[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Toxic Briefing Volume 2 Number 8
Toxic Briefing Volume 2 Number 8 Published by Communities Against Toxics
On Wednesday September 20th 1995 residents of Ellesmere Port, Cheshire
had a sharp reminder of the danger of acting as hosts to the countries
largest toxic waste incinerator.
At 9.44 am the clear blue sky above the town turned to a deep
purple as the incinerator pumped out the chemical iodine into the
atmosphere. The expanding cloud rolled slowly over the residential area
and although the waste feed into the incinerator was reported to have
been stopped at the first sign of trouble, there was nothing the company
could do about the waste already in the kiln and the chemical continued
to be emitted in an ever growing cloud over the town until 10.00 am.
I was driving down the motorway at the time and saw the whole
incident. At first I couldn't believe what I was seeing, although given
the history of the plant I should have known better than to be
surprised. This visible failure of the technology of chemical waste
incineration really brought it home to the people of the town the
enormous amount of emissions that come from the stack and cover their
homes day in and day out.
A large portion of the town was covered by the cloud and
thousands of homes, people out walking, including young mothers with
their babies, even pets had been contaminated before the chemical
dispersed.
"It's frightening when you actually see how much of the town is
covered by fumes from the incinerator" said Debbie Taylor, a young
mother in the town, "most people only ever think of the emissions going
straight up and away but this cloud was dropping lower onto the houses
and streets all the time. God knows what chemicals the cloud contained
and what damage they have done to peoples health."
Driving to the local newspaper office I told the reporter on
duty and many of the staff went outside to witness the ever expanding
cloud stretching over the town. Unfortunately no photographer was
available to capture this damning indication of a failed technology.
"Gone are the days when you could put a baby outside in it's
pram," said Sandra Ewin as she held her four week old grandson Michael.
"It's getting so you don't know what's going into the air around here,
it's the children you worry about, their breathing it in."
Mrs Ewin had been out walking with her daughter Melinie when the
cloud came billowing out of the chimney stack. "It was just a big cloud
of purple/pink and lasted about ten minutes or so" said Mr Ewin.
Pauline Ters did not see the cloud but said she had "noticed a
distinctive smell at the time of the incident. I was putting my washing
out at the time. You get used to this sort of thing living around
here."
John Sherman who lives nearby said he didn't see the cloud but
he too noticed a "very obnoxious smell, I think people living around
here are worried. It wasn't a very healthy smell."
Ken Hill, the head of Ellesmere Port and Neston environmental
health department said: "We overlook the area here and we saw this
highly visible plume coming from Cleanaway. I believe it was not a
threat, but obviously we were concerned about it and there's no doubt
the residents are as well. They must have wondered what it was.
"A company statement said: "All materials awaiting burning are
being rechecked for iodine content before recommencement of operations.
Ground level concentrations of the emissions would not have had any
environmental and safety implications."
The Cleanaway incinerator, one of the acclaimed 'new generation' of
state of the art incinerators, was designed and built in collaboration
with a Swiss company, W & E of Zurich. It is capable of handling up to
60,000 tonne of the worlds most poisonous solid and liquid chemical
waste annually and has a checkered and colourful history.
While under construction in 1990 an anonymous complaint reported
that pipe work designed to carry toxic and hazardous waste was not being
x-rayed and tested to ensure that the welding was to the required
standard. This resulted in Cleanaway agreeing to having 25 % of the
welds radiographed initially and to review the situation in the light of
the results. In January 1991 they informed the Health & Safety
Executive that they intended to have all the welds radiographed because
several defective welds had been revealed. Because of the
inaccessibility of some of the welds, HSE suggested Cleanaway
commissioned the well known consultants firm of Cremer and Warner to
assess the risk which could result from the use of the pipe work prior
to the completion of remedial action and the report indicated no
significant risk.(1)
Questions were also asked about repairs having to be done to the
secondary combustion chamber during construction. (2)
After the test burn it was reported that the the incinerator was
having teething troubles with higher emissions of fine particulate's
than expected due to the electrostatic precipitator being unable to cope
and a back up system was to be added. (3) "The results of the test burn
are very worrying for the local community as it is well know that fine
particulate's are the most dangerous to human health as they enter the
deepest part of the lung and are easily absorbed into the blood
stream,"said a spokesman for Ellesmere Port Clean Air Committee
(E.P.C.A.C) at the time.
