www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459

Why energy from waste incineration is an essential componentof environmentally responsible waste management

A. Porteous *

Department of Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK

Accepted 14 February 2005

Abstract

This paper outlines the key factors involved in adopting energy from waste incineration (EfWI) as part of a waste management

strategy. Incineration means all forms of controlled direct combustion of waste. �Emerging� technologies, such as gasification, are, in

the author�s view, 5 to 10 years from proven commercial application. The strict combustion regimen employed and the emissions

therefrom are detailed. It is shown that EfWI merits consideration as an integral part of an environmentally responsible and sus-

tainable waste management strategy, where suitable quantities of waste are available.

� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper outlines key parameters which need to be

considered before energy from waste incineration

(EfWI) whether by mass burn incineration or fluidised

bed combustion should be considered.

The format is set out in Fig. 1, where the followingare considered in sequence, inputs, combustion, emis-

sions, energy recovery, residues (bottom ash and air pol-

lution control residues, respectively). Dioxins also

receive detailed consideration along with the author�srisk assessment for their inhalation.

It is hoped that informed comprehension of EfWI

will be facilitated.

‘‘As a nation, we have to minimise the amount of wastethat we produce and get as much value as possible out ofwhat is left’’ (Meacher, 2002).

This sentiment is not practised in the UK as regards

the adoption of EfWI vis a vis the more enlightened

waste management practices in other European coun-

0956-053X/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.02.008

* Tel.: +44 1908 653 272; fax: +44 1908 652 192.

E-mail address: s.j.lumbers@open.ac.uk.

tries as shown in Table 1 (CIWM, 2003). It is clear that

EfWI use in Continental Europe has not inhibited either

recycling or composting.

2. Municipal solid waste (UK data)

This totals 30 · 106 tpy and is the principal subject of

this paper. It is customary to posit a hierarchy as if this

were unquestioned dogma. The author�s version is given

below.

(1)

Avoid the creation of waste.

(2)

Re-use unavoidable waste.

(3)

Where re-use is not possible, recover for

reprocessing – provided that there is

an end-use and a demand for the product, and

there is a net environmental benefit in doing so.

(4) If materials recovery is not practicable, use it

for fuel.

(5)

Lastly, if recovery of materials or energy is not

appropriate, choose the disposal option which

has the least environmental impact.

Table 3

Energy requirement for packaging materials manufacture (kwh/kg)

Material Energy

Aluminium 74.1

Steel 13.9

Glass 7.9

Paper 7.1

Plastics 3.1

Table 4

Ultimate analysis and calorific value of MSW

Material % By weight

Fig. 1. Simplified energy from waste box diagram.

Table 1

A breakdown of selected European Waste Management Practices

Country Year Composting Energy

from

waste

Recycling Landfill

Belgium 1998 15% 21% 37% 27%

Denmark 1999 14% 50% 25% 11%

France 1998 6% 27% 8% 58%

Netherlands 1999 23% 41% 24% 12%

UK 2001 3 8 12 77

452 A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459

Clearly, waste minimisation has fundamental impor-

tance, however, whilst we live in a profit driven society,

it may be unrealistic to expect too much if deleting

unnecessary �wrapping� sells less perfume, lipstick, or

even newspaper advertising.

A typical analysis of UK MSW composition is givenin Table 2 (Porteous, 2000).

Note that the plastics content in densely populated

urban areas can be greater than the average in Table

2. Note also, on environmental sustainability grounds,

plastic production requires much less manufacturing

energy/kg than other packaging materials as set out in

Table 3 (Scott, 1999).

It is clear that with energy recovery via EfWI, there isa case for more plastics use, not less, if EfWI is used as a

Table 2

Material analysis of sample of MSW

Material % By weight

Dust and cinder 9.0

Vegetable matter 24.0

Paper and cardboard 31.0

Metals 7.8

Textiles 4.9

Glass 8.0

Plastics 11.0

Unclassified 4.7

recovery route after use, where recycling is impracticable

as it often is with soiled food packaging.

The ultimate analysis of the waste in Table 2 is given

in Table 4 (Porteous, 2000; opcit).

