the
emissions of CO2 per unit of energy generated, it is less easy to do so when one is comparing
different waste treatment technologies. Eunomia has consistently adopted this approach to the
comparative assessment of waste treatment options for the simple reason that different
processes deal with biogenic carbon very differently. The best way to account for climate change
impacts, therefore, is to understand how and when the relevant emissions occur and to ignore
nothing. This ensures that all technologies are treated equally and that none are biased by an
accounting convention, the logic of which few have really taken the time to question”.
22.
This makes a considerable difference as can be seen by comparing current generation technology with
various EfW incinerator options. As seen in Figure A3.3, if biogenic CO2 is ignored electricity-only
incinerators (incinerators that do not optimize the use of the heat they produce); energy production is so
inefficient that, from a climate change perspective unattractive now and even less attractive by 2020.
However, if biogenic CO2 is included, the situation becomes even less attractive, as Figure A3.5 shows
23.
We recognize that there is likely to be less biogenic carbon entering the incinerator at AWRP. This
complicates the picture so that the disadvantage of incineration over fossil fuel technologies for
electricity generation may be less than Figure A3.5 would suggest.
Page 56 of 69
Figure A3.5: Includes Biogenic Carbon - 2020 Scenario
24.
Other studies confirm this general picture. Incineration—especially without CHP—is one of the worst
waste treatment options environmentallycvi. An EPA reportcvii shows that, for 20 categories of waste for
which energy use figures are given, incineration uses less energy than recycling in only four—
magazines/3rd class mail, textbooks, dimensional lumber, and medium density fibreboard, all of which
are recyclable. The average energy saving per ton for all 20 categories is 19.44 million BTU for recycling
and 3.43 million BTU for incineration, relative to landfill.
25.
To summarise, in terms of global warming incineration with electricity generation is poor relative to
fossil fuels now and the situation will deteriorate in future. To claim, as AmeyCespa do, that their EfW
(incineration) plant is a low carbon technology is unjustified.
A3.3: Implications of High Carbon Emissions
26.
The UK is committed to reducing its carbon emissions and has international obligations to that effect.
The EfW (incineration) plant at AWRP runs counter to all these policies and obligations in a way that
none of the alternative technologies would. Admittedly there is an improvement over landfill but that is
not now a long-term option. Thus the true comparator is not landfill but other waste management
options at the low end of the waste hierarchy and incineration with electricity generation only (the EfW
(incineration) configuration at AWRP) is the worst of all the alternatives to landfill. Almost as bad are
other configurations involving incineration (including CHP).
27.
Considerations of Sustainable Development encourages the provision of energy generating facilities that
would contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. While AmeyCespa have argued that AWRP is a
low-carbon facility, this can only be true if the comparator is landfill (and even then excellent methane
capture would overturn this claim). In fact, as the above analysis shows, incineration should more
properly be regarded as a high-carbon technology, especially in comparison with proven alternatives.
28.
These considerations suggest that AWRP, and especially its incinerator, would not secure the highest
resource and energy efficiency, or the greatest reduction in carbon emissions.
Page 57 of 69
A3.4: The Benefits of Recycling
29.
A great deal of energy can be saved by recycling. For over a decade it has been established that this
energy saving is very much greater than energy recoverable by incinerationcviii,cix. Modeling has
clearly demonstrated that recycling gives net reductions of climate change emissions, while
incineration is a net generator of climate change gases (see above). Indeed WRAP’s specialist review
of international studies “Environmental Benefits of Recycling”cx shows how increased recycling is
helping to tackle climate change and emphasizes the importance of recycling over incineration and
landfill as the appropriate way forward. The evidence from WRAP said:
In the vast majority of cases, the recycling of materials has greater environmental benefits
than incineration or landfill.
30.
WRAP concluded:
The message of this 2006 study is unequivocal. Recycling is good for the environment, saves
energy, reduces raw material extraction and combats climate change.
31.
