Prosiect Gwyrdd charges £110 MORE a tonne to burn our rubbish

CARDIFF COUNCIL TO PAY £166 A TONNE while other Councils pay only £56

Prosiect Gwyrdd Rip off to pay far over the going price for Waste Incineration.

CARDIFF COUNCIL TO PAY £166 A TONNE while other Councils pay only  £56 

and to pay this rip off price for 25 years!

Prosiect Gwyrdd (Project Green) rip off applies to all partnership councils  

1. Cardiff Council, 
2. Caerphilly County Borough Council, 
3. Monmouthshire County Council, 
4. Newport City Council and 
5. Vale of Glamorgan Council.

The official survey by WRAP - 2012 Gate Fees Report *- finds that

the median gate fee for energy-from-waste incineration is £65 per
tonne The lowest PFI-type incinerator contract has gate fee of 
£56 /tonne In comparison PG calculated a 25-contract based 
on 2010 cost levels of £36.6 Million for 220 000 tonnes 
supplied to the incinerator (transport costs borne by 
the Councils). This means they were ready to pay £166 
per tonne.

Why did PG think that was a good deal?  Not just that they 
wanted an incinerator built in South Wales, but it was 
based on PFI-costs in England, which have high bank
 charges.  Their scheme would rip-off Council 
taxpayers and provide cut-price capacity for 
businesses at similar rates to those reported by WRAP

Face of Prosiect Gwyrdd
Ian Loyd Davis

Prosiect Gwyrdd excuse the
25 yr-long contract by saying
 we get a better price! 
The officers even guessed 
a 10-yr contract would be 
twice the price, before 
the WRAP figures came 
out.  The evidence of 
these figures is of a 
worse price. Former PG
Steering Cttee member, 
Caerphilly's Colin Mann, 
recently repeated this, 
so did he ever ask for evidence? Seems cllrs are 
being severely  'mislead' by Prosiect Gwyrdd people. 

No wonder Viridor is so keen to build an incinerator/gold 
mine in Cardiff and Veolia trying to build in Newport

The PG comparative cost per tonne is available f
rom the annual 25% subsidy (index-linked )
 approved by WAG of £9.124M in April 2009 
(based on secret OBC ‘Health Check’ figures of 2010),
 making £36.5M total. For the 220 000t pa, this gives
 £166 per tonne, higher than the maximum £131/t 
for new PFI-incinerators given below.  WRAP warns
 that the £166 /t gate fee for PG may not be directly
 comparable with those at older incinerators
 (£32 - £101 /t).  Still £166 /t compares badly with 
comparison with Defra-agreed PFI schemes of 
£56-102 /t (median £76 /t).

 Table 1   

EfW                 Pre-2000 facilities                   £64  median                            £32 to £75 range 

 Post-2000 facilities                 £82                                          £44 to £101

                         Defra Gate fee data [9]

             <200kt nbsp="nbsp" span="span" to="to">

  200kt to 300kt                       £76                                          £56 to £102

                         350kt to 450kt                        £68                                          £57 to £78

 [9]  Defra information on PPP/PFI projects that have reached contract closure in the last 5 years or are about to reach contractual close in the next 12 months.

*Download the full report - WRAP Gate Fees Report 2012

The Gate Fees report aims to raise price transparency and, 
through improving the flow of information, enhance the
 efficiency with which the waste management market
 operates.  A lack of market information may reduce a 
local authority's ability to make informed decisions on
 waste management options in terms of both economic
 and environmental costs.

Jane Davidson Incinerator legacy

Wales on line interviewed Jane Davidson   "One of her greatest pleasures, it appears, is that environmental groups rated her highly." WRONG ....Jane Davidson is so wrong - environmental groups don't rate her highly, she is misinterpreting the schmoozing and environmental activists are furious with her. Under pressure to reduce landfill her legacy is incineration -a nasty quick fix to deal with our ever-growing waste mountain and she is makng £millions available for Project 'Gwrydd' to build Incinerators that also produce CO2 under the pretext that they can make electricity from the process! We know the electricity from one of these large incinerators is pretty small, compared with normal power stations (several 100MW up to Aberthaw’s 1450MW) and produces toxic ash and air pollution. Jane Davidson isn't even enforcing a requirement on energy efficiency, despite the Welsh strategy on 60% minimum.Putting off 70% recycling till 2025 means going slow on recycling, when some countries (Falmand/Berlgium, also San Fransico) and municipalities have already reached this level. If you had the courage to step out of the office and talk to some activists Jane - for example Jane Davisdon refused to speak to the Cardiff Against the Incinerator Group.