Shortly after coming on line in 1991 (July) two workers were taken to
hospital and were treated and detained overnight with breathing
difficulties after a drum of Xylene exploded in the drum feed air lock.
In Oct 1991 a contractor working without a work permit isolated
a precipitator and caused a build up of pressure within the kiln and the
secondary combustion chamber (SCC). Smoke and flames were seen shooting
into the air and there are conflicting reports as to whether or not the
emergency relief valve or "dump stack"* was brought into operation.
The incinerator was burning distillation residues and filter cakes and
organic and aqueous liquids at the time.
Eye witnesses saw men using oxygen masks and one witness, Mrs
June Knapton who is employed at Castrol UK directly opposite the
incinerator told a local reporter, "There was billowing black smoke. The
whole building was covered in it."
Three appliances and a foam tender attended the blaze. "We were
a little perplexed as to why it was staff from the Shell Stanlow complex
that called the fire brigand and not members of Cleanaways staff", said
an E.P.C.A.C. spokesman "but then again they must have had their hands
full."
The plant was restarted within an hour.
There have been numerous confirmed sighting's of coloured
chemical emissions from the incinerator chimney stack on the following
dates;
18.11.91. 1 event of smoke emission.
14.5.92. 2 events of yellow/brown emissions.
15.5.92. 1 event of yellow/brown emission.
18.5.92. 1 event of yellow/brown emission.
19.5.92. 2 events of orange/yellow (4)
There was also one unconfirmed sighting of a purple emission.
This list of incidents was only revealed to the public after the
chairman of the E.P.C.A.C reported one of the incidents on the 19.5.92.
A few days later a member of group inquired at the local Environmental
Health Dept if they had any more information on the "orange cloud
incident." "Which one?" she was asked, "Why, how many has there been?"
she inquired. "Oh! seven" was the answer.
Various reasons were given for the incidents, a rogue drum
containing more bromine than anticipated being put into the kiln,
overloading the scrubbing system as a result of burning drums which
contained more waste than had been anticipated, a burst on the main
water supply generating cooling problems. A breakdown of the
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). "In the circumstances the sampling
procedures proved to be inadequate, and a new sampling regime designed
to prevent a reocurrance, will be used for the future." said Mr D A
Reynolds of HMIP(5)
"That's not an incinerator" said one of the members of E.P.C.A.C
after being told of the full range of the incidents, "It's a bloody
rainbow making machine."
In October 1992 Cleanaway applied for planning permission to
replace the ESP with bag filters as "a more reliable and effective
method of reducing the level of particulate emissions" stating "tests
have been carried out with a trial plan and a similar system is used in
incinerators in Europe." (6) Cleanaways spokesman Alan Tringham stressed
"there is nothing wrong with our present system but this one is better."
"Does this mean that since May 91 at least, this facility has
been pumping cancer causing particulate's over the town?" asked Ralph
Ryder (7)
November 1992. Saw the dump stack being used when a fault
occurred with a draught fan causing a pressure build up within the kiln.
Black smoke was pouring out of the base of the kiln where the molten
ash/metals fall through into the water beneath it and even one of the
local fire fighters expressed his fear when responding to the alarm
"knowing what stuff they handle."
June 1993. A sub contractor caused a fire on the site when
burning into a tank ignited the fibre class coating of the vessel and
some polypropylene pipes. Bright flames were seen leaping 30 ft into
the air and clouds of thick black acrid smoke "blotted out the sky"
covering over a mile of the dockside area. Two appliances attended the
fire along with a foam tender and a hydraulic platform. Firefighters in
breathing apparatus brought the fire under control in 40 minutes.
October 1993. saw the facility closed down for six weeks while
new scrubbers were fitted (in an attempt to control the problems caused
by the chemical bromine)?
There were two unconfirmed reports of releases of amber clouds
in February 1995.
The incinerator and the waste it handles has been of great concern to
the community who protested fiercely against the building of the
facility. The plant was the scene of a mass community protest when it
was revealed by the E.P.C.A.C. that Cleanaways sister company had been
granted a license to export 1,100 tonnes of PCBs and pesticides from
Australia to Europe for incineration. A Cleanaways spokesman said "We
were never approached about this waste".
