Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

THREAT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR SHEK KWU CHAU SUPER-INCINERATOR

Dec 30th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

30 DECEMBER 2011 : Formal notice was today issued that the Government will face a judicial review of its proposal to build a mass-burn super-incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau island if endorsed by the Advisory Council on Environment (ACE) at its committee meeting today without further and fuller investigation of issues raised by objectors to the project.

The notice, sent today by email to Secretary for Environment Edward Yau and ACE chairman Professor Lam Kwan-Sing, and copied to the Chief Executive office, references correspondence sent by objectors to the Environment Protection Bureau and ACE over the last month identifying substantive and procedural defects in the decision making process to date and then states:

‘The EPD response and/or lack thereof [to the objector correspondence to date] is unsatisfactory and under all the circumstances manifestly unreasonable.’

The notice continues:

‘Please therefore treat this email as formal notice that if ACE issues an endorsement of EPD’s proposal as it now stands without further and fuller investigation of the alternative technologies and locations described in the objector correspondence, I and other like-minded persons intend to apply for judicial review of that decision and of any consequential final decisions of Government in relation to this project.

Such application must be initiated within 3 months of the relevant decision(s) and will in this instance be accompanied by consequential applications for suspension of the project pending the outcome of the judicial review, together with any other remedies or reliefs.’

The notice was authored by retired Hong Kong solicitor Tom Hope, whose ‘High Tide’ restaurant on Cheung Sha beach will be directly impacted by the proposed project.

Elaborating on what appears in the notice, Mr Hope said: ‘Substantive defects in the Government proposal include its declaration to ACE that the technology proposed for the super incinerator is the ‘best available’ when it is clear from the objector correspondence that this is not so.  There are also procedural defects such as the failure to consult the Hong Kong public on a sufficiently broad and informed basis.’

Mr Hope added:  ‘When I practised in Hong Kong as a partner in the international law firm Linklaters, I oversaw judicial review of HK Government decision-making which went to a court trial  lasting several weeks.  In the present circumstances, I have every reason to be confident of success should it prove necessary to maintain an action for judicial review.’

For press enquiries,  contact Tom Hope on 65710962 or by email tom.hope@notsoloud.net.

To EPD c/o Edward Yau, Anissa Wong and Elvis Au

To Aecom c/o Echo Leong

To all ACE members c/o chairman + secretariat

cc. HK Chief Executive office

EPD PROPOSAL FOR MASS BURN INCINERATOR IWMF AT SHEK KWU CHAU

I write with reference to the coming meeting of ACE on 30 December (today) at which I understand EPD’s proposal for the referenced project will be reviewed by ACE who will then be asked by EPD to issue a formal endorsement.

I also make reference to correspondence from myself and others objecting to this proposal filed with EPD, Aecom and ACE arising out of  EPD’s presentation on 5 December to ACE’s sub-committee (‘the objector correspondence’) pointing out substantive and procedural defects in the decision making process to date.

The EPD response and/or lack thereof is unsatisfactory and under all the circumstances manifestly unreasonable.

Please therefore treat this email as formal notice that if ACE issues an endorsement of EPD’s proposal as it now stands without further and fuller investigation of the alternative technologies and locations described in the objector correspondence, I and other like-minded persons intend to apply for judicial review of that decision and of any consequential final decisions of Government in relation to this project.

Such application must be initiated within 3 months of the relevant decision(s) and will in this instance be accompanied by consequential applications for suspension of the project pending the outcome of the judicial review, together with any other remedies or reliefs.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Hope

Download PDF : 111230_ACE_EPD_Hope_Incinerator Press Release

Inquiry is ordered into incinerators and health hazards they may pose

Dec 30th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2011/06/inquiry-is-ordered-into-incinerators-and-health-hazards-they-may-pose/

.

Inquiry is ordered into incinerators and health hazards they may pose

by Mark Metcalf, Tribune Magazine

June 8th, 2011

A team from Imperial College, London, has been commissioned to carry out the inquiry by the Health Protection Agency after fears were raised about the health risks of incinerators, particularly for young children.

Dozens of incinerators have been built around the country as Britain struggles to cope with its mounting refuse problems. But campaigners have become concerned that the price is being paid with poor health among babies and infants in the localities where such amenities are sited.

