rose energy power plant hia

8/6/2019 Rose Energy Power Plant HIA

1/160

Strategic Consulting Report: 644-0020020 May 2008

Rose Energy Biomass Fuelled Power PlantHealth Impact Assessment withHuman Health Risk Assessment

FINAL

Report prepared by: Dr Salim Vohra, Director, Centre for Health Impact AssessmentYvette Christopher, Research Scientist, CHIA

Report reviewed by: Dr Alison Searl, Director, Clinical Services


2/160


3/160

Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment

Page i Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200

The IOM is a major independent centre of scientific excellence in the fields of occupational

and environmental health, hygiene and safety. We were founded as a charity in 1969 by the

UK coal industry in conjunction with the University of Edinburgh and became fully

independent in 1990. Our mission is to benefit those at work and in the community by

providing quality research, consultancy and training in health, hygiene and safety and by

maintaining our independent, impartial position as an international centre of excellence. The

IOM has more than seventy scientific and technical staff based in Edinburgh, Chesterfield,

London, and Stafford. Consultancy work is undertaken through IOM Consulting Limited

which is a wholly owned subsidiary.

Dr Salim Vohra is the Director of the IOMs Centre for Health Impact Assessment based in

London. Yvette Christopher is a Research Scientist based in IOMs HQ in Edinburgh. Dr

Alison Searl is Director of Clinical Services and also based in Edinburgh.


4/160


Page i Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200


5/160


Page ii Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................12 Health Impact Assessment and Human Health Risk Assessment ........... ....23 Methodology ..................................................................................................84 Background Context....................................................................................125 Community Concerns ..................................................................................166 Policy Context..............................................................................................187 Baseline and Community Profile.................................................................218 Health Impacts of Waste Incineration ............ ............ ............. ............ ........ 349 Social Determinants of Health.....................................................................6110 Risk Perception ...........................................................................................6611 Health Risk Assessment of Emissions from the Proposed Power Plant...7012 Health Impacts of the Proposed Power Plant ............ ............. ............ ........ 9413 Conclusion.................................................................................................104


6/160


Page iii Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Health Risk Assessment Details for Maximally Exposed Receptor106Appendix B: Health Impact Matrices............... ............ ............. ............ ............ ..... 132


7/160


Page 1 Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200

1 Introduction

1.1.1 This Health Impact Assessment incorporating a Human Health Risk Assessment (HIA

and HHRA, hereafter referred to as the HIA) has been commissioned by Rose

Energy in order to address community concerns about the potential negative health

impacts of their proposed biomass fuelled power plant.

1.1.2 The aim of the HIA was to:

assess the potential positive and negative health impacts on the residents around

the proposed plant;

quantify, where possible, the potential negative health impacts of the emissionslikely to be generated by the proposed plant; and

identify measures to remove or mitigate any potential negative health impacts on

the local community.

1.1.3 The HIA draws on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that has been carried

out in parallel to this assessment particularly the air quality, noise, visual and traffic

impact assessments.


8/160



2 Health Impact Assessment and Human

Health Risk Assessment

2.1 Health Impact Assessment

2.1.1 The international Gothenburg consensus definition of HIA is: A combination of

procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged

as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those

effects within the population.1

2.1.2 HIA is the key systematic approach to identifying the differential health and wellbeing

impacts, both positive and negative, of plans and projects.

2.1.3 HIA uses a range of structured and evaluated sources of qualitative and quantitative

evidence that includes public and other stakeholders' perceptions and experiences as

well as public health, epidemiological, toxicological and medical knowledge. It is

particularly concerned with the distribution of effects within a population, as different

groups are likely to be affected in different ways, and therefore looks at how health

and social inequalities might be reduced or widened by a proposed plan or project.

2.1.4 The aim of HIA is to support and add value to the decision-making process by

providing a systematic analysis of the potential impacts as well as recommending

options, where appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the

negative ones and reducing health inequalities.

2.1.5 HIA uses both a biomedical and social definition of health, recognising that though

illness and disease (mortality and morbidity) are useful ways of understanding and

measuring health they need to be fitted within a broader understanding of health and

wellbeing to be properly useful (See Fig 2.1).

1WHO European Centre for Health Policy; Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested approach;Gothenburg consensus paper; WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999.


9/160



Fig 2.1: The determinants of health and wellbeing2

2.1.6 HIA therefore use the following World Health Organization psycho-social definition of

health in our work: Health is the extent to which an individual or group is able to

realise aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment.

Health is therefore a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a

positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical

capacities.3

2.1.7 This definition builds on and is complementary to the longer established World Health

Organization definition that Health is a state of complete physical, social and mental

wellbeing and not simply the absence of disease or infirmity4.

2.1.8 The general methodology is based on established good practice guidance on HIA

developed by the Department of Health and the Devolved Regions.

Screening

2.1.9 This stage assesses the value of carrying out a HIA by examining the importance of a

plan or project and the significance of any potential health impacts.

2Adapted by Salim Vohra and Dean Biddlecombe from Dahlgren G and Whitehead, Policies and strategies to

promote social equity in health; Institute of Future Studies; Stockholm; 1991.3World Health Organization; Health Promotion: A Discussion Document on the Concepts and Principles; WHO

Regional Office for Europe; Copenhagen; 1984.4

World Health Organization; Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by theInternational Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June 1946, and entered into force on 7 April 1948


10/160



Scoping

2.1.10 This stage sets the terms of reference for the HIA i.e. the aspects to be considered,

geographical scope, population groups that might need particular focus, what will be

excluded from the HIA, how the HIA process will be managed and so on.

Baseline assessment and community profile

2.1.11 This stage uses routine national and local datasets e.g. national census, local

surveys, area profiles, and other demographic, social, economic, environmental and

health information to develop a community profile with a strong focus on health and

wellbeing issues, and identification of vulnerable groups, as a baseline from which to

assess the potential positive and negative impacts and any health inequalities.

Stakeholder consultation and involvement5

2.1.12 This stage applies to intermediate and comprehensive HIAs where no previous

consultation on a development has taken place. It uses workshops, questionnaires,

interviews, surveys and other methods of consultation and involvement to engage key

stakeholders, in particular local people, in the identification and appraisal of the

potential health and wellbeing impacts, in the development of mitigation and

enhancement measures; and in developing options for monitoring and evaluating the

identified impacts.

Evidence and analysis

2.1.13 This stage involves the collation of key evidence and the systematic analysis of the

potential impacts, their significance, the groups likely to be most affected and the

strength of the evidence for these impacts through the use of matrices and models.

Mitigation and enhancement measures

2.1.14 This stage involves the identification of a range of measures to minimise the potential

negative health effects and maximise the positive health benefits identified in theprevious stages.

Health impact statement

2.1.15 This stage produces the final HIA report or health statement,.

5Rapid HIAs are rapid desktop analyses that take days or weeks to carry out. Intermediate HIAs are

detailed desktop analyses with some focussed stakeholder consultation or feedback, e.g. stakeholder

workshops and interviews, that take weeks and months to carry out. Comprehensive HIAs areexhaustive analyses involving comprehensive consultation of stakeholders through representativesurveys, workshops and interviews that take a year or more to carry out.


11/160



2.1.16 It involves summarising the key conclusions, options and recommendations emerging

from the assessment including identifying, where appropriate, monitoring indicators to

ensure that health and wellbeing are maintained during the whole lifecycle of a

project or plan.

Follow up

2.1.17 This stage involves the active follow up of the project or plan to monitor and/or ensure

that mitigation and enhancement measures have been put in place after a project or

plan is approved.

