Note of Pre-Determination Hearing for 091109 - Final

Note of Pre-Determination Hearing for Planning Application for Erection of Residual Waste to Energy Power Plant with Ancillary Development at Site at Upperton Industrial Estate, Invernettie, Peterhead Monday November 2009 at 6.30pm in The Palace Hotel, Peterhead The Hearing was conducted in accordance with Aberdeenshire Council’s ‘Pre-Determination Hearing Procedures’ Approximately 240 members of the general public were in attendance Present – Councillor S Pratt, (Chairman), Peterhead South and Cruden Councillor H Al-Kowarri, West Garioch Councillor A J Allan, Westhill and District Councillor A Allan, Peterhead North and Rattray Councillor P Argyle, Aboyne, Upper Deeside and Donside Councillor A Buchan, Peterhead North and Rattray Councillor P Chapman, Central Buchan Councillor G Clark, Stonehaven and Lower Deeside Councillor K Clark, Banchory and Mid-Deeside Councillor S Coull, Peterhead South and Cruden Councillor M Cullen, Westhill and District Councillor I Davidson, Ellon and District Councillor M Ford, East Garioch Councillor J Gifford, Mid-Formartine Councillor A Hendry, Mid-Formartine Councillor F Hood, East Garioch Councillor M Humphrey, Aboyne, Upper Deeside and Donside Councillor M Ingleby, Huntly, Strathbogie and Howe of Alford Councillor P Johnston, Mid Formartine Councillor M Kitts-Hayes, Inverurie and District Councillor S Lonchay, West Garioch Councillor J Loveday, Mid-Formartine Councillor R McKail, Westhill and District Councillor F McRae, Peterhead North and Rattray Councillor R Merson, Ellon and District Councillor I Mollison, North Kincardine Councillor A Robertson, Turriff and District Councillor A Ross, Howe of Alford Councillor N Smith, Central Buchan Councillor S Smith, Peterhead South and Cruden Councillor D Storr, Ellon and District Councillor S Stronach, Central Buchan Councillor R Stroud, Huntly, Strathbogie and Howe of Alford Councillor R Thomas, Peterhead North and Rattray Councillor J Webster, Banchory and Mid-Deeside Council Representatives – Christine Gore, Director of Planning and Environmental Services Wendy Forbes, Area Planning Officer, Planning and Environmental Services David MacLennan, Planner, Planning and Environmental Services Katherine Donnachie, Planner, Planning and Environmental Services Peter MacCallum, Transportation Manager, Transportation and Infrastructure John Grant, Principal Environmental Health Officer, Planning and Environmental Services Jack Clark, Waste Manager, Planning and Environmental Services Chris White, Buchan Area Manager, Chief Executives Theresa Wood, Area Committee Officer, Chief Executives Maureen Stephen, Area Committee Officer, Chief Executives Robert MacGregor, Area Committee Officer, Chief Executives Neil Moir, Communications Team Leader, Chief Executives Jim Buchan, Legal Manager, Legal and Governance Fiona Stewart, Senior Solicitor, Legal and Governance SEPA Representatives – Brent Quinn, Carole Chapman, Michael Cleary, Michael Curtis and Fiona Birkenshaw Applicant/Agent – Glenn Jones, Applicant; Laura Grant, BIG Partnership; Andy Edgar, Agent, TNEI Services Ltd; Steven Arnot, Agent, TNEI Services Ltd; Dr Gair, Agent, TNEI Services Ltd The Chairman, Councillor Stuart Pratt, introduced himself and welcomed everyone He asked the media to stop filming/recording and advised all attendees to the same The Chairman asked Jim Buchan, Legal Manager, to read the procedure note – “This application falls within the definition of a ‘major’ planning application as defined in the new Hierarchy of Development since it is a Schedule development in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 It was agreed by the Council on October 2009 that the application should be the subject of a pre-determination hearing and thereafter referred to Full Council for determination under the terms of Section A17 of the Council’s Scheme of Delegation since it involves a proposal of ‘regional significance’ – principally since the proposed facility is designed to treat wastes from Aberdeen City and the Shire This/ This process was agreed with the Director of Planning and Environmental Services in consultation with Group Leaders of the Council in February of this year The application was subject to public advertisement in April 2008 Extensive consultation was carried out with statutory and non-statutory consultees It was advertised for a second time in May 2009, following the receipt of further information requested by the Planning Service The period for representations expired on September 2009 Following the Hearing, a note will devised the Planning Service will conclude their assessment of the application and will prepare a report for the meeting of the Buchan Area Committee on December 2009 At this stage a recommendation will be put forward for the Committees consideration The Buchan Area Committee will be given an opportunity to express a view on the application and thereafter the application