One such activist is Michael Ryan, who lives in Shrewsbury, and who lost his only daughter at 14 weeks – and then suffered further personal tragedies when his teenage son and his mother both died, too. All lived downwind of an incinerator.

Mr Ryan began a painstaking piece of research into the subject of health – and deaths – of people living in close proximity to incinerators. The results from London are startling. In 12 of the capital’s 625 wards, there were no infant deaths between 2002 and 2008. But Southwark, which has two incinerators close by, had the highest rate with 7.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in that period.

Critics say it’s not microscopic particles from incinerators that kill babies and young children, but poverty. And while it is true that some people living close to incinerators are at the lower end of the social scale, Mr Ryan’s research reveals that death rates in more affluent middle class areas are higher if there is an incinerator nearby.

Affluent Chingford Green ward in Waltham Forest has the second highest average number of child deaths in London. It happens to be close to Britain’s largest incinerator.

“If it’s all about poverty, then how come the levels of infant mortality in countryside areas, where wages have always been below average, aren’t high?” asks Mr Ryan.

Now, to cries of “at last” from Mr Ryan, HPA head Justin McCracken has said that following discussions with Professor Paul Elliott, head of the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College, it has been “concluded that an epidemiological study of birth outcomes around municipal waste incinerators would produce reliable results. Work is now progressing in developing a detailed proposal for what will be a complex study.”

In 2004, a study in Japan found a “peak decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined”.

Evaluation of municipal waste incinerator fly ash toxicity and the role of cadmium by two aquatic toxicity tests

Dec 28th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

So, should Hong Kong move to old technology incineration bonfires ?

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evaluation-municipal-waste-incinerator-fly-ash-toxicity-role-cadmium-two-aquatic-toxicity-tests/

Abstract

Fly ash from a municipal solid waste incinerator in Japan is regulated under the hazardous waste regulation “Waste under Special Control” according to the Amendment of the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Law, because it contains high concentrations of heavy metals which are available for leaching. To evaluate the toxicity of fly ash, a fly ash leachate was prepared according to the Japanese standard leaching procedure. The chemical analysis of the leachate showed that possibly one of the most toxic substances was cadmium. The toxicity of the leachate and the cadmium was determined by algal assay and a Daphnia acute toxicity test. The results showed that the leachate was about seven times more toxic to the growth of algae and 20 to 30 times more toxic to the survival of Daphnia than expected from its cadmium concentration. The toxicity interaction between cadmium and the other constituents in the leachate was also examined. The toxicity of cadmium showed an additive effect with the other constituents in the leachate in algal assay. In the Daphnia test, however, cadmium showed an antagonistic effect

Author-supplied keywords

Incinerator will add to pollution 21/12/2011

Dec 21st, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

South China Morning Post – 21 Dec. 2011

As visitors from Australia to Hong Kong, staying on lovely Cheung Chau island, we were dismayed to hear of the proposed Shek Kwu Chau mega-incinerator on reclaimed land among these beautiful and popular islands.

This is a highly inappropriate place for an incinerator.

It would be an ugly fit amongst these lovely islands, and it would greatly add to the notorious air pollution in the city.

This is our third visit to Hong Kong, which we like very much, but we sometimes suffer from asthma here due to the air pollution.

We are concerned that the proposed incinerator will accentuate respiratory problems for residents and tourists, and make the city a less appealing destination.

Hong Kong is forward looking in many ways.

Therefore, we find it surprising that sustainable ways of dealing with waste do not have precedence over an old-fashioned, expensive and polluting incinerator.

Many countries have adopted the three principles of reducing, reusing and recycling materials, such as paper, metals, plastic, timber, used cooking oil and lubricants, and also composting food and green waste and capturing methane for fuel.

This is a modern, advanced society that should be adopting sustainable ways of dealing with waste.

Nina and Brian Earl, Melbourne, Australia

The UK Government comments on Incinerators (energy from waste plants)

Dec 17th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

(in Hong Kong 13 million cubic meters of methane are flared off each year from chimney stacks at our landfills)

24. Are there health risks from energy from waste plants?

Energy from waste (EfW) plants are frequently perceived by some of the public to be a particular risk

to human health. However, despite many detailed studies into the health of communities living near to

EfW plants, none have been able to demonstrate a conclusive link between incinerator emissions and

public health impacts. Modern EfW plants must meet tight emissions standards so they make a very

small contribution to the background levels of air pollution.