Dr. Dick Van Steenis Caerphilly talk on danger from Incinerators

Dr. Dick Van Steenis has agreed to give a talk on nano-particle emissions from waste incinerators to members of the public and others…..venue Caerphilly Council Chamber, Tredomen, Ystrad Mynach, Wednesday 19th January, 5.0pm till 8.0pm……..everyone welcome to attend.


Dr. Dick van Steenis, a retired GP and well known campaigner on the dangers to human health from the emissions of EFW Waste Incinerators has agreed to give a presentation to members of the public and others on the serious hazards to human health posed by the emission of "nano-particles" which are freely emitted by Electric from Waste (EFW) Incinerators such as the type being proposed to be installed and used by Caerphilly County Borough Council in their partnership arrangement with Project Gwyrdd INCINERATOR for the disposal of residual waste.
The presentation followed by questions and answers has been arranged for Wednesday the 19th January 2011 in the Council Chamber at Tredomen from 5.0pm until 8.0pm.
NOTE
Statements by the Health Protection Agency to Michael Ryan, Environment Agency and in Hansard 30 November 2009 by the Dept. of Health all agree NO RESEARCH has been carried out around incinerators in particular comparing health data and PM2.5 & PM1 data upwind with downwind. The HPA have issued false unsubstantiated claims which are simply fairy stories concocted by incinerator company lobbyists Enviros & others not based on any measurements. The Environment Agency hence authorise incinerator emissions as high as 30ug/m3 namely 120 times that of 2 incinerators in Finland & 2 in Sweden. The EA wrote 2010 that the UK bag filters allow 90% of PM1s and 35% of PM2.5s through, hence the needless deaths & illnesses on a grand scale.

Mapping by electoral ward of NHS PCT & ONS data proves new & old UK incinerators kill & maim very large numbers. Measurements in Mexico City & Sweden prove this. Emissions in Sweden revealed the incinerator PM2.5s comprised 33% of total, well over double traffic namely 300 times higher
than claimed by a UK substandard technology application. The UK incinerators areillegal under the EC November 2008 directive. The HPA are telling lies and should be prosecuted.

Cardiff AGAINST THE INCINERATOR

Protest at the Protest at the evironment Agency Offices 29 Newport Road
Cardiff City Centre Thursday 12 August 12 Noon-2pm Bring Banners,
Placards and Friends Environment Agency Offices 29 Newport Road Cardiff City Centre
Thursday 12 August 12 Noon-2pm Bring Banners, Placards and Friends

Viridor Waste Management plan to build a rubbish incinerator in the heart of Cardiff. The
Environment Agency can stop it with the stroke of a pen. But the EA side with big
business more than they side with the needs of the average person. We need to stand
together and demand the Environment Agency to do their job!

Areas of Cardiff already have dangerously poor air quality. The Stephenson Court area,
just a few feet from the Environment Agency's offices, is about to be declared an "Air Quality
Management Area" due to hazardous concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
The Environment Agency admit they've simply missed this in building their report on the
incinerator. The operation of Viridor's incinerator would worsen an already-poor environmental
situation. If the Environment Agency is missing so many obvious ways an incinerator would be
bad for public health in Cardiff, we have a duty to our fellow residents to take our message
straight to the Environment Agency, and to build a campaign and say No to the Cardiff
Incinerator!
Dangerous air quality
Cancer-causing chemicals
Incinerators cause cancer. Independent scientific evidence is overwhelming, with
dozens of studies from around the world showing again and again a clear link between
living near an incinerator and a higher risk of liver cancer, stomach cancer and lymphoma, it
is reckless to build a rubbish incinerator anywhere near a residential area.

But the Environmental Agency aren't listening to independent scientists. Instead, they're
trusting Viridor's own reports and outdated, cherry-picked government summaries.
Viridor Waste Management plan to build a rubbish incinerator in the heart of Cardiff. The
Environment Agency can stop it with the stroke of a pen. But the EA side with big
business more than they side with the needs of the average person. We need to stand
together and demand the Environment Agency to do their job!
 