It is important to take on board that recycling/com-

posting may diminish waste quantities, but have little ef-

fect on the calorific value (CV), which is often increased.

Daventry District Council�s current �recycling� rate is44% which consists of �14% materials collection� and30% composted garden waste and cardboard used for

the revegetation of landfill cells (Daventry DC, 2003).

Table 5 illustrates the effect on CV for a nominal 40%

‘‘recycling’’ rate which demonstrates that the CV of the

residual waste can increase with recycling.

In any case, an EfWI plant can cope with a wide

range of CV from any post recycling/composting opera-tion, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The possible calorific value

range is from 60% to 125% of the design value (Semrau

and Bracker, 1994; Lautenschlager, 1996).

UK MSW growth rates have recently been up to 4%

annually and currently show little sign of decreasing. As

an example, a recent 120 page UK Guardian Newspaper

�Society� Supplement, dated 21 November 2001, weighed

in at 300 g; over 95% of which was job advertisements inmainly very large format. The author�s estimate is that if

all advertisements were restricted to less than 10 column

centimetres, this could result in a minimum savings of 4

million kg of newsprint annually for the Guardian

alone. Given the waste creation practices still existent

(and supported by proponents of environmental respon-

sibility) and with every prospect of their continuance,

there is evidently scope for the adoption of all waste

Carbon 24

Hydrogen 3.2

Oxygen 15.9

Nitrogen 0.7

Sulphur 0.1

Water 31.2

Chlorine 0.7

Ash and inerts 24.2

Net calorific value as fired 10,600 MJ/t

Moisture 31.2 w/w

Combustibles 44.6 w/w

Inerts 24.2 w/w

Table 6

Mass balance per g of input MSW

Material Mass g

Inputs MSW 1.0 g

Dry air 6.4 g

Total inputs 7.4 g

Outputs

Table 5

Postulated residual materials analysis after materials recovery and indicative component calorific values (MJ/kg)

(1) Materials (2) Original % (3) Recovery factor % (4) Residual % (5) Calorific value (indicative) MJ/kg

Paper and cardboard 31 0.33 20 12–14

Glass 8 0.5 4 0

Metals 8 0.5 4 0

Vegetable matter 24 0.7 7 1–2

Plastics 11 0.2 9 29–35

Sub total: 82 44

�Other� 18 18

Total (all) 100 62

Fig. 2. Standardised combustion performance diagram.

A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459 453

management options as set out in the box below, which

illustrates the implications of 3% and 4% MSW growth

rates, respectively.

Municipal solid waste growth implications for 3% and

4%, respective, growth rates

3% Growth rate. Doubling time 25 years. 4%Growth rate. Doubling time 18 years. UK 1996/97 Growth rate 3.2%: 2001–2002, 2.7% (DEFRA,2003). For a fixed EfWI capacity, recycling andcomposting will have to grow at greater ratesto stabilise throughput to the plant during itslifetime. For an EfWI plant servicing an areawith 100,000 tonnes MSW (minus 35% recy-cling and composting at year 1), plant capacitywill be fixed at 65,000 tpy. If this is notpermitted to grow, then recycling/composting(at 4% growth rates) will have to increaseto135,000 tpy at year 18, i.e., 7.5% annually,from a base of 35% at year 1. All wastemanagement options will need to be vigor-ously pursued – we cannot afford the luxury ofignoring EfWI, when landfilling is due formajor curtailment in the UK.

3. Combustion

Using the waste analysis in Table 2 and ultimate anal-

ysis in Table 4, Table 6 gives the mass balance per g of

input MSW when combusted with 100% excess air.

The percentage composition on the exiting flue gases

is given in Table 7.

It is to be noted that 85% of the CO2 is bioderived,and hence the net CO2 per kWhe generated is as calcu-

lated in Table 8 (Porteous, 2001) based on industrial

data (DTI, 1999; Kyte, 1996).

