Latest News

What this is about

How you can help

Points from expert witness reports prepared and counsel's closing remarks for Capel Action Group, which can be used in letters

Air Quality and Health Issues

The United Kingdom has air quality standards that it must meet on PM 10 particulates, by 2010:

• An annual mean of 20 micrograms per cubic metre.

• A 24 hour mean of 50 micrograms per cubic metre, not to be exceeded more than 7 times per year.

The current annual background value for PM 10 particulates for Capel, given by the applicant in an ENTEC report, is 22.3 micrograms per cubic metre. If this value does not reduce within three years by 2.3 micrograms per cubic metre, the 2010 annual PM 10 standard will be exceeded in Capel. The proposed incinerator is likely to add a further 0.5 micrograms per year to this figure through emissions of primary and secondary particulate.

Monitoring performed under the direction of ENTEC in the area around Capel has also shown that the 50 microgram per cubic metre daily standard was exceeded seven times in a monitoring period of three months. Such exceedences, when projected forward for a one-year timescale, will not comply with the 2010 daily objective. It is clear that the proposed incinerator will increase such exceedences. On current trends, there are likely to be around 28 days a year where air quality is in breach of the 50 microgram daily average.

Although premature death is the most serious consequence associated with exposure to particulate matter, it is also important to consider its morbidity health effects, such as reduced lung function, exacerbation of existing respiratory conditions and depression. Whilst over a wider area of population such exceedences will cause excess mortality, the consequence on a smaller population such as in Capel will more often be such adverse health effects, increased inhaler use etc.

The incinerator will not be responsible for the existing background concentration. But existing emissions will already be exceeding safe limits, allowing an incinerator to add to emissions, with the consequence that air quality objectives would be exceeded even more often leading to health effects, could not be described as diligent or fulfilling a duty of care.

Another major concern involves Chromium VI, a highly toxic metal for which the acceptable exposure level, according to WHO guidelines, is 2.5 nanograms per cubic metre, on an annual basis. Aircraft are a likely source of Chromium deposits released from their engines. The only evidence that CAG is aware of to date is an assessment by the applicants of Chromium background levels of 6 nanograms per cubic metre. In the absence of any attempt by SCC to monitor the position, one can only infer that the Chromium VI proportion could be 30%. That would in itself creates a position where Capel is already exposed to levels at or exceeding the acceptable level. Any increase in this level is self evidently unacceptable. The aggravated effects of a vortex intersecting with the plume can only aggravate the whole position.

The reality is that SCC has only looked at health issues generically, and asserts that incineration is an acceptable strategy generally. That is strongly disputed and is an unsound approach to site-specific assessment. The only response by SCC to health issues has been an assertion that it is not a site-specific issue. This is incomprehensible given the evidence about bioaccumulation of pollutants, and ingestion through the food chain, which is a site-specific risk to Clockhouse of particular importance.

A fundamental objective from the European Directive is the need for SCC to take the necessary measures to ensure waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health, and without risk to the environment or without causing a nuisance through noise or odours. Again, as an objective, this must be kept in mind at all times and is not just another material consideration.
The regular transportation of toxic waste, in the form of bottom ash and fly ash, away from the site will provide a permanent source of risk to the locality.
The significance of the problem caused by vortices is readily demonstrated when it comes to issues of air quality and health. As CAG's air quality expert has demonstrated, in addition to the adverse effect on particulates that would be caused by such vortex effect, it would also lead to increases in concentrations of Nitrogen Oxides and Sulphur Dioxides which are assessed for exceedences on an hourly and 15 minute basis, as well increases in other pollutants such as Chromium and dioxins. It was therefore very surprising to learn that the site assessment has been carried out without any specific assessment of the suitability of Capel in terms of potential concentration levels of pollutants by reference to existing background levels. In circumstances where Capel is on the flightpath to Gatwick already, the failure even to find out background levels is inexcusable.

Wake Vortices

The evidence submitted demonstrates that the necessary chimney stack for an EfW normally will not achieve even its limited purpose as the effect of vortices from aircraft landing at Gatwick airport from the west will be to drive the emissions back down towards ground level. Given that a third of aircraft land at Gatwick from the west this translates into aircraft passing over the incinerator site at 1-2 minute intervals on every third day, on average. Depending on wind conditions aircraft can land from the west on one or more consecutive days.

It is now common ground between CAG and Surrey County Council that wake vortices are created by aircraft flying into Gatwick on the flightpath that takes them almost directly over the proposed Capel waste use, and that these vortices will be experienced over the entirety of the site and in the general area of the Clockhouse site. This is not something which can be mitigated, as the flightpath is fixed and the Instrument Landing System requires aircraft to fly over it. It is common ground that this will occur for approximately 33% (1/3) of the time, resulting in some 44,000 planes creating vortices, with the future likely to bring increases in the numbers, and increases in the size of aircraft which in turn will give rise to stronger and more long-lasting vortices It is also common ground that this is a unique feature among all the sites in the Surrey Waste Plan.

Notwithstanding these points, the effect of wake vortices was never considered by SCC in any of the assessment material before the examination in public and was not subject to any assessment. The reality is that it was an effect that was simply never appreciated by SCC. It is clear it should have been, as such an effect is plainly capable of affecting the inherent unsuitability of the Clockhouse site for an allocation which was based upon an EfW incinerator being accommodated there. It is important that SCC has now recognised and does not dispute the existence of these vortices, but that acceptance has come far too late in the Surrey Waste Plan process.

SCC's only response has been to assert that vortices will not cause any material problems. This appears to be based upon two assertions: (1) that a vortex would break up the plume, and would not cause increased concentrations of pollutants at ground level when interacting with the plume from the stack; and (2) an assertion that the increases in concentrations would not be material in any event.

The objectors have demonstrated that Clockhouse is uniquely affected by vortices, and the evidence they have produced shows that it would result in pollutants being brought down into the area contrary to the objective of any stack. SCC has failed to consider this at all, but in any event has failed to support its new assertions that this would not have any material effect, despite the clear ability to test the situation now.