It is our contention that the assumed 50% re-use and recycling rate used in AmeyCespa’s application is
seriously lacking in ambition (hardly surprising since incineration inhibits re-use and recycling). Given the
above results, this undoubtedly means that some of the CO2 benefits from reuse/recycling which could
be obtained by moving to a higher re-use & recycling rate (better than 70% has been achieved long-term
in other places, including in England). This illustrates the fact that the AWRP scheme, and especially the
EfW (incinerator) plant, has an unnecessarily high CO2 output.
32.
An analysis by Eunomiacxi found that one of the best performing systems is an MBT AD system – largely
as a result of the benefits attributed to recycling materials that are recovered during the treatment
process.
33.
By contrast, incineration is not a sustainable waste management technology as it increases the need to
exploit virgin resources. This is in part through burning rendering materials in the waste inaccessible and
partly through the effect that incineration has in inhibiting re-use and recycling. This has a carbon
footprint not included in the lifetime assessments. In other words, they tend to understate the carbon
footprint but it is not usual to include these factors in any lifetime analysis (simply a matter of where one
draws the line).
Page 58 of 69
ANNEX 4: COMMUNITY LIAISON
1.
We have found that the so-called engagement with the community to be a sham. Admittedly
AmeyCespa have given presentations, what they have not done is give serious attention to people’s
concerns. Consultation involves listening and acting on other people’s views, not simply hearing them
and dismissing them apparently automatically.
2.
The reality of AmeyCespa’s local community liaison can best be illustrated through what happened to
the Community Liaison Group (CLG) which AmeyCespa merely refer to as defunct without admitting to
the reasons.
3.
The CLG was intended to be the vehicle through which community liaison was to have taken place but
this broke down because AmeyCespa had failed to convince residents of their commitment to listening
and learning from local people. A letter to AmeyCespa by most of the CLG stated that they felt “misled,
misrepresented and ignored”. The text of that letter is worth reproducing here because it well illustrates
the nature of so-called consultation:
“We were asked to participate in the group in good faith on the basis that balanced discussions
would take place and that Amey Cespa would respond to those discussions with mutual
understanding and that the outcome would result in some positive actions by The Company
towards alleviating the concerns of local residents.
We were therefore extremely disappointed that, having given of our time freely and having
raised our expectations of some concessions from Amey Cespa that the only outcome appears
to have been a minor reduction in the height of the proposed chimney and the relocation
within the site of the bottom ash processing plant.
The process of completion of the Photomontages appears to have been a sham, with many of
the photographs taken from positions of low visibility behind trees and other features. The
absence of any views from the Temple of Victory in the Registered Parkland of Allerton Park is
a major omission. In addition the traffic analysis has done nothing to help mitigate the road
safety concerns which were raised at the initial meeting in September.
We therefore wish to be disassociated from any favourable comments or submissions relating
to the Community Liaison Group which Amey Cespa may use in support of their impending
Planning Application.”
5. AmeyCespa’ response was to dismiss this letter out of hand, with their Bill Jarvis saying “It is unfortunate
that those opposed to our proposals make totally untrue statements in support of their cause” (Yorkshire
Post, 13 May 2011). This thinly disguised contempt for local communities makes a mockery of
community liaison.
Page 59 of 69
GLOSSARY
ADD
Attention Deficit Disorder
ADHD
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
ADMS
Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System
AERMIC
American Meteorological Society(AMS)/United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model Improvement Committee
AERMOD
American Meteorological Society–AMS/ Environmental Protection Agency–EPA
Regulatory MODel
AQO
Air quality objective
AMS
American Meteorological Society
APC
Air pollution control
AWRP
Allerton Waste Recovery Park
CO2
Carbon dioxide
COPC
Compounds of Potential Concern
COPD
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
DEFRA
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EA
Environment Agency
EAL
Environmental Assessment Level
EfW
Energy from Waste – as used here = incineration + electricity generation
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPUK
Environmental Protection UK
EU
European Union
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HHRAP
Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol
HI
Hazard Index
HPA
Health Protection Agency
HQ
Hazard Quotient (HQ) – for non-carcinogenic pollutants. For ingestion, the HQ is
calculated as the Average Daily Dose (ADD) divided by the reference dose (RfD)
IBA
Incinerator Bottom Ash
IRAP
Industrial Risk Assessment Program
kms
kilometres
ME
Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), also referred to as CFS, or as post-viral fatigue
syndrome (PVFS), or chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS)
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
NOx
Oxides of nitrogen
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PBBs
Polybrominated biphenyls
PBDE
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
PCB
Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDDs
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (commonly called dioxins)
PCDFs
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (commonly called furans)
Page 60 of 69
PCCD/Fs
PCDDs and/or PCDFs
POPs
Persistent Organic Pollutants
SADS
Sudden Adult Death Syndrome or Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome
SIA
Secondary inorganic aerosol
SIDS
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
SOA
Secondary organic aerosol.
