C T Pritchard
"I strongly object to this development on all counts. My points below summarise my main concerns. 1) Overcapacity. The proposed incinerator will take 750,000 tonnes of waste. This is more than the total output for Wales. Clearly Covanta will need to reach their full capacity and will take waste from everywhere. This is unacceptable. 2) Monopoly This massive incinerator will be able to operate on the principle of economies of scale. They will be able to undercut everyone else in the fight for contracts. This does not make commercial or financial sense and Wales will be at the mercy of an American company who holds all the cards. Additionally Covanta does not have a good track record in America and has been fined several times for not controlling emissions. 3) Jobs Covanta is placing a huge significance on the creation of jobs. They say that the plant will create 65 jobs locally once construction is completed. Whilst unemployment is high in the area creating 65 jobs (not stated what jobs these would be but I believe that these will be manual poorly paid jobs) are not worth the impact we will suffer for the next 30 years or so. 4) Transportation Covanta states that 75% of the waste will come by rail. I would dispute that this is possible as Miller Agent transport their coal via rail. Therefore, there will be limited capacity for Covanta to transport waste. They state that the remaining 25% of waste will be transported by road with some 80 lorries a day travelling to the site. This increase in traffic is unacceptable and will result in congestion around the borough of Merthyr and on Gelligaer Common where commoners graze their animals. These animals have the right to roam freely and an increase in traffic will result in an increase in animals being killed as they cross the common roads. 5) Health The 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine in their report on 'The Health Effects of Incineration' (2008) concluded that there are major risks to health with incineration. The report states that the latest research demonstrates that incineration has a much greater effect on mortality than previously thought. Incinerators will cause increases in cardiovascular and cerebrovascula morbidity and mortality with both short and long term exposure. Particles from incinerators will be particularly hazardous because of the toxic chemicals attached to them. It should be noted that incinerators are not controlled or monitored in the UK during start up and shut down. It is at these times that grate temperatures are below optimal levels and massive emissions are released directly into the atmosphere with the filters bypassed. The communities where this incinerator will be sited have some of the worst health and mortality/morbidity figures in the UK. Health inequalities are significant. I have grave concerns that this incinerator will be sited in a deprived area where health is very poor. In fact nine out of the 14 current incinerators have been built in the most deprived 20% of communities. This leads me to believe that this has been well thought though as clearly if health is already poor it will take much longer to demonstrate that incineration has impacted on an already sick population. Siting this incinerator in Merthyr Tydfil will mask its impact on health in the medium term. It will make a sick population sicker by stealth. The British Society's report recommended that incinerators should not be sited in deprived areas or areas with high rates of mortality where their impact on health is likely to be the greatest. They also recommended that no further waste incinerators be built. 6) House Prices Where incinerators have been built this has resulted in house prices falling by 20%. People in these valleys are not generally affluent. If the price of their property decreases this will add further hardship to an already deprived community. 7) Self Esteem When the surroundings people live in are depressing and ugly this has a negative impact on self esteem. Currently we have an open cast mine, a land fill site and a meat processing plant either on or in the Vicinity of Gelligaer Common. It looks like the cess pit of Europe and yet we face the prospect of another monstrosity to further add to our misery. How can people who don't understand our position and what we have to live with be allowed to make the decision about whether this incinerator goes ahead? I am sure the people who are making these decisions would not allow this development to go ahead in their area. This is not a case of 'not in my backyard' my concerns are not based on emotion but on research and fact. It is interesting to note that no public health studies have been undertaken in areas where incinerators are currently sited because they are deemed not necessary. This argument is unacceptable. If as Covanta keeps saying incineration their way is safe then they should provide evidence that this is the case. Simply saying it will not be accepted by local people.)"

Maryann Mazurczak
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IT IS NOT REQUIRED.: OVERCAPACITY There are enough plants in Wales to handle all the residual waste, this plant is not required . VISUAL IMPACT AND NOISE The community will be affected by the visual impact and noise of this plant. FINANCIAL Fines for insufficient rubbish, RECYCLING Recycling rates would decline in order for Councils to be able to feed the plant. INCINERATION GOES AGAINST THE WASTE HIERARCHY. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle and Zero Waste. GLOBAL WARMING INCREASED EMMISSIONS Dangerous chemicals and small particles coming out of the chimney are well known health risks , Dioxins are known to cause cancer and other health problems such as birth defects. ACCUMULATIVE AFFECT OF EMMISIONS There is already a abattoir, landfill site and open-cast mine in very dose proximity the proposed incinerator, in fact the incinerator is in the open-cast site, and the landfill is about 500 metres from the incinerator, these are already polluting our town and atmosphere. BOTTOM ASH AND HIGHLY TOXIC FLY ASH by-products of incineration that would have to go to hazardous waste land fill . There are only seven in Britain, and are very expensive, Covanta has said that these materials , can be recycled and used in building, this is incorrect. Norfolk council were fined in 2004 for doing so. HEALTH there are serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system. In 2009 the Health Protection Agency admitted that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health downwind of incinerators. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe, and that 'the health effects which result from an incinerator's emission are not yet fully known'. TRANSPORTATION There would be an increased number of vehicles on the road, adding congestion and emissions. COVANTA'S HISTORY Covanta have a very poor record in America, breaching labour laws and having to pay huge fines for emission violations. 900 fines in five years. LACK OF CONSULTATION Covanta failed to get the message to a wider community. COMMON LAND This plant is situated on common land and involves the Ffos-y-Fran land reclamation scheme JOBS This plant would lose 100's of existing jobs for the 65 it would create, existing plants and plants with planning permission would be put out of business because of Overcapacity. MERTHYR TYDFIL AND SURROUNDING TOWNS NOT TO BE SACRIFICE TOWNS, WELSH ASSEMBLY POLICY Localised facilities is WAG policy and Zero Waste."