25. What were the findings of the Defra review into the health effects of waste management?

The most recent independent review of evidence on the health effects of management and disposal of

household and similar waste was published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural

Affairs (Defra) in 2004. The “Review of the Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management:

Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes” considered 23 high quality studies of the patterns of

disease around energy from waste (EfW) plants and also four review papers looking at the health

effects of EfW plants. 

The report considered cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects and found no evidence for a link

between the incidence of the disease and the current generation of EfW plants.

27. How can you be sure modern energy from waste (EfW) plants are much safer?

There have been substantial cuts in emissions from incinerators since 1996. All EfW plants are new o

have been significantly modified to meet the much tighter emission standards under the European

Waste Incineration Directive.

The contribution to pollution from EfW plants is very small compared to other sources, such as traffic

road development and other industrial sites.

33. Is it true that a study established a definite link between cancer and living near an energy

from waste plant?

This is not true. Even the most careful and detailed high quality research studies have failed to

demonstrate elevated risks of cancer associated with the emissions from energy from waste (EfW)

plants.  Work by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College, London

University, which examined cancer incidence of over 14 million people living near to 72 municipal solid

waste incinerators in Great Britain (from 1974-1986 (England), 1974-1984 (Wales), and 1975-1987

(Scotland) failed to find any convincing evidence of an increase in cancer rates due to the incinerators.

This is despite the fact that emissions of dioxins from the older generation of incinerators are around

ten to one hundred times greater than those from modern EfW plants.

The UK Government’s expert advisory Committee on Carcinogenicity reviewed the results of this

further investigation and concluded that any potential risk of cancer due to living near to EfW plants for

more than ten years was exceedingly low.

Impact on the environment

35. Don’t energy from waste plants produce more carbon emissions than coal fired power

stations?

No.  Coal-fired power stations produce many more time more carbon dioxide than incinerators.  Whilst

a coal-fired power will generate energy more efficiently than an incinerator generating electricity only

(i.e. no CHP) these stations are much larger than incinerators and use more carbon rich fuels.

36. Do energy from waste plants contribute more to global warming than landfilling waste?

No. Energy from waste plants do produce carbon dioxide gas as a result of burning waste. However,

the energy they produce replaces that generated by other fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas that

would otherwise be burnt at power stations to generate electricity. Landfilling waste generates both

methane and carbon dioxide gases. Methane has a global warming potential of more than twenty

times that of carbon dioxide.

Environment Agency publications

What’s in my backyard?

Position statement on waste incineration in waste management strategies

Booklet on municipal waste incineration

Regional Strategic Waste Management Assessments

Technical guidance on waste incineration

Enforcement and Prosecution Policy

All of the above can be obtained via our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Download information pack Q&A : Information_Pack_-_QA_(2) (1)

Plasma Gasification Deal Approved in Ottawa

Dec 13th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-display/7149388665/articles/waste-management-world/waste-to-energy/2011/12/Plasma_Gasification_Deal_Approved_in_Ottawa_.html

13 December 2011
plasco 300 TPD Plasma Gasification Backed by Ottawa Mayor
A 20 year deal between waste to energy gasification specialist, Plasco Energy Group and the City of Ottawa to dispose of up to 300 tonnes of the city’s waste each day has received the full backing of Mayor Jim Watson, according to a report in The Ottawa Citizen.

Under the terms of the yet to be finalised contract, a “framework” has been released that would see the city would pay $9.1 million a year to Plasco, if it takes those 300 tonnes a day – 109,500 tonnes a year, or roughly a third of Ottawa’s household waste.

“The agreement, in my opinion, is a good deal for taxpayers and it’s also a good deal for the environment and I’m going to support it,” Watson is reported to have said. “Digging a hole and putting garbage in it in the 21st century just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

The company is currently making efforts to commercialise its plasma gasification, which instead of using plasma torches directly on the waste uses them only to refine the gases released from the gasification of the waste.