may then be reported to a meeting of the Full Council on 21 January 2010 for determination.” The Chairman explained that the Hearing had been arranged to allow third parties to give their views with the benefit of an oral statement from Officers in Planning, Transportation and Infrastructure and SEPA, and a description of the proposal from the Applicant The Chairman made it clear that no decision would be taken on the application tonight The Chairman explained that third parties should focus their comments on views already expressed in writing, although if any new information is presented by the Applicant or Officials or any previous misunderstanding is clarified, comment would be allowed Those wishing to make representation (in no more than 10 minutes) would be heard, with precedence being given to representatives of community bodies, followed by those who are speaking on behalf of a party or parties and then by individuals The Chairman read out the list of those who had made a request to give a verbal representation (see Appendix A) and confirmed that no others who had previously submitted a written representation wished to speak The Chairman introduced the Area Planning Officer, Wendy Forbes, who gave the following statement Description “This is an application for full planning permission for the erection of a residual waste to energy, combined heat and power plant, at Upperton Industrial Estate on the southern edge of Peterhead The proposal comes under the definition of a ‘thermal treatment plant’ since it involves/ involves the use of heat to break down waste by means of incineration When energy is recovered from the treatment process, such plants are referred to as EfW or WtE The proposal represents the first EfW plant of this scale, in Aberdeenshire The applicants advise that the plant has been designed to handle up to 100,000 tonnes of MW and non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste (C & I waste) It has been sized to accept waste from both Aberdeen City and Shire, with the surplus capacity being made up from non hazardous C & I wastes The applicants propose that the plant will treat ‘residual waste’ only This is the waste that remains after recycling and segregation has taken place It is important to point out that no contracts regarding the potential supply of waste have been awarded to the applicants by either Aberdeen City Council or the Shire The Issues Report prepared for the Hearing provides a description of the site and the surrounding area, and provides an outline of the proposals and therefore these are not covered in my presentation Turning to the Determination of the application – The Planning Authority is required to make planning decisions in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise The Authority must consider the following, in reaching a decision – Whether the proposals are consistent with the Development Plan (namely the Structure Plan and Local Plan – the Council planning policies), and Any material considerations relevant to the determination of the application Development Plan The Structure Plan (2009) states that the area needs to make significant changes to manage waste as a resource in an efficient and environmentally friendly way Key policies in the Local Plan relate to waste management and other renewable energy sources, as well as technical policies relating to site services, infrastructure, siting and design matters, and sustainability Policy Inf/6 (Waste Management Facilities) - sets out that development which assists the reduction, reuse and recovery of waste will be considered favourably The aim of the policy is to ensure that new waste management facilities are sited in locations which have least negative social and environmental impacts Proposals should demonstrate: • • • • • conformity with the National and Local Waste Strategies and Plans that account has been taken of locating the development as close as possible to the source of waste no negative impacts on the character and amenity of an area no adverse impact on public health or safety the site being safely and easily accessed 2.a Material Considerations relevant to the consideration of the application - Include: Government policy on waste management National and Local Waste Strategies and Plans Planning Advice Notes Thermal Treatment Guidelines Government waste policy emphasises that waste should be dealt with in a more sustainable manner by reducing reliance on landfill, increasing recycling, and moving waste up the waste hierarchy Dealing with waste as close as possible to where it is produced is one of the key elements of sustainable waste management More recently, the Government’s Zero Waste Statement, recognised a role for EfW plants that helped achieve sustainable waste management It included a 25% cap on plants for MW, a presumption against large scale inefficient plants, and a requirement for all plants to recover energy efficiently 2.b Other material considerations