Helen Griffiths
"I strongly object to the development of this incinerator on all accounts. Issues I would wish to raise in an oral representations are: 1. Negative impact of this development on the health of an already deprived community whose residents experience some of the worst health in the UK. 2. The dangerous emissions that will be discharged from the plant. 3. Disposal of the bottom ash from the incinerator. 4. Negative impact on the landscape 5. Negative impact on self esteem of the residents in adjacent areas where the incinerator will be built. 6. Size of the plant and its capacity to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste. 7. Monopoly of Covanta if this development goes ahead. 8. Negative impact on cattle, sheep and horses which graze the common and danger of contaminated meat going into the food chain. 9. Impact on house prices decreasing. 10. Contamination of the water course which is the suuply of water for some local farms. 11. Negative impact on the increase of road traffic to the site. 12. Failure of Covanta to effectively involve local people and listen and respond to questions. The minimum has been done and this has led to an uninformed public. 13. Decision to build the incinerator in one of the most deprived areas in the UK further exascerbating inequalities. 14. The strength of opinion throughout the Heads of the Valleys areas. We do not want this monstrosity and if this consultation process is just and transparent it will not happen."

Kathleen Jones
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT WANTED, NOT NEEDED AND NOT REQUIRED, THE MAIN ARE POINTS OVERCAPACITY There are enough plants in Wales to handle all the residual waste, this plant is not required. VISUAL IMPACT AND NOISE The community will be affected by the visual impact and noise of this plant. FINACIAL Fines for insufficient rubbish, plus any changes in landfill tax for ash would be passed on to Councils RECYCLING Recycling rates would decline in order for Councils to be able to feed the plant. INCINERATION GOES AGAINST THE WASTE HIERARCHY. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; GLOBAL WARMING Decreasing recycling would have a negative affect on global warming. EMISSIONS Dangerous chemicals and small particles coming out of the chimney are well known health risks, Dioxins are known to cause cancer and other health problems such as birth defects. ACCUMULATIVE AFFECT OF EMMISIONS There is already a abattoir, landfill site and open-cast mine in very close proximity the proposed incinerator, in fact the incinerator in is the open-cast site, and the landfill is about 500 metres from the incinerator, these are already polluting our town and atmosphere. BOTTOM ASH AND HIGHLY TOXIC FLY ASH These are further by-products of incineration and would have to be disposed of, probably to landfill. HEALTH there are serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system. In 2009 the Health Protection Agency admitted that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health downwind of incinerators. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe, and that 'the health effects which result from an incinerator’s emission are not yet fully known.' TRANSPORTATION There would be an increased number of vehicles on the road, adding congestion and emissions. COVANTA’S HISTORY Covanta have a very poor record in America, breaching labour laws and having to pay huge fines for emission violations. LACK OF CONSULTATION Covanta failed to get the message to a wider community. COMMON LAND This plant is situated on common land and involves the Ffos-y-Fran land relamation scheme restoration strategy, and there are numerous outstanding land an mineral interests not settled for this site. JOBS This plant would lose 100’s of existing jobs for the 65 it would create, existing plants and plants with planning permission would be put out of business because of Overcapacity. MERTHYR TYDFIL AND SURROUNDING TOWNS NOT TO BE SACRIFICE TOWNS, Methyr and the surrounding towns are already heavily polluted, and have one of the worst health and mortality/morbidity figures in the UK, they should not be sacrificed for this incinerator to add more bad health. WELSH ASSEMBLY POLICY Localised facilities is WAG policy and Zero Waste. SIZE The plant is far to big for the area, when contracts are signed and if Councils cannot get enough rubbish to feed this plant that the Councils (tax payer) will still have to pay or be finded"

Mr Colin G Fenn
"I strongly object to the development of this incinerator on all accounts. Issues I would wish to raise in an oral representations are: 1. Negative impact of this development on the health of an already deprived community whose residents experience some of the worst health in the UK. 2. The dangerous emissions that will be discharged from the plant. 3. Disposal of the bottom ash from the incinerator. 4. Negative impact on the landscape 5. Negative impact on self esteem of the residents in adjacent areas where the incinerator will be built. 6. Size of the plant and its capacity to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste. 7. Monopoly of Covanta if this development goes ahead. 8. Negative impact on cattle, sheep and horses which graze the common and danger of contaminated meat going into the food chain. 9. Impact on house prices decreasing. 10. Contamination of the water course which is the suuply of water for some local farms. 11. Negative impact on the increase of road traffic to the site. 12. Failure of Covanta to effectively involve local people and listen and respond to questions. The minimum has been done and this has led to an uninformed public. 13. Decision to build the incinerator in one of the most deprived areas in the UK further exascerbating inequalities. 14. The strength of opinion throughout the Heads of the Valleys areas. We do not want this monstrosity and if this consultation process is just and transparent it will not happen."

Sian Evans
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT WANTED, NOT NEEDED AND NOT REQUIRED, THE MAIN ARE POINTS OVERCAPACITY There are enough plants in Wales to handle all the residual waste, this plant is not required. VISUAL IMPACT AND NOISE The community will be affected by the visual impact and noise of this plant. FINACIAL Fines for insufficient rubbish, plus any changes in landfill tax for ash would be passed on to Councils RECYCLING Recycling rates would decline in order for Councils to be able to feed the plant. INCINERATION GOES AGAINST THE WASTE HIERARCHY. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; GLOBAL WARMING Decreasing recycling would have a negative affect on global warming. EMISSIONS Dangerous chemicals and small particles coming out of the chimney are well known health risks, Dioxins are known to cause cancer and other health problems such as birth defects. ACCUMULATIVE AFFECT OF EMMISIONS There is already a abattoir, landfill site and open-cast mine in very close proximity the proposed incinerator, in fact the incinerator in is the open-cast site, and the landfill is about 500 metres from the incinerator, these are already polluting our town and atmosphere. BOTTOM ASH AND HIGHLY TOXIC FLY ASH These are further by-products of incineration and would have to be disposed of, probably to landfill. HEALTH there are serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system. In 2009 the Health Protection Agency admitted that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health downwind of incinerators. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe, and that 'the health effects which result from an incinerator’s emission are not yet fully known.' TRANSPORTATION There would be an increased number of vehicles on the road, adding congestion and emissions. COVANTA’S HISTORY Covanta have a very poor record in America, breaching labour laws and having to pay huge fines for emission violations. LACK OF CONSULTATION Covanta failed to get the message to a wider community. COMMON LAND This plant is situated on common land and involves the Ffos-y-Fran land relamation scheme restoration strategy, and there are numerous outstanding land an mineral interests not settled for this site. JOBS This plant would lose 100’s of existing jobs for the 65 it would create, existing plants and plants with planning permission would be put out of business because of Overcapacity. MERTHYR TYDFIL AND SURROUNDING TOWNS NOT TO BE SACRIFICE TOWNS, Methyr and the surrounding towns are already heavily polluted, and have one of the worst health and mortality/morbidity figures in the UK, they should not be sacrificed for this incinerator to add more bad health. WELSH ASSEMBLY POLICY Localised facilities is WAG policy and Zero Waste. SIZE The plant is far to big for the area, when contracts are signed and if Councils cannot get enough rubbish to feed this plant that the Councils (tax payer) will still have to pay or be finded"

Brian Foster
"I strongly object to the development of this incinerator on all accounts. Issues I would wish to raise in an oral representations are: 1. Negative impact of this development on the health of an already deprived community whose residents experience some of the worst health in the UK. 2. The dangerous emissions that will be discharged from the plant. 3. Disposal of the bottom ash from the incinerator. 4. Negative impact on the landscape 5. Negative impact on self esteem of the residents in adjacent areas where the incinerator will be built. 6. Size of the plant and its capacity to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste. 7. Monopoly of Covanta if this development goes ahead. 8. Negative impact on cattle, sheep and horses which graze the common and danger of contaminated meat going into the food chain. 9. Impact on house prices decreasing. 10. Contamination of the water course which is the suuply of water for some local farms. 11. Negative impact on the increase of road traffic to the site. 12. Failure of Covanta to effectively involve local people and listen and respond to questions. The minimum has been done and this has led to an uninformed public. 13. Decision to build the incinerator in one of the most deprived areas in the UK further exascerbating inequalities. 14. The strength of opinion throughout the Heads of the Valleys areas. We do not want this monstrosity and if this consultation process is just and transparent it will not happen."

Jayne Price
"I strongly object to the development of this incinerator on all accounts. Issues I would wish to raise in an oral representations are: 1. Negative impact of this development on the health of an already deprived community whose residents experience some of the worst health in the UK. 2. The dangerous emissions that will be discharged from the plant. 3. Disposal of the bottom ash from the incinerator. 4. Negative impact on the landscape 5. Negative impact on self esteem of the residents in adjacent areas where the incinerator will be built. 6. Size of the plant and its capacity to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste. 7. Monopoly of Covanta if this development goes ahead. 8. Negative impact on cattle, sheep and horses which graze the common and danger of contaminated meat going into the food chain. 9. Impact on house prices decreasing. 10. Contamination of the water course which is the suuply of water for some local farms. 11. Negative impact on the increase of road traffic to the site. 12. Failure of Covanta to effectively involve local people and listen and respond to questions. The minimum has been done and this has led to an uninformed public. 13. Decision to build the incinerator in one of the most deprived areas in the UK further exascerbating inequalities. 14. The strength of opinion throughout the Heads of the Valleys areas. We do not want this monstrosity and if this consultation process is just and transparent it will not happen."

Jacob Bridges
"I strongly object to the development of this incinerator on all accounts. Issues I would wish to raise in an oral representations are: 1. Negative impact of this development on the health of an already deprived community whose residents experience some of the worst health in the UK. 2. The dangerous emissions that will be discharged from the plant. 3. Disposal of the bottom ash from the incinerator. 4. Negative impact on the landscape 5. Negative impact on self esteem of the residents in adjacent areas where the incinerator will be built. 6. Size of the plant and its capacity to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste. 7. Monopoly of Covanta if this development goes ahead. 8. Negative impact on cattle, sheep and horses which graze the common and danger of contaminated meat going into the food chain. 9. Impact on house prices decreasing. 10. Contamination of the water course which is the suuply of water for some local farms. 11. Negative impact on the increase of road traffic to the site. 12. Failure of Covanta to effectively involve local people and listen and respond to questions. The minimum has been done and this has led to an uninformed public. 13. Decision to build the incinerator in one of the most deprived areas in the UK further exascerbating inequalities. 14. The strength of opinion throughout the Heads of the Valleys areas. We do not want this monstrosity and if this consultation process is just and transparent it will not happen."

Joie Parris
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT WANTED, NOT NEEDED AND NOT REQUIRED, THE MAIN ARE POINTS OVERCAPACITY There are enough plants in Wales to handle all the residual waste, this plant is not required. VISUAL IMPACT AND NOISE The community will be affected by the visual impact and noise of this plant. FINACIAL Fines for insufficient rubbish, plus any changes in landfill tax for ash would be passed on to Councils RECYCLING Recycling rates would decline in order for Councils to be able to feed the plant. INCINERATION GOES AGAINST THE WASTE HIERARCHY. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; GLOBAL WARMING Decreasing recycling would have a negative affect on global warming. EMISSIONS Dangerous chemicals and small particles coming out of the chimney are well known health risks, Dioxins are known to cause cancer and other health problems such as birth defects. ACCUMULATIVE AFFECT OF EMMISIONS There is already a abattoir, landfill site and open-cast mine in very close proximity the proposed incinerator, in fact the incinerator in is the open-cast site, and the landfill is about 500 metres from the incinerator, these are already polluting our town and atmosphere. BOTTOM ASH AND HIGHLY TOXIC FLY ASH These are further by-products of incineration and would have to be disposed of, probably to landfill. HEALTH there are serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system. In 2009 the Health Protection Agency admitted that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health downwind of incinerators. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe, and that 'the health effects which result from an incinerator’s emission are not yet fully known.' TRANSPORTATION There would be an increased number of vehicles on the road, adding congestion and emissions. COVANTA’S HISTORY Covanta have a very poor record in America, breaching labour laws and having to pay huge fines for emission violations. LACK OF CONSULTATION Covanta failed to get the message to a wider community. COMMON LAND This plant is situated on common land and involves the Ffos-y-Fran land relamation scheme restoration strategy, and there are numerous outstanding land an mineral interests not settled for this site. JOBS This plant would lose 100’s of existing jobs for the 65 it would create, existing plants and plants with planning permission would be put out of business because of Overcapacity. MERTHYR TYDFIL AND SURROUNDING TOWNS NOT TO BE SACRIFICE TOWNS, Methyr and the surrounding towns are already heavily polluted, and have one of the worst health and mortality/morbidity figures in the UK, they should not be sacrificed for this incinerator to add more bad health. WELSH ASSEMBLY POLICY Localised facilities is WAG policy and Zero Waste. SIZE The plant is far to big for the area, when contracts are signed and if Councils cannot get enough rubbish to feed this plant that the Councils (tax payer) will still have to pay or be finded"