Documents sent to the E.P.C.A.C. from activists in Australia revealed
the destination for the waste was the Ellesmere Port incinerator. (8)
"They even named the streets the waste would be transported along during
it's journey to the docks," said Ralph Ryder. "It's strange that
although Cleanaway maintain they were never approached about the waste,
the documents I received about the proposal stated that a senior officer
of the Australian Environmental Protection Authority carried out a site
inspection of the Ellesmere Port plant and discussed environmental
issues with relevant local government authorities and HMIP. When I
questioned Mr Doug Benjafield (Managing Director, Cleanaway) about this
he replied "we have visitors from overseas all the time."
A public meeting held in July 1992 saw Mr Benjafield continually
heckled by an audience of about 300 as he strongly refuted claims that
the incinerator was "suffering teething troubles."(9) and
"experimental." "All components had been used for a number of years in
many parts of the world" he told the audience.
Questioned about the Australian waste Mr Benjafield said "we
have never said we would not import waste."(10)
"It seems odd to me," said Andrew Miller MP for Ellesmere Port
and Neston "that the people of Western Australia are concerned about
PCBs being incinerated in their communities, yet in this country, which
covers a much smaller geographical area PCBs are often incinerated -
both in my constituency of Ellesmere Port Neston and elsewhere." (11)
There were protests after the release of the US Environmental
Protection Agencies (EPA) reassessment of dioxin (1994) when it was
revealed that Cleanaway were disposing of the 100s of tonnes of the
heavily dioxin contaminated waste from Coalite Chemicals (Derbyshire).
Mr Pullen of Cleanaway said " This waste is no different than any
other."
"Given the history of incidents at the plant and knowing the
toxicity of dioxin, we are very concerned that this waste is considered
by the operators as being no different than any other." said Ralph
Ryder.
*A dump stack is used when there is a malfunction causing a build up of
pressure in the kiln or secondary combustion chamber (SCC). In order to
avoid damaging the pollution devices and a potentially dangerous build
up of reactive gases which could poise an explosive threat, the
operators open the dump stack (3).
On the Ellesmere Port incinerator this is about 5ft x 4ft and is
situated at the top of the second combustion chamber. This is well
before before any of the pollution and monitoring devices which means of
course there is no way of knowing the quantity or the concentrations of
the unburnt chemical waste released into the environment whenever the
dump stack is used. "It is estimated that if a toxic waste incinerator
facility is burning solid waste it could take up to 30 minutes for the
waste already in the kiln to burn out before enabling the dump stack to
be closed." (12) During the period a dump stack is open significant
concentrations of chemicals and products of incomplete combustion (PICs)
would be released into the atmosphere.
References:
(1)Letter to Andrew Miller (MP) from P Sumption Area Director HMIP
29.5.92
(2) Personal communication P Sumption to P.A.Kincey 19 Nov 1992 HMIP
(3 ) ENDS May 1991.
(4) Letter Mrs L.Collins Env dept EPNBC. to R Carr E.P.C.A.C.
(5) Personal communication Mr D A Reynolds, HMIP to R.A.Ryder.
E.P.C.A.C.
(6) E.Port Standard 8.10.92
(7) E. Port Standard No 55
(8) Letter and papers from R Cartmel (Greenpeace, Australia) to R.A
Ryder E.P.C.A.C.
(9) ENDs May 1991
(10)E. Port Standard No42
(11) E.Port Standard. No 36
(12)ASME 1988).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luckily no-one was seriously injured in any of the emergencies reported
here.
This was due to luck and not professional judgement or
expertise. As was the case with the Preston emergency and previous
emergencies in Cefn Mawr and Ellesmere Port it is glaringly obvious the
authorities haven't a clue what to do with residents endangered by a
chemical cloud emergency. When you consider the amount of chemical
storage yards/plants, waste disposal facilities located in or near
densely populated residential areas this is unacceptable.
Learnt Nothing
We can go back to 1984 and the horror of Bhopal and find the
authorities have learn nothing about allowing the use and storage of
poisonous chemicals in urban area. I believe that the chemical
industries frightening record of emergencies over the last decade (which
of course has nothing to do with its cost cutting exercises and laying
off of experienced maintenance/process staff) coupled with the
governments cut backs in the emergency services, it will only be a
matter of time before there is a major disaster in which many lives are
lost.
Safety Standard
For years the government and the operators of incinerators have
been telling the public about the high safety standard within the
chemical and waste disposal industry. With all the incidents at the
incinerator at Ellesmere Port, the heavy PCB and dioxin contamination
and toxic eggs around the incinerator at Pontypool, the experiences of
Andrew Graham and the people of Bonnybridge, John Hanrahan, Liam Somers
and Justin Ryan in Ireland, one must begin to question the validity of
this statement.