are those raised by third parties: In total 877 letters of representation have been received, including 869 letters of objection and letters of support Several petitions totalling 5564 names also objecting to the proposals have been received A summary of the issues raised are outlined in the issues report Key Issues The first issue is does the proposal meet Sustainable Waste Management objectives? What requires to be considered is whether the principle of an EfW plant, of this size, will assist in the provision of waste infrastructure that will allow waste to be dealt with in a more sustainable manner Some key points are That EfW is classed as a recovery facility – since it moves waste up the waste hierarchy from disposal to recovery It is important the EfW plants not prejudice efforts to recycle and reuse, and for this reason only ‘residual waste’ should be treated The key issue here is whether in the absence of on-site pre-sorting and recycling what measures could be put in place, to ensure that the plant received only ‘residual’ waste The onus is on the applicants to demonstrate how they will ensure this The need for the facility also requires to be considered, namely if there is sufficient residual waste to feed the plant The AWP highlights a need for an EfW facility with a capacity of 110,000 tonnes and identifies EfW as part of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for the north east The applicants submit that there is sufficient waste arising in the area to demonstrate a need for the facility which will divert waste from landfill and move waste up the hierarchy The applicants also require to demonstrate that the plant can operate efficiently, in the terms of the recovery of value from the waste being processed, with regards to the provision of heat and power The second issue is Site Selection/ Proximity Principle test In terms of Site Selection, Government policy clearly advocates that the Development Plan should carry out areas of search, identify specific sites or make clear the criteria that should be applied to assess where potential waste management sites should be sited In this case, in the absence of the Development Plan identifying sites or areas of search, the Planning Authority must consider whether the site proposed meets with the general criteria for site selection based on national, strategic and local planning policy, including locating the facility close to existing and future users of heat The proximity principle requires waste to be dealt with as close to source as possible Whilst the proximity principle normally applies at the AWP level, it is given effect locally, by Local Plan Policy Inf/6 which “requires account has been taken of locating the development as close as possible to the source of waste” Since the facility is sized to take waste from the City and Shire the proximity principle test should be applied at this level SEPA’s Thermal Treatment Guidelines recommend that a series of factors be taken into account when assessing compliance with the proximity principle – including where the waste arises, quantities and types of waste, current destination of waste, information on existing and proposed treatment facilities and the transport methods The third issue is Compatibility with other land uses The site lies within an industrial estate on land identified as ‘existing employment’ land Government policy promotes the use of industrial and employment land for sustainable waste management facilities, acknowledging that facilities can be sited acceptably close to developed/ developed areas, with accessible locations, having the advantage of reducing traffic between waste generation and disposal, and providing employment opportunities close to centres of population What requires to be assessed is whether the proposed used is compatible with the surrounding area The fourth issue is whether there are any significant environmental impacts The Environmental Statement accompanying the application contains an assessment of the potential environmental and social impacts and covers impacts such as air quality, health risk, landscape and visual impact, traffic, noise, ecology, hydrology, cultural heritage, community and social effects The Statement and the follow up Addendums state that the proposal will not result in any ‘significant’ environmental impacts Consultees generally concur with these findings and raise no objections, and in some cases highlight mitigation measures to be adopted The Issues report summarises the consultee responses The last points relate to Perceived Health Effects/Interference with Human Rights? The perceived health effects relate to fears surrounding the exposure of air emissions from the chimney stack, on the health of local residents The location of the plant near sensitive receptors (including the nursery) has caused fears that the pollutants will contain harmful dioxins, causing long term health problems Objectors seek guarantees