A major environmental advantage of EfWI is that as

MSW consigned does not end up in landfill, conse-

quently there is an avoided methane credit, which has

been calculated by the author, on a 20 year timescale

CO2 0.881

H2O 0.288

O2 0.738

N2 4.9

HCl 0.007

Ash residue 0.242

Water vapour (from MSW) 0.312

Total outputs (rounded off) 7.4

i.e., Inputs = Outputs

Table 7

Percentage composition of exiting flue gases

Component %

CO2 contributes (85% bioderived) 12.3

Neutral H2O contributes 8.37

Neutral O2 contributes 10.3

Neutral N2 contributes 68.4

NOx 0.014

HCl (after clean-up) 0.001

Total (rounded) 100.00

Table 8

Typical CO2 emissions from industrial boilers and power generation plant

Coal-fired 410 g/kWh thermal (ca. 950 g CO2/kWh electricity)

Gas-fired 226 g/kWh thermal (ca. 525 g CO2/kWh electricity)

Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) ca. 400 g CO2/kWh electricity

CO2 saving achieved by EfWI electrical power generation is:

Coal (950–264) = 686 g/kWh electricity

Gas (525–264) = 261 g/kWh electricity

CCGT (400–264) = 136 g/kWh electricity

[ca. 90% reduction in particulates compared with coal fired

power generation is also achieved]

454 A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459

basis for the greenhouse effect of the landfill derived

methane, as equivalent to 1.2 tonnes CO2 avoided from

landfilling per tonne of input waste (Porteous, 2001;

opcit).

This alone is a clear environmental incentive to burn

residual waste for energy recovery. There is also a net

500 kWhe/tonne waste from EfWI, compared with ca.

125 kWhe/tonne conveyed to landfill. There is also nomethane to migrate from the site boundaries. This has

resulted in a US Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania (Re-

source Recovery Forum, 2003) on the grounds that

property values have been reduced. Similar property va-

lue fears abound in the UK, too (Browne, 2003).

4. Emissions

Table 9 gives, respectively, emission data for the best

UK and EU practices (Carlson, 1996, 1998; Fernwarme

Wien Ges.m.b.h, 1997; Stockholm Energi, 1996), Waste

Incineration Directive (WID) requirements, UK 1991

Table 9

A comparison of UK (best practice) and European mean EfWI emissions a

Component Emission to air in mg/Nm3 � dioxi

ng/Nm3 � dry gas 11% O2

Measured (UK)

(best practice)

European

(mean)

Was

incin

(1) (2) (3) D

Particulates 0.9 2.2 10

HC1 20 1.6 10

HF <0.1 0.03 1

SO2 36 7.2 50

NOx as NO2 274 29 200

CO 5 – 50

VOC <5 – 10

Hg <0.02 <0.001 0.05

Cd <0.001 <0.001 0.05

R7 HM/R12 (heavy metal summation) R7 R12 0.5

<0.1 0.16

Dioxin I-TEQ ng/Nm3 0.006 <0.01 0.1

NH3 – <0.1 –

mean data, plus % reduction achieved in UK over

1991 levels (note dioxin reduction of > 99% from UK

1991 levels).

Table 10 gives examples of gasification emissions data

for two gasification plants: Burgau (full-scale plant ver-

ified) and Compact Power brochure values, respectively

(Chadwick et al., 2000; Compact Power, 2000; TECH-

NIP, 1999).Comparison of Tables 8 and 9 show there is very lit-

tle to choose from in terms of reported emissions con-

centrations. However, gasification flue gas volumes/te

of input waste (processed MSW) are up to 40% less

than those for EfWI. Care is needed in interpreting

gasification data, as there may be additional emissions

from obtaining the processed MSW for gasification,

e.g., in extra road transport of segregated waste as op-posed to straight road transport to an EfWI plant.