2.1.18 It can also involve: a) presentation of the findings to key professional stakeholders; b)

the development and implementation of a health impact communication plan to

ensure that local communities fully understand the findings of the HIA and how and

why it was carried out; and c) the evaluation of the effectiveness and value of the HIA

process itself.

2.2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 Human health risk assessment is the quantitative estimation of the potential negative

health impacts of a proposed development. In the context of the Rose Energy

Biomass Fuelled Power Plant this relates to the potential impacts of the residual air

pollutants that are likely to be emitted by the plant when it is operational.

2.2.2 As there is no specific UK model for undertaking human health risk assessment for

organic compounds and heavy metals this risk assessment has used the Human

Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion

Facilities, developed by US EPA (USEPA, 1998a). It is important to note that the

Rose Energy Biomass Fuelled Power Plant is not a Hazardous Waste Combustion

Facility but the US EPA Protocol has been selected as the most robust methodology

available.

2.2.3 The US EPA protocol evaluates both the direct and indirect risks to human health.

Direct exposure results from the direct inhalation of vapours and dusts, whereas

indirect exposure results from contact of human receptors with soil, plants, meat or

water on which emissions may have been deposited. The protocol is made up of four

elements: facility characterisation; air dispersion and deposition modelling; exposure

assessment; and risk and hazard characterisation.


12/160



Facility Characterisation

2.2.4 Facility characterisation consists of compiling basic information on the site, the

proposed facility, and its operations; identifying emission sources and estimating

emission rates; identifying compounds of potential concern (COPCs) and sensitivereceptors; and evaluating background levels of air, water and soil pollution.

Air Dispersion and Deposition

2.2.5 The burning of waste materials produces residual amounts of pollution that are

released into the environment. Estimation of potential human health risks associated

with these releases needs information on atmospheric pollutant concentrations and

annual deposition rates in the areas around a combustion facility where people are

likely to be exposed. This comes from the air quality impact assessment (AQIA).

Exposure Scenario Selection

2.2.6 Exposure scenarios are evaluated in the risk assessment to estimate the types and

magnitude of human exposure to COPC emissions from a proposed facility.

Identification of the exposure scenarios to be evaluated includes characterising the

exposure setting, identifying recommended exposure scenarios, and selecting

exposure scenario locations.

2.2.7 Exposure to COPCs can occur via a range of exposure pathways. Each exposure

pathway is made up of four fundamental components:

an exposure route;

a source and mechanism of COPC release;

a retention medium or a transport mechanism and subsequent retention medium in

cases involving media transfer of COPCs (air, water, soil, food, etc); and

a point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium, which is

referred to as the exposure point and consists of a specific human receptorexposed at a specific exposure point.

Estimation of Media Concentrations

2.2.8 The estimation of media concentrations involves calculating the COPC

concentrations in air, soil, plant, meat, dairy products, surface water, sediment and

fish. All the equations for calculating media concentrations are documented in the

USEPA HHRAP manual.6

6US Environmental Protection Agency, Human health risk assessment protocol for hazardous waste

combustion facilities, 2005


13/160



Quantifying Exposure

2.2.9 The calculation of COPC-specific exposure rates for each exposure pathway involves

the estimated:

media concentrations

inhalation/consumption rate

receptor body weight

frequency and duration of exposure.

This calculation is repeated for each exposure pathway included in an exposure

scenario.

Risk and Hazard Characterisation

2.2.10 The final step of the risk assessment is the calculation of lifetime cancer risks andnon-carcinogenic hazards for each of the pathways and receptors identified. Risks

and hazards are then summed for specific receptors, across all applicable exposure

pathways, to obtain an estimate of total individual risk and hazard quotients for

specific receptors. These can then be compared against accepted guidelines, target

levels or thresholds.

2.2.11 The carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated using the

predicted media (air, soil, vegetables, meat or surface water) concentrations and

toxicity factors of the potential emissions.

2.2.12 Actual or estimated (modelled) media concentrations are used to calculate pollutant

intake (mg/kg/day) for each pollutant and exposure route. The calculated intake is

then compared to applicable health risk standards.


14/160



3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The following sections outline the methodology applied to this HIA. They concern the

following: a definition of the study area and study population; sources of information

consulted; consultation and consultee feedback; assessment criteria and assessment

framework.

3.1.2 This HIA used existing data and information from earlier and concurrent technical

studies and consultations as well as routine data sources.

3.1.3 The methodology and methods used were based on existing good practice guidance

in the UK.

3.1.4 The assessment was largely qualitative except where data was available to enable

quantification or where quantification of health impacts has already been undertaken

in the EIA.

3.2 Study area

3.2.1 The proposed site is wholly within the Glenavy ward in the district of Lisburn.

3.2.2 The geographical scope of this HIA was the development site and a 20km square grid

with the development site at the centre. The HHRAP protocol requires that the

assessment should consider impacts within 10km of the site. The assessment needs

to extend out this far so that the potential impacts from bio-accumulation in water

bodies can be considered. Most of the receptors considered within the health risk

assessment element and indeed the air quality impact assessment (AQIA) are within

a few kilometres of the site, as these are predicted to experience the greatest

potential exposures. The major settlements within the area are the villages of

Glenavy and Crumlin. Therefore both the wards of Glenavy in Lisburn and Crumlin in

Antrim were considered.


15/160



3.3 Study population

3.3.1 The population scope of this HIA was the resident population in the geographical area

described above. The key sensitive groups considered were children and young

people, women, older people, people with disabilities and/or chronic conditions,

people on low incomes/unemployed, minority groups and employees (both working in

the area and of the proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant).

3.4 Sources consulted

3.4.1 Planning documents to be submitted as part of the planning application.

3.4.2 Information and data from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency,

Ireland and Northern Irelands Population Health Observatory, Institute of Public

Health in Ireland; Lisburn City Council, Antrim Borough Council as well as previous

relevant HIA reports, databases and reviews of health impact evidence were used.

3.4.3 No specific HIA-related wider stakeholder or community consultation and

engagement was undertaken because there was ongoing consultation and

engagement with local residents during the development of this report which the lead

assessor was involved in.

3.5 Analysis and assessment criteria

3.5.1 The HIA was based on a document analysis and desk-top health impact analysis

using a matrix table to analyse the potential positive and negative health and

wellbeing impacts. The categories used in the matrix table were: physical and mental

health; employment and enterprise; housing and accommodation; transport and

connectivity; learning and education; crime and safety; health and social care; shops

and retail amenities; social capital and community cohesion; culture and leisure;

lifestyle and daily routines; energy and waste; and land and spatial.

3.5.2 The identified impacts were then classified using the levels defined in Table 3.1.

3.5.3 We compared the potential impacts to a Do Nothing option for the construction, short

term operation and long term operational phases of the proposed development.


16/160



3.5.4 The HHRA element of the HIA used the USEPA HHRAP Model to quantify the

potential increase in risk and hazard from air pollutants due to the proposed Biomass

Fuelled Power Plant on people living and working in the area.

Table 3.1: Definition of the levels of potential impact

Significance Level Criteria

Major +++/---

(positive or negative)

Health effects are categorised as major if the effects could leaddirectly to mortality/death or acute or chronic disease/illness.The exposures tend to be of high intensity and/or long durationand/or over a wide geographical area and/or likely to affect alarge number of people e.g. over 500 or so and/or sensitivegroups e.g. children/older people. They can affect either or bothphysical and mental health and either directly or through the

wider determinants of health and wellbeing. They can betemporary or permanent in nature. These effects can beimportant local, district, regional and national considerations.Mitigation measures and detailed design work can reduce thelevel of negative effect though residual effects are likely toremain.