that there will be no lasting adverse health effects and in the absence of such guarantees, the precautionary principle should be applied The position of the Government is that modern, appropriately located, properly managed and maintained facilities operated in line with current pollution control standards should pose little risk to human health The effects are considered to be so small that they cannot be measured NHS Grampian were consulted on the proposals and having sought advice from Health Protection Scotland, raised no objections It is important to note that ensuring that waste is recovered, or disposed of, without endangering human health is a function carried out by SEPA, in consultation with NHS Grampian and Health Protection Scotland at the PPC stage It is acknowledged however, that even when the official position is that there is no substantive, recognised, evidence to demonstrate long term health effects, it can nevertheless cause fear and anxiety in a community Where there are resulting consequences or impacts from such fears, this may be a material consideration for the Planning Authority And finally, in terms of Human Rights, the Planning Service will require to ensure that its recommendation takes account of Human Rights Act requirements.” The Chairman asked if there were any questions for the Planning Service Councillor S Smith – On behalf of a constituent, I would like to ask the following question What measures will be put in place to measure emissions? Wendy Forbes – This is a question for SEPA, who will have this role Councillor S Smith – The nursery is 20 metres from the boundary of the proposed plant and 110 metres from the building, is there any guidance on distances? Wendy Forbes – Government Policy, as set out in Scottish Planning Policy 10 document, deals with sensitive receptors such as residential properties, which would include nurseries For small thermal treatment plants, (defined as less than 100,000 tonnes), 100 metres is a minimum guide distance For large plants, (defined as over 300,000 tonnes) 250 metres is the guide distance The guidance, as contained within SPP10, has been taken on Board by SEPA in its assessment of the proposal and no objections were raised on these grounds It also depends on the character of the area and type of proposal Planning has been mindful of these guidelines Councillor I Davidson – From this combined heat and power plant, will any heat be distributed to the local community? Wendy Forbes – The applicant will provide the full answer, however, this is a facility that could provide both heat and power If they provide power alone, that will be 5.1 mega watts electricity, if heat were to be exported also, that will reduce the total figure The applicants are required to provide a heat plan, setting out the proposals to export heat and power They have identified potential users at this stage but no firm proposals have been agreed SEPA is satisfied with the level of information submitted and they will consider this in more detail at the PPC stage The Chairman confirmed that there were no further questions The Chairman introduced Peter MacCallum, Transportation Manager for Aberdeenshire Council, who gave the following statement: “I am a consultee dealing solely with transport issues Some Background – Aberdeenshire Council formerly responded to the transport assessment lodged in support of the application during September 2008 In the initial response, we identified the areas where additional information would be required to inform our decision In any application, this is standard procedure and results in regular correspondence until any identified concerns have been resolved When considering the development, there were a number of areas which required additional consideration and following subsequent correspondence and discourse, these issues were concluded in a final response of 14 October 2008 The issues which required further consideration are discussed below: Traffic Generation – It was confirmed that traffic associated with the development would be generated primarily by HGV vehicles with a relatively small number of staff trips contributing to the trip generations, to and from work The site is expected to employ up to 20 staff with 10 staff working on a shift pattern at any one time For the purposes of a robust assessment, all staff were assumed to arrive and depart from the site by car It should be noted that this was for assessment purposes only, considering a worst case scenario A key element of any transport assessment lies in the consideration of measures to reduce vehicle trips by travel planning practices Measures to manage the development impact are discussed in subsequent paragraphs Following a review of similar facilities on the basis of first principle calculations based upon vehicles operating between the hours of 0900 and 1800, the Transport Assessment submitted by the applicant suggests that HGV movements would be in