Also, the feedstock for gasification processes normally

requires extensive size reduction, whose respective

emissions and energy requirements are not included

here.

nd percentage improvement over UK 1991 performance

ns in UK 1991 % Reduction Emission burden g/t

te

eration

Mean

emissions

mg/Nm3

ð4Þ�ð1Þð4Þ �Best� practice emissions

g/te (based on (1)) plus

NOx of 200 mg/Nm3 and

HCl of 10 mg/Nm3 �dioxins ng TEQ

irective (4) (5) (6)

500 99.8 4.95

689 97.1 55

N.A. – 0.55

338 89 198

(plant >3 tph) N.A. – 1100

220 98 27.5

NA – <27.5

0.26 99 0.11

(Cd and TI) 0.6 99.8 0.0055

>11.0 99 <0.55

>225 99.9 33 ng

– –

Non-biogenic CO2 132 kg

Table 10

MSW Pyrolysis Plant Burgau (Germany) – flue gas stated emissions and comparison with (Compact Power, Bristol, UK, Brochure Values) data

sources

Working status of the Plant

Throughput: 6t/h

Heating value: 8000 kJ/kg

Flue gas amount: 30,000 Nm3/h

Guaranteed limiting values of the emission according 17.BimSchV2related to 11% O2 and dry flue gas

Emission of Flue Gas Measured Value

Burgau mg/Sm3

Compact Power

Brochure values

Daily mean value limiting value according to

17.BimSchV2mg/Nm3

Continuous measurements

Carbon monoxide 10 [Trace] 50

Total dust 2 [0.2] 10

Organic matter as total C 2 [Trace] 10

Gaseous inorganic chlorine – compounds, declared as HCl 5 [2] 10

Gaseous inorganic fluorine – compounds, declared as HF 0.5 [0.1] 1

Sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide, as SO2 20 [25] 50

Nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide as NO2 180 [<37] 200-

Individual measurements

Total Cd, Ti 0.01 [0.006] 0.05

Total Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V 0.1 [0.006] 0.5

PCDD/PCDF (TEQ-Value) dioxin 0.002 ng/Nm3 [0.003] 0.1 ng/ Nm3

A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459 455

Care is needed in interpreting emissions data. A re-

port for the Strategy Unit�s Waste Management deliber-ations (McLanaghan, 2002) emphasises that

information on environmental releases is more readily

available for proven technologies, whereas for the

�newer� technologies, information is limited. The

author�s view is that long term reliability is still not pro-

ven either ‘‘where few, if any, commercial plants are in

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

% o

fto

tal

Iron

and

stee

l

Non

-ferr

ous

met

als

Pow

er g

ener

atio

n

MS

W in

cine

ratio

n

Cem

ent m

anuf

actu

re

Che

mic

al in

cine

ratio

n

Car

boni

satio

n

Inor

gani

c ch

emic

als

Clin

ical

was

te in

cine

ratio

n

Fig. 3. UK dioxin emi

existence’’. This �realpolitick� of emerging technologies,

viz, lack of reference plants, has not stopped bullish re-ports on them, e.g., ‘‘in future, gasification in fluidised

bed systems to produce high energy syngas is likely to

become more cost effective’’. (BIFFAWARD, 2003).

In the meantime EfWI does its job day in day out as it

has done for over 50 years with greater than 90% plant

availability.

Ani

mal

inci

nera

tion

Hal

ogen

Use

Bio

fuel

com

bust

ion

Sew

age

slud

ge in

cine

ratio

n

RD

F co

mbu

stio

n

Che

mic

al re

cove

ry

Tim

ber p

roce

ssin

g

Org

anic

che

mic

al m

anuf

actu

re

Pap

er m

anuf

actu

re

ssions by sector.

456 A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459

5. Dioxins

The dioxin contribution from municipal solid waste

incineration is now less than 2 g/yr. Fig. 3 shows that

iron and steel and non ferrous metals production and

power generation dwarf EfWI�s contribution (EA,2002).

The recent UK foot and mouth disease (FMD) car-

cass pyres dioxin releases are worthy of note.

UK FMD Dioxin Releases

63 g dioxins released by Foot and Mouthcarcass disposal pyres up to 23 April 2001 –�Urban Levels in Rural Areas� (Meacher, 2001).All of the UK�s EfWI Plants Release < 3 g/yr.

Fig. 4. (a) Uppsala – District Heating Fuel Mix 1980. (b) Uppsala –

District Heating Fuel Mix 1987, after EfWI installed.

Clearly, Her Majesty�s Government (HMG) was not

concerned about the major increase in dioxin levels fromFMD pyres. Attempts by opponents of EfW to �play the

dioxin card� and sway Government decisions against

EfWI are evidently misplaced, given the Government�sinsouciance on FMD pyre releases.