Splott Incinerator


Green Party backs campaign against Splott Incinerator Matt Townsend syas...

Residents of Adamsdown and Splott are up in arms over the approved application to build a waste incinerator at Trident Park. The Green Party believes that the Lib-Dem/Plaid coalition in charge of Cardiff Council lacks foresight in its waste handling strategy. The Green Party is opposed to...

Splott Incinerator - effect on house prices

The Green Party has raised the question - what effect will the Splott Incinerator have on house prices? The question was raised using the Freedom of Information Act, and can be viewed here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/splott_incinerator_effect_on_hou We expect a response by the 31st...

Splott Incinerator - enormous waste lorries could travel down Newport Road

One of my biggest personal concerns about the Splott Incinerator is the impact it will have on the roads around Adamsdown and Splott. Will there be massive lorries taking waste to the incinerator and taking away the toxic waste which will be produced by the incineration? I often see massive...

A Brief History of the Splott Incinerator

I've put together some web links that I thought might be useful to people looking in to the incinerator issue. I hope this helps anyone who wants to find out further information about the background. I've also mentioned some of the involvement by myself and the Green Party in the process, but..

the Environment Agency wants your views on incinerator

The Environment Agency has published a draft decision indicating they are "minded to" give environmental permission to the Splott incinerator. But they are required to consult the public, and we should make the most of this. We'll be demonstrating at 2pm and 6pm in order to show the EA the resolve of Cardiff's residents opposed to this or any incinerator.
All day, we'll be lobbying the EA at the Star Centre Splott.

Residents and interest groups can also lobby the EA themselves; book a time by ringing 029 20 24 5330 or e-mail extwse.cardiff2.wls@enviro

nment-agency.gov.uk

Environment Agency let down Spott residents

Cardiff Stop the Incinerator have obtained the draft decision from the Environment Agency regarding the Splott incinerator.

(todays BBC News -The £150m plant already has planning permission from Cardiff council but is opposed..Last year Cardiff's planning committee decided the proposal would result in "the unsustainable transportation of waste". But the plans were passed last month after Viridor agreed to pay £182,096 towards "transportation infrastructure enhancements" in the city,,sustainable city???...just what we need more roads for rubbish lorries!!!)

We have begun assessing this draft decision, which we are disappointed to read states that the EA is "minded to" grant an environmental permit to the incinerator. On initial examination it is clear to us that the Environment Agency's draft decision has been written based on outdated and incomplete information.

Most seriously, we note the discussion of the incinerator's effect on air quality management areas (page 46). The EA considers the impact of the incinerator only on the St Mary Street Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and asserts "that the Newport Road and Philog AQMA’s are no longer necessary". The EA has failed to take note of the fact that in 2010 an AQMA was re-declared for Newport Road, and also ignores the declaration of the AQMA in Stephenson Court.(1) We believe these omissions invalidate the Environment Agency's recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore we observe that as the EA was still considering evidence from incinerator company Viridor Waste Management at least as late as 12 May 2010 (page 50), the EA's failure to consider current enviromental issues in Cardiff shows a failure on its part to put local and environmental concerns ahead of business concerns. The Environment Agency promised at the beginning of the public consultation process that "EPR [Environmental Permitting Regulations] permits are living documents and they can be varied during their life as new information or technology becomes available."(2) We sincerely hope the EA will live up to its word.

We are also dismayed to read the Environment Agency's failure to consider overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of waste incinerators. In reviewing the existing guidance on the health effects of incinerators (page 52), the EA cite only a single study, the Small Area Health Statistics Unit's (SAHSU) examination in 1993-1994 of the waste effects of incinerators. While this one study did give an inconclusive result, the EA ignores seven newer studies which all show a clear link between waste incinerators and cancers such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, liver cancer and breast cancer, both in adults and in children.(3)

In addition we note that the EA cites in support of its conclusion the position of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)(4) and the Health Protection Agency statements in 2005 and 2009(5) regarding waste incineration (page 54). The DEFRA and HPA documents cited draw their positions from the same single SAHSU study; in effect, the EA cites the same government-funded study four times. The EA presents a misleading picture of the evidence linking incinerators with cancer, and while we do not assert that this misrepresentation is deliberate, it is nonetheless irresponsible and verges on the abuse of science for political gain.

