AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
SHORT REPORT
2
THE BURNING ISSUE: HISTORICAL
REFLECTIONS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE
INCINERATION
by
J.F.M. Clark
University of St Andrews
Published by the AHRB Research Centre for Environmental
History, Universities of Stirling and St Andrews
© AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History 2003
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the UK
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
municipal incineration of waste. Although each has been
government resolved to reduce its mounting piles of
driven by unique circumstances, the ensuing
rubbish through the mass burning of municipal waste.
discussions have consistently attempted to balance
Far from being an innovative solution, the proposed
considerations of economy, efficiency, aesthetics, and
construction of multiple municipal incinerators
public health. An historical appreciation of the physical,
represented the third significant cycle of development in
social, and political parameters that shaped opinions
this area of waste management. On each occasion that
discourages simple tales of the misuse and
interest was rekindled in waste incineration, discussion
mismanagement of the natural environment. Moreover, it
was devoid of the historical antecedents. Although
often highlights a truism of environmental history: ‘the
waste-to-energy incinerators dated back to the 1880s,
means by which one environmental problem was
an editorial in the Journal of the Institute of Electrical
resolved might so easily instigate another’ (Sheail, 179).
Engineers for 1963 claimed that the heat produced from
In late November 2002, three Greenpeace
waste incineration had not previously been used to
volunteers, Rachel Murray, Huw Williams, and Chris
generate electricity. Similarly, American economist
Holder, went on trial at Sheffield Crown Court. They
Richard Porter recently claimed that the 1980s ushered
faced charges of criminal damage after they had scaled
in a ‘new kind of incineration’ because waste was
the chimney of the Sheffield rubbish incinerator, and
converted to energy rather than just ash.
forced the plant to cease operating by blocking its
Although people, technology, legislation, and the
rubbish feeders. Their action was part of a concerted
composition of waste streams have changed, there have
environmentalist campaign against waste incineration.
been some constants in the history of incineration. Three
On 22 May 2001, the same day that the three activists
different periods in British history (1876-1914; 1969-
made their daring ascent, Greenpeace released “A
1981; 1996-2002) have witnessed elevated interest in
review of the performance of municipal waste
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
incinerators in the UK”. Analyzing ten of the municipal
smoke fumes and gases ejected from the [local] refuse
waste incinerators operating in England, they revealed
destructor’, they requested the respected medical
that these plants had breached their licences 553 times
journal to send a ‘sanitary commission’ to investigate.
over the previous two years. Consequently, incinerators
The resultant report raised issues that have resonated
were routinely exceeding legal limits on aerial pollution
through all subsequent discussions on the incineration of
and yearly total pollution discharges.
waste.
In the opening years of the new millennium,
Plans for the construction of an isolation hospital
Greenpeace’s opposition was part of a wider ‘action
in close proximity to Torquay’s principal tip forced the
against waste incineration’ that included Friends of the
town council to cease rubbish disposal in this location.
Earth and WWF. Environmentalist opposition was a
As they struggled to find an alternate location method of
reaction to governmental plans to build in excess of 100
disposal, the council considered availability and price of
more incinerators across the UK. Faced with an EU
land, and relative haulage costs. These factors formed
landfill directive that required the UK to reduce
significant constituents in arguments surrounding the
significantly biodegradable waste sent to landfill by
adoption of incinerators. Consequently, in the late
2016, the initial reaction of the former department of
nineteenth century, Britain embraced municipal refuse
environment had been to propose the construction of a
incineration more enthusiastically than the USA because
new generation of incinerators. Citing inevitable
inexpensive, undeveloped land was less plentiful, and
environmental degradation and dangers to public health,
fuel and transportation costs were high. Similarly,
a fierce opposition arose.
whereas the UK incinerated 5 per cent of its household
One hundred years earlier, in 1902, residents of
waste in 1994, Japan incinerated 74.4 per cent. With
Torquay submitted a petition to The Lancet. Convinced
more than half its population living in areas with
that their health had been ‘injuriously affected by the
densities of more than 10,000 persons per square mile,
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
landfilling waste seemed an impracticable strategy for
Street Depot began operation in 1877. By 1912, there
Japan.
were over 338 refuse incinerators in Britain; over eighty
After they had exhausted available space at a
of these also generated electricity for local use.
brickfield clay-pit, the Torquay town council decided that
At a planning meeting, Torquay’s town clerk
disposal by fire was the only viable option to abate the
assured residents that the destructor would cause no
nuisance caused by the town’s accumulating rubbish.
nuisance. Throughout the late nineteenth and early
They selected a site at Upton where a Warner high
twentieth centuries, expert sanitary engineers were
temperature destructor was built. Throughout most of
almost unanimous in their praise for destructors. By
the nineteenth century, nuisance removal and disease
1898, J.H. Maxwell declared: ‘for all towns, the
prevention acts motivated local authorities to grapple
destruction … of refuse by cremation is at the present
with waste. The Public Health Act of 1875 made it
day regarded as being at once the most sanitary,
incumbent upon local authorities in England and Wales
efficient, and in many cases the only means of
to organize removal and disposal of waste. In the past,
satisfactory disposal’. Mounting piles of insalubrious
private waste contractors had often undertaken these
refuse convinced the Cleansing Department of the city of
tasks. With the shift to municipally organized waste
Edinburgh to construct a ten-cell destructor at
collection, there was a perceptible push for incineration.
Powderhall in 1893 for a total cost of £16,000. Together
Although Mead and Co., dust contractors at Paddington,
with numerous Medical Officers of Health, sanitary
had made an unsuccessful attempt to burn refuse in a
engineers lauded the health benefits of burning rubbish.
poorly ventilated closed furnace in 1870, the first
After all, tips and loose refuse were breeding grounds for
operational incinerator, or ‘destructor’, was designed by
disease and for vectors of disease, such as flies and
Alfred Fryer and engineered by Manlove, Alliott, and
rats.
Fryer of Nottingham: Manchester Corporation’s Waste
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
Ignited for the first time in September 1898, the
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
Initially, the proposed solution was the addition of
Torquay destructor began to elicit complaints from
a coke cremator in the main flue to enhance combustion.
neighbouring residents almost immediately. By 1900,
When this failed to alleviate problems, the coke cremator
opposition had gathered pace. Often enveloped in black,
was removed and a chamber was constructed with
brown, and pearl-grey smoke, people lodged a litany of
‘baffling walls’ to reduce the quantity of ‘grit’ reaching the
health complaints: choking sensations; irritation of the
chimney. ‘Scrubbing’ and optimization of combustion
throat; nausea; sore gums; headaches; abdominal
remain key elements for the reduction of incinerator
pains; vomiting; and general malaise. In the form of
pollution. The government’s first response to
gases, particulates, and residual ash, incinerators can
Greenpeace’s critical report in May 2001 was to claim
produce a toxic cocktail of pollution: nitrogen oxides,
that modern equipment would minimize discharges.
carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, heavy metals
Ultimately, The Lancet’s special sanitary
(arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury), and chlorinated
commissioner concluded that Torquay was a unique and
dioxins and dibenzofurans (CDD and CDF). The latter
instructional case. The town council’s gravest error had
two particulates have been linked to cancer, reduced
been to situate the destructor in a valley. This meant that
immunity, and birth defects. Torquay’s problems were
the top of the chimney was level with surrounding
compounded by an insufficient flow of waste.
homes. Generally, The Lancet observed, the
Consequently, the destructor was shut down for brief
construction of tall chimneys made it impossible to gage
periods; on resumption, combustion was imperfect until
the impact of destructors: to determine whether
temperatures rose. Similarly, Torquay’s unusually high
combustion was perfect and fumes innocuous.
concentration of garden refuse in its waste stream
Throughout history, ‘the search for the ultimate sink’
burdened the destructor with wet matter.
often led municipalities to diffuse pollution rather than to
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
confront it. Torquay’s residents had accidentally
Suggested Reading:
provided the exception to the rule.
Brown, Paul, ‘Incinerator Breaches Go Unpunished,’ The
Although recent debates on incineration have
resonances of the past, they also introduce new
Guardian, May 22, 2001, p. 8
Brown, Paul, and David Hencke, ‘Dismal Recycling
complexities. Like the residents of Torquay one hundred
Record Leaves Britain with a Rubbish Reputation in the
years earlier, the Greenpeace activists objected to the
World of Waste’, The Guardian, July 12, 2002, p. 3
pollution and public health dangers arising from the
incineration of rubbish. But none of the three was a
resident of Sheffield. Imbued with a global perspective,
‘The Destructor Nuisance at Torquay’, The Lancet, i
(1902), 262-64, 335-36, 404-06; ii (1902), 92
Eunomia [for WWF], ‘A Waste of Resources: How Urban
they were products of a post-1960’s environmentalism.
Waste Incineration Could Undermine Renewable
Moreover, they espoused an assessment of incineration
Energy Growth and Reduction’ [2001]
that aspired to reach beyond a simple dichotomy of burn
Goodrich, W.F., Modern Destructor Practice (1912)
or bury. Whereas past arguments focused on the
Greenpeace, ‘Criminal Damage: A Review of the
relative merits of landfill and incineration as waste
Performance of Municipal Waste Incinerators in the UK’
disposal strategies, more recent debates have shifted
(2001)
the focus to the minimization of the production of waste.
And whereas past discussions have assessed the
Herbert, Lewis, The History of the Institute of Wastes
Management, 1898-1998 (1998)
possible benefits arising from waste-to-energy, recent
Jones, C., Refuse Destructors (1894)
critics of incineration have complained that it detracts
Matthews, E.R., Refuse Disposal: A Practical Manual
from the push for renewable energy sources.
(1915)
Maxwell, J.H., The Removal and Disposal of Town
Refuse (1898)
AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History
Porter, Richard C., The Economics of Waste (2002)
Sheail, John, An Environmental History of TwentiethCentury Britain (2002)
Tucker, D.G., ‘Refuse Destructors and Their Use in
Generating Electricity: A Century of Development’,
Industrial Archaeology Review, 11 (1977), 5-27
Williams, Paul T, Waste Treatment and Disposal (1998)
Zarin, Daniel J, ‘Searching for Pennies in Piles of Trash:
Municipal Refuse Utilization in the United States’,
Environmental Review, 11 (1987), 207-22
J.F.M. Clark, University of St Andrews