The Environment Agency regulates the performance

of incinerators by:

� requiring the use of continuous emissions monitors tomeasure concentrations of pollutants such as sulphur

dioxide, oxide or nitrogen, hydrochloric acid, carbon

monoxide, volatile organic compounds and particu-

late matter;

� requiring other pollutants, including hydrogen fluo-

ride, heavy metals and dioxins, to be monitored at

least twice a year;

� carry out check monitoring of pollutants using itsown independent contractors, normally on an annual

basis; and

� inspecting sites on a regular basis and undertaking

random unannounced inspections (EA, 2002).

Clearly, a very strict monitoring regime is imple-

mented for EfWI, but was not apparently done for the

FMD carcass pyres.

6. Energy recovery

The author�s computations of the resources saved by

EfWI are given in Table 11.

Table 11

Resources saved by EfWI

1 Tonne of waste is equivalent to 2.5 T of steam (400 �C, 40 Bar)

1 Tonne of waste is equivalent to 30 T of hot water (at 180/130 �C)1 Tonne of waste is equivalent to 200 kg of oil

1 Tonne of waste is equivalent to 500 kWh electricity

Whilst electricity only generation has much to com-

mend it, CHP is much better in resource conservation

terms by virtue of its enhanced overall efficiency and re-

duced green house gas emissions (MSW CHP Schemesreduce fossil carbon emissions by ca. 76% compared

with conventional means). The major resource savings

possible are exemplified by Uppsala�s district heating

fuel oil consumption for 1980 and 1987, respectively,

as per Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively (Uppsala Energi,

1998).

7. Solid residues

Typically, 1 tonne MSW will produce 0.25 tonne of

incinerator bottom ash (IBA) with some mixed ferrous

waste which can be magnetically separated.

Fig. 5. Total proportions of metals in fly ash leachate Hogdalen EFW CHP Facility: Courtesy of Stockholm Energy nEC Drinking Water standards.

Table 12

Bottom ash utilisation

Country Bottom ash

production (t/y)

Regulations Uses

% Used for

Denmark 420,000 Remove ferrous metals, Age the material, Pass

leach tests, Groundwater protection precautions

>90 Road building,

Car park sub-bases

France 2.0 m Leaching tests, Loss on ignition <5%, Age,

remove metals and screen before use

45 Road building

Germany 2.5 m Loss on ignition <2%, Leachability (<1% total

solubility), Age, remove metals an unburned

material and screen out oversize before use

60 Road building,

Embankments,

Noise barriers

A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459 457

In addition, there are approximately 40 kg of air pol-

lution control residues (APCRs) which are consigned to

suitably licensed landfills.

Table 12 illustrates the accredited uses of IBA in var-ious EC countries. The UK does not recognise this as

recycling, yet crushed glass cullet put to the same use

is so designated. This is perverse as both applications

save mineral resources.

The UK Staffordshire County Council has success-

fully demonstrated that IBA is an acceptable road

construction material (Staffordshire County Council,

2002).APCR�s are normally very successfully monofilled.

However, if further treatment (e.g., cementation addi-

tives) is deemed to be necessary, then Sweden�s Hogd-

alen plant leachate tests (Fig. 5) give every confidence

in this approach as the �leachate� virtually meets EC

drinking water standards (Stockholm Energi, 1996;

opcit).

It should be noted that APCR treatment is a topic of

major discussion in the UK at the moment.

8. Risk

The final frontier. EfWI dioxins have been reduced by

99.9%, compared with UK mean 1991 levels (Table 9 re-

fers), so where is the risk?

Appendix A gives the author�s risk calculations for

the WID release level of 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3. Clearly,

EfWI dioxin emissions are not a significant contributorto body burdens.