How do facilities and processes, with so little known about
their effect on human health and the environment, get permission to
operate close to and in some cases actually in food producing areas or
densely populated town?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Councillors
Let us look at some of the people responsible for the distress
suffered by the communities of Ellesmere Port, Pontypool, Cefn Mawr,
Preston, Limerick etc. I will begin with what I call "Industrial
Councillors."
Industrial Councillors (ICs) are sometimes mistaken for local
councillors, but they soon reveal their true colours and the fact they
have the interest of industry closer to their hearts than those of the
community. This is usually easily spotted when some Tom, Dick or Harry,
with a "off the shelf company" comes along and applies to set up
operations in a town.
Limited Knowledge
Industrial councillors, knowing nothing more at all about the
chemical process involved at the plant other than what they have heard
during some presentation or conference organised by the TD&H company,
begin falling over themselves in their eagerness to help wherever they
can. In many towns they go as far as to offer the company 5 to 10 years
free rates to help them get started.
Research
If you were to ask a industrial councillor if they took the time
to research about the process, it's health effects, environmental impact
etc. they will no doubt say "no, but our consultants have done
extensive research and have found no adverse effects". Unfortunately
they forget to tell you that their consultants are the ones that TD&H's
mate used to get him fixed up with a place at the other end of the
country. They also forget to mention that the community there are having
all sorts of problems with the plant.
As far as the industrial councillor goes, the only literature
they have ever read are the glossy brochures the company have provided
telling them how wonderful and safe their technology/process is.
The ICs then goes ahead and allows the building of the plant.
They will do their utmost to discredit any member of the community who
has used their initiative and done some research about the similar plant
at the other end of the country and the fact the community is being
poisoned.
"You should listen to the experts not these people," the ICs will say.
"They are scaremongers and alarmist who have got all their facts wrong,"
or "they are members of a political group like the "Workers
Revolutionary Party" doing it for their own political gain."
In The Communities Interest
Just to make sure the scaremongers don't get too many people on
their side or get other people asking embarrassing questions that might
jeopardise the scheme, the ICs rushes the application through with the
speed of an express train, usually over the Christmas period or a bank
holiday which gives the public even less chance of objecting. They tell
the community it is in the best interests of all concerned, especially
the community, to get the things moving as quickly as possible.
Waste Of Time Objecting
How many times have you heard the ICs telling the community that
it would be "a waste of time them objecting to the planning application,
because he Secretary of State will pass it anyway?" As anti-toxic
campaigners we understand the laws are made to suit industry as much as
possible. If they are refused planning permission by the county council
they have a right to appeal to the Secretary of State. If they are
refused permission by the Secretary of State all is still not lost, they
can go for a judicial review. If they are given planning permission at
any stage of the process the community have no such right of appeal.
This is called DEMOCRACY.
Ignore It
Some ICs are so irresponsible and eager to help the
industrialist they even ignore claims of ill health being caused to
residents by a similar or same type of industrial process/facility.
Sometimes these facilities are already operating in the area of the
proposed new plant never mind hundreds of miles away. "We know there
have been problems with that one," they say, "but this one is better,
it's state of the art technology, it's the jewel in the crown of the
industry." They turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fact the plant
causing all the trouble is considered state of the art, high technology
as well.
It's The Jobs
Many ICs try to justify their decision for giving planning
permission by telling the community "it's bringing jobs to the area.
They overlook the fact that only 25 to 30 jobs will be created in a
facility that threatens the long term health of 50, 60, 80,000 people
and hundreds of thousands of unborn children over its lifespan of 25 to
30 years.
Very few ICs realise (or apparently care) that no clean
technology industry will come anywhere near the area once dirty, unsafe,
polluting industry is established. Consequently all the employment that
community will get from that day on is dirty, unsafe, polluting
industries.
Fortunately some genuine local councillors, concerned about the
doubts over chemicals, incinerators etc. are now listening to the
community activists, reading the information they have provided,
weighing up the dangers and are refusing planning permission.
Unfortunately self-enlightened local councillors are few and far between
and most communities have to work hard, form action groups, hold public
meetings and rallies, and be continually lobbing their local councillors
to make their views known.
What's In a Name?