Moderate ++/--


Health effects are categorised as moderate if the effects arelong term nuisance impacts from odour and noise, etc or maylead to exacerbations of existing illness. The exposures tend tobe of moderate intensity and/or over a relatively localised areaand/or of intermittent duration and/or likely to affect a moderate-large number of people e.g. between 100-500 or so and/orsensitive groups. The negative impacts may be nuisance/quality

of life impacts which may affect physical and mental healtheither directly or through the wider determinants of health. Thecumulative effect of a set of moderate effects can lead to amajor effect. These effects can be important local, district andregional considerations. Mitigation measures and detaileddesign work can reduce and in some/many cases remove thenegative and enhance the positive effects though residualeffects are likely to remain.

Minor/Mild +/-


Health effects are categorised as minor/mild if they aregenerally nuisance level/quality of life impacts e.g. noise, odour,visual amenity, etc. The exposures tend to be of low intensityand/or short/intermittent duration and/or over a small area

and/or affect a small number of people e.g. less than 100 or so.They can be permanent or temporary in nature. These effectscan be important local considerations. Mitigation measures anddetailed design work can reduce the negative and enhance thepositive effects such that there are only some residual effectsremaining.

Neutral/No Effect ~ No effect or effects within the bounds of normal/acceptedvariation.

3.5.5 For each potential health impact ten key issues were considered

Which population groups are affected and in what way?

Is the effect reversible or irreversible?


17/160


18/160



4 Background Context

4.1 Proposed development7

4.1.1 Rose Energy is proposing to develop a 30 megawatts electrical output (100Mw

thermal input) bio-mass power station at a site on Land off Ballyvannon Road, Nr

Glenavy, Crumlin, County Antrim.

4.1.2 The power station is to be fuelled with poultry bedding a mixture of wood shavings

and chicken droppings and meat and bone meal (MBM), which is processed

material that is derived from rendering animal by-products, less the tallow which is

extracted from the initially rendered material. The power station will burn an

equivalent of 300,000 tonnes of poultry bedding made up from mixing poultry bedding

and MBM.

4.1.3 The poultry bedding will be delivered direct, by road, from a large number of poultry

producing farms spread throughout Northern Ireland but predominantly clustered

around Dungannon and Ballymena. The meat and bone meal will be delivered by

vehicles from the adjoining Ulster Farm By-Products rendering plant.

4.2 Background to Project

4.2.1 Poultry bedding has reasonable calorific value and its use in power stations is tried

and tested; there are a number of plants burning it as a fuel established elsewhere in

the UK, such as at Westfield (Scotland), Eye (England) and Thetford (England). Meat

and bone meal is also increasingly being used as a fuel source now that it no longer

utilised as an agricultural feed; it is also of reasonable calorific value, and is currentlyused in a plant at Glanford (England).

4.2.2 The poultry producing and processing industries are an important part of the Northern

Ireland economy. Traditionally poultry bedding has been spread on agricultural land

as a fertiliser. This activity contributes to the eutrophication of lakes and rivers in

nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ), with a resultant negative impact upon flora and fauna

and ultimately upon water abstraction for human consumption; the overloading of

7 Information sourced from the Pre-application Consultation document dated December 2007.


19/160



land with phosphorous derived from spreading poultry bedding is a less well known

but equally difficult problem to resolve. Under the EU Nitrates Directive the current

practice and extent of spreading of poultry bedding will no longer be possible and the

Water Directive has also brought a requirement for improved quality and security of

water supplies for human consumption.

4.3 Built form and operation of the proposed development

4.3.1 The built form of the power station will consist of:

a reception building incorporating storage and mixing bins

a boiler house to the rear of the reception building this is the tallest building(42m)

a turbine hall to one side of the boiler house

external dust arrestment equipment, ash silos and handling gear

a stack for the dispersion of emissions (estimated at 80m in height)

cooling towers (15m in height)

switch gear yard

ancillary plant and equipment

a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for cooling waters and surface waterrun-off

4.3.2 The whole development will cover an area of approx. 5 ha (12.36 acres). See Fig.4.1

and Fig. 11.1

4.3.3 The proposed power station will operate seven days a week with planned down-time

to allow for maintenance and replacement of equipment as necessary. Imported

poultry bedding and removal of ash, would only take place on Monday to Friday and

Saturday mornings within limited hours the plant will have holding facilities for

several days supplies of poultry bedding and MBM feedstock.

4.3.4 Exportable electricity will be approximately 25Mw. This will be transmitted from the

plant via buried cables and then to overhead poles (not pylons).

4.3.5 The proposed site consists of grazing land bounded by hedgerows, including a few

hedgerow trees, which slope downwards from east to west towards the River

Glenavy, which it abuts on the northern west side, in the direction of Lough Neagh.


20/160



4.4 Rationale for the proposed development8

4.4.1 There is little alternative to spreading poultry bedding other than its use as a fuel or

disposal at landfill. Landfilling is not a sustainable option and the EU Landfill Directive

effectively limits the potential for landfill particularly as poultry bedding would be a

new waste stream when the emphasis is on reducing existing waste streams going

into landfill. The EU Waste Directive also stipulates that all waste is treated to

reduce its volume and hazardous properties - in some way before being sent to

landfill. MBM has traditionally been used as an animal feed but that use has been

banned since the advent of the BSE crisis and while some MBM is likely to go back

into animal feed, the majority will not. Use as a fertiliser (for certain categories of

material only), as fuel or sending to landfill are the only options.

4.4.2 The majority of the proposed fuel feedstock, poultry bedding, will come from a large

number of wide ranging poultry farms in the Province. However, though there are

concentrations of poultry farms around Ballymena and Dungannon, in the interests of

bio-security a plant using poultry bedding as a fuel, and storing it in large quantities

prior to use, is precluded from operating close to these farms.

4.4.3 This location accords with the Waste Strategy and the emerging guidance within Draft

Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy to site renewable energy plants atthe source of, or close to, the producer of the waste or fuel. In identifying a site it was

also vital to have a nearby water source, for abstraction cooling water.

8 Information sourced from the development framework documents and the environmental impactassessment for the proposed development.


21/160



Fig. 4.1 Site map of the proposed biomass fuelled power plant (detail has been lost on this plan as the original size of this is very large, please environmental statement fo


22/160



5 Community Concerns

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This chapter summarises the key issues raised by local people both via meetings with

Rose Energy as well as other sources such as community websites and other media.

5.1.2 Three meetings have been undertaken with local residents: a local community

meeting, a meeting with some local residents and a meeting with community

representatives (lead members of the Communities Against the Lough Neagh

Incinerator).

5.1.3 The key community websites that were reviewed were: www.rosetintedenergy.com,

www.glenavy.com and http://www.ulsterfarm.com.

5.2 Key community concerns

5.2.1 A number of concerns have been raised by local residents. These are the:

5.2.2 Potential health effects of emissions from the plant: the potential for cancer, infant

mortality, respiratory illness e.g. asthma, cardiovascular disease (particularly on

children).

5.2.3 Atmospheric conditions in the area i.e. an area of temperature inversion and the

potential for emissions to stay in the area and not disperse.

