NAIL2 BLOGSPOT: October 2008

Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Welcome to our new NAIL2 blogspot

NAIL2 (Norfolk against Incineration & Landfill) is intent on stopping incineration and landfill by raising public concern and awareness about the harmful effects on both health and countryside, and promoting Zero Waste as an alternative solution to waste.

Welcome to the new Nail2 Blog spot setup to keep people informed about current waste management issues in Norfolk, in particular, proposals concerning incineration (sold as energy from waste [EfW], combined heat and power [CHP]) schemes or municipal solid waste being burnt to create energy and heat.

Background:
In December 2005 Norfolk County Council announced their plan to place a contract with Waste Recycling Group (called WRG, now owned by Spanish waste company FCC), to build a massive incinerator at the Longwater Industrial Estate, Costessey. A group of residents and local representatives decided it was their duty to try and stop this plan. The campaign was named NAIL2, learning from the similar WRG experience of the Nottingham based NAIL group who have been successful in preventing the expansion of the WRG facility in Nottingham (the most polluting facility in the UK).

Following the successful public meeting in January 2006 held by the Evening News, NAIL2 was formed and campaigned in parallel with the Norwich Evening News (EEN) against Norfolk County Council's Contract A incinerator proposals, both NAIL2 and EEN were runners up for a WWF British Environmental Media Award, 2007 (BEMAS). The campaign appreciated support from Costessey Parish Council, local MPs and councillors, as well from Norwich City Council.

Present situation:
In January 2007 Norfolk County Council (NCC) decided against incineration being used in Contract A during the same week EEN and NAIL2 co-hosted a second well attended public meeting at Costessey, Dr van Steenis with Michael Ryan as speakers. Norfolk CC's decision that week effectively defeated the WRG (Waste Recycling Group) incinerator proposal. A more acceptable alternative technology option was chosen instead using advanced mechanical separation and anaerobic digestion (AMBT) by local company Sustainable Resource Management (SRM). NAIL2 are largely supportive of this residual (EfW/CHP capable) technology type and proposal to win Contract A. Currently the proposal has passed planning and is at the financial close stage.

Currently Norfolk County Council is procuring residual waste Contract B to deal with the rest of Norfolk's waste that cannot be recycled or composted. Whilst the contract is anaerobically digestion (AD) PFI referenced, the county council has failed to rule out the use of incineration (either in EfW or CHP forms). Indeed it has been actively talking to 3 incinerator companies during the course of 2008.

Future concerns:
Nail2 has future concerns regarding residual waste Contract B or Phase 2, especially two sites named in the NCC's mineral and waste plan for Norfolk. The first is a site owned by Norfolk County Council and located on the Willow Industrial Estate at Saddlebow (WAS 65). The second site of concern is located at the Riverside Industrial Estate to the west of Kings Lynn and is owned by CYCLEVAL UK (WAS 05). These are marked on the UKWIN incinerator sites map for the UK.

Please e-mail us your concerns, feedback or to join us, on the following contact e-mail: nailtwo@gmail.com

Video : Incineration : MSW EfW/CHP issues explained in the UK

ARGUMENTS AGAINST MODERN INCINERATORS [SOLD/SPUN AS EfW/CHP] A DOZEN REASONS

1)
The highly toxic fly ash must be safely disposed of. This usually involves additional waste miles and the need for specialist toxic waste landfill elsewhere, often with concerns for local residents. This has been the case in Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire, UK.
2)
There are still concerns by many about the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions into the atmosphere from incinerators; especially during start up and shut down events, or where filter bypass events are required when furnace temperatures are operating (and are allowed to) outside the permitted PPC levels.
3)
Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.
4)
Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) has high levels of metals, such as Zinc and Lead, with ecotoxicity concerns if not reused properly. Some people have the opinion that IBA reuse is still in its infancy and is still not considered to be a mature or desirable product, despite additional engineering treatments.
5)
Alternative proven technologies are available or in development such as Mechanical Biological Treatment, Anaerobic Digestion (MBT/AD), Autoclaving or Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) using steam , Gasplasma or Plasma arc gasification , or combinations. Erection of incinerators block out the development and introduction of other emerging technologies.
6)
A UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK median incinerator costs per metric ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by £18 per metric ton ; and £27 per metric ton most for modern (post 2000) incineratiors.
7)
Building and operating an incinerator requires long contract periods to recover initial investment costs, causing a long term lock-in. Incinerator lifetimes normally range from 25-30 years. Even top UK waste management figures are very concerned about projected waste figures and whether incinerators will be viable financially or having enough long term municipal waste to keep them operational.
8)
Incinerators produce fine particles in the furnace. Even with modern particle filtering of the flue gases, quantities of fine particles enter the local atmosphere. PM2.5 size is not separately regulated in the European Waste Incineration Directive, even though they are repeatedly correlated spatially to infant mortality in the UK (M.Ryan's ONS data based ward maps around the EfW/CHP waste incinerators at Edmonton, Coventry, Chineham, Kirklees and Sheffield). Under WID there is no requirement to monitor stack top or downwind incinerator PM2.5 levels.
9)
Several European doctors associations (including cross discipline experts such as physicans, environmental chemists and toxicologists) in June 2008 representing over 33,000 doctors wrote a keynote statement directly to the European Parliament citing widespread concerns on incinerator particle emissions and the absence of specific fine and ultrafine particle size monitoring or in depth industry/ government epidemilogical studies of these minute and invisible incinerator particle size emissions. Doctors have a healthy level of precaution and concerns!
10)
Local communities are often opposed to the idea of locating incinerators in their vicinity. Studies in Andover, Massachusetts strongly correlated 10 % property devaluations with close incinerator proximity. Some incinerators are architecturally monstrous and ugly, sometimes 12 plus storeys in height. In many instances they require a visually intrusive chimney stack of 50 to 80 metres in height.
11)
Prevention, waste minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste should all be preferred to incineration according to the waste hierarchy. Supporters of zero waste consider incinerators and other waste treatment technologies as barriers to recycling and separation beyond particular levels, and that waste resources are sacrificed for energy producion. Indeed above the 50% recycling threshold this looks very likely
12)
A recent Eunomia report found that under some circumstances and assumptions, incineration causes less CO2 reduction than other emerging EfW and CHP technology combinations for treating residual mixed waste. The authors found that CHP incinerator technology without waste recycling ranked 19 out of 24 combinations (where all alternatives to incineration were combined with advanced waste recycling plants); being 228% less efficient than the ranked 1 Advanced MBT maturation technology; or 211% less efficient than plasma gasification/autoclaving combination ranked 2.