Why are people so afraid of the term "a political issue." For
some unknown reason they think applying this terminology to a campaign
affects its credibility. Of all the home countries the English
especially are very adverse to becoming involved with anything remotely
political. Afraid of being branded as anarchist, muck-raker, communist
or whatever, they do all they can to avoid the political tag.
Not A Political Issue
ICs try to avoid confrontational meetings with the community on
"contentious issues." When confronted with a group of angry residents
over the building of a waste disposal plant or similar facility they
will say "This is not a political issue." They do this because they
know the decisions they are making are going against the communities
wishes and will reflect badly on the political party they are a member
of. In order to alleviate any blame to their party they try to convince
the public it is "not a political issue" with the decision being made
not by a party decision but by "individuals."
Here we have a contentious subject with the ultimate decision
being made not the local football or rugby club, not by the local ladies
needlework or knitting club, but by the local planning committee of
local and county councillors, ie politicians. This being the case how on
earth can it not be a political issue?
Lack Of Support
When giving a talk I often attack the political parties and
their disgusting lack of support for the community against industry and
developers. For far too long many politicians, both local and national,
have been thinking more of their own welfare and financial status and
the interest of industries, than the well being of the community as a
whole.
One method of defeating ICs and installing a true "community"
councillor, someone with the communities interest at heart, is by
getting one of your campaigners to stand for election at the local poll.
All views expressed are those of Ralph Ryder and not the views of all
the members of Communities Against Toxics.
YOUR views are welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask anyone remotely interested in the state of the environment and they
will tell you that recycling has a very important part to play in saving
the earths finite resources.
But how many of us have ever though of the down side to
recycling? By this I mean living with the smells, emissions, noise,
transport etc. that comes with most industrial processes today.
We reported recently how the Elm Energy waste to energy "tyre
recycling" plant in Wolverhampton was making the lives of the local
community hell. We also noted how the council was ignoring their
complaints saying they were "happy with the plant." This month I would
like to bring to your attention the plight of another community who are
victims of a recycling plant.
A small community group in Deeside, North Wales contacted CATs
and explained their lives are being made hell by the noise and emissions
24 hours a day from a near-by aluminium recycling plant.
Concerned over continual different illnesses and basically
feeling terrible all the time, one of the group had a blood test done
by his local GP. The results confirmed the communities fears and
revealed high levels of aluminium in his blood. This has alarmed the
community and some members have sent their grandchildren, who stay with
them regularly, for blood tests as well. On hearing of the blood test
and its results the owner of the plant has threaten to take action for
libel, although on what grounds is a bit vague at the moment.
The plant is amazingly situated on an industrial estate among
many food and dairy producing units. The nearest one being a cheese
producer, but cereal giants Kellogs are also on the site. One doesn't
need a PhD to realise there must be an obvious danger of contamination
of any food produced in the area from emissions such as VOCs from the
plant?
As usual the local environmental health department have washed
their hands of the problem maintaining it is not their responsibly to
regulate the plant or its effects on the communities health, maintaining
that responsibility lies with HMIP in Cardiff. As usual these officials
are dragging their feet and handling the situation in the same
irresponsible, traditional HMIP fashion. (God help us all).
Some members of the community are suffering terrible respiratory
problems and the continual noise from the plant is understandably having
a shattering effect on people's nerves. In an effort to let the local
environmental officer see exactly how bad life has become, some of the
group living nearest to the plant (150 yards) have offered to put up a
member of the environmental health department for a few days. The
environmental health department have agreed to do this, on the condition
if their person finds things acceptable, the community would "drop the
case." (wonderful eh?)
Some members of the local council has admitted to the residents
that they have made a mistake allowing the plant to be built. But as
usual say there in "nothing they can do about it now."
Once again we have a situation where the local authority and
regulators have the power to give permission for the building of a
facility, but no power to protect the community when things go wrong and
their lives become a misery.
As with most communities who contact CATs for help these people
have very little money and are in dire need of expert help. Any
information on aluminium, its recycling and long and short term health
effects to workers and communities would be much appreciated.
Contact: CATs, PO Box 29,
Ellesmere Port, South Wirral
L66 3TX Tel: 0151 339 5473
*********************************************************************
Ralph Ryder Tel 0151 339 5473
Communities Against Toxics Fax 0151 339 5473
PO Box 29 Email ralph@tcpub.demon.co.uk
Ellesmere Port
South Wirral L66 3TX UK
Or visit us at http://www.tcpub.demon.co.uk/
*********************************************************************