5.2.4 Potential odour from the plant and from the associated lorry traffic.

5.2.5 Potential noise from the plant and the associated lorry traffic.

5.2.6 Potential increase in lorry traffic on the roads potentially leading to road traffic injuries

and disruption to daily routines i.e. using and crossing roads on foot/bicycle would

become more difficult especially given the difficulties of getting roads repaired in the

area.

5.2.7 Proximity of the site to areas designated as Sites of Local Nature Conservation

Importance and Areas of High Scenic Value.


23/160



5.2.8 Potential to affect flora and fauna in local rivers and Lough Neagh due to the intake

and discharge of water coolant in the plant.

5.2.9 Disposal of bottom and fly ash.

5.2.10 Potential negative effect on house prices and farming land in the area and

consequent difficulty in moving away from the area.

5.3 Range of residents concerned

5.3.1 Residents living adjacent to the site are particularly concerned but there is also

concern in both Glenavy and Crumlin about the potential negative impacts of the

proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant.


24/160


25/160



The Directive requires that farmers must implement an action programme of

mandatory measures to reduce the level of nitrates being washed into waterways.

Groundwater Directive, 1976/464/EEC

6.2.5 The Groundwater Directive aims to protect groundwater from pollution by controlling

discharges and disposals of certain dangerous substances to groundwater.

6.3 Northern Ireland policy

The Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy 2006 2020

6.3.1 This is Northern Irelands strategic plan for managing waste sustainably and in a way

that protects both the environment and human health in Northern Ireland.

6.3.2 It states that energy from waste can contribute to meeting Northern Irelands non-

fossil fuel obligations and the Governments policies on renewable energy, as well as

helping Northern Ireland to meet its landfill diversion targets.

Industrial Pollution Control (NI) Order 1997

6.3.3 Certain industrial processes must be authorised under the Industrial Pollution Control

(NI) Order 1997. The processes with the greatest pollution potential are known as

Part A processes. For Part A processes (egg: power stations, cement factories and

chemical processes) a single authorisation covers releases to air, water and land -

this is known as 'integrated pollution control'. In Northern Ireland there are two other

categories of process - Part B and Part C processes. Authorisations for Part B and

Part C processes cover releases to air only. The Chief Inspector of IPRI is the

enforcing authority for part A and part B processes, while district councils are

responsible for regulating part C processes. Authorisation of existing processes under

the Order is being carried out under a phased programme, while new prescribed

processes need to apply before starting operation.

Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999

6.3.4 Under the terms of the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, the EHNS Operations

Team is responsible for taking action to prevent or minimise the effects of polluting

discharges made to waterways and for instigating enforcement action where


26/160


27/160



7 Baseline and Community Profile

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This chapter describes the key baseline conditions as they relate to the direct and

indirect determinants of health for the wards of Glenavy and Crumlin, in the context of

Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole. The proposed

development is situated wholly within Glenavy ward with Crumlin being the closest

adjacent ward that is near the site of the proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant. The

information in this chapter has been gathered from the range of sources described in

Chapter 4.

7.1.2 This profile provides a summary of the current social, economic and environmental

conditions as they relate to health and wellbeing. It is from this baseline

understanding that the predictions on the potential health and wellbeing impacts of

the proposed power plant on local residents are developed.

7.2 Population characteristics

7.2.1 The resident population of Glenavy and Crumlin wards in relation to Lisburn and

Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole are approximately 4,305 and 3855; in

comparison to 108,700, 48,000 and 1,685,000 respectively9.

7.2.2 In Glenavy, just under 27% of the population is under 16 years and just under 14%

are over 60 years old. Similarly in Crumlin just under 29% of the population is under

16 years and 11.5% are over 60 years old.

7.2.3 The average age in Glenavy is 33.6 years and 31.4 years in Crumlin, compared to

35.1 years in Lisburn district, 34.7 years in Antrim district and 35.8 years in Northern

Ireland. Glenavy therefore has an older population than Crumlin but both wards are

considerably younger than their respective districts and Northern Ireland as a whole.

9Except where explicitly stated, for the sake of consistency 2001 ONS Census figures are quoted

even though in some cases more up to date estimates are available. This is because thoughpopulation in all these areas is likely to have increased the relative differences between the areas is


28/160



7.3 Ethnic profile

7.3.1 Glenavy and Crumlin wards both have a similar ethnic profile with 99% of the residentpopulation being White. This is similar to their respective districts and to Northern

Ireland as a whole.

7.3.2 The majority of the residents in Glenavy and Crumlin, about 93%, have been born in

Northern Ireland and this is slightly higher than their respective districts and Northern

Ireland as a whole.

7.4 Religion

7.4.1 Just under 51% of residents of Glenavy ward are Catholic, 14% are Presbyterian

Church of Ireland, 15% are Church of Ireland, 3% are Methodist Church of Ireland

and 4% are from other Christian denominations. This compares to Crumlin where just

under 73% of residents are Catholic, 8% are Presbyterian Church of Ireland and 8%

are Church of Ireland. This is in contrast to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern

Ireland as a whole where 30%, 35% and 40% of the population are Catholic; 20%,

28% and 21% are Presbyterian Church of Ireland; and 21%, 12% and 15% are

Church of Ireland.

7.5 Family structure

7.5.1 Marital status and household composition provide a good indication of the family

structure and the likely personal and social care networks that residents of an area

have. 62% of Glenavy ward residents are married or re-married compared to 57% inCrumlin ward. This is higher than the average for Lisburn and Antrim districts and

Northern Ireland with 54%, 56% and 51% respectively. The proportion of single

people is similar in Glenavy (26%) and Crumlin wards (25%) and is in line with

Lisburn and Antrim districts (27% and 26%) but lower than the Northern Ireland

average of 30%.

likely to have remained the same and this is the important element of this profile.


29/160




30/160


31/160



7.5.2 The proportion of pensioner and all pensioner households is lower in Glenavy and

Crumlin wards (14% each) compared to Lisburn district (18%), Antrim district (16%)

and Northern Ireland as a whole (20%).

7.5.3 The average household size in Glenavy and Crumlin wards are 3.12 and 2.91

respectively. This compares to a Northern Ireland average of 2.65.

7.5.4 The proportion of married couples with dependent children in Glenavy ward is 37%

and 35% in Crumlin ward which is significantly higher than Lisburn and Antrim

districts (26% and 27% respectively) and Northern Ireland as a whole (24%).

7.5.5 The proportion of cohabiting couples is similar in both Glenavy and Crumlin wards;

Lisburn and Antrim districts; and Northern Ireland as a whole.

7.5.6 The proportion of lone parent households with children is 8% in Glenavy ward and

13% in Crumlin ward compared to 13% in Lisburn district, 11% in Antrim district and

13% in Northern Ireland as a whole.

7.6 Health status

7.6.1 93% of residents in Glenavy ward described their health as either good or fairly good

compared to 91% of residents in Crumlin ward. This is slightly better than the average

for Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland at 90%, 91% and 89%.

Fig. 7.2 Perceived health status and long term limiting illness in Glenavy and Crumlinwards compared to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland,[Source: NISRA]

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

General health:

good

General health:

failry good

General health:

not good

Limiting long

term illness

Glenavy

Crumlin

Lisburn

Antrim

Northern Ireland


32/160



7.6.2 Only 14.5% of Glenavy ward and 17% Crumlin ward residents have a long term

limiting illness. This compares to Lisburn district, Antrim district and Northern Ireland

averages of 18%, 18% and 20% respectively.

7.6.3 Glenavy and Crumlin both have healthier residents than their respective districts and

Northern Ireland as a whole.