Selected decisions from the recent Hampshire Waste

Services (HWS) Planning Appeal (Department of Envi-

ronment, 2001) are set out below. The Inspector�s com-

ments are of great significance (IR refers to report

paragraph numbers, planning Policy Guidance (PPG),

Integrated Pollution Control (IPC)). Selected com-

458 A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459

ments from EfWI UK Planning Inquiry Appeal on emis-

sions and human rights, respectively:

Emissions

The Inspector has considered the issue ofhealth risks from emissions from the proposedincinerator in great detail (IR 12.47–12.113).The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspec-tor�s conclusions on each of the issues raisedunder this heading and with his overall con-clusion (IR 12.113) that there would be verylittle risk to the health of the surroundingpopulation. The Inspector also concludes, andthe Secretary of State accepts, that there is apublic perception of possible harm to humanhealth. However, the Secretary of State agreeswith the Inspector that this consideration,either separately or in combination with theother considerations mentioned in IR 12 211,does not have sufficient weight to alter theconclusions reached on the development planpolicies. Furthermore, the Secretary of Staterecognises that the role of the planning systemis to focus on whether the development is anacceptable use of the land rather than thecontrol of the process or substances them-selves. That is the role of the populationcontrol regime and the Secretary of State isaware that the proposed incinerator has IPCAuthorisation from the Environment Agency,His advice, expressed in PPG23, is that plan-ning decisions should assume that the pollu-tion regime would operate effectively and heagrees with the Inspector that there is noreason to conclude that the advice is notappropriate in this case.

Human rights

Representations were submitted at the Inquirythat the proposed incinerator would be con-trary to Article 2(1) of the European RightsConvention because loss of life would result.In considering the evidence of emissions to airthe Inspector concluded that emissions fromthe incinerator might cause a loss of lifeexpectancy, in the worst case, of probablyonly a few hours (IR 12.99). In discussing theposition under Article 2(1) the Inspector refersto some very limited loss of life (IR 12.204).However, the Secretary of State is clear fromthe Inspector�s earlier conclusion in IR 12.99that he is referring to loss of life expectancy.

Unfortunately, a totally and absolutely guaranteed

risk-free environment is not possible. A balance has to

be struck. EfWI standards lean over backwards to

accommodate public concerns. The industry needs to

be more proactive.

9. Conclusions

EfWI to mandatory EU Waste Incineration Directive

standards is an extremely low-risk, environmentally-be-

nign method of post recycling/composting residual

MSW disposal. It also effects the recovery of 500 kWheper tonne of waste and provides ca 200 kg/te of IBA for

aggregate substitution purposes as well.

It eliminates the environmental impacts of landfillingwaste and helps mitigate global warming both through

its green energy quotient and the reduction in landfill

gas releases.

The successful adoption of composting, recycling and

energy recovery to form a unity of purpose in integrated

wastemanagement has been achieved inContinental Eur-

ope and Scandinavia. It is time that the UK adopted sim-

ilar policies and divested itself of unsustainable landfillwith its concomitant deleterious environmental impacts.

10. Finally

‘‘As far as nuclear energy is concerned, it�s been so tra-duced, so misrepresented by green campaigning groupsand so under-represented by the industry itself thatsomebody needs to do something because we can�tpower Britain and clean up the atmosphere without it(Billen, 2003).’’

The above are Sir Bernard Ingham�s views on Nuclear

Energy. Substitute Incineration and they are also the

author�s. The UK waste industry has a lot to answer

for in its over-reliance on cheap landfill and previously

entrenched unwillingness to include proven, controlled,waste combustion as part of its waste management tool

bag.

Appendix A. Dioxin intake calculations from EfWI

emissions for a maximally exposed individual

(1) Adult lungs breathe in 2 million l3 air/yr or 2000

m3/yr

Dioxin released at 0.1 · 10�9 g m�3 at chimney

top, (and in practice less). These are diluted togreater than 10,000 fold at ground level, due to

air turbulence and dilution from the tall

stack discharge.

A. Porteous / Waste Management 25 (2005) 451–459 459

Hence, maximum annual intake of dioxins

from incineration for someone exposed 24 h/day,

365 days/yr is: 2;000�0.1�10�9

10;000 ¼ 20� 10�12 (20 parts

per quadrillion) or 20 pg/yr from EfW. This isan infinitesimally small amount.

(2)

Tolerable daily intake (TDI) 2 pg

TEQ/kg/day. (Based on UK Committee on

Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Assessment –

Food Standards Agency News, December 2001.)