TCDD
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
TDI
Tolerable Daily Intake
TDS
Total dietary study
TEF
Toxic Equivalency Factors
TEQ
Toxic Equivalence
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
UK
United Kingdom
US
United States
USA
United States of America
WHO
World Health Organisation
WID
Waste Incineration Directive
WHO-TEQ
The system of TEFs used in the UK and a number of other countries is that set by
the WHO, and the resulting overall concentrations are referred to as WHO-TEQs.
Page 61 of 69
REFERENCES
i
DEFRA, Waste Hierarchy http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/legislation/waste-hierarchy/
ii
Environment Agency, Waste hierarchy - frequently asked questions,
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/129223.aspx#What_is_the_waste_hierarchy
iii
Commission calls for move up waste hierarchy, Caelia Quinault, 16 May 2012
http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/legislation/commission-calls-for-move-up-waste-hierarchy
iv
Eunomia Research and Consulting, National Residual Waste Infrastructure Review – Issue 2
http://www.eunomia.co.uk/documents/Eunomia_Residual_Waste_Infrastructure_Review_Highlevel_Version.pdf
v
Agency issues largest ever permit to export RDF,8 May 2012, http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latestnews/energy/agency-issues-largest-ever-permit-to-export-rdf-1
vi
RDF exports quadruple in five months, Caelia Quinault, 7 March 2012,
http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/energy/test
vii
UK edges up European recycling league table Will Date, 1 March 2012,
http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/uk-creeps-up-european-recyclingleague-table
viii
European Environment Agency, EEA Technical report No 12/2011, Air quality in Europe — 2011 report,
ISBN: 978-92-9213-232-3, ISSN Annual report series: 1977-284X, ISSN EEA Technical report series: 17252237, doi:10.2800/8321
ix
WHO, 2006, Air quality guidelines — global update 2005, World Health Organization Regional Office for
Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark
x
WHO, 2008, 'Air quality and health — Fact sheet no 313 — Updated August 2008'
http://www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/
xi
An Bord Pleanála, Statement of Evidence, Particulate Emissions and Health, Proposed Ringaskiddy Wasteto-Energy Facility, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath., June 2009
xii
Polichetti, G., et al., Effects of particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) on the cardiovascular system.
Toxicology. In Press, Corrected Proof. Cited by Professor CV Howard in 2009
xiii
Pope, A.C., 3rd and D.W. Dockery, Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2006. 56: p. 709-742.
xiv
An Bord Pleanála, Statement of Evidence, Particulate Emissions and Health, Proposed Ringaskiddy Wasteto-Energy Facility, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath., June 2009
xv
Howard V. Synergistic effects of chemical mixtures—can we rely on traditional toxicology? The Ecologist 27
(1997) 192-195.
xvi
Mukerjee D. Health risk of endocrine-disrupting ortho-substituted PCBs emitted from incinerators.
Environmental Engineering Science 15 (1998) 157-168.