7.7 Deprivation and social cohesion

7.7.1 The Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005 (NIMDM 2005) is a measure

of multiple deprivation experienced by individuals living in an area at the ward and

small area level. Deprivation refers to problems caused by a general lack ofresources and opportunities and not just a lack of money. It is a wider concept than

poverty and includes health status, level of education, access to services, living

conditions and the state of the local environment. People may be counted in one or

more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they

experience. The overall MDM is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation

of these specific dimensions of deprivation. The NIMDM 2005 contains seven

domains of deprivation: Income; Employment; Health and Disability; Education, Skills

and Training; Proximity to Services; Living Environment; and Crime and Disorder.

7.7.2 All the wards in Northern Ireland are ranked from 1 (most deprived, Shankill ward in

Belfast) to 582 (least deprived, Hillfoot in Castlereagh).

Fig. 7.3 NIMDM of Glenavy and Crumlin wards in relation to the other wards in NorthernIreland [1=highest rank, most deprived 582=lowest rank, least deprived][Source: NISRA]

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Overall Income Employment Health and

disability

Education,

skills and

training

Proximity to

services

Living

Environment

Crime and

disorder

Glenavy

Crumlin


33/160



7.7.3 Overall, both Glenavy and Crumlin wards are among the least deprived wards in

Northern Ireland. However, both seem to have an issue in relation to proximity to

services and crime and disorder. Glenavy is less deprived than Crumlin except in the

domain of proximity to services e.g. health and social care, amenities, etc. (See Fig.

7.3 previous page).

7.8 Housing

7.8.1 In Glenavy ward, 90%, and in Crumlin ward, 81%, of residents own their own homes

with 39% in Glenavy ward and 18% in Crumlin ward owning their homes outright.

This compares to 70% of residents owning their own homes in Lisburn and Antrim

districts and Northern Ireland as a whole.

7.8.2 In Glenavy ward, 76% of the homes are detached, 17% are semi-detached with 7.3%

being terraced and 0.2% being apartments. This compares to 37% of homes being

detached, 32% semi-detached, 25% being terraced and 7% being apartments in

Crumlin ward.

7.8.3 11% of residents in Glenavy ward live in rented housing and of these only 5% rent

from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) or other social housing provider.

17% of residents in Crumlin ward live in rented accommodation and of these 11%

rent from NIHE and 3% from other social housing providers. This is in contrast to

Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole where 29%, 28% and

32% of people live in rented accommodation with 18-20% renting from NIHE.

7.8.4 Currently, the average house price in Lisburn and Antrim districts is 285,000 and

222,000; with detached houses going for 453,000 and 308-348,000; semi-

detached house going for 290,000 and 220,000; terraced houses going for

217,000 and 160-170,000; and flats going for 230,000 and 170,000. There has

been a 39% rise in house prices over the last 12-18 months.10

7.9 Employment and unemployment

7.9.1 In Glenavy ward, 42% of residents are in full-time employment and 13% are in self-

employment while 49% of Crumlin ward residents are in full-time employment and

10BBC website from figures provided by the University of Ulster in partnership with Bank of Ireland.


34/160



7% are in self-employment (See Fig. 7.4). This compares to 41% and 8% in Lisburn

district, 45% and 9% in Antrim district and 38% and 8% in Northern Ireland as a

whole.

7.9.2 As shown above both Glenavy and Crumlin wards have a higher proportion of full-

time employed residents. They also have a lower proportion of people who are

permanently sick or disabled and retired than Lisburn and Antrim districts and

Northern Ireland as a whole.

7.9.3 The unemployment rate is 2% in Glenavy ward and 3.5% in Crumlin ward compared

to a rate of 3% in Lisburn district, 3% in Antrim district and 4% in Northern Ireland as

a whole. Glenavy has a higher rate of unemployment particularly among those aged

16-24 years compared to Crumlin whose unemployment rate is higher among those

aged 50 and over.

7.9.4 In Glenavy ward, 4% of residents aged 18-59 years are claiming Income Support;

6.5% of 16-59/64 year olds are claiming Incapacity Benefit and 2% of those over 16

years were claiming Housing Benefit.11 In Crumlin ward, 6% of residents aged 18-59

years are claiming Income Support; 7% of 16-59/64 year olds are claiming Incapacity

Benefit and 5.5% of those over 16 years were claiming Housing Benefit.

7.9.5 Residents of Glenavy and Crumlin wards are employed in a diverse range of

occupations and industries, with the top three dominant industries being: wholesale

and retail trade repairs, manufacturing, and health and social care.

7.9.6 In Glenavy ward, 18% of residents are employed in skilled trade occupations, 15% in

managerial or senior official occupations, 14% in administrative and secretarial

occupations, 12% in associate professional and technical occupations, 11% as

process plant and machine operatives and 10% in professional occupations. While in

Crumlin ward, 12% of residents are employed in skilled trade occupations, 17% in

administrative and secretarial occupations, 12% in associate professional and

technical occupations, 12% as process plant and machine operatives and 12% in

elementary occupations.

11

Based on claimant figures for 2004.


35/160



Fig. 7.4 rates of employment and unemployment in Glenavy and Crumlin wards compared to LisburIreland,[Source: NISRA]

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employee -

full-time

Employee -

part-time

Self-

employed

Economically

active:

Unemployed

Economically

active: Full-

time student

Retired Economically

inactive

student

Looking after

home/family

Permanently

sick/disabled

Ecomically

inactive:

Other

Unemployed

people aged

16-24


36/160



7.9.7 There are approximately 780 jobs in Glenavy ward and 650 in Crumlin ward.12

7.10 Education

7.10.1 36% of Glenavy ward and 33% of Crumlin ward residents have no qualifications. This

compares to the Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland averages of 37%,

39% and 42% respectively13.

7.10.2 Approximately a fifth have Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications with 19% of residents in

Glenavy and 16% in Crumlin having a level 4/5 degree level qualifications (See Fig.

6.7). This compares to the Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland averages

of 17%, 14% and 16% respectively.

7.10.3 Both Glenavy and Crumlin have higher levels of educational achievement than their

respective districts and Northern Ireland as a whole with Glenavy have a higher

proportion than Crumlin.

Fig. 6.7 Proportion of residents in Glenavy and Crumlin wards who have qualificationscompared to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole [Source:NISRA]

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

No qualifications Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Glenavy

Crumlin

Lisburn

Antrim

Northern Ireland

12Based on 2005 data.

13No Qualifications: No academic, vocational or professional qualifications.

Level 1: 1+O level passes, 1+CSE/GCSE any grades, NVQ level 1, Foundation GNVQLevel 2: 5+O level passes, 5+CSEs (grade 1). 5+GCSEs (grades A- C), School Certificate, 1+A levels/ASlevels, NVQ level 2, Intermediate GNVQLevel 3: 2+A levels,4+AS levels, Higher School certificate, NVQ level 3, Advanced GNVQLevel 4/5: First degree, Higher degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5, HNC, HND, Qualified Teacher status, Qualified

Medical Doctor, Qualified Dentist, Qualified Nurse, Midwife, Health VisitorOther qualifications/level unknown: Other qualifications (e.g. City and Guilds, RSA/OCR, BTEC/Edexcel), OtherProfessional Qualifications.


37/160



7.11 Transport and connectivity

7.11.1 Public transport in Glenavy and Crumlin wards is poor.

7.11.2 In Glenavy ward, 93% of households have access to a car or van with 77% ofemployed residents usually travelling to work by car or van. In Crumlin ward, 83% of

households have access to a car or van and 76% of employed residents usually

travel to work by car or van. This compares to Lisburn and Antrim districts and

Northern Ireland average of 71% who have access to a car or van.

