Cardiff, Caerphilly, Newport,
Monmouthshire, Vof G Councils want a big burner which Ties them into a very expensive PFI for 25 YEARS to burn waste rather than improve recycling rates. The Prosiect Gwyrdd councils are striving towards a feeble 65% recycling by 2025 with at least a further 5% being ASH from the incinerator. Many other councils have already exceeded 70% recyling rates.
“Prosiect Gwyrdd” = Scam Green = WAG Welsh Waste Policy = incinerators
Dec 11 2008 by David James, South Wales Echo WRONG WRONG WRONG
Consideration of Environmental Statements and EIA planning applications The timeframe for dealing with the application is extended to 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the ES, although this can be extended with the applicant’s agreement.Cardiff planning officer A Bates said that there was plenty of time to write in - while the application is live -still happy to receive letters and views!!!!
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.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/nocardiffbayincinerator Sign our petition here's an anti-incinerator victory!This took several months, insisting on answers from the Env Agency on the Environmental Statement.None of that nonsense about 21 days to object when there is in law 16 weeks for deciding on EIA-planning.We must insist on seeing the representations from Stat Consultees like the EA.
The planning decision went our way big time, with Newark & Sherwood not only objecting, but saying that if Notts County Council approve the application they (the District Council) would ask for a public inquiry, and if the Secretary of State doesn't grant a public inquiry, Newark & Sherwood District Council would take advice on a legal challenge (judicial review) Rainsworths Burning Issue
from someone who went down to the meeting this afternoon.
Prosiect Gwyrdd item was pretty short - about 5 minutes. The main action was before that and was a very long heated discussion about the proposed school closures and related loss of open space in East Cardiff, and involving a lot of shouting from some members of the public attending.
The Prosiect Gwyrdd OBC recommendations were passed, i.e. for the project to continue along the lines in the report
Margaret Jones presented : - the OBC is an interim document - the project is of such a scale that it will need to come back to the Exec and also go to full Council next year - no decision taken on site or technology - irritated at misrepresentation of the project inside the Council and elsewhere (i.e. "PG = incinerator"
- the main point of the presentation was to repeat impatience with WAG for not clarifying funding position - this was supported by all councillors present - there were no questions about the content of the report
Contact: Heather Webber, Cardiff Friends of the Earth
Tel: 07504928248
Email: heather.webber@foe.co.uk
Residents urged to oppose Cardiff Incinerator
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 transportingthis 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.
[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)
The Cardiff report smacks of desperation and looks like an attempt to steamroller a dodgy proposal through as quickly as possible before anybody checks their maths. It may be easy for them to blame the assembly but wasn’t their original timeline to complete the Outline Business Plan by December 2007 and to put the advert in the OJEU by March 2008 [1] but they still say it isn’t finished yet and now won’t go into the OJEU until Mar 09. In which case isn’t it really the project team and their (£ 250,000 + to date) consultants who are to blame for the full year slippage to date? And if the project can slip a full year between the July 2007 Cardiff Council Executive meeting and now what are the realistic prospects for it being delivered on time and to budget in the longer term?
Obviously the final draft OBC raises a lot of questions. Why, for example, have they placed so much emphasis on landfill penalties (at £ 200/tonne [2]) in the letter to Jane D, and in the OBC, when all the authorities will meet the Landfill Directive Diversion targets through complying with the National recycling targets?
The growth rates are unrealistically high – and a quick check shows the total MSW has fallen again in each of the authorities. The argument they use (in Appendix 4b and not 2a as they incorrectly reference in para 2.3.2) is a silly one:
“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.
Prosiect llwyd is not necessary to comply with European targets and adds only 1.2% [3] to recycling – and that is low grade post incineration steel which could be recovered with higher quality at a landfill with a magnet. It is therefore difficult to understand why it is considered so important to concentrate on this residual waste project at this stage as it seems to requires a rather perverse mentality to prioritise this rather than the the main event of meeting the recycling targets,
A more realistic assessment of the residual waste need would, in any case, be 30% of 500,000 tonnes ie 150,000 tonnes. The proposal is therefore probably 50% too big with profound impacts on the costs assessments. This is a shoddy way to play with £ 1 billion of our money.