Page 62 of 69
xvii
Rajapakse N., Silva E. and Kortenkamp A. Combining xenoestrogens at levels below individual noobserved-effect concentrations dramatically enhances steroid hormone action. Environmental Health
Perspectives 110 (2002) 917-921.
xviii
Chen B.-Y. and Lin K.-L. Dose-mortality assessment on municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) ash.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 139 (2006) 19-24.
xix
Lang L. Strange brew: assessing risk of chemical mixtures. Environmental Health Perspectives 103 (1995)
142-145
xx
Memorandum submitted by Professor J C Dearden (Waste 69), Waste Strategy for England 2007 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvfru/230/230we57.htm
xxi
Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants, ADMS 4
http://www.cerc.co.uk/environmental-software/ADMS-model.html
xxii
Comparative Use of ISCST3, ISC-PRIME and AERMOD in Air Toxics Risk Assessment
Khanh T. Tran, Applied Modeling Inc., 21395 Castillo Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91364
http://www.vnbaolut.com/ami/acecomp.pdf
xxiii
An Inter-comparison of the AERMOD, ADMS and ISC Dispersion Models for Regulatory Applications
R&D Technical Report P362, D.J. Hall, A.M. Spanton, F. Dunkerley, M. Bennett and R.F. Griffiths
Published by the Environment Agency
http://www.harmo.org/Intercomparison/P362.pdf
xxiv
Howard C V (2000) In Health Impacts of Waste Management Policies. Hippocrates
Foundation, Kos, Greece 12-14 Nov 1998. Academic Publishers.
xxv
The Institution of Engineering and Technology, - www.theiet.org/factfiles
Dioxins under “Energy and the Environment” section http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/energy/index.cfm
xxvi
Glossary - Pollution, the dirty face of development
http://www.scienzagiovane.unibo.it/english/pollution/glossary-pollution.html#T
xxvii
Dennis Wheeler and Julian Mayes, Regional Climates of the British Isles,
Routledge, London and New York, 1997
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yn90lcoz_Q8C&pg=PA22&dq=Temperature+Inversions+in+Vale+of+Yor
k&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepag
e&q=Temperature%20Inversions%20in%20Vale%20of%20York&f=false
xxviii
P. F. Sheridan, V. Horlacher, G. G. Rooney, P. Hignett1, S. D. Mobbs and S. B.Vosper
Inflence of lee waves on the near-surface flow downwind of the Pennines
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. (2006), 1, pp. 1–24
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/trex/publications/papers/Pennines_QJ_revised.pdf
xxix
Memorandum submitted by Professor J C Dearden (Waste 69), Waste Strategy for England 2007 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvfru/230/230we57.htm
Page 63 of 69
xxx
Tejima H., Nishigaki M., Fujita Y., Matsumoto A., Takeda N. and Takaoka M. Characteristics of dioxin
emissions at startup and shutdown of MSW incinerators, Chemosphere 66 (2007) 1123-1130.
xxxi
Wang L.-C., Hsi H.-C., Chang J.E., Yang X.Y., Chang-Chien G.-P. and Lee W.-S. Influence of start-up on
PCDD/F emission of incinerators, Chemosphere 67 (2007) 1346-1353
xxxii
Wang H.C., Hwang J.F., Chi K.H. and Chang M.B. Formation and removal of PCDD/Fs in a municipal
incinerator during different operating periods. Chemosphere 67 (2007) S177-S184
xxxiii
Nitrogen Oxides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide
xxxiv
WHO Air Quality Guidelines, 1999, Chapter 3
xxxv
Howard C.V. The health impacts of incineration, with particular reference to the toxicological effects of
ultrafine particulate aerosols, organo-chlorines and other emissions. Proof of Evidence submitted to East
Sussex and Brighton and Hove Local Plan Public Inquiry, 2003
xxxvi
Maynard RL, Howard CV, Air Pollution and Health, London: Academic Press 1999: 673-705. 24)
xxxvii
Ponka A, Virtanen M. Asthma and air pollution in Helsinki. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996; 50 Suppl
1: s59-62
xxxviii
Particulate Matter: Properties and Effects upon Health, BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd, Oxford p 63-84 -
xxxix
Baek SO, Field RA, Goldstone ME et al. A review of atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons:
sources, fate and behaviour. Water, Air Soil Pollution, 1991; 60: 279-300
xl
Pistikopoulos P, Mascelet P, Mouvier G. A receptor model adapted to reactive species – polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons - evaluation of source contributions in an open urban site.