7.12 Crime and safety

7.12.1 The main police and fire brigade stations are in Lisburn City and Antrim Town.

7.12.2 In 2005-06, Glenavy ward had 387 recorded offences in four major categories of

crime: 29% theft, 23% criminal damage, 17% offences against the person, and 14%

burglaries. Similarly, Crumlin had 314 recorded offences with 28% theft, 23%

offences against the person, 19% criminal damage and 18% burglaries. Crime in both

wards is at moderate levels compared to other wards in Northern Ireland.

7.13 Health and social care

7.13.1 Primary care in Glenavy ward is commissioned by the Eastern Health and Social

Services Board and there is one GP practice in Glenavy village. Primary care in

Crumlin ward is commissioned by the Northern Health and Social Services Board and

there is one GP practice in Crumlin village with a branch in Glenavy village.

7.13.2 For Glenavy ward, the main hospital in the area is the Lagan Valley Hospital in

Lisburn. For Crumlin ward, the main hospital is the Antrim Area Hospital.

7.13.3 The main causes of death in Glenavy and Crumlin wards, based on Northern Ireland

figures, are cancer; heart and circulatory disease; respiratory disease and

cerebrovascular disease (strokes). The commonest cancers are for: skin, breast,

lung, colorectal and colon.


38/160



7.14 Shops and retail amenities

7.14.1 Glenavy and Crumlin villages have some shops however the majority of shops and

retail amenities are concentrated in the main urban areas such as the Cities of

Lisburn and Belfast.

7.15 Culture and leisure

7.15.1 Local churches in the area are a focus for a range of religious, cultural and leisure

activities including Junior Church, Soul Rock, Girls Brigade, Badminton Club, Parish

Choir, Ladies Guild, Mothers Union and bowling.

7.15.2 Both Glenavy and Crumlin have youth projects targeting local young people and are

overseen by key local agencies including the local churches and the police service

7.16 Land and spatial

7.16.1 The area around the development site is rural with farming being an important land

use. Some parts of the locality have been assigned as Areas of High Scenic Value

and Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance.

7.16.2 In Glenavy ward, 180 farms are registered to addresses in the ward with a total

agricultural labour force of 355 employed in the area.14 In Crumlin ward, 13 farms are

registered to addresses in the ward with a total agricultural labour force of 25

employed in the area.

7.17 Conclusion

7.17.1 Overall the population of the local area around the proposed power plant are healthy

or very healthy and health and social inequalities (deprivation) are low. The resident

population is long established with strong family/social networks and high levels of

home ownership. The area has generally higher levels of education and employment

than the Northern Ireland average and key deprivation issues in the area are access

to services and amenities and crime.

14Based on 2006 data.


39/160



7.17.2 Public health issues are in line with those in other parts of Northern Ireland with

improving sexual health and reducing teenage pregnancies; reducing smoking,

alcohol binge drinking and reducing illicit drug taking; monitoring childhood obesity

levels, increasing physical acitivity generally and improving food and nutrition; and

improving primary care mental health services and mental health promotion being the

key challeneges.


40/160



8 Health Impacts of Waste Incineration

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Ambient air in both urban and rural areas contains a large number of chemicals. Heat

and power generation, transport exhaust, cooking, bonfires and smoking are

examples of social combustion processes. Forest fires and volcanic eruptions are

examples of natural combustion processes. All combustion processes generate many

different airborne chemicals and many of these processes are essential to modern

life.

8.1.2 There has been and is considerable public concern, particularly among people living

near such facilities, on the potential negative health impacts from the emissions

generated by these facilities that are deposited onto air, water and soil.

8.1.3 Conversion of bio-waste to energy is a carefully controlled burning process. The

process aims to achieve a substantial reduction in the volume of waste; eliminate or

reduce any potential harmful agents such as harmful micro-organisms and organic

chemicals; and generate useful energy. The chemicals emitted from biomass fuelled

power plants are similar to those emitted from coal-fired power stations, metal

smelting plants and municipal waste incinerators. Advances in the technology of

modern waste to energy plants have enabled the introduction of tighter regulation on

emission levels compared to other types of combustion plants.

8.1.4 The main outputs from power plants and incinerators tend to be:

Energy (as heat and electricity).

Gases emitted into the air.

Fly ash which is the residue within the abatement and control systems in

place to reduce the amount of emissions into the air.

Bottom ash which is the non-combustible material, such as metals contained

in the original fuel or waste stream, that remains in the boiler.

Cooling water discharges where water is used as a coolant.

8.1.5 The principle sources of data to assess the potential health effects of the chemicals

that may be emitted from the stack of the power plant are:


41/160



epidemiological studies on individuals living near incinerators

toxicological studies in laboratory settings

exposure studies on individuals living near incinerators

8.1.6 All waste whether classified as non-hazardous or hazardous, particularly biological

(e.g. food, drink, animal remains); radioactive and chemical waste (e.g. domestic

cleaning fluids, batteries, industrial chemicals, plastics) can be hazardous if not

collected and managed appropriately. The potential human health impacts associated

with the accumulation and decay of both non-hazardous and hazardous waste

include15:

emissions into the air, water and soil;

odour;

dust;

an increase in pests and vermin;

detraction from the visual aesthetics of the local environment;

impacts on greenspace;

impacts on flora and fauna;

fire hazard;

infectious diseases (both directly and from transmission by, for example,flies and rats); and

chronic diseases e.g. pneumonia, diarrhoea, bronchitis.

8.1.7 If waste remains uncollected and untreated (a do nothing approach) there will be

significant and demonstrable negative consequences for health and wellbeing. It is

against this background that potential health impacts of waste treatment needs to be

compared. 16

8.1.8 The following sections describe the evidence on the health impacts of municipal solid

waste (domestic and commercial waste) and hazardous waste incinerators as these

have been the most closely studied. In general biofuels such as poultry bedding and

meat and bonemeal are less hazardous than municipal and hazardous waste.

15

Leonardi G., Waste and Health in London: a brief overview, London School of Hygiene & TropicalMedicine, 2001 (Part of the HIA of the London Mayors draft Municipal Waste Strategy 2001)16

Williams P, Waste treatment and disposal, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1999.


42/160



8.2 Interpretation of epidemiological, toxicological and exposure studies

8.2.1 Epidemiological studies are very important sources of direct information on the

relationship between exposure to chemicals and the possible human health effects

especially in terms of long term effects. However, epidemiological studies particularly

in relation to combustion or incineration plants and other low levels of environmental

pollution are often difficult to interpret because the low level exposure over long time

periods is very difficult to disentangle from the other exposures and factors (termed

confounding factors), for example exposures in the home from domestic cleaning,

decorating and garden chemicals, that can contribute to the development of an

adverse health effect.1718

8.2.2 Some of the key issues to consider when interpreting the health evidence and

epidemiological studies in particular are:

The likely nature and levels of emissions from the plant under investigation

since it came into operation. Most of the facilities studied have been older in

design and poorly performing by current standards. Often these epidemiology

studies have involved hazardous waste incinerators, for which the levels of

emissions and therefore exposure of the local population, tended to be much

higher than for modern facilities. These old waste to energy facilities had poor

environmental performance because they did not have the advanced pollution

abatement technology that is an integral feature of modern incinerators. The

published data should therefore be viewed as describing a worst case

situation.