the order of per hour However, to reduce the development impact, it has been proposed to restrict traffic movements between the hours of 0700 - 0900 and 1500 – 1600 coinciding with peak time school traffic periods Taking this into account, a figure of HGV movements per hour has therefore been used to ensure a robust traffic impact assessment The TA acknowledges waste removal from the site of approximately 25,000t per annum On the basis that this would result in approximately HGV vehicle movements per day, operating outwith the peak periods, these were not considered in the impact assessment as there is sufficient non peak capacity within the road network to accommodate this low level of traffic and how traffic coincides in peak periods On the basis of the information provided in the TA and subsequent correspondence dated 29 September 2008 we are content that our queries relating to traffic generation were addressed Traffic Distribution – The TA has given consideration to the vehicle routes to the site concluding that 75% of HGV movement will be from the south via the A90(T) and 25% from the north via the A950 and the A90(T) It is acknowledged that on occasion there may be a requirement to receive deliveries from the port and these would be routed along the A982 onto the A90(T) / Invernettie roundabout The anticipated occurrence of these movements is low and hence not considered to have any significant impact upon the road network It is noted from the assessment that the key movements to and from the site are therefore via the A90(T), which has been designed to accommodate significant traffic movements and the A950, again designed to effectively distribute traffic Aberdeenshire Council’s own traffic survey data from 2008 confirmed that the A950 accommodated some 6401 vehicles, 500 of which are HGV’s, in an average 12 hour period Traffic Impact Assessment – It is normal practice to assess the impact of any development considering the effect that any additional traffic loading has on the road network during the am and pm peak hour which typically falls within the time frame of 0730-0930 and 1630-1830 Traffic surveys were undertaken on Thursday December 2007 to determine existing peak period traffic flow for assessment purposes considering five main junctions: • • • • • A90/A950 mini roundabout Industrial Park Access / A90 A90/A982 South road Invernettie Roundabout Dales Industrial Estate Access Road (west) Dales Industrial Estate Access Road (east) From the results peak periods of 0800-0900 and 1700-1800, the busiest times, were established and junction impact testing was undertaken on this basis Traffic modelling was undertaken as part of the TA, through which it was demonstrated via a threshold analysis, that of the junctions within the area of influence only the A90/Upperton Industrial Estate junction exceeded a 10% increase which is the accepted threshold requiring further assessment Considering the combined network flows, i.e inclusive of all vehicles, the development would have relatively small impact Our analysis concludes that on the A90 northbound, the relative impact of the development on the combined traffic flow would be in the order of 1% Scientific Studies which support the concept of incineration tend to be commissioned or conducted by Governmental institutions such as DEFRA who have an interest in finding an alternative to landfill Scientific Study conducted by no governmental organisations tend to be more critical of incineration, particularly when considering the potential for harm to human and environmental health The Incineration of Waste and Reported Human Health Effects 2009 informs us in its summary discussion that : There are significant problems in conducting research in this area, and consequently there are weaknesses in the published research evidence base The summary findings of this same report records that: The conclusions of five systematic reviews varied, depending on the health outcomes studied Evidence of association between incineration and the incidence of some cancers was noted, including laryngeal, oesophageal, gastric, liver, colorectal, lung, childhood cancers in general and leukaemia’s in particular, non Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft issue and visceral sarcomas The author often qualified their findings by acknowledging the potential impact of confounding variables and sources of bias The above report was produced by Health Protection Scotland, SEPA and NHS in partnership These government funded institutions are also statutory consultees of this planning application Considering the content of their report, Councillors may question why these consultees have no outstanding objections to this incinerator proposal Might there be a conflict of interest between the collective role they have in protecting human health and the government’s need to find an alternative to landfill? Scientific debate, contest and conflict on the pros and cons of