DOVE

Martine Davis Letter to Environment Agency

Below is a letter written by Janice Alderson to the Environment Agency. It is comprehensive and makes a number of good points.

Dear Ms Winchester

Thank you for your letter and mission statement of 23rd January 06. I do not feel that incineration has a 'role to play' because:
It is not energy recovery - it destroys energy, as the waste is a resource, which has been paid for, and instead of preserving the dwindling resources of the earth, it intends to burn them - producing a minimal amount of energy and tonnes of carbon dioxide; the main contributor to global warming. It is counter to recycling and becomes the great 'landfill in the sky', producing 30% toxic ash waste which will need to be got rid of.

The upshot of your tough old regime is that waste is moved away from holes in the ground into incineration, this is a poor environmental result from the point of view of greenhouse gas emissions. (Landfill Debate - alan-whitehead.org.uk 29.09.05)

WLP 1 proposes that 33% of household waste and 50% municipal waste is to be recycled by 2010. It aims to increase these targets by 40% and 67% by 2015 - these targets are minimal and are exceeded in other areas. The inhabitants of East Sussex are keen to recycle more. It is likely that national local recyling targets will exceed the 2000,000 tonnes of waste (over the proposed 25year Onyx contracted period) the proposed incinerator will burn - this being 50% of household waste.

The detrimental effect on human health an incinerator can have (J Marley in Paris, 'Cancer village fights for justice over incinerator', Guardian 17May 2005.) is a very worrying issue for the people of Newhaven and surrounding towns and villages, and may generate future litigation. You say if the permit is issued to Onyx (and I believe you may mistakenly think it is in your interests to do so, perhaps for fiscal reasons) it will contain (I quote from your letter) 'conditions designed to prevent harm to human health and/or pollution to the environment, by control and monitoring'. However, the directive requires daily monitoring of solids and heavy metals for the first year, but the deadly dioxins and furons only have to be measured initially every three months, and thereafter only twice per year. How stringent is that? How effecitively will the filters be maintained? and what happenes when they are removed for servicing, or indeed removed in order to burn quicker - when perhaps no one is looking? You say that 'operators are required to inform the Agency if any of the emission limits set in the pollution control permit are exceeded, or if they fail to comply with any of the operationg conditions'. Do you really think they will? Do they like to be fined? Also are the workers scientists? Based on Knowledge from other incinerators in the country - it is likely that The Environmental Agency may only check the site once per year, after prior warning of the visit. (Denyer A, Seaford and Newhaven X-Tra, Jan 2006 p3)

From my own experience; I recently met a gentleman, whilst bank nursing, who serviced an incinerator in Stockton-on-Tees, he told me that the incinerator there was an 'environmental disaster' he reiterated to me that when the chimneys needed a cleanout the chemicals used 'leaked out all over the place' because the workers could not close the doors of the incinerator.

It is a coincidence you mention the lovely Cuckmere Valley, as i am particularly concerned as to the impact of pollution over the long 25year period on this nearby area, and also of course the adjacent precious Southdown area of which Newhaven abounds. I am also concerned of the proximity of this proposed incinerator to the town and nearby schools, especially as it would be built in a low lying area. I am also worried about the impact of noise which, as even living high 'on the mount' (the adjacent hill) we can hear existing businesses from 5am in the morning. How are we to get any peace if the proposed 24hour 7 days per week collection of waste is to be burned and placed in this incinerator, what will the noise impact be? A great concern is also the impact (of which Onyx advertises as if proud) of the 250 odd lorries and cars the buner will generate per day along the only main road of which traffic already unceasingly goes.

Surprisingly you open your mission statement with the words 'we live in a throw-away society'. We could all be working together to see how we can reduce waste and to recycle and compost the rest. Co-operation would be a lot more cost effective that confrontation, ill health and noise/pollution/traffic/risk. Companies must be encouraged (people would will help pay the cost, if given the option, even though we have previously paid for the product + package - just to be burned and then be made to ingest the fumes) to change their packaging to that of alternative risk free options and away from plastics; which pollute decades after the product in which they were packed was eaten/used. Links could be formed with Onyx who could use companies who do have the technology to recycle, new deals should be done, I believe there are companies who can recycle plastic, why are they not being used? My ink cartriges are refillable, the company who produces them gives me a discount when I return them - once this is repeated thoughout the business chain what other options are open to us which are not being utilised?

Even when Companies (eg Innocentdrinks.co.uk.) ask for their 'tetropacks' to be recycled East Sussex refuse yet to do so - as well as this, they are not collecting wood, batteries, textiles, cardboard, and green garden waste from the curbside. Where we used to live, (moved into this area August 2005) which was controlled by Bristol and North East Somerset the former was collected, as well as bottles, paper etc on a WEEKLY basis, if this was not done properly by the consumer - a note would be left in the bin the following week!

Where is the political will to impliment change? Onyx and ESCC have refused to listen to the people who ask for more recycling and composting, 39% is NOT ENOUGH. The Onyx literature refers to 'tough government targets' for recycling, and hopes to achieve 'the same levels as the best recyclers in Europe'! Note that the 'best four' countries they quote recycle no more than 25%. (Onyx, 2005).

Yet, a recycling rate of 70% for glass, card, paper, plastic, cans etc is being achieved in some places. This would mean that 280,000 tonnes of waste we produce need NOT BE BURNED. ESCC don't give us the option. Landfill and incineration are not sustainable waste management options. The consumer pays for what resources are disposed of in these despicable ways. Incineration is an old technology. It has an uncertain safety record. You say you are scrutinising the Onyx application, in particular the impact of contaminated land, flood risk and impact on controlled waters, and water quality and migratory fish; please think about the above - this does not have to happen.

For more information please contact www.dove2000.org If this letter to you lacks 'polish' remember I am not at work - I work full-time for ESCC as a nurse and this is done in my own time.

Janice Alderson, 10 Kings Avenue, Mount Pleasant, Newhaven East Sussex BN9 0NA

ps this is one of the most beautiful places in Britain - being coastal and Downland rich! it is also near Brighton - very near as the dioxin flies.