What other sources of emissions are present in the area (for example,

smelting works, power stations, crematoria, heavy vehicle traffic, etc.). Health

studies have tended not to separate out the effects of other sources of

emissions which makes it difficult to unambiguously attribute effects solely to

the incinerator.

The degree of deprivation in the area as there is an association between

levels of deprivation and poorer health. Incinerators are often sited in areas of

social deprivation and it is difficult to separate effects that may be due to the

incinerator from those associated with poverty.

17Franchini M, Rial M, Buiatti E, Bianchi F. Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions:

a review of epidemiological studies. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2004;40(1):101-15. Review.18Hu SW, Shy CM. Health effects of waste incineration: a review of epidemiologic studies. J Air Waste

Manag Assoc. 2001 Jul;51(7):1100-9. Review.


43/160


44/160


45/160



produced from many other sources. It is therefore necessary to identify the

contribution of the stack emissions to the total exposure of the local community. If the

proportion of the chemical coming from the stack is very small compared with other

sources of exposure it is most unlikely that it will have any significant effect on health.

8.2.6 In the following sections epidemiological and exposure studies along with key reviews

of the health evidence are presented.

8.3 Reviews of the epidemiological literature

8.3.1 The following extracts are provided in chronological order from the key reviews that

have taken place over the last ten years.

8.3.2 The National Public Health Service in Wales produced a briefing report on Health

Effects of Waste Management Technologies in 2007. The report states that:

For the reasons outlined above, all three reviews agree that no firm conclusions can

be drawn on the health effects of waste management technologies. SWPHO

summarise the situation by stating that the most studies are hypothesis-generating

rather than hypothesis-testing. Bond et al state that the generic lessonscan be

summarised as follows: Most epidemiological investigations reported in this area have

been ecological studies based on spatial patterns of morbidity or mortality. Exposure,

which may be over protracted periods involving multiple confounding factors, such as

deprivation, have been insufficiently quantified to permit scientifically robust

conclusions concerning causation. Emissions and exposures from landfill and

composting operations are much less well characterised than those from incineration.

Emissions of bioaerosols from composting, landfill and waste recycling plants are a

potential concern. Robust epidemiological data concerning health risks associated with

exposure to bioaerosols are very sparse. (Executive summary pg.i) (Section 6

Conclusion, Page 6)

8.3.3 A World Health Organization workshop in 2007 Population Health and Waste

Management: scientific data and policy options in the chapter on the health impacts

of incinerators has this to say in terms of policy implications:

In short, the current state of knowledge is inconclusive. There is reasonable evidenceof some adverse health effects from older plants. There is little or no relevant data from


46/160


47/160



8.3.5 The Health Protection Agency published a Position Statement on Municipal Solid

Waste Incineration in 2005 which states that:

Health Studies

Studies in the UK have principally focused on the possible effects of living near to the

older generation of incinerators, which were significantly more polluting than modern

plant. The Agency has considered studies examining adverse health effects around

incinerators and is not aware of any consistent or convincing evidence of a link with

adverse health outcomes.

However it is accepted that the lack of evidence of adverse effects might be due to the

limitations regarding the available data.

A number of comprehensive reviews on incineration have been published. The

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have recently commissioned a

review of the effects of waste management, which was peer reviewed by the Royal

Society. Cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects were all considered, and no

evidence was found for a link between the incidence of the disease and the current

generation of incinerators. It concluded that although the information is incomplete and

not ideal, the weight of evidence from studies so far indicates that present day practice

for managing solid municipal waste has, at most, a minor effect on human health and

the environment, particularly when compared to other everyday activities.

An earlier report by the Medical Research Councils Institute for Environment and

Health on the Health Effects of Waste Combustion Products also concluded that

epidemiological studies on people who work at or live near incinerators have shown no

consistent excess of any specific disease.

The Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products andthe Environment has reviewed a large study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit

that examined 14 million people living within 7.5 km of 72 municipal solid waste

incinerators, which operated up to 1987. The Committee concluded that, any potential

risk of cancer due to residency (for periods in excess of ten years) near to municipal

solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most

modern techniques. We agree with this view.

Conclusion


48/160



Incinerators emit pollutants into the environment but provided they comply with modern

regulatory requirements, such as the Waste Incineration Directive, they should

contribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants in ambient air.

Epidemiological studies, and risk estimates based on estimated exposures, indicate

that the emissions from such incinerators have little effect on health. The Agency, not

least through its role in advising Primary Care Trusts and Local Health Boards as

statutory consultees for Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC), will continue to work

with regulators to ensure that incinerators do not contribute significantly to ill-health.

(Pages 3-4)

8.3.6 The British Society for Ecological Medicine published a report on The Health Effects

of Waste Incinerators in 2005.20 This stated that:

1) Large epidemiological studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood

cancers and of birth defects around incinerators. Smaller studies and a large body of

related research support these findings, point to a causal relationship, and suggest that

a much wider range of illnesses may be involved.

2) Recent research has confirmed that particulate pollution, especially the fine

particulate (PM2.5) pollution which is typical of incinerator emissions, is an importantcontributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment of other diseases, and

causes a linear increase in mortality. Incinerators are in reality particulate generators,

and their use cannot be justified now that it is clear how toxic and carcinogenic fine

particulates are.

3) Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large variety of

organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrine

disruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damage the

immune system and decrease intelligence. The dangers of these are self-evident.

Some of these compounds have been detected hundreds to thousands of miles away

from their source.

20The Health Protection Agency have formally and publicly critiqued this review stating: The BSEM

report is not a systematic review of the literature and there is no critical assessment of the quality ofthe included studies. Consequently the report presents a selective and limited use of the scientificliterature. For example the report has not considered important reviews such as the DEFRA review of

environmental and health effects of waste management, the Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC)statement on cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain or the RoyalSociety critique of the DEFRA review.


49/160


50/160


51/160



Most studies lack the statistical power needed to show a statistically significant excess

of disease and/or are weakened by poor control for confounding factors.

There is no consistent or convincing evidence to support the view that emissions from

modern waste incinerators are associated with ill health such as cancer and respiratory

problems. It is reassuring that retrospective studies around the older generation of

incinerators do not provide convincing evidence of a link with ill health and where

health effects have been reported, they typically disappear once potential confounding

factors are taken into account (i.e. deprivation, ethnicity, smoking etc). Where some

evidence of possible health effects remains, it cannot be directly linked with incinerator

emissions only.

The strength of many studies is weakened by poor estimates of exposure. Many still

simply use distance from the incinerator as a proxy measure of exposure. The use of

concentric circles to identify at risk populations does not take into account the

influence of meteorological conditions or process characteristics (e.g. stack height,

efflux velocity, plume temperature) and the zones of influence used (which can be up to

7.5 km distance) introduce considerable possibilities for confounding exposures.

Improved studies using dispersion modelling and/or environmental monitoring will add

to the scientific literature and we recommend spatial epidemiology should be based on

dispersion modelling of emissions and/or air monitoring data. (Chapter 7 Conclusions,

Section 7.3 Incineration, Page 64)

8.3.10 A South West England Public Health Observatory commissioned report Waste

Management and Public Health: the state of the evidence produced by the Centre for

Research in Environmental Systems. Pollution and Remediation at the University of

West England in 2002 stated that:

5.3.1 Reviews and primary studies

The literature search yielded 5 reviews, 24 discussion papers and at least 51 primary

studies of the health impacts of incineration (Appendix 4 and Table 11).

