Turn incinerator ash into a new island

“Judging by the usage of in many other EU countries, I suspect that more than 1000 tonnes will be used. The IBA may of course require further processing depending on its final chemical composition.

Suggest you look at Denmark and Holland for their use.”

“Thank you OutsideView for replying, it is a rare courtesy for a someone not opposing MVV's incinerator to provide a basis for their comments.

MVV's incinerator will produce 65,000 tonnes per year of waste ash.

The Environment Agency adhere to the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation set out by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

* http://tinyurl.com/al7eh77

The ECHA confirm that Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is NOT inert and therefore needs to be legally registered as a chemical substance in order to be potentially suitable for re-use as a safe aggregate.

* http://tinyurl.com/b72tvhz

Accordingly no more than 1000 tonnes per year of IBA produced by MVV's incinerator can be used in forming aggregate in the UK as the regulations stipulate it must be fully registered and tested before each use; "1000 tonnes/year being required to be registered by 1 December 2010".

* http://tinyurl.com/6syx47

Therefore MVV/ Gilpin will not be able to form aggregate from 95% of their waste product and will have to store their incinerator ash (at least 98% of it) in landfill! Which as we all know is not recycling!”

“Thank you OutsideView for replying, it is a rare courtesy for a someone not opposing MVV's incinerator to provide a basis for their comments.

MVV's incinerator will produce 65,000 tonnes per year of waste ash.

The Environment Agency adhere to the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation set out by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

* http://tinyurl.com/al7eh77

The ECHA confirm that Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is NOT inert and therefore needs to be legally registered as a chemical substance in order to be potentially suitable for re-use as a safe aggregate.

* http://tinyurl.com/b72tvhz

Accordingly no more than 1000 tonnes per year of IBA produced by MVV's incinerator can be used in forming aggregate in the UK as the regulations stipulate it must be fully registered and tested before each use; "1000 tonnes/year being required to be registered by 1 December 2010".

Therefore MVV/ Gilpin will not be able to form aggregate from 95% of their waste product and will have to store their incinerator ash (at least 98% of it) in landfill! Which as we all know is not recycling!”

“by RoundHead0
Thursday, January 10 2013, 5:47PM

"Any evidence/ sources to support this claim OutSideView ?"


bottom ash is being used in construction as aggregates for concrete and basecourse in roads.

fly ash is used as a partial cement replacement. It is blended with portland cement for use in making concrete and concrete products.

Other uses are being made of it in industrial processes I believe.

I am not sure if silica fume is being recovered from the chimneys

This is the proposed plan for the ash from the Plymouth incinerator as the ash was to be processed at a site in Buckfastleigh but planning consent has been refused but I believe it is being appealed.

Here is an example of its use in the UK
Netherend Lane, Dudley: Recently, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, in conjunction with Bardon
Aggregates, has used IBA in road reconstruction. The ash was used in the base course layer of a half mile
stretch of road (Netherend Lane) in a residential area of Dudley in the West Midlands. The ash was obtained
from Dudley's MSWI and taken to Castle Bromwich where it was processed by Ballast Phoenix. Then at
Bardon's coating plant in Leicestershire, it was processed to produce a bituminous material called ASHphalt.
The amount of ash used was equivalent to several days of production at the incinerator. This had dual
environmental benefits - avoiding the need to landfill the ash and reducing the requirement to use virgin
aggregate for the road. The percentage of ash allowable in the ASHphalt depends on local circumstances and
the traffic category of the road. In this case, at least 50% of primary aggregate was replaced by ash. ASHphalt
is the subject of a patent application”

“Any evidence/ sources to support this claim OutSideView ?”

“OutSide View..... just because it is, doesn't make it right!!!!!”

“Ash can be and is recycled”

“Andrew are you crazy?!!! I really don't have the words..... do some research into bottom ash!!!”

“Excerpt from letter "Why don't they do this in Plymouth...."

Because it would be a marine environmental disaster. Incinerator ash is NOT inert, it is highly toxic and would poison the waters in and around Plymouth, another reason why the incinerator should not be built.

In Singapore they have allegedly given great consideration to the environment employing methods (levees of rock, impermeable membranes, clay layers etc.) to prevent the toxic material leaching into the water surrounding the island.

* http://tinyurl.com/b8v3kcu

* http://tinyurl.com/bkdhstt

* http://tinyurl.com/3wpfrmz

It would be wise to remain wary of claims of no environmental/ health impact and you can be fairly certain the same consideration won't really be employed here.

(As you can see from the links provided, it is not simply a case of building an island within The Sound by depositing ash on the sea bed. There needs to be an island structure already in place, with enough land mass to allow a lagoon/ landfill area to be separated off from the surrounding sea water and lined with rock, clay, impermeable membranes to prevent environmental damage; which cannot be guaranteed)

Of course MVV are still without a solution for dealing with the 65,000 tonnes per year of ash their furnace will produce so perhaps they will consider this option, although I'm sure conversely MVV would also be keen to keep shipping lanes clear otherwise it would upset the option of bring barges of waste in from abroad (don't think its not on the agenda. The Navy wouldn't want any obstacles in The Sound either, however if it meant for an easier option to dispose of their contaminated materials from nuclear dismantling (which they'll be sending to the furnace anyway along with other nasties) they'd definitely look into it.

Please don't give either of these public enemies any more (stupid) ideas for how to destroy Plymouth, they've already done enough to ALL of us as it is.

MVV have no permitted solution for dealing with ash – they have no publicised alternative plan – the building work should cease – the license to operate should be revoked. MVV in their plans claim to be diverting 95% of waste from landfill, a fraudulent claim since their plans to deal with ASH (A WASTE PRODUCT!) is to put it into landfill (Paul Carey's use of the word "recycling" is fraudulent, untruthful and misleading; ash CANNOT be recycled).”