Adult weight 70 kg, hence annual adult TDIis 70 · 365 · 2 pg/yr. or 51,100 pg/yr. Hence

EfWI dioxin emissions intake as a percentage of

TDI are: 2051;000 � 100 ¼ 0.039%

Modern EfW plants may contribute 0.039% of

tolerable daily intake of dioxins for a maximally

exposed individual. This is a negligible amount.

Note: Even if the US FDA �virtually safe dose� of 0.1pg TEQ/day is used, the % EfWI contribution becomes

0.78%. Clearly other dioxin sources need to be tackled.

References

BIFFAWARD, 2003. Thermal method of municipal waste treatment –

a report.

Billen, A., 2003. The Andrew Billen Interview with Sir Bernard

Ingham, Times (T2) 9 September, pp. 12–13.

Browne, A., 2003. Rubbish dumps can devalue houses by 40%. Times,

22/02/03.

Carlson, K., 1996. Emission control for new EfW Plant. In: Proceed-

ings EWA Conference, London, 15–16 January.

Carlson, K., 1998. Emission control for Holland�s Newest Waste Fired

Power Station, ISWA Times No. 2, pp. 6–7.

Chadwick, R., Porteous, A., Wallace, B., Walsh, T., Whittle, K., 2000.

Thermal treatment of MSW by pyrolysis or gasification – a study

funded by WREN. (The Environmental Trust of Waste Recycling

Group plc) May.

Chartered Institution ofWasteManagement, 2003. EfWGood Practice

Guide, (Working Group, Chairman, Porteous, A.) November.

Compact Power, 2000. (St. Andrews House, St. Andrews Road,

Avonmouth, BS11 9DQ), Brochure: Solutions to Waste, Novem-

ber, 2000.

Daventry District Council, 2003. Communication, 17 September.

Department of the Environment, 2001. Planning inquiry report on

HWS Portsmouth Incinerator planning application. Report issued

15 October.

DEFRA, 2003. Annual waste statistics report.

Environment Agency, 2002. The Agency�s position on waste inciner-

ation in waste management strategies. Position statement.

Fernwarme Wien Ges.m.b.h., 1997. Communications and Literature,

September.

Kyte, W., 1996. Powergen. Communication, 20 December.

Lautenshclager, D.R., 1996. Energy from waste in Germany. In:

Proceedings of E.W.A. National Conference, London, 15–16

January.

McLanaghan, S.R.B., 2002. Delivering the Landfill Directive. The role

of new and emerging technologies: report for the Strategy Unit

0008/2002, November.

Meacher, M., 2001. UK Minister for the Environment, Hansard,

(Parliamentary Proceedings) 10 May.

Meacher, M., 2002. UK Environment Minister, Times Newspaper, 1

January.

Porteous, A., 2000. Dictionary of Environmental Science and Tech-

nology, third ed. John Wiley, London, ISBN 0471 63376 3.

Porteous, A., 2001. Energy from waste incineration – a state of the art

emissions review with an emphasis on public acceptability. Applied

Energy 70, 157–167.

Resource Recovery Forum, 2003. Information Note. US Landfill sued

over Methane Collection, 5 March.

Scott, G., 1999. Plastics and the Environment. Royal Society of

Chemistry, ISBN 085404 5783.

Semrau, P.G., Bracker, G.P., 1994. Optimizing of MSW combustion

plants. In: Proceedings of IMechE Conference Engineering Profit

for Waste 1V, London, 9–11 November, pp. 133–140.

Staffordshire County Council, 2002. County Surveyors Department

Report on Incinerator Bottom Ash use in Road Building, January.

Stockholm Energi, 1996. Hogdalen CHP WTE Facility. In: Presenta-

tion, European Energy from Waste Coalition Conference, Stock-

holm, Wednesday 13 March.

TECHNIP, 1999. Emission data for Burgau Plant. Personal commu-

nication, 7 July.

UK Environment Agency, 2002. Emissions. Available from: <www.

environment-agency.gov.uk>.

Uppsala City Council, 1998. Uppsala Energi and Brochure

Communication.