Story of Stuff : Another Way - 10 ways to act on what you've just seen

Many people who have seen The Story of Stuff have asked what they can do to address the problems identified in the film.

Each of us can promote sustainability and justice at multiple levels: as an individual, as a teacher or parent, a community member, a national citizen, and as a global citizen. There is no single simple thing to do, because the set of problems we’re addressing just isn’t simple. But everyone can make a difference, but the bigger your action the bigger the difference you’ll make.

Here are some ideas : 10 Little and Big Things You Can Do

1)Power down!

A great deal of the resources we use and the waste we create is in the energy we consume. Look for opportunities in your life to significantly reduce energy use: drive less, fly less, turn off lights, buy local seasonal food (food takes energy to grow, package, store and transport), wear a sweater instead of turning up the heat, use a clothesline instead of a dryer, vacation closer to home, buy used or borrow things before buying new, recycle. All these things save energy and save you money. And, if you can switch to alternative energy by supporting a company that sells green energy to the grid or by installing solar panels on your home, bravo!

2)Waste less.

Per capita waste production in the U.S. just keeps growing. There are hundreds of opportunities each day to nurture a Zero Waste culture in your home, school, workplace, church, community. This takes developing new habits which soon become second nature. Use both sides of the paper, carry your own mugs and shopping bags, get printer cartridges refilled instead of replaced, compost food scraps, avoid bottled water and other over packaged products, upgrade computers rather than buying new ones, repair and mend rather than replace….the list is endless! The more we visibly engage in re-use over wasting, the more we cultivate a new cultural norm, or actually, reclaim an old one!

3)Talk to everyone about these issues.

At school, your neighbors, in line at the supermarket, on the bus…A student once asked Cesar Chavez how he organized. He said, “First, I talk to one person. Then I talk to another person.” “No,” said the student, “how do you organize?” Chavez answered, “First I talk to one person. Then I talk to another person.” You get the point. Talking about these issues raises awareness, builds community and can inspire others to action.

4)Make Your Voice Heard.

Write letters to the editor and submit articles to local press. In the last two years, and especially with Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the media has been forced to write about Climate Change. As individuals, we can influence the media to better represent other important issues as well. Letters to the editor are a great way to help newspaper readers make connections they might not make without your help. Also local papers are often willing to print book and film reviews, interviews and articles by community members. Let’s get the issues we care about in the news.

5)DeTox your body, DeTox your home, and DeTox the Economy.

Many of today’s consumer products – from children’s pajamas to lipstick – contain toxic chemical additives that simply aren’t necessary. Research online (for example, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/) before you buy to be sure you’re not inadvertently introducing toxics into your home and body. Then tell your friends about toxics in consumer products. Together, ask the businesses why they’re using toxic chemicals without any warning labels. And ask your elected officials why they are permitting this practice. The European Union has adopted strong policies that require toxics to be removed from many products. So, while our electronic gadgets and cosmetics have toxics in them, people in Europe can buy the same things toxics-free. Let’s demand the same thing here. Getting the toxics out of production at the source is the best way to ensure they don’t get into any home and body.

6)Unplug (the TV and internet) and Plug In (the community).