Finally we call attention to the EA's admission of the scantness of its public consultation (pages 91-100). The Environment Agency notes a total of 26 people attending its two public consultations. Since then, the EA has admitted it is unable to adequately consult residents regarding decisions(6). We furthermore note that in the space of less than two months, dozens of local residents have taken part in public meetings and protests against the incinerator, and hundreds have lent their signature to our petitions opposing the incinerator and calling for a greener alternative.

We sympathise with EA spokeperson Dr Norman Allan's concerns(7) that funding cutbacks are partly to blame for the failure of the EA to perform its mission to a sufficient standard. Only with adequate public funding and constant democratic review can an important body such as the Environment Agency carry out its important tasks of defending the interests of the working people of Britain.

The complete draft decision is available online at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/LP3030XA_CardiffEfW_DraftDD_For_Consultation.pdf.

Cardiff Stop the Incinerator continues to urge all residents of Cardiff to attend our public meeting on 27 July, 7pm in the STAR Centre, Splott in preparation for the EA's public consultation on 30 July. The Environment Agency has reached an incorrect conclusion based on flawed data. We will continue to fight against the incinerator and in defence of the people of Cardiff, whether this means opposing Cardiff Council, the Environment Agency, the Welsh Assembly, or the gods themselves.

Edmund Schluessel

Cardiff Stop the Incinerator

(1) The Stephenson Court AQMA was recommended in the document , available online at http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/objview.asp?Object_ID=17256&. The Newport Road AQMA was declared in early June 2010 and is discussed in the article "Fumes 'risk' to Residents" by Ed Walker, South Wales Echo, 10 June 2010, available online at http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/06/10/fumes-risk-to-residents-91466-26620354/

(2) Agency response from public surgery held 15 June 2009. Cited on page 91 of the draft decision.

(3) For completeness we cite those studies:

Comba, P. et al. "Risk of soft tissue sarcomas and residence in the neighbourhood of an incinerator of industrial wastes". Occup Environ Med 2003;60:680-683

Floret, N. et al. "Dioxin Emissions from a Solid Waste Incinerator and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma". Epidemiology 2003;14;4;392-398

Knox, E. "Childhood cancers, birthplaces, incinerators and landfill sites". International Journal of Epidemiology 2000;29:391-397

Viel, J-F et al. "Soft-Tissue Sarcoma and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Clusters around a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator with High Dioxin Emission Levels". American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 152, No. 1 : 13-19

Viel, J-F et al. "Dioxin emissions from a municipal solid waste incinerator and risk of invasive breast cancer: a population-based case-control study with GIS-derived exposure". International Journal of Health Geographics 2008, 7:4

Viel, J-F et al. "Risk for non Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the vicinity of French municipal solid waste incinerators" Environmental Health 2008, 7:51

Zambon, P. et al. "Sarcoma risk and dioxin emissions from incinerators and industrial plants: a population-based case-control study (Italy)" Environmental Health 2007, 6:19

(4) "Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes", published by DEFRA in 2004.

(5) The more recent of these is "The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators", first published by the HPA in September 2009.

(6) "Splott incinerator consultation 'not good enough,' say councillors", Hannah Waldram, Guardian Local, 6 July 2010, available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/cardiff/2010/jul/06/splott-incinerator-viridor-environment-agency



(7) ibid.

Demonstration today at 4pm at city hall

One question in for today's council re Viridor incinerator  

1.  What steps is the Council taking to meet the requirement to carry out the BPEO (Best Practicable Environmental Option) that its policy SPG (Supplementary Planning Guidance) on siting waste facilities requires?

 Supplementary: BPEO is defined as a consultative decision making process involving the public so can we, the public in Splott/Adamsdown, require suspension of the Viridor incinerator permit until the Council has carried out proper BPEO consultation?

Join us at the Demonstration today from 4pm at city hall.  

Stop the Splott incinerator

"Stop the Splott Incinerator" on Tuesday, July 13 at 7:30pm.


 Stop the Splott Incinerator
Start Time: Tuesday, July 13 at 7:30pm- 9:30pm

Where: St German's Chuch Hall - Metal Street, Adamsdown


City/Town: Cardiff, United Kingdom

Splott councillors defend support for campaign aga...

28 Jun 2010 ... It's the worst thing that will ever happen in Splott." Read the background to the Splott incinerator plans in our earlier post here. ...

Which councillors on planning committee supportrd this?

Viridor MISLEAD public over incinerator

 INCINERATOR Carbon sinner

We must change climate discourse to emphasise social benefits of cutting carbon. New Labour and Plaid Cymru in Wales must  increase recycling and have more ambitious targets and say NO to building incinerators and NO to the massive Viridor incinerator and hundreds of rubbish lorries travelling into Cardiff every day.

Viridor is misleading the public calling this huge incinerator 'Energy from Waste'
which is not aimed at reclaiming the energy, not being located suitably for uses of the heat,  but has waste disposal as primary purpose.  In the Environments Agency's own phrasing it's a "carbon sinner".
Viridor are appealing to WAG planning for their Incinerator so Take Action before Christmas Eve
To object write to the Welsh Assembly Planning Inspectorate
wales@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Objections by 24 December 2009 quoting appeal referenceAPP/Z6815/A/09/2113747/WF

Politicians shouldn't be afraid of this low carbon agenda - they should be actively promoting it.
http://www.prosiectgwyrdd.com/

STOP the Viridor Incinerator & Scam Gwyrdd

STOP the Viridor Incinerator & Scam Gwyrdd

(project green)

Will it save money building a massive incinerator?

No, it may end up costing us a fortune and tied in to a contract councils can’t get out of.

Viridor cannot build their costly giant incinerator unless they get a long-term (25 yr) contract from Cardiff and the other Councils, who would then not try to meet their recycling and residual waste targets. This has already happened to some English Councils, who find their predecessors signed contracts for more waste than is now being produced, so send their recycling collections too or pay a penalty. Having an incinerator would actually prevent increasing recycling and composting rates at a later date.

FACTS

• giant incinerator 350 000t/yr, over-sized even for the 5 Scam Gwyrdd councils

• domestic waste is decreasing with more recycling,

• residual waste to reduce to 130 000 tons/yr for the 5-authority region

• other waste facilities in other Council areas could and should come much sooner

• Viridor said half their waste for burning would be industrial/commercial – but it’s not needed as their recycling is increasing fast (avoiding the high incineration costs).

Can we use the heat from the Viridor incinerator?

There can only be a WASTE of heat! There are no realistic uses for the immense 70 MW heat, year-round with no back-up supply in the event of breakdown and maintenance down-time. No evidence that Viridor has any real plans to lay costly pipes needed to actually supply any of the heat at all. Against WAG policy

Is the Viridor incinerator efficient?

It is so Very inefficient – it is called waste ‘disposal’ under European standard

Whoops and what about the DANGEROUS EMISSIONS?

What do we do with the 17,500 tonnes of hazardous toxic ash? They expect to send it to England at great cost to dumps with huge local opposition.

The production of poisonous dioxins

An incinerator of this sort has toxic emissions, particularly ultrafine particles (nanoparticles)

How many lorries will be driving through Cardiff every Day to deliver this rubbish to Viridor in Splott?

Could be up to

260 BIG DIRTY RUBBISH LORRIES

every day

Adding to congestion

And what is the carbon footprint of all this? Send the answer...

No Again to Viridor incinerator!

No surprise then Viridor has decided to appeal about the incinerator. Their press release makes a clear link between the Cardiff incinerator and Prosiect Grywdd - which is the agreement amongst some south east wales local authorities to combine their waste problem. Viridor wants to drive it all through Cardiff in lots of lovely dirty lorries... probably through Bute park!!

Scotland aims for 70% real cycling, 25% cap on incineration;

Wales aims for 63% real recycling, 37% cap on incineration. Assembly politicians should be ashamed of what WAG is foisting on Wales in the guise of ‘ambitious recycling’. Worrying promotion of incineration 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 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 (www.prosiectgwyrdd.gov.uk)

Viridor appeals energy from waste planning decision

19 October, 2009

Viridor has announced it is to appeal the decision taken by Cardiff Council's planning committee to refuse planning permission for an Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power facility at Trident Park in Cardiff Bay.

