Waste-burning plant in North Hykeham will burn industrial refuse too

“This link displays comparative costs of various waste disposal choices
http://tinyurl.com/bo55***
A recent report indicates Nth Yorkshire CC will be paying £129/ tonne gate fee for MSW but much lower gate fee will apply for C&I waste which questions source of income for incinerators and who is carrying the cost. Sadly LCC apparently decline to provide details of Hykeham gate fees which adds to cost impact concerns.

It is understood that there is already incinerator overcapacity in the Region and burning processes are offering zero gate fee for processing waste in order to keep the incinerators operating. This adds to sustainability , cost and environmental impact concerns.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind the LCC incinerator decision please to at least provide some excuse for what appears to be a massive and avoidable financial and pollution burden for the County ? Can only repeat that the decision makers were made aware of the waste reality before committing to incineration. Rgds Brian Wilson”

“@Burnbabyburn – Thanks for your comment, it highlights the need for far greater transparency on waste streaming choices , their health and environmental implications and cost impact. My concern is that based on the data produced to date the record cost incinerator project appears to be the worst choice for the County. The sensitive location maximises damage from the 24/7 hazardous air pollution and crucially any emissions breaches have the potential to impact on at least 43,000 homes and emissions breaches are a recognised problem with incinerators. My question is "why spend vast sums on deliberately degrading air quality when there are superior and cleaner alternatives for effective waste disposal?"

You obviously consider that the LCC incinerator decision was sound and those involved should be praised but the basic facts point to a serious waste of money at a time requiring fiscal prudence with the expense having obvious negative impact on available finance to support many important projects in the County. The cutting back of recycling facilities across the County with impact consequences is typical and illustrates the concerns .

Just to clarify need reality the LCC claimed increasing waste creation year on year and that the County would face punitive financial penalties but the reality was and is falling waste creation year on year with Authorities already complying with future landfill diversion obligations. LCC were already aware districts were reporting significant landfill reductions , they were reminded that just one District had already reported a 20,000 t reduction. DEFRA were reporting reducing waste creation and have confirmed 88kg reduction/pp/yr , this combined with the latest recycling trend and confirmation the plant can only divert 90% of residual waste points to a MSW feedstock shortfall from day one.
Use of C & I waste raises concerns regarding hazardous content and emissions impact. The addition of C & I waste will presumably require a new application for revised permit to pollute with inclusion of 6 digit coding for each material, a prime consideration at this site is halogenated content which automatically equates to creation of dioxins. The sensitive location, the knowledge of infant groups most susceptible to dioxin damage and current concerns surrounding infant mortality downwind of incinerators all add to the need for special scrutiny of any potential increase in polluted material for burning. Waste created by Industry and Commerce is reducing faster than MSW and they have a stated mission of zero waste which points to highly polluted material being streamed to incineration.
You raise a need to be pragmatic , it is a serious lack of pragmatism that sadly results in situations like this , the waste reality totally conflicts with the picture painted by the decision makers and sadly appears to create serious negative consequences for the County. Please take a pragmatic look at the incinerator decision and make a full impact comparison against the superior processes embraced by other Authorities. Would welcome any data that supports the incinerator decision and show it to be in the best interest of the County. Can only repeat "why deliberately degrade air quality and spend large amounts of ratepayer cash when aware there are far superior solutions?" Rgds Brian Wilson”

“Looks like we should bury it in landfill then Ranza!!!! That is the best solution from what you are saying...

Maybe, just maybe waste from commercial and industrial processes end up paying a slightly higher price to go into the new EfW and then there are benefits to the Council?

Considering there is at least 250ktpa of Commercial and Industrial Waste generated in Lincolnshire County i think 30ktpa change to the planning permission is a really shrude move by the Council. Bravo, they really know about risk management and value for money.

I am sure you will be happy if that forward thinking helps to reduce an increase in council tax.

I suppose it is all irrelevent as the plant is being built and there is far more waste being generated in the County to feed the new fancy looking plant in North Hykeham.

Having smelt the odour fro mthe adjacent landfill, it can only be for the better!

Lets consider the pickle that other councils are going through at the moment with funding for all sorts of projects to reduce waste going to landfill. From where i am sitting i think that the foresite and approach by Lincolnshire County Coucil is a good one that other councils should follow.

I think you should take a more pragmatic approach as if you lived in any other county you will most likely be worse off!”