Because of the city’s early support for the Plasco, it reportedly stands to receive payments if the company builds commercial plants elsewhere.

The 20 year contract is reported to have options to be extended to 40 years. Depending on how successful the company is a 40 year deal would cost the city between $400,000 and $950,000 a year more than the status quo of dumping most of its household waste in the Trail Road landfill.

However, the report said that that does not account for the eventual cost of finding a new landfill site is full. The city puts that cost at $250 million and Toronto recently paid $220 million to buy a private landfill for its own use.

Ottawa’s city government is said to estimates that under existing conditions, the Trail Road landfill would have to close in 2042, but the 300 tonne per day deal with Plasco would extend that to 2070.

Critics

According to CBC television News – which the covered the full day of questions by city councillors, the ministry, interested groups and citizens as the deal was recently passed by a margin of seven to one – critics of the deal have said the city should not pin its hopes on an unproven technology.

Some have questioned the potential impact that the facility could have on the city’s recycling rate. while Rod Muir of the Sierra Club of Canada is reported to have said he’s crunched the data from Plasco’s trial runs and has concerns.

Muir was at Ottawa City Hall to address councillors on the environment committee where he expressed his doubts about Plasco converting, what he calls, “spotty” test results into a reliable commercial operation.

“It has never worked successfully on mixed municipal solid waste,” Muir is reported to have. “It hasn’t here either…It has never worked anywhere.”

However, aware that Plasco’s process has never been deployed at a full scale permanent facility that runs to a steady schedule, Watson is reported to have said that he’s satisfied that the contract contains enough protections for Ottawa if Plasco can’t do what it promises.

“At the end of the day, if the process doesn’t work, that’s Mr. Bryden (CEO of Plasco) and Plasco’s problem, it’s not the taxpayers’ problem,” added Watson.

READ MORE :

http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-display/7881644033/articles/waste-management-world/waste-to-energy/2011/11/Waste_Fuelled_Plasma_Gasification_at_Four_UK_Ports.html

http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/from-the-wires/wire-news-display/1560546873.html

Costly bonfire plan lays waste to wealth of viable alternatives to burning problem

Dec 7th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

South China Morning Post – Dec. 7, 2011

After several years of considering how to deal with Hong Kong’s domestic waste, the government has come up with a plan to spend billions of dollars to set fire to it. Despite abundant counterarguments and various alternatives, the government seems determined to continue with the plan. But why?

Why spend perhaps HK$17 billion or more on first one and then a second mega-incinerator, in the process damaging a fishery, severely affecting endangered species and creating a monstrosity by Shek Kwu Chau – in an area the government had earmarked for conservation and leisure tourism, only to build expensive bonfires that will spew toxic emissions and leave poison ash, but will do little to solve our pressing waste problems?

The Environmental Protection Department is spearheading the environmentally destructive plans, and citing Singapore as an example of a place using incinerators. Yet it fails to mention this will not be a long-term solution for Singapore, and incineration is falling out of favour in places such as Britain, where there is a trend towards anaerobic digestion of organic waste, which can produce compost and energy. The advantages of the process include no toxic emissions, so digesters need not be far-flung.

Toronto is striving to avoid waste incineration. After having success with anaerobic digestion – in which bacteria disintegrate waste in an oxygen-free environment – the city is now building an additional facility. Should Hong Kong build enough of these plants to treat all our food waste, the cost would be around HK$7.4 billion – so around HK$10 billion less than the government’s big bonfire plan.

What to do with the “remaining” money? It could be used for wholehearted efforts to promote less waste, and more recycling with far more vigour than the wishy-washy attempts to date. Perhaps burning of some form could still be useful, but this could be tackled by Green Island Cement’s proposed eco- co-combustion system, or maybe plasma waste conversion.

With other alternatives, including turning domestic waste into jet fuel – which British Airways and Qantas are supporting – Hongkongers should again ask: why is the government so dead-set on the bonfires plan? In the absence of convincing answers, there might be suspicions that the mega-incinerator proposal is at least partly another way of creating jobs for the boys in the construction industry. It’s certainly not the best way to tackle Hong Kong’s waste.