incinerators only serves to dehumanise the underlying social concerns over incinerator operation There is no consensus of Scientific Opinion in this matter This should be enough for Councillors to deploy the Precautionary Principal and deny planning permission for this proposal until science can reach a consensus on why incinerator operations brings with it increased morbidity and mortality in populations adjacent to incinerator sites The legal case, (Newport County Borough Council v Secretary of State for Wales and Browning Ferris Environmental Services Ltd 1997) has demonstrated that the perception of fear surrounding health issues constitutes a material consideration of a planning application Similarities between the proposed development and the above mentioned case law can be drawn Incinerators are socially unacceptable and the Buchan CHP project is no exception, acting as a catalyst for unprecedented levels of social mobilization in Peterhead Petitions containing almost 6000 objections and over 850 letters of representation have been delivered to Aberdeenshire Council On th October and at very short notice, over 300 Peterhead residents gathered outside Arbuthnot House in peaceful protest, lobbying Councillors to deny planning permission for the CHP proposal This presents significantly higher levels of public objection than was encountered when similar proposals were rejected twice in Aberdeen, and more recently in Invergordon, where like Peterhead residents, objectors focused on the many aspects of social and environmental damage arising from incinerators With immediate effect, incinerator operation devalues adjacent residential properties Who would be accountable for this? Would it be the Council, if they grant planning permission or these guys for building it? Difficult to sort out in a court of law! The challenge facing Councillors is to report to higher political authority that incinerators are socially unacceptable on a regional scale I would respectfully urge the Full Council Committee to reject planning permission for the CHP proposal Any decision will effectively impose an incinerator on the present and future population of Peterhead for the next 25 years This would be nothing other than a social injustice, which would be in direct conflict with the core values of a just society Time constraint prevents most of the many concerns over this proposal being brought to the attention of Councillors in attendance of this hearing, however, by reverting to my local dialect, I am able to express most of the views and concerns of many Peterhead residents… There’s a mannie called Glen Jones That’s caused some consternation, He wants to come to Peterhead Wi’ waste incineration He started up a company, An’ c’d it Buchan CHP Thocht he’d earn a heap o cash by incineratin trash! Nae thocht o’ the pollution Descending on the toon Clartin’s a’ wi toxic rick An’ ither fumes at maks ye sick For asthma, cancer or a stroke Are side effects of toxic smoke Fa’n we found oot aboot your plan We winnert at the kyne o’ man That wid be mair than willing Te start this kyne o’ business up Jist te turn a shilling While your plan mith mak ye wealthy We’d prefer oor bairns bide healthy So Ah’m sorry Glen,ma loon, Ye canno come to oor Blue Toon! The reek ye wid ve pittin oot Wid mak us folks nae weel Tell me, did you really think That Peterhead wis feel? As lang as ah’m aboot it Glen Ah’ll ask ye far y bide And vet the Blue Toon’s nae the place Faar you and yours reside Spikkin aboot hooses And it’s time to mak it plain Glen, if you must incinerate Pit een aside your ain Councillors who represent us Only so by consensus If you think to side with Glen Perhaps you will regret it when Election time returns, to find The Blue Toon folk repay in kind For using a Petition Six thousand made it clear Pollution from a reeky lum Is cause of fear As letters by the hundred Have landed at your doors Remember who you represent As Blue Toon Councillors The public have made contact To clearly clearly state When dealing with oor rubbish, please DO NOT INCINERATE.” The Chairman asked if there were any questions for Mr Buchan There were no questions 14 The Chairman introduced Billy Higgins on behalf of himself, who gave the following statement “My name is Billy Higgins I live in the nearest housing scheme to the proposed incinerator my concerns are as follows: Some of the facts are from the Aberdeenshire Web Site I read on the report that 75% of the waste will be transported along the A90 with waste coming from Aberdeen for disposal at Peterhead – Would it not make more sense if the incinerator was built in Aberdeen This would save the applicants money on transport costs and ease the already congested road from Aberdeen Can you advise the public if a previous application has ever been submitted for an incinerator in the Aberdeen area? The lay-out of the cycle and pedestrian path which runs parallel to the by-pass means that cyclists have