The average person in the U.S. watches T.V. over 4 hours a day. Four hours per day filled with messages about stuff we should buy. That is four hours a day that could be spent with family, friends and in our community. On-line activism is a good start, but spending time in face-to-face civic or community activities strengthens the community and many studies show that a stronger community is a source of social and logistical support, greater security and happiness. A strong community is also critical to having a strong, active democracy.

7)Park your car and walk…and when necessary MARCH!

Car-centric land use policies and life styles lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel extraction, conversion of agricultural and wildlands to roads and parking lots. Driving less and walking more is good for the climate, the planet, your health, and your wallet. But sometimes we don’t have an option to leave the car home because of inadequate bike lanes or public transportation options. Then, we may need to march, to join with others to demand sustainable transportation options. Throughout U.S. history, peaceful non-violent marches have played a powerful role in raising awareness about issues, mobilizing people, and sending messages to decision makers.

8)Change your lightbulbs…and then, change your paradigm.

Changing lightbulbs is quick and easy. Energy efficient lightbulbs use 75% less energy and last 10 times longer than conventional ones. That's a no-brainer. But changing lightbulbs is just tinkering at the margins of a fundamentally flawed system unless we also change our paradigm. A paradigm is a collection of assumptions, concepts, beliefs, and values that together make up a community’s way of viewing reality. Our current paradigm dictates that more stuff is better, that infinite economic growth is desirable and possible, and that pollution is the price of progress. To really turn things around, we need to nurture a different paradigm based on the values of sustainability, justice, health, and community.

9)Recycle your trash…and, recycle your elected officials.

Recycling saves energy and reduces both waste and the pressure to harvest and mine new stuff. Unfortunately, many cities still don’t have adequate recycling systems in place. In that case you can usually find some recycling options in the phone book to start recycling while you’re pressuring your local government to support recycling city-wide. Also, many products – for example, most electronics - are designed not to be recycled or contain toxics so recycling is hazardous. In these cases, we need to lobby government to prohibit toxics in consumer products and to enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, as is happening in Europe. EPR is a policy which holds producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, so that electronics company who use toxics in their products, have to take them back. That is a great incentive for them to get the toxics out!

10)Buy Green, Buy Fair, Buy Local, Buy Used, and most importantly, Buy Less.

Shopping is not the solution to the environmental problems we currently face because the real changes we need just aren’t for sale in even the greenest shop. But, when we do shop, we should ensure our dollars support businesses that protect the environment and worker rights. Look beyond vague claims on packages like “all natural” to find hard facts. Is it organic? Is it free of super-toxic PVC plastic? When you can, buy local products from local stores, which keeps more of our hard earned money in the community. Buying used items keeps them out of the trash and avoids the upstream waste created during extraction and production. But, buying less may be the best option of all. Less pollution. Less Waste. Less time working to pay for the stuff. Sometimes, less really is more.

NAIL2 BLOGSPOT

Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Welcome to our new NAIL2 blogspot

Subscribe To NAIL2 Blog

UK INCINERATOR SITE MAP

NO TO NORFOLK INCINERATORS by Norwich Evening News

PUBLIC MEETING, Costessey Jan 07 (Archant)

Blog Archive

UKWIN (& OTHER UK GROUPS)

About Us

CONTACT YOUR COUNCILLOR / MP ON THE ISSUE

Campaigning at Norwich City Hall

USEFUL LINKS

ZERO WASTE CHARTER

ALTERNATIVES TO INCINERATION (some examples)

Incineration EfW/CHP- the worst GHGs emitting option barring landfill

Economics of Food Waste Collection

Waste Not, Want Not

National Grid's

USEFUL MEDIA CLIPS

STORY OF STUFF VIDEO

INTERESTING BBC REPORTS

Dr van Steenis Research

Dr van Steenis's References

BSEM Incinerator Heath Effects

HCWHE Europe Incineration/PM2.5 Paper

Professor Vyvyen Howard, Toxicology

Irish Doctors Environmental Association [IDEA]

Italian peer reveiwed study of 25 Incinerator proximity and male cancer

Japanese Incinerator proximity (62 incinerators)study and infant mortality

ANTWERP - Cancer biomarkers/Incinerator location

SHEFFIELD- Infant mortality /Incinerator location 2004-2006

COVENTRY-Infant Mortality, 2003-2006

COVENTRY-Infant Mortality/Incinerator Location 2002-2005

KIRKLEES - Infant Mortality/Incinerator Location 2002-2005

BEXLEY- Infant Mortality/Incinerator Location 2002-2005

ENFIELD/WALTHAM FOREST Infant Mortality Map/Incinerator Location 2002-2005

LONDON's Infant Mortality/Incinerator location Map,2002-2005

Incinerators and Nanopathology

Sint-Niklaas incinerator health study, Belgium

Copenhagen-Genotoxicity, inflammation and physico-chemical properties of fine

ARGUMENTS AGAINST MODERN INCINERATORS [SOLD/SPUN AS EfW/CHP] A DOZEN REASONS

Story of Stuff : Another Way - 10 ways to act on what you've just seen