“It is very disturbing that at a claimed £5m /yr saving against landfill cost the incinerator will now apparently fail to cover the capital cost over the 25yr contract period, if ever when on costs, loan interest, insurance etc are embraced. The original claim was that the savings would recoup cost over a very short period. There is a report today that NYCC is to pay £129 gate fee for each tonne of MSW processed in their local plant with commercial waste cost £60 which questions lack of information on Hykeham gate fee proposals and the true ratepayer cost impact.

With WRAP formed to reduce waste creation and the reality residual waste falling the need for the incinerator was seriously questioned before the time of the contract decision . DEFRA confirm waste creation has fallen by 88kg/pp/yr over a 4 yr period which added to the increased recycling points to a MSW feedstock shortfall at a very early stage into the contract. Authorities are already exceeding 60% recycling and composting with targets to exceed 70%, the incinerator schedule details 90% waste processing capability which only leaves a 20% difference. It becomes obvious the incinerator is vastly oversized and will need to divert material from superior streaming in order to fulfil contract obligations. Sheffield incinerator is already suffering a 65,000 t feedstock shortfall and poor recycling with the extended haulage requirement bringing additional environmental impact. The claim of only burning County waste at Hykeham needs serious scrutiny based on previous promises and the knowledge that commerce and industry have announced a zero waste policy with any food waste to be used in AD to provide a superior energy source.

Imperial College is currently carrying out a study into the long term health and environmental impact of incinerator emissions up to 15km downwind of the plants. Hykeham creates special concerns due to the location immediately upwind of a large conurbation with rising ground level downwind topped by hospital and cathedral. Those prepared to be assured by current emissions regulations should note the plant is scheduled to produce levels of the most hazardous pollutants 300 times higher than equivalent combustion systems per unit of power out with dangerous PM equating to millions of diesel vehicle km per day. The PM pollution has no safe level so health damage is guaranteed and sadly UK operators confirm emissions standards are lower than on Continental incinerators.

The project to dispose of the hazardous waste into concrete coffins at Whisby landfill causes concern especially when the proposal includes hauling in hazardous waste from other sites. It further demonstrates the lack of joined up thinking when other facilities employ gas plasma technology to totally neutralise the hazardous waste on site.

Unfortunately the data published to date indicates that this very expensive EfW project is fundamentally flawed and millions of cubic metres per day of air pollution will be created, a hazard that could have been avoided with the application of due diligence and duty of care. The decision makers were made aware of the facts at the time so it is not a question of hindsight. Rgds Brian Wilson”

“Oinkment - Have you done the Maths on your statement?

If the plant did bring 150,000 tonnes per annum of non-Lincolnshire waste*, that would only be around 3 vehicles per day accessing the site based on 18 tonnes per trailer and 312 x 8 hour working days.

I would suspect that on a busy day there are far more than 26 HGVs along the bypass every hour so the extra wouldn't make a great deal of difference would it.

* your figure goes against what the Council say and is presumably a wild guess.”

“I take the point the previous posters have made about regulation (please don't mention Bhopal) but I'm concerned that having changed their minds once, the County Council may do so again and permit waste from far and wide to be channeled down the county's narrow roads and further tax the inadequate infrastructure.
The bypass is a farce at the moment - what will it be like with 150,000 tonnes of other peoples **** waiting on it?”

“I think you'll find that the level of pollutants from the chimneys will be regulated and monitored, and as Bill says, if we don't burn it it'll only end up in the ground where you have no control over what's happening, and eventually you'll run out of places to bury it. At least this way you get useful energy from it.”

“Not really seeing the problem here.
Either the waste gets dumped in a hole in the ground or it gets burned. The same number of trucks are going to be used whichever way. If you bury waste it will slowly release all sorts of chemicals into the soil and the water table and to an extent, the air. There will be no control over this process.
If you burn the waste, there will be emissions into the air but a measure of control can be had over such emissions. There are less opportunities for uncontrolled chemicals to enter the soil or water.
One method produces a hole full of slowly decaying rubbish. The other produces a smaller amount of ash and electrical energy.”

“Victor, the road system around the county is poor and the by-pass will be struggling to keep up with existing traffic, despite the recent improvements. The emisions created will end up in our soil, our air and our water to God knows what effect.

Would you be happy if the plant operators increased the volume of muck in the air and trucks on the road with absolutely no accountability?”

“If it's more efficient and more economical to burn waste from outside the county, and prevents it all going to landfill, where's the problem ?”