The move comes after the city's planning committee went against the advice of its own officers in July and refused permission to build the facility, citing the fact waste could be brought in from other parts of south Wales as the reason....

Lib Dems back Incinerator - project greenwash

Cardiff libdem/plaid council propose to endorse P Gwyrdd at the 11 June Exec meeting.
MUNICIPAL RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT (PROSIECT
GWYRDD) - PROCUREMENT
Full report on the councils website : It happily manages to NOT to use the word incinerator but instead refers to the incinerator as 'energy from waste'.
http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/objview.asp?object_id=14194
Project Incinerator gives no alternative - ie. Lib Rodney Berman
has already agreed it. The incomprehensible report pushes the

1. incinerator ash issue aside, (para 19)
2. the same with wasting the heat energy.

121. Scope of Project: It should be noted that the scope of the procurement is limited to procuring a ....
Residual Waste Treatment Solution only...i.e. INCINERATOR

What is Project Green ....
1.1.1 page 39 Prosiect Gwyrdd (Project Green) comprises a partnership of five South Wales unitary authorities (Cardiff, Newport, Caerphilly, Monmouthshire and Vale of Glamorgan).
The partnership is working together to identify a suitable location for a major new residual waste treatment facility to provide an alternative recovery option to the
disposal of residual municipal waste in landfill. Once the site has been selected it is
intended that a procurement process will take place to identify a preferred bidder to
develop the facility.

Questions to raise

1. Is this risky and costly decision legal?..is it lawful to ignore TAN21 and development plan/waste plan policy
2. Why is MBT excluded in the project spec against Cardiff policy (doesn't meet The Best Practicable Environmental Option BPEO)
3. We want the decision deferred for a special inquiry/scrutiny with public and FoE-technical presence.

Not only is this project report total GREENWASH it is also total gobblygook..
e.g. The Project is aware that it will continue to ‘path-find’ throughout the procurement competitive dialogue procedure with regards to processes in Wales, as such the
Council will seek to ensure that strong liaison is maintained throughout
with the WAG officials to drive forward succinct decision making, thereby
keeping to timetable...and so on.....why not plain english....

Great news for Newport....perhaps they haven't noticed councils changing hands in Bristol over the incinerator.!!! R Berman take NOTE!!!

page 28 3(ii) Recommended site .... is known as Tatton Road, Newport. This recommendation being subject to: a Newport City Council agreeing to the same; and b Participating authorities agreeing to the terms and conditions pursuant to which such site is to be acquired or an option secured, which terms will address, how the same is to be financed by the five authorities and what is to happen at the end of the project life.
INCINERATOR to promote the concept of ECO Village!!!
....between the EfW plant and the Glan Llyn
development to promote the concept of an eco village’. Glan Llyn and / or Corus could
potentially receive all the output from the plant thus precluding the need to export
into the grid.

At their meeting Wednesday, 3rd June Monmouthshire CC's cabinet voted to
stay involved in Project Gwyrdd and proceed to the procurement stage.

Take action 15 April

Protest against the incinerator. Join us on
April 15 lunch time 1.30 City Hall lawn outside city hall.
more on this here - join us as the council's planning committee rules on proposals for a large waste incinerator in the city.

There has been fierce opposition to the planning application from Viridor waste management for a 350,000 tonne per year waste incinerator to be situated in Trident Park, near Splott. Cardiff Friends of the Earth has handed in objections from over 300 people and many others have also expressed their opposition.

The group has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the incinerator would burn waste which should be recycled or composted. They argue that incineration is not an efficient way of generating energy and that pollution from the site could be harmful to the health of local residents and could pollute important wildlife sites.

The objection says that household waste should be dealt with as near to where it was produced as possible, whereas an incinerator would take waste from across south east Wales, possibly much further.

Phil Ward, Waste Campaigner for Cardiff Friends of the Earth will be speaking on behalf of the group at the council meeting. He commented:

“The people of Cardiff do not want a massive incinerator at the heart of the city burning waste from across south Wales. We should all be taking radical steps to reduce the amount of waste we produce. Then we need to be recycling and composting all we can.