Martin Williams, director, Hong Kong Outdoors

Incinerator project gets green light a second time

Dec 6th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

South China Morning Post – Dec. 6, 2011

A controversial plan to build a rubbish incinerator off Lantau Island was approved for a second time when government advisers cleared its environmental impact report.

The scheme was originally approved in April, but it was sidelined by the delay to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge project.

Yesterday the report underwent fresh scrutiny by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Environment. Despite strong opposition from residents of nearby Cheung Chau and Lantau, the subcommittee endorsed the report in a two-hour meeting, upholding its support for the same report earlier this year.

Under the plan proposed by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), 16 hectares of sea will be reclaimed for the incinerator just south of Lantau near Shek Kwu Chau. It will be able to incinerate 3,000 tonnes of rubbish and will have a small mechanical sorting facility.

The reclamation will lead to a loss of 31 hectares of marine habitat, but the government says it will create a 700-hectare marine park between Shek Kwu Chau and the Soko Islands.

Subcommittee member Edwin Lau Che-feng said he opposed the environmental impact report as it did not fully consider the alternatives. “I wonder if the EPD has tried its best to avoid such impacts, especially on the marine environment,” he said.

A site in Tuen Mun was also considered in the report. Some critics say it is an obvious choice, and the government said it would be acceptable if a second facility is needed.

“I hope this will be the first but also the last incinerator we have,” said Lau, who is also director of Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong). He said the only change to the report since April is a vow to use more construction waste for reclamation. The government will seek funding for the project from the legislature next year.

chifai.cheung@scmp.com

Waste-To-Energy, A Tale of Two Nations

Nov 25th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.energyboom.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/ebCenter/wastetoenergy.jpg

Nov. 25, 2011

http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/waste-energy-tale-two-nations

On the face of it, Americans seem to love trash. Canadians, not so much, as the story of Plasco Energy Group highlights. The company is capitalizing on that apparently national desire to put trash in its place; in Canada’s case, diverting its municipal solid waste, or MSW, to waste-to-energy streams.

Plasco Energy is a “clean” technology company that converts post-recycled MSW from trash into treasure – the kind you can use to power a lightbulb or an all-electric radiant floor home heating system.

The system is called plasma gasification, which converts waste to a rough form of synthetic gas, or syngas. This is then transfered to a plasma arc chamber where the unrefined syngas is again heated, sometimes to temperatures as high as 25,000 degrees. Inert wastes (sand, gravel, dirt, etc.) are reduced to inert vitrified glass, and the technology also permits waste heat recovery for a truly “green” profile.

The conversion process can tackle any type of waste, from paper to plastic, at volumes of about 20 tons per hour per plasma reactor. The process is cleaner than incineration or other types of gasification, producing fewer emissions, with not even water vapor left on completion. This is in direct opposition to older MSW waste incineration facilities, which released both airborne toxic pollutants and aresidue of ash, often contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins that have to be disposed of in regulated landfills.

For Plasco Energy, the real treasure is Ontario, where – in the wake of the Kyoto Protocol – the provincial government pledged to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 by establishing the Waste Diversion Act (2002) and implementing it via a fund.

Under provisions of the act, Plasco got a preferable pricing guarantee for the power it produced, and thus incentivized upgraded the Ottawa demo plant from 75 metric tons per day to 135 metric tons – a volume capable of supplying 4.2 megawatts of electricity to the Ontario grid.

Next, Plasco says, it plans to open a 300-metric-ton-per-day plant at an Ottowa landfill, which could come online at the end of 2013, providing provisions of the Waste Diversion Act aren’t altered or abandoned in Ontario’s increasingly divisive stand on “green” energy technologies.

It is this divisiveness that most recently brought out about 100 residents to question Alter NRG Energy’s (OTCBB: ANRGF) use of Westinghouse Plasma technology to build a plant at Dufferin County’s Eco Energy Park (DEEP). Still, how much real dissent did the meeting represent when one considers that the total population of Dufferin County is over 52,000?

But at least in Canada they are still talking. In the United States, efforts to clean up unsightly waste in an environmentally responsible fashion failed again when Boston-based gasification firm Ze-gen Inc. dropped its multimillion dollar plan for a plant in Attleboro as a result of local community group (Attleboro Residents with Important Safety Concerns, or @RISK) opposition. The plant was slated for completion at the end of this year.