to dismount opposite to the entrance of the proposed incinerator to cross the already busy road, cycle along the by-pass and cross the road again to gain access to the cycle path This in my opinion is an accident waiting to happen, especially with transport being increased Can you advise why the incinerator chimney is 200 feet high and what effect haar will have on the emissions from the chimney? Not that you people are local and know about haar Finally, the proposed site is right beside the children’s nursery surely common sense should prevail and leave the bairns to play where they are I also read that Peterhead is in no position to refuse new businesses to the town, can you tell me why TESCOs was refused permission for their new store, who would have created far more jobs than the incinerator Maybe it is time we had local Councillors who are interested in the town and put the welfare of the people of Peterhead first and not make our town the dumping ground for Scotland Thank you.” The Chairman asked if there were any questions for Mr Higgins There were no questions 15 The Chairman introduced John Askey, on behalf of his Children and all those who feel they not have a voice in Peterhead, who gave the following statement “First of all the report from planning in front of you makes no mention of the following;The Minutes of Proceedings of the Scottish Parliament Thursday 11 June 2009 had a debate on the National Waste Strategy Robin Harper moved amendment —“, this parliament believes that, given the good progress being made so far in recycling, there should be no necessity for any large-scale waste-to-energy plants to be built in Scotland and that reuse, reducing waste creation and recycling are the best way forward.” The amendment was agreed to at decision time by division: For 65, Against 54 So the Scottish Parliament has voted this year that there is no necessity for waste to energy plants Secondly Planning’s report to you states at 4.7 “Environmental Health has advised that in an attempt to address objectors concerns regarding air emissions and health concerns that assurances should be given that the facility will not have adverse impacts upon the neighbouring population in terms of air quality/health effects.” What John Grant, Principal Environmental Health Officer, actually said without planning’s spin was that 1.3 Planning consent for this development should not be recommended for approval unless a categoric assurance can be given that public health will not, in any way, be compromised by exposure to emissions from the incineration process and further “that the ‘need’ or ‘demand’ for a waste incinerator in the Peterhead area has yet to be demonstrated.” Thirdly, on Aberdeenshire Council’s home page to find out about this hearing etc you follow a link- it is headed ‘power plant’, despite the fact that Buchan CHP has no contracts with anyone at this time to supply power and always and predominantly it will be an incinerator Mr Askey showed four slides taken from the Environmental Impact assessment produced by TNEI on behalf of Buchan CHP Slide showed Sulphur Dioxide emissions – Sulfate Particles - when these are breathed, they gather in the lungs and are associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death US Environmental Protection Agency Slide showed Benzene – EPA has classified benzene as a Group A, human carcinogen Remember when you look at these this is 24 hours a day days a week for 25 years Slide showed Nitrogen Dioxide – Low level NO2 exposure may cause increased bronchial reactivity in some asthmatics, decreased lung function and increased risk of respiratory infections, especially in young children Slide showed Particulate Matter of PM10 and below No safe dose limit - which is the same as dioxins, which are highly carcinogenic and no safe lower dose limit either But, we are told modern well run energy from waste plants are completely safe A nationwide Japanese study of 63 incinerators has found a statistically significant decline in infant mortality with distance from the incinerator to 10 km Reported in SEPA’s report A recent study in 2007 looked into a medium sized city in southwestern Sweden, and clearly identified their new modern incinerator as the single most significant source of toxic Particulate Matter 2.5’s Concentrations of PM downwind were up to 700% higher than upwind “… representing a public health problem for nearby residents, despite the facility being equipped with a modern air pollution control system.” 100,000 tonnes of waste burned in one incinerator in one year generates equivalent particulate emissions to 120 million diesel miles Numerous studies have demonstrated increased mortality associated with increased levels of particle matter (PM) Environmental Agency 2006 figures for the Nottingham Incinerator Notifiable releases…what officially comes out of the chimney includes:- http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/5.aspx ArsenicAir