Even the proposed option with ash recycling would still need landfill for 36,500 tonnes of rejects; 6,300 tonnes of hazardous APCD residues (table 4.4). They should also add the requirement for at least half the bottom ash to be landfilled as this is the level being achieved in Hampshire. If we can demonstrate that the bottom ash is hazardous then even more would be landfilled. Thus the total landfill requirement of the Project would be 42,800 + 16,650 = 59,450 tonnes. The reduction in landfill compared with do nothing thus reduces to c. 90,000 tonnes. These corrections would make a large difference to the cost assessments.
The WRATE assessment is typically awful, but as expected given the fundamental flaws and limitations of the model.
The report has far too much redacted information
[1] Cardiff Council (2007). EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING: 5 JULY 2007 MUNICIPAL RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR AGENDA ITEM: 8 PORTFOLIO: ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Prosiect Gwyrdd procurement. [2] I think it will be difficult in any case for Wales to maintain the threat of a £ 200 penalty given that the English financial penalty was reduced to £ 150 by Environment Minister Elliot Morley on 9 December 2004 “as part of a package of measures designed to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to meet challenging targets for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill without increasing pressure on council tax”. It follows that landfill will never reach £ 200/tonne when LATS penalties are set at £ 150 in England – authorities would simply pay the penalty or export the waste to English landfills where the LATS can be traded and the market price for landfill would be below £ 150. [3] The 1.2% is for metal recovery. More worrying is the comment at: 4.4.16 “It has recently (although unofficially) been suggested by the Assembly Government that bottom ash recycling may count towards future recycling targets”. This could add another 5.2% they claim – this is wrong because only half the ash is likely to be recycled and it is, in any case, an approach that has recently been rejected in England.
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.
New FOE report
.......and Professor Dr Paul Connett Ph.D on zero waste here
..............................Right now the landfill surcharge is driving the building of massive incinerators
UK is moving from worst solution to the next worse solution i.e. moving from the bottom of the waste hierarchy up.
What we need are financial incentives to encourage communities to move to the top of the waste hierarchy –i.e. towards sustainability. Perhaps........
INCINERATION 20 pounds/ton surcharge
40 pounds/ton surcharge on ash
LANDFILLING 40 pounds/ton surcharge
The Governent is pushing councils in one direction - incineration
Charles Clover in The Sunday Times derided the government for pushing councils towards incineration as a solution for waste disposal. Previously incineration plants had been opposed because of fears of toxic emissions, an issue now largely dealt with by better burners. Clover said incineration should be opposed: "It starves recycling industries of raw materials and prevents a cheaper, greener business model from succeeding."
UK Health research here Effect on health unknown here Welsh councils' incinerator trend Environment minister Carwyn Jones has said the development of incinerators in Wales is ineitable.24-3-07 AN INCINERATOR close to Swansea's prestigious SA1 development is being investigated for allegedly pumping out too many harmful fumes...Residents...have been told that potentially-cancer-causing dioxin emissions were found to have been three times the limit when tested in December last year. Waste Burning Could Be Lethal (from Oxford Mail) Incinerators - are WMD's? Health Impacts of Incinerators here UK without incineration network here
A report from Friends of the Earth reveals the huge extent of the pollution and financial losses caused by our love of landfill and incinerationmore...
Wales Climate Camp
The Minister depicted Prosiect Gwyrdd as "producing much needed energy" that would "use waste in the best possible way", despite the consortium claiming their Business case for procuring a ‘solution’ for residual waste is technology-neutral
WAG Approval of the business case and subsidy for Prosiect Gwyrdd, 27 Jan. 2009:
New funding boost for next generation energy-from-waste plant in south Wales
Why are incinerator residues not counted in the recycling/composting indicator?hereClassification of Incinerator Bottom Ash (updated 29 Nov. 2008)
Facebook Groups
No Incinerator in Cardiff Bay here
- Councils Scam Gwyrdd
Scottish Parliament: National Waste Strategy
Scottish Parliament vote against large-scale incinerators -The vote in the Scottish Parliament, carried because the Tories voted with the Greens and SNP. Just one Lib-Dem supported, 6 Labour absentees.
If burning up to a quarter of Scotland's municipal waste is "a failure of the imagination" how much bigger a failure is the proposed Welsh strategy with burning up to 37% proposed !
It appears that the governing SNP had a change in mind when confronted with 25% in their Minister's plan.
*S3M-4348.1 Scottish Parliament: National Waste Strategy (11 Jun 2009)
11 Jun 2009 ... Greens win Holyrood Vote against "Landfill in the Sky". Parliament today endorsed Green opposition to plans for a new generation of ... there should be no necessity for any large-scale waste-to-energy plants to be built ...
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.