The picture is largely the same across America, with citizens generating 249.9 million tons of trash per year – according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the equivalent of 720 pounds per person, as compared to an average of 491.8 in the rest of the world) yet refusing to have a gasification plant in their neighborhood/municipality/ciy.

Where does this NIMBYism come from? For one thing, Americans have lots of landfills, remarkably effective trash compaction systems,low electricity prices (for now) and an aversion to MSW incinerators thanks to formerly highly polluting technology.

Then, too, notes Dr. Lou Circeo, a former Georgia Institute of Technology Research Institute researcher and now chief scientist at Applied Plasma Arc Technologies LLC (a private Atlanta consulting firm with close ties to the Georgia Tech), the problem may lie with the U.S. Department of Energy, which annually releases a study on new developments in MSW and the energy sector, but has yet to use the word “plasma” in their documents. Even though, Circeo adds, the U.S. has been vested in plasma gasifications technology for 40 years.

Companies ‘should be held responsible’ for environmental harm

Jul 14th, 2011
by Editor.
No comments yet

by The Parliament, Martin Banks
July 14th, 2011

The commission has been urged to hold companies operating in the EU legally accountable for any “harm” they cause to people and the environment around the world.

Burn plant campaigners will battle on
by Hector Mackenzie, Ross-shire Journal
September 2nd, 2011

A COMMUNITY group which sprung up out of opposition to proposals for a £43million waste-to-energy incineration plant has used its first anniversary to pledge it’s in it for the long run.

Veolia accused of running scared by Hatfield anti-incinerator campaigners
http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/veolia_accused_of_running_scared_by_hatfield_anti_incinerator_campaigners_1_1006707
August 29th, 2011

ANTI-INCINERATOR campaigners have accused Veolia Environmental Services of “running scared” from the public’s questions about its plans to build an incinerator in Hatfield.

Incinerator: Union adds cash to fighting fund
Lynn News
August 22nd, 2011

Union leaders have given their support to the fighting fund to challenge the incinerator plans in the courts.

£800m North Wales Residual Waste Treatment talks start
BBC News North East Whales
August 5th, 2011

Public consultation is starting over plans to process non-recyclable waste in north Wales, possibly building an incineration plant.

Incinerator latest: Peter Barrett fires more volleys at Grundon
by Alison Anderson, Perthshire Advertiser
August 5th, 2011

PERTH councillor Peter Barrett yesterday expressed his amazement that applicants for a highly controversial waste plant in Perth have added to their plans.

Plan to burn hazardous waste in Duleek
by Ann Casey, The Meath Chronicle
July 28th, 2011

Controversial proposals to burn light hazardous waste at the Carranstown incinerator near Duleek – and increase tonnage and operating times at the new plant – is likely to cause huge concern in the local community.

Labour gains in council elections could scupper controversial incinerator plans
by Martin Shipton, Whales Online
July 27th, 2011

A controversial plan to build an incinerator to burn most of South Wales’ municipal waste could be in jeopardy if Labour makes gains in next year’s local government elections, it has emerged.

Borough council says NO to incinerator
Lynn News
July 25th, 2011

County council officials were accused of deceiving the public over the Lynn incinerator scheme as borough councillors rejected the plans yesterday.

Not enough rubbish to go around
by Jennifer Buley, The Copenhagen Post
July 21st, 2011

Councils scramble for foreign rubbish to fuel nation’s waste-to-energy incinerators

£140m plan for household waste incinerator in Leicestershire is scrapped
ThisisLeicestershire
July 20th, 2011

Plans to build a £140 million rubbish treatment plant are to be scrapped because they are too expensive.

Hatfield incinerator protest starts as exhibition begins
by Ross Logan, Times24
June 8th, 2011

A TWO-DAY protest will start later today (Wednesday) in Hatfield, to coincide with an exhibition on the New Barnfield incinerator.

Pickles rejects Sherwood Forest incinerator
UK Without Incineration Network
May 29th, 2011

Following a public inquiry, the Secretary of State Eric Pickles has refused planning permission for Veolia’s proposed 180,000 tonne waste incinerator inRainworth, Nottinghamshire.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →