s against incinerator to Cardiff Planning
Action Outside City Hall, Friday 19th December, 1.30pm
Press release – Cardiff Friends of the Earth
Title: Green Santa delivers Christmas message from
residents
Contact: Heather Webber, Cardiff Friends of the Earth
Tel: 07504928248
Email: heather.webber@foe.co.uk
Photo Opportunity:
A Green Santa accompanied by members of Cardiff Friends
of the Earth and councillors including Splott Councillor
Gavin Cox deliver a Christmas parcel containing hundreds
of objections against incinerator to Cardiff Planning
Department.
Where: Outside City Hall, Cathays Park, CF10 3ND
When: Friday 19th December, 1.30pm
Opportunity for interviews in both English and Welsh.
Green Santa delivers Christmas message from residents
Hundreds of objections to a massive waste incinerator in
Cardiff are to be delivered to Cardiff council planning
department on Friday,19th December by a green Santa.
Cardiff residents have been voicing their opposition to
a planning application (number: 08/2616) from Viridor
waste management for a 350,000 tonne per year waste
incinerator to be situated in Trident
Park, Cardiff.
Cardiff Friends of the Earth will hand over a petition
with more than 100 signatories from the Splott and Tremorfa
area. Residents here are particularly concerned about
emissions from the incinerator as they
are already subject to the second highest dioxin
emissions in Wales
from the Eastmoors Steel works [1].
More than 100 letters of objection to the planning
application will also be handed in from residents
all over Cardiff who were appalled
at the thought of 256 extra waste lorries every day
rumbling through
Cardiff bringing in waste from all over South Wales.
Heather Webber of Cardiff Friends of the Earth said:
"Judging by the response we have had in such a short
time, these objections are just the tip of the ice-berg.
People are rightly angered at plans to burn waste from
all over South Wales in an
incinerator in the heart of Cardiff.
This is not just NIMBY-ism, incineration is not a
'green' technology and there is no sense in driving
huge amounts of waste around the country increasing
congestion and pollution. Other, less damaging and
more sustainable, technologies are available that
could be implemented in each local area[2]."
The council planning department have indicated that,
due to the size of the plant, they will accept
objections into the new year - beyond
the statutory deadline of Christmas Eve.
[1] http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.walesonline.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fwales-news%2F2007%2F12%2F08%2Frevealed-
our-biggest-polluters-91466-20222285/2/
[2] There are cleaner, greener technologies – such as Mechanical
Biological Treatment (MBT) – that can work as smaller, flexible
units, close to where waste is produced, and will recover more
recyclable material whilst producing less harmful waste.
Anne to R Berman Leader of
Green New Deal - not in Cardiff
Nick Clegg will lay out plans to divert the Government's planned economic stimulus to environmentally friendly projects. He will argue that
Thank you for your comments. However, you appear to be conveniently ignoring the fact that
For the record, Viridor is a private company and neither Cardiff Council nor the Liberal Democrats are responsible for the fact they have recently submitted a planning application for an Energy from Waste plant.
The intention of Prosiect Gwyrdd, should it progress to a procurement process, is not to rule in or out any technology for residual waste treatment. The five local authorities who have joined together to take Prosiect Gwyrdd forward are committed to ensuring that there is the full opportunity for a range of solutions to come forward during procurement. Any proposal that comes forward would have to be assessed for its viability, but one of the factors that will also be taken into account will be its carbon footprint, expressed as global warming potential in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. All of this was explained in the recent report considered by
Yours sincerely,
Rodney Berman
Leader of
Write to
Dec 11 2008 by David James, South Wales Echo WRONG WRONG WRONG
Consideration of Environmental Statements and EIA planning applicationsRESIDENTS have until Christmas Eve to object to a giant waste incinerator in Splott, Cardiff.
Cardiff Friends of the Earth have accused the developer, Viridor, of timing its planning application for an energy-from-waste plant for the Christmas period to avoid public objection.
Spokeswoman Heather Webber said: “Hauling huge amounts of rubbish around the country to be burnt is not a sensible, or sustainable, waste solution.
“This incinerator is massively over-sized, and would release dangerous emissions and increase congestion and pollution.”
Residents must submit comments to the city council’s planning committee by Christmas Eve.
Developer Viridor is hoping to win the contract to deal with the waste from five South Wales local authorities, including Cardiff.
- this was supported by all councillors present
- there were no questions about the content of the report
Immediate release: 04 December 2008
Contact: Heather Webber, Cardiff Friends of the Earth
Tel: 07504928248
Email: heather.webber@foe.co.uk
Cardiff residents should object to plans for a massive waste incinerator built in the heart of Cardiff, burning rubbish from all over South Wales. This is the call from Cardiff Friends of the Earth following Viridor's application for planning permission.
Viridor waste management have submitted plans to Cardiff council's planning department (ref: 08/2616) for a hugely over-sized incinerator. The environmental group is urging people to voice their opposition to this scheme which would hit Cardiff residents with air-polluting emissions, increased traffic and congestion and act as a disincentive to recycling.
The proposed incinerator is designed to process 350,000 tonnes of residual waste per year and to be built in Trident Park, Cardiff Bay[1]. However, with the Welsh Assembly Government’s commitment to achieve 70% recycling by 2020 and Viridor's suggested 25 year contract, the incinerator is more than three times larger than the waste predicted for all five surrounding local authority areas[2].
Viridor have confirmed that transporting this amount of waste across South East Wales would result in 256 large waste lorries arriving in Cardiff every day. This represents a 3% increase in traffic to add to the congestion and pollution on Cardiff's roads.
Incineration is not an efficient way of producing energy from waste and releases large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. In addition, during some operating conditions, or in case of an accident, emissions are not regulated and harmful dioxins may be released into the air.
One third of the mass burnt remains as ash which still needs to be managed. Around 17,000 tonnes[3] a year of this would be toxic fly-ash which would have to be transported to a special hazardous waste site for disposal. These factors combine to make incineration worse for the environment than landfill[4].
There are cleaner, greener technologies – such as Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) – that can work as smaller, flexible units, close to where waste is produced, and will recover more recyclable material whilst producing less harmful waste.
Heather Webber from Cardiff Friends of the Earth said:
“Hauling huge amounts of rubbish around the country to be burnt is not a sensible, or sustainable, waste solution. This incinerator is hugely over-sized, would release harmful emissions and increase congestion and pollution. Cardiff residents urgently need to voice their opposition now by contacting the planning department with their concerns.”
“ There are truly sustainable solutions available if we embrace new technologies that maximise recycling and can adapt to the changing waste streams of the future. But, if this proposal goes ahead, Cardiff could become the waste capital of Wales.”
[1] On the site of the former Nippon Electric Glass (NEG) site, between Ocean Way and the docks: http://www.viridor-consultation.co.uk/index.php?contentId=90
[2] The five local authorities (Cardiff, Newport, Vale of Glamorgan, Caerphilly and Monmoutshire) currently produce 370,000 tonnes of municipal waste per year. At 70% recycling this would be reduced to 111,000 tonnes.
[3] 5% by weight of waste incinerated
[4] Rabl, A., J. V. Spadaro, et al. (2008). "Environmental Impacts and Costs of Solid Waste: A Comparison of Landfill and Incineration." Waste Management & Research in press. (Rabl, Spadaro et al. 2008)
“there is concern with basing projections on the high negative growth seen over the last few years, at is not completely understood how this reduction has come about. It would be more prudent to base projections on a higher growth rate in early years”The ‘prudence’ together with the reduction of the recycling target by 5% means they are pitching for 35% of 575,000 tonnes - which they then add another 10% to, presumably for ‘prudence’ to justify 220,000 tpa.
Report to Cdf Exec on Thursday 4th
Municipal Residual Waste Treatment (Prosiect Gwyrdd) - Report (169k)
Municipal Residual Waste Treatment (Prosiect Gwyrdd) - Appendix 1 (2.87M)
�h Municipal Residual Waste Treatment (Prosiect Gwyrdd) - Appendix 2-5 (350k)
Note they have reduced the 70% recycling target to 65% and say the Eunomia report is still contested.
Will abandon Prosiect Gwyrdd if WAG does not guarantee funding by March.
Regional Waste Plans held up.
Extracts from the Report
． The review of 2002 National Waste Strategy has been delayed;
． The “Eunomia report” (September 2007) outlining the economic and
achievability assumptions was challenged and a further review of this
work has not produced a clear way forward;
． A review of Regional Waste Plans was completed; but a further
review is apparently planned to include relevant Planning Policies
under TAN 21;
Stakeholder Consultation
33. The principal focus of the Partnership thus far has been internal -
although the Project and individual authorities have engaged with
external stakeholders to an extent e.g. Friends of the Earth. The need for
comprehensive stakeholder/community group engagement is recognised
and similar considerations apply to neighbouring local authorities and other public bodies through established consultative mechanisms. A communications strategy will be the main vehicle for doing this and early outputs will include the establishment of a Prosiect Gwyrdd website which members are asked to approve as part of this report.
Procurement & Timetable
36. For the reasons explained above, this report does not seek authority for procurement to commence;
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Executive is recommended to:
(1) Approve the Final Draft Outline Business Case for submission to WAG based upon the affordability gap described in this report for a Residual Waste Treatment Solution predicated upon a technology neutral assumption.
(2) Agree that the Approved Outline Business Case will remain subject to three conditions:
(i) The Procurement being premised upon a) a publicly owned site
being made available to bidders and as such maintaining
discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government is necessary
until a public authority contractually commits to securing an option in the Project’s control and to note that this does not preclude a private owned site being brought forward by a bidder or b) the
Partnership and WAG become satisfied that adequate private sector competition is available;
(ii) The Welsh Assembly Government providing the Authorities
sufficient comfort that they will fund the Project to at least a
minimum level of funding over the life of the Project as per the Outline Base Case; and
(iii) The partner authorities also approving the Outline Business Case with the same conditions applying.
(3) Agree that if the three conditions in recommendation 2 above are not all
met by 31 March 2009, the approval of the OBC automatically lapses
and the Council will reconsider matters including alternative options
outside of the scope of Project Gwyrdd.
VIRIDOR Greenwash "The environmental and health impacts of Energy from Waste, the mythsand the truth?"
A study by Enviros consulting into myths about incinerator - CO2 emissions, health effects,
particles and preventing recycling.
Beppe et al, this is what Dr Dick van Steenis has to say about Dr Mark Broomfield, Technical Director of Enviros, The UK's travelling salesperson of EfW incinerator. Different EU country, Dr Paul Connett's county, same fine to nano particle issue and denial from government officials and waste corporates.
Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS 31 January 2008 at Surrey County Council councillors, Surrey MPS & Capel Action Group.
I have been requested to correct false accusations, ignorance and misinformation in the Enviros planning briefing note of 24 January sent to MPs & councillors, and the waste treatment technologies memorandum written by Mark Broomfield of Enviros for Surrey CC Environment & economy select committee scrutiny review of waste.
Readers should be made aware that
There is not a single proper journal reference for his wild claims. (*I have 337 journal references backing up my report.).
Broomfield ignores journal reports of French & Belgian incinerators. His table of emissions is labelled “estimated” so must be ignored. He calls PM10s “fine” particulates when fine particulates are in reality PM2.5s in journals. Does he know anything about PM2.5 content, health effects at various concentrations and spread?? He makes comparisons with coal fired plant but incinerators release PM2.5s only compared to coal plant emissions averaging PM5 and makes comparisons with motorways when road fuel PM2.5s are much less contaminated and less toxic than incinerator PM2.5s. 70% of road PM1s settle by 110 yards while the incinerator emissions in your proposal will ground mostly within 16 miles downwind with prevailing SW, NW & SE winds.
In the briefing note he alleges incinerators “make a negligible contribution to PM2.5s”. He meant PM10s. Oops. The National Atmospheric Inventory quoted consists again entirely of ESTIMATES hence cannot be relied upon except by those living in the world of make-believe.
He does not tell you that even DEFRA, for whom he writes, state in their July 2007 report that PM2.5s CAUSE a range of illnesses and premature deaths. He then alleges Ryan’s report was reviewed by Woodward & Harrison. This is malicious libel and untrue as Ryan’s report to parliament was published afterwards so was not seen. Woodwards report had no proper control and only looked at 4 wards compared with the same area including the 4 wards when most of the area had the health damage. She could have examined Dothill ward upwind versus Ironbridge gorge and other wards downwind. Her own PCT age standardised mortality proves the death rate in Ironbridge gorge almost TREBLE that of Dothill, with Dothill infant mortality zero compared with as high as 29 per1000 births in Ironbridge. Childhood asthma incidence in Dothill was 1.9% compared with 24 to 100% in schools downwind.
A secret meeting of regulators with the power company was called by the Health Protection Agency 17 Nov.2005 purely to formulate a joint propaganda to hide the illnesses and deaths from the public in order to protect company profits.
So to wind up his deceitful propaganda
In conclusion the incinerator proposal breaks the IPPC law as it is no longer BAT or BATNEEC as plasma gasification is cheaper to build, to run, and the safest with no ash for disposal. The Canadian government is working with one, they are found in
...................................................................
Dr Dick van Steenis comments on Dr Mark Bloomfield from Enviros consulting
in a Transcript of a Lecture given by Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and of a Question and Answer session at a Public Meeting held on Tuesday 5th February 2008 at The Weald School, Beare Green.
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
Transcript of a Lecture given by Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and of a Question and ... We were on Southern County Radio last week, when Dr. Mark Broomfield ...
Capel Action Group has made a lot of impact in
That is quite the reverse to what he said a year or so ago when he told the County Council that the health effects were good. And you may remember at an earlier meeting, David Munro famously said that incinerators did not need chimneys because all they emitted was steam! If you look at the earlier Planning Application that they originally claimed that it was only steam, but they now admit that they do emit PM2.5s.
DvS: Both Michael and I have both presented reports to the Head of Surrey County Council and it was answered by Dr, Broomfield’s report that was ten pages of rubbish plus another three pages to the Council to refute the allegations. We have to answer all this tosh that’s thrown around. We have science and the facts. There are very few scientists in the
The health effects of incinerators
1 Should provision be made for independent monitoring especially of health risks?
1.1 We commend the British Society for Ecological Medicine's approach to this matter (Extract from British Society for Ecological Medicine's response To Enviros evaluation (2) at www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php):
"We believe that incinerators should be regulated carefully and in detail. Most people would consider a carefully regulated system to be one that monitors the most dangerous pollutants for the majority of the time and one where most of pollutants emitted are monitored. They would also expect a regulatory system with frequent unannounced inspections and effective deterrents for breaches of regulations.
The BSEM consider continuous monitoring of dioxins should be an absolute requirement for all incinerators. The study by De Fre and Wevers has shown that spot monitoring, as done at present, is unrepresentative and that continuous monitoring has found actual emissions to be 30 - 50 times higher. We previously pointed out that a worst case scenario, using recent data that has found dioxins 9 times over the limit, could mean dioxin levels remaining at over 400 times normal for a period of 6 months. This would put an entire population at great risk.
Yes, Carillion, the main contractor for the bypass. Seemingly joined at the hip with the Highways Agency. And notice when it was registered. Before the PI even started.
http://nomottrambypass.blogspot.com/2007/08/parking-domain.html
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes”, Report prepared by Enviros Consulting Ltd and others
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/content/IncineratorSurrey.pdf
From the Splott PACT meeting last week, I have been told that Viridor confirmed
that 256 lorries would be required every day to transport the waste (26 per
hour) which is a 3% increase in traffic.
They plan to submit planning application in the next two
weeks.
LetsRecycle reports that:
Plans to develop a new incinerator in Cardiff have come under fire because of concerns it will not be limited to burning non-recyclable waste. Waste firm Viridor (Pennon Group)has been selected as preferred partner by the owners of a site near the Cardiff docks to take forward the £150 million project to build a “waste management and resource recovery facility”.
According to a letter from Cardiff Friends of the Earth local people are concerned that the proposed facility would be over-sized, as 350,000 tonnes per annum equates to some 2.5 times the amount of residual waste Cardiff produces. Continue Reading “Viridor proposal would turn Cardiff into South Wales waste capital” »
From: Cardiff Friends of the Earth
Date: 3rd November
Subject: Viridor's proposed incinerator in Cardiff Bay
The proposal
Viridor Waste Management are poised to submit a planning application for a large “energy from waste
” incinerator plant in Cardiff Bay. According to their Community Consulation Brief the proposed plant will be situated on Trident Park, between Ocean Way and the Docks and designed to process 350,000 tonnes of waste per year.
Our concerns
l Over-sized – 2.5 times the amount of residual waste Cardiff produces
In 2007/2008, the total amount of residual waste from Cardiff was 133,000 tonnes[1]; the total from five local authorities[2] in the region is still less than 330,000tonnes[3]. With rates of recycling set to increase this leaves the question of where the shortfall would come from. Viridor imply that the household waste could be topped up using business waste but incinerators can't cope with too high a proportion of business waste[4]. This means the waste would have to be either diverted from recycling or sourced from further afield still which is against the proximity principle.
l Transport – more than 100 trucks per day on Cardiff's roads
In order to meet the demands of the incinerator, over 1000tonnes of waste per day would have to be transported to the site - this could result in over 100 trucks per day having to be accommodated on Cardiff's roads. This amount of traffic would have a significant impact on congestion and result in a corresponding increase in pollution from the vehicles.
l Toxic was
te – 120,00 tonnes of waste ash per year
Every year the incineration process would produce about 17,500tonnes of toxic fly ash[5] which would have to be transported to a hazardous waste site in Cheltenham; and around 100,000tonnes of bottom ash[6] which contains leachable metals. Although theoretically the bottom ash can be recycled as secondary aggregate, only half the current production of bottom ash finds a market, meaning the rest would need to be landfilled.
l Emissions – NOx, ultrafine particles, dioxins
Incineration not only releases high levels of CO2 but also NOx and ultrafine particles. In addition, emissions are not limited during start-up and close-down when high levels of dioxins have been found to be emitted.
Alternatives
l Incinerators are a very inefficient way of recovering energy from waste ~20% electrical efficiency. Other residual waste treatments such as anaerobic digestion generate energy more efficiently and the greatest energy efficiency of all would be achieved by maximising recycling.
l Due to the long waste contracts associated with incinerators, they are very inflexible. Modular and flexible alternatives are available – able to adapt to changing volumes and composition of waste as recycling improves and increases. These include Mechanical & Biological Treatment (MBT), Anarobic Digestion, Autoclaving, Gasification and Pyrolysis.
[1] http://dissemination.dataunitwales.gov.uk/webview/index.jsp?language=en
[2] Cardiff, Newport, Vale of Glamorgan, Caerphilly and Monmouthshire – members of Prosiect Gwyrdd
[3] Ibid
[4] http://www.ukwin.org.uk/?p=117 in Sheffield, too much business waste caused a Veolia plant operational inefficiencies and they had to resort to sourcing household residual waste from further afield
[5] About 5% of waste input
[6] About 25-30% waste input
Kevin Lawlor, project manager at College Proteins, arrives at the Newgrange Hotel where the inquiry was adjourned after five acres on the proposed site turned out to be owned by a local farmer.
There is no safe level of exposure to fine particulate air pollution, University of Ulster professor, Vyvyan Howard, told the College Proteins oral hearing last week.
The toxicological research academic claimed evidence was emerging that no current incinerator design sufficiently abated dangerous nanoparticles from potential emissions that would emerge from the proposed Nobber plant, and recent European studies pointed to such emissions as a source for between three to six per cent of deaths in larger urban centres.
The lungs and blood/brain barrier had been shown to be the routes these nanoparticles could penetrate, all of them man-made chemicals which human evolution gave our normal defence mechanisms no history of tackling, said the Coleraine professor. There were findings to suggest they caused protein misfolding, making them toxic.
The potential for such defective proteins contributing to the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease was the basis of the EU grant of €2.5 million his group was currently researching, he added.
Cardiff and the V
PGwyrdd_ EvaluShortlist_Feb09.pdf
ale of Glamogan to find an iFears aired over Newport waste plant (From South Wales Argus)
Newport’s cabinet gave the go ahead to allow an Assembly-owned site on Tatton Road to be considered for the project. The site, in the industrial area of Queensway Meadows, is likely to be the only publicly owned site earmarked for the plant.
Evaluation of all shortlisted sites here
Viridor are coming to blows with local communities with it's monstrous incinerator plans all over the UK. Scotland, Wales, Cheshire and Oxford
Viridor spin and PR attacks, in Scotland
I'd like to air about a totally inaccurate statements that misleads of the public by Viridor PR man Dan Cooke. Dan Cooke was unscientific and span recklessly with waste of energy spin, that he hopes will bluff his company to win a lucrative and big bucks waste contract, with dangerous yesteryear technology. There is only one epidemiological study done by Elliott, and this was set up wrong. So not many. The only time and time again has been the waste of energy spin that the public are fed up to the back teeth of from waste incinerator companies and organisations like COSTA.
He said "Time and time again government studies, independently commissioned studies have looked at this in detail and experts have carried out research that has demonstrated that there is no link between energy from waste or any other well-run waste management facility and health impact. There are some people out there who are recklessly scaremongering and putting forward unfounded claims."
WHAT STUDIES?
Firstly only One epidemiological study was undertaken by Elliot in the 1990's using old incinerators, and using concentric circle health parameters rather than downwind /upwind studies that pick up, rather than hide downwind clusters and affects. Secondly no other studies have been done scientifically with PM2.5 monitors. THe HPA Nov 2005 report was not a study but a statement of opinion. It did not study or conclude on PM2.5 health affects. Elliott was not independent he was in the pay of the government to justify their then EfW incinerator direction. Dan Cooke spins out these reports "time and time again" that have no scientific basis, whereas Dr van Steenis's 237 scientific references totally prove and back up what he is stating, with US EPA greats like Pope, Dochery, Costa behind him.
Members of COMEAP who prepareed the HPA report it has been proven have all vested interests in the industry, and like Profs. Roy Harrison and Geoff bridges have acted for waste incinerator companies like WRG or Sita. Again no independence. Who pays the piper Dr Mark Broomfield of Enviros Consulting is also in the pay as consultant to Sita and WRG and he bases much of his spin from 1960s PM10 estimates rather than 2000-2007 recent and actual PM2.5 monitoring. Two wholly different things. So no studies Dan Cooke referes to prove or demonstrate anything other than spin makes money from using waste of energy plants.
The US EPA say Dan Cooke is wrong and talking scientific garbage. So do
Italian Doctors federation
Irish Doctors Association
British Ecological Medicine Society
EU funded Nanodiagnostical
Dr van Steenis who has ONS government data on infant mortality to hand, and to quote around every modern incinerator in the UK, and has mapped 10 of them into downwind/upwind wards can and has proven everything he said, more than I can say for Viridors Dan Cooke.
MBT/AD or Autoclaving/Plasma Gsification are the cleaner,present and future, modern viable residual alternatives. Zero waste is fine, has a place in the debate, but doesn't talk the same language for funding or Landfill Directive in delivering tonnage. Falkirk is building an MBT/AD plant (Oaktech using Arrowbio process)
So well done Diana Milford and STV.TV. I hope Richard Locklead and Alex salmond kick Viridors burner planning application into to touch due to their spin and mirrors, rather than the scientific truth.
Rob Whittle NAIL2 Norwich Norfolk Warning over incinerator plan