Atmos Environ A-Gen 1990; 24: 1189-97.
xli
Venkataraman C, Friedlander SK. Source resolution of fine particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons –
using a receptor model modified for reactivity. J Air Waste Management; 1994; 44: 1103-08
xlii
Johnson B.L. Health impacts of incineration—Part I. Congressional testimony given to the Subcommittee
on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, United
States House of Representatives, on 24.1.1994.
xliii
Bell J.U. Estimating the human health risks from polychlorinated dioxins and furans in stack gas emissions
from combustion units: implications of USEPA's dioxin reassessment. Waste Management 22 (2002) 405412.
xliv
Howard C.V. The health impacts of incineration, with particular reference to the toxicological effects of
ultrafine particulate aerosols, organo-chlorines and other emissions. Proof of Evidence submitted to East
Sussex and Brighton and Hove Local Plan Public Inquiry, 2003.
xlv
Dearden J.C., Netzeva T.I. and Bibby R. A comparison of commercially available software for the prediction
of partition coefficient, in Ford M., Livingstone D., Dearden J. and van de Waterbeemd H. (Eds.), Designing
Drugs and Crop Protectants: Processes, Problems and Solutions, Blackwell, Oxford, 2003, pp. 168-169.
Page 64 of 69
xlvi
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, EPA530-R-05-006
September 2005. www.epa.gov/osw
xlvii
Espinosa AJ, Rodriquez MT, Barragan de la Rosa FJ et al. Size distribution of metals in urban aerosols in
Seville (Spain). Atmos Environ 2001; 35: 2595-2601
xlviii
An Bord Pleanála, Statement of Evidence, Particulate Emissions and Health, Proposed Ringaskiddy Wasteto-Energy Facility, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath., June 2009
xlix
Zeliger H.I. Toxic effects of chemical mixtures. Archives of Environmental Health 58 (2003) 23-29
l
Howard V. Synergistic effects of chemical mixtures—can we rely on traditional toxicology? The Ecologist 27
(1997) 192-195.
li
Mukerjee D. Health risk of endocrine-disrupting ortho-substituted PCBs emitted from incinerators.
Environmental Engineering Science 15 (1998) 157-168.
lii
Rajapakse N., Silva E. and Kortenkamp A. Combining xenoestrogens at levels below individual no-observedeffect concentrations dramatically enhances steroid hormone action. Environmental Health Perspectives 110
(2002) 917-921.
liii
Chen B.-Y. and Lin K.-L. Dose-mortality assessment on municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) ash.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 139 (2006) 19-24.
liv
Lang L. Strange brew: assessing risk of chemical mixtures. Environmental Health Perspectives 103 (1995)
142-145
lv
Tuomisto J.T., Pekkanen J., Kiviranta H., Tukiainen E., Vartiainen T. and Tuomisto J. Soft tissue sarcoma and
dioxins—a case control study. International Journal of Cancer 108 (2004) 893-900.
lvi
Tuomisto J., Pekkanen J., Kiviranta H., Tukiainen E., Vartiainen T., Viluksela M. and Tuomisto J.T. Dioxin
cancer risk—example of hormesis? Dose-Response 3 (2005) 332-341.
lvii
Lippmann M. The search for non-linear exposure-response relationships at ambient levels in
environmental epidemiology. Nonlinearity in biology, Toxicology, and Medicine 3 (2005) 125-144.
lviii
Kaiser J. Panel cautiously confirms low-dose effects. Science 290 (2000) 6952-6953.
lix
Mukerjee D. Health risk of endocrine-disrupting ortho-substituted PCBs emitted from incinerators.