Incineration is a method of processing waste during which major portions of the waste

stream are physically and chemically transformed. Incineration produces energy, gases

which are emitted into the atmosphere and solid residues which must be disposed of.

The main hazards arising from incineration are toxic metals (such as lead, cadmium,

arsenic and mercury), dioxins and particulates. Metals are not destroyed by


52/160



incineration but are liberated from their immobilised state in waste materials and are

released by combustion as highly bioavailable forms. They leave the incinerator in

particles of respirable size, in particulates which are deposited on soils, water, food and

dust, and in readily confounding factors inherent in these types of epidemiological

study (described in section 4.2) rule out any definitive statement of causality. The lack

of consistency in finding associations could mean that incineration does not cause the

adverse health effects or it could mean that the health effects are not detectable using

existing epidemiological methods and the available data.

5.3.2 Judgement

Incineration and any health outcomes - insufficient. (Chapter 5 Summarising the

evidence, Section 5.3 Incineration, Page 31)

8.3.11 A Greenpeace commissioned report Incineration and Human Health produced by

the Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Essex in 2001 states that:

No matter how modern an incinerator is, these facilities inevitably result in the release

of toxic emissions to air and the production of toxic ashes and residues. This leads to

contamination of the environment and to potential exposure of animals and humans to

hazardous pollutants. Many hazardous compounds are released from incinerators

including organic chemicals such as chlorinated and brominated dioxins, PCBs and

PCNs, heavy metals, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Furthermore, innumerable

substances are emitted which are of unknown toxicity. The entire impact on human

health of exposure to the whole mixture of chemicals emitted from incinerators is

unknown. However, studies imply that individuals who work at waste incinerators and

who live near incinerators have suffered from increases in the rate of mortality as well

as many other diseases and effects that diminish the quality of their lives. Moreover, a

prestigious scientific body has recently expressed "substantial" concern about the

impacts of incinerator-derived dioxin releases on the health and well-being of broader

populations, regardless of the implementation of maximum achievable control

technology (NRC 2000). (Chapter 6: The Solution: reduce, re-use and recycle and

phase out incineration, Section 6.1 Problems with Incineration, Section 6.1.1

Environment and Health, Page 59)


53/160



8.3.12 The US National Research Councils (NRC) Committee on Health Effects of Waste

Incineration (part of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology) produced a

report on Waste Incineration and Public Health in 2000 which stated that:

Few epidemiologic studies have attempted to assess whether adverse health effects

have actually occurred near individual incinerators, and most of them have been

unable to detect any effects. The studies of which the committee is aware that did

report finding health effects had shortcomings and failed to provide convincing

evidence. That result is not surprising given the small populations typically available for

study and the fact that such effects, if any, might occur only infrequently or take many

years to appear. Also, factors such as emissions from other pollution sources and

variations in human activity patterns often decrease the likelihood of determining a

relationship between small contributions of pollutants from incinerators and observed

health effects. Lack of evidence of such relationships might mean that adverse health

effects did not occur, but it could also mean that such relationships might not be

detectable using available methods and data sources.

Pollutants emitted by incinerators that appear to have the potential to cause the largest

health effects are particulate matter, lead, mercury, and dioxins and furans. However,

there is wide variation in the contributions that incinerators can make to environmental

concentrations of those contaminants. Although emissions from newer, well-run

facilities are expected to contribute little to environmental concentrations and to health

risks, the same might not be true for some older or poorly run facilities.

Studies of workers at municipal solid-waste incinerators show that workers are at much

higher risk for adverse health effects than individual residents in the surrounding area.

In the past, incinerator workers have been exposed to high concentrations of dioxins

and toxic metals, particularly lead, cadmium, and mercury. (Executive Summary,

Health Effects Section, Page 6)

8.3.13 The Medical Research Councils Institute for Environment and Health at the

University of Leicester produced a report on the Health Effects of Waste Combustion

Products in 1997. They stated that:

A few epidemiological studies have analysed mortality (mostly as a result of cancer) in

people who work in incineration plants, but no consistent excess incidence of any

specific disease has emerged. The ability of such investigations to detect adverse


54/160



effects, however, is limited by their relatively small size, the difficulty in taking account

of potentially confounding exposures such as smoking and socio-economic factors, and

uncertainties about the extent of any healthy worker effect. Furthermore, health risks

for working adults may be different from those for other groups of the population such

as children or the elderly.

Other studies have examined mortality and morbidity in communities living near

incinerators. Again, interpretation is complicated by the possibility of confounding,

particularly by social deprivation, especially when the observed relative risks are less

than 1.5.

A further limitation is the use of distance of residence from an incinerator as an index of

exposure. Airborne concentrations of pollutants are determined by variables such as

wind speed and direction as well as distance from the point of release, and in any case

people often spend much of their time away from their places of residence. Exposure

by routes other than inhalation will depend on personal habits such as the consumption

of home-grown vegetables. Again, this may not relate to distance from the incinerator

in a simple fashion. (Section 4.2 Evaluation of health effects associated with

incinerator emissions, Page 132)

8.3.14 Overall, there is consensus among the majority of the reviews that modern well-designed, well-operated and well-managed facilities such as modern waste or

biomass fuelled power plants have little or no negative health impacts on people

living near them.

8.4 Workplace studies

8.4.1 Workplace exposures to incinerator emissions are likely to be at least 100-1000 times

higher than the exposures experienced by local residents. Levels of workplace

exposure to hazardous substances in a modern incinerator in the UK would not be

expected to be associated with adverse health effects, provided that work practices

and systems were in conformance with relevant health and safety legislation.

8.4.2 Health effects that have been reported to be associated with work place exposure to

incinerator emissions include:

increased risk of lung and oesophageal cancer;

increased risk of gastric cancer;


55/160



increased mortality from ischaemic heart disease;

immune system effects;

altered sex ratio among offspring;

proteinuria, hypertension, abnormal blood chemistry;

chloracne.

8.4.3 A French study on ill health among municipal waste incinerator workers found only

two adverse effects, skin irritation and cough.21

8.4.4 Excess risks of lung cancer and heart disease were detected in a Swedish study of

workers employed between 1920 and 1985.22 The study results were not statistically

significant although as the risks of heart disease increased with increasing duration of

employment, this result should probably be treated as causal. Levels of exposure arelikely to have been much higher than for modern plant, but no exposure data are

presented. There are also no data on smoking or other risk factors for lung cancer

and heart disease. The study does not provide strong evidence for an adverse effect

associated with waste incineration.

8.4.5 Excess risks of oesophageal cancer were detected in a Swedish study of workers

exposed to combustion products rather than specifically associated with waste

incineration.23 The study population was dominated by chimney sweeps and they

showed clear excess risks of oesophageal cancer. The number of waste incineration

workers included in the study was small and the risks of oesophageal cancer were

not significantly raised in this group.

8.4.6 A Japanese study of an incinerator that was subsequently shut down because of high

levels of dioxin emissions showed that workplace exposure to dioxins was correlated

with greater body burdens of dioxin.24 Associations were found between blood fat

levels of dioxin and potential immune system effects and also increased risks of

hyperlipidema (excess levels of fat within the blood) and allergy (this finding was of

marginal statistical significance). There was also an association between dioxin

21Hours M, Anzivino-Viricel L, Maitre A, Perdrix A, Perrodin Y, Charbotel B, Bergeret A. Morbidity

among municipal waste incinerator workers: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.2003 Jul;76(6):467-72.22

Gustavsson P

rose energy power plant hia

Documents