“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 "

Build an incinerator or Scam Green

Write to scam green - info@prosiectgwyrdd.co.uk

PROJECT GREEN Prosiect Gwyrdd

 Prosiect Gwyrdd is a partnership between, Caerphilly Borough County
Council, The County Council of the City and County of Cardiff,
Monmouthshire County Council, Newport Council and Vale of Glamorgan
Council partners in project 'green' to build an incinerator > and burn all their rubbish in cardiff!.

I was wondering where on this greenwash website is a mention of the
INCINERATOR word!!! Please say because I am having difficulty finding it
Where is the information about the application for planning
permission for an incinerator to be built in Cardiff?

Dear Anne,

As you can see from www.prosiectgwyrdd.co.uk , Proseict Gwyrdd is looking
at all available technology options for residual waste treatment. I hope
the website is a valuable education resource for you.

In relation to planning:

The actions by the Viridor Waste company are independent of the Councils
(Cardiff, Caerphilly, Monmouth, Newport and the Vale of Glamorgan and
their role in the regional waste procurement partnership Prosiect Gwyrdd.
It is open to Viridor (or anyone else with any suitably performing
technology proposal) to tender to the Project Gwyrdd regional procurement
exercise for residual waste, should decisions for the joint procurement to
proceed be made, it will be an open an transparent process with a number
of competitors involved.     Decisions are awaited on this matter from the
five local authorities concerned and will be subject also to decisions
from the Welsh Assembly Government, notably on funding.

Any planning proposals by the company made to Cardiff Council as the
appropriate planning Authority will be dealt with independently of any
waste management matters and in the normal course of planning procedure.

In terms of your comment about the website not including the word
incineration:

If you have a look at the Energy from Waste with combined heat and power
section, under the introduction you will find a sentence saying, 'for a
full detailed brief on incineration' please visit defra.co.uk (link to
this technology option).

I hope you manage to find it, it is quite clear. All of the available
options, with an introduction and full detailed brief from DEFRA are
clearly shown on the website.

Kind Regards,

Prosiect Gwyrdd

Questions to Andrew Bates
Development control section, City Hall Cardiff. from Max

I wish to examine the claim of ‘negative’ carbon footprint. You said you would ask the applicant for the necessary information.

I believe the ES must contain enough information for the public to assess this claim. The ES is huge – 2000 pages taking 290Mb – so we should not be told to go through it all. As I mentioned, the Supporting Statement section 6 should refer to the parts which are relevant for the claim.

Appendixes have full pdf-security so that it is impossible to use copy/ paste extract parts. This includes the Council’s own Scoping Opinion. Will you ask that this protection is removed, as it hinders public consultation.

Appendix 9 written by SLR explains the carbon footprint as derived
using WRATE software

# there is no explanation of this software, nor any document or manual in the References
# there is nothing about the uncertainty or ‘robustness’ of the software
# there is nothing about the ‘robustness’ of the result due to a range of plausible assumptions.

The Coventry default incinerator in WRATE is assumed. However, that default is known to be wrong – instead of the actual heat supply to the motor works, it took a fictitious figure based on the desire of the Env Agency to promoite CHP. SLR do not explain this.

The Heat Plan Appendix 7 gives no quantities for expected heat supply and no actual examples apart from the special Exeter hospital incinerator. It does not address the issue of large variations in seasonal demand for heat. The plan does not include a proposal for a back-up generator of heat when the incinerator is down, nor for heat storage to cater for the daily cycle in demand if as proposed the incinerator operates continuously. Is supplying heat a serious proposal?

The Appendix 9 says which factors have been assumed from the Coventry case and which have been changed and refers to “supporting spreadsheet files”. I cannot see these in the application documents.

It says the carbon footprint is compared with that from waste-to-landfill (‘baseline scenario’) but doesn’t describe the assumptions of that ‘baseline’ - presumably an out-of-date baseline that is not now allowed under requirements for stabilisation of biowastes, because it mentions “processing waste in the landfill” after Fig 5-3.

Please therefore ask
# for a truthful “carbon footprint” showing the actual CO2 (equ) emitted compared with the claimed ‘offsets’ and including the biogenic carbon emitted
# for an incinerator calculation with real heat use, not the fictitious Coventry figure, justifying the claim the heat credit “is considered appropriate” in real terms.
# for real energy efficiency figures for the actual CNIM technology proposed.

Please come back to me if this is not clear and thanks for your help.