Environmental Engineering Science 15 (1998) 157-168.
lx
Ashford N, Miller C. Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes. John Wiley & Sons 1998.
lxi
Bellinger D, Leviton A, Waternaux C, et al. Longitudinal analyses of prenatal and postnatal lead exposure
and early cognitive development. N Eng J Med 1987; 316 (17): 1037-43.
lxii
Pelkonenn O. Comparison of activities of drug-metabolizing enzymes in human fetal and
adult livers. Clinic Pharmacol Ther 1973; 14(5): 840-6.
lxiii
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/23healthdioxin.html
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon
lxiv
Page 65 of 69
lxv
Jay, K. and L. Stieglitz, Identification and quantification of volatile organic components in emissions of
waste incineration plants. Chemosphere, 1995. 30(7): p. 1249-1260.
lxvi
Centers for Disease Control. Blood and hair mercury levels in young children and women of childbearing
age. United States 1999 Morbidity and Mortality Report, 2001; 50: 140-43.
lxvii
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=13&po=7
lxviii
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Protection and Toxic Substances,
Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study: What do we really know about high production
volume chemicals? USEPA: Washington DC, 1998.
lxix
Chao, M.R., et al., Size distribution of particle-bound polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans in the ambient air of a municipal incinerator. Atmospheric Environment,
2003. 37(35): p. 4945-4954.
lxx
Lohman, K. and C. Seigneur, Atmospheric fate and transport of dioxins: local impacts.
Chemosphere, 2001. 45(2): p. 161-171.
lxxi
Roberts R.J. and Chen M. Waste incineration—how big is the health risk? A quantitative method to allow
comparison with other health risks. Journal of Public Health 28 (2006) 261-266.
lxxii
Castorina R. and Woodruff T.J. Assessment of potential risk levels associated with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency reference values. Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (2003) 1318-1325.
lxxiii
COT (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment) report:
Variability and uncertainty in toxicology of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment,
March 2007.
lxxiv
Hashm A. Human health risk assessment. Document prepared by RPS Consultants for IneosChlor planning
application for an EfW plant, submitted on 19.1.2007.
lxxv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle#Efficiency_of_CCGT_plants
lxxvi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station
lxxvii
European Environment Agency, EEA Technical report No 12/2011, Air quality in Europe — 2011 report,
ISBN: 978-92-9213-232-3, ISSN Annual report series: 1977-284X, ISSN EEA Technical report series: 17252237, doi:10.2800/8321
lxxviii
Natural England Species Information Note SIN006, Otter: European protected species
http://www.lbp.org.uk/downloads/Publications/SpeciesInfo/NE_EU_otter.pdf
lxxix
Littarru P. Repartition of PCDD and PCDF in the emissions of municipal solid waste incinerators between
the particulate and volatile phases. Waste Management 26 (2006) 861-868.
lxxx
Cunliffe A.M. and Williams P.T. Desorption of PCDD/PCDF from municipal solid waste incinerator flyash
under post-combustion plant conditions. Chemosphere 68 (2007) 1723-1732.
Page 66 of 69
lxxxi
Jiang J.G., Xu X., Wang J., Yang S.J. and Zhang Y. Investigation of basic properties of fly ash from urban
waste incinerators in China. Journal of Environmental Sciences—China 19 (2007) 458-463.
lxxxii
Behaviour of metals in MSW fly ash during roasting with chlorinating agents, PhD Thesis by Chan, C.C.,
Chemical Engineering Department at University of Toronto, 1997
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp03/NQ27620.pdf
lxxxiii
Markus T, Behnisch P, Hagenmaier H et al. Dioxinlike components in incinerator fly ash: A
comparison between chemical analysis data and results from a cell culture bioassay. Environ
Health Perspect 1997; 105(12): 475-81 Cited in 5
lxxxiv
The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine,
Second Edition, June 2008, Moderators: Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor Anthony
lxxxv
Cunliffe A M and Williams P T Desorption of PCDD/PCDF from municipal solid waste incinerator flyash
under post-combustion plant conditions. Chemosphere 68 (2007) 1723-1732
lxxxvi
Littarru P Repartition of PCDD and PCDF in the emissions of municipal solid waste incinerators between
the particulate and volatile phases. Waste Management 26 (2006) 861-868.
lxxxvii
http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy-and-you/affect/municipal-sw.html and
http://www.elc.org.uk/papers/2005vansteenis.doc
lxxxviii
Michaelson J. Rethinking regulatory reform: toxics, politics, and ethics. Yale Law Journal 105 (1996)
1891-1925.
lxxxix
Science & Environmental Health Network. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, 2004.
www.sehn.org/web2printer4.php?img=0&Ink=0&page=precaution.html
xc
Recuerda, Miguel A. (2006). "Risk and Reason in the European Union Law". European Food and Feed Law
Review 5.
xci
Europa, Summary of EU Legislation, The Precautionary Principle
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm
xcii
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001:EN:NOT
xciii
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 191, paragraph 2
xciv
Jay, K. and L. Stieglitz, Identification and quantification of volatile organic components in emissions of
waste incineration plants. Chemosphere, 1995. 30(7): p. 1249-1260.
xcv
Kato, M., K. Urano, and T. Tasaki, Development of Semi- and Nonvolatile Organic Halogen
as a New Hazardous Index of Flue Gas. Environ Sci Technol, 2000. 34(19): p. 4071-4075.
xcvi
Bergvall, C. and R. Westerholm, Identification and Determination of Highly Carcinogenic Dibenzopyrene
Isomers in Air Particulate Samples from a Street Canyon, a Rooftop, and a Subway Station in Stockholm.
Environ Sci Technol, 2007. 41(3): p. 731-737.
Page 67 of 69
xcvii
Leach, J., A. Blanch, and A.C. Bianchi, Volatile organic compounds in an urban airborne environment
adjacent to a municipal incinerator, waste collection centre and sewage treatment plant. Atmospheric
Environment, 1999. 33(26): p. 4309-4325.
xcviii
Eunomia Research & Consulting and EnviroCentre, Greenhouse Gas Balances of Waste Management
Scenarios, Report for the Greater London Authority, January 2008
Authors: Eunomia: Dr Dominic Hogg, Adam Baddeley, Dr Adrian Gibbs, Dr Jessica North,
EnviroCentre: Dr Robin Curry, Dr Cathy Maguire
xcix
Adam Baddeley, Ann Ballinger, Dr Dominic Hogg, Eunomia Research and Consulting
Comparative Life-cycle Assessment - INEOS Bio Ltd - Seal Sands Waste to Biofuel Initial Plant, March 2010
c
Ann Ballinger and Adam Baddeley, Eunomia Research and Consulting
Comparative Life-cycle Assessment - INEOS Bio Ltd - Seal Sands Waste to Biofuel Initial Plant - Appendices
ci
Dirty Truths: Incineration and Climate Change
Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/dirty_truths.pdf
cii
A Changing Climate for Energy from Waste?
Final Report for Friends of the Earth, Dr Dominic Hogg, Director, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/changing_climate.pdf
ciii
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan – Presented to
Parliament pursuant to Sections 12 and 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008 National strategy for climate and
energy 2009.
civ
Planning Statement Appendix 2A - WRATE Report Planning Statement Appendix 2A - WRATE Report
[1Mb] [pdf] [new window]
cv
Environment Agency, Biomass: Carbon sink or carbon sinner? 2009.
cvi
Waste Strategy for England 2007 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents
Memorandum submitted by Professor J C Dearden (Waste 69)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvfru/230/230we57.htm
cvii
Choate A., Pederson L., Scharfenberg J. and Ferland H. Waste management and energy savings: benefits
by the numbers. U.S. Environment Protection Agency report;
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/TMAL6GDR3K/$File/Energy%20Savings.
pdf 2005
cviii
Morris, J., Recycling versus incineration: an energy conservation analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
1996. 47(1-3): p. 277-293.
cix
Denison, R.A., Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling, landfilling and incineration: A Review of
Recent Studies, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 1996. 21(1): p. 191-237.
cx
WRAP, Environmental Benefits of Recycling – An international review of life cycle comparisons for key
materials in the UK Recycling Sector Sep 2006. 2006, Waste Resources Action Programme, Banbury.
cxi
Eunomia Research & Consulting and EnviroCentre, Greenhouse Gas Balances of Waste Management
Scenarios – Report for the Greater London Authority January 2008
Page 68 of 69