To Russell Goodway re Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Dear Cllr Goodway,

We believe that you as chair of PG take ultimate responsibility for the key financial issues being properly checked prior to signing the huge contract with Viridor.

The answers on two basic financial issues appear to be outstanding  

1. State Aid – the risk of the European Commission ruling the 25% WG subsidy to be illegal has not been accessed by Accounting officers

2. No updated Value-for-Money assessment has been made, neither by the Project or by the WG review.

You should be aware that the National Audit Office has just announced it is investigating three 25-yr incinerator contracts in England www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/defras-oversight-pfi-waste-projects/;

also that Defra withdrew WIC (waste infrastructure credits) last week for the Norfolk CC’s incinerator, putting Norfolk CC in trouble over their recent 25-yr contract  www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/defra-withdraws-ps169m-norfolk-efw-funding

You may have seen that EdF yesterday specified the State Aid issue as needing a decision before they sign the Hinkley Point nuclear deal.

We question that the Project officers are capable of giving appropriate advice on these issues and suggest appropriate independent experts should be consulted, eg. the WAO who are already considering the PG contract.

From Cardiff Against the Incinerator CATI 

Letter to Russell Goodway but no reply

Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Dear Cllr Goodway,

We believe that you as chair of PG take ultimate responsibility for the key financial issues being properly checked prior to signing the huge contract with Viridor.

The answers on two basic financial issues appear to be outstanding  

1. State Aid – the risk of the European Commission ruling the 25% WG subsidy to be illegal has not been accessed by Accounting officers

2. No updated Value-for-Money assessment has been made, neither by the Project or by the WG review.

You should be aware that the National Audit Office has just announced it is investigating three 25-yr incinerator contracts in England www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/defras-oversight-pfi-waste-projects/;

also that Defra withdrew WIC (waste infrastructure credits) last week for the Norfolk CC’s incinerator, putting Norfolk CC in trouble over their recent 25-yr contract  www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/defra-withdraws-ps169m-norfolk-efw-funding

You may have seen that EdF yesterday specified the State Aid issue as needing a decision before they sign the Hinkley Point nuclear deal.

We question that the Project officers are capable of giving appropriate advice on these issues and suggest appropriate independent experts should be consulted, eg. the WAO who are already considering the PG contract.

From Cardiff Against the Incinerator CATI 

Cardiff Planning cmte Shambles over Viridor Incinerator

Cardiff Planning cmte Shambles over Viridor Incinerator

Today  13^th Feb. at 2.30pm Cardiff Council planning committee considers over 6 months late a dozen applications to approve or reject Viridor's incinerator.  

Rob Griffiths, chair of CATI, will say to the Planning Cttee:

“This is further evidence of what a complete shambles council  policy is. They have a Court action against them for failure to act over 6 months against Viridor's unlawful construction of an incinerator. The High Court legal action is to kick off in two weeks."

“Cardiff Council will have to face up to the fact sooner or later that Viridor have been quite prepared to proceed without proper authority and contrary to planning regulations… and utter contempt for the views of local residents and businesses about the economic and health detriment.."

Adventurers Quay Management Company Limited and the 226 residents who live there.have written to County Hall today expressing support for Cardiff Against the Incinerator

High Court order to Cardiff Council STOP VIRIDOR

Case to force Cardiff to Stop Viridor's Incinerator building to go to Court

The High Court judge agreed yesterday, 7th Feb. to order "expedition" of the case..

Both Cardiff Council and Viridor opposed this, seeking to delay the case for the Planning Committee scheduled for 13th February.

Said Max Wallis for CATI: "This was delaying tactics.  The officers do not propose enforcement but approval of defective applications outstanding since August. This cannot rectify Viridor's unlawful development." 

Pauline Ellaway, a Splott resident who is fronting the case for CATI said:

"We are pleased the Court has rejected Cardiff's request for further delay, when they should have acted 6 months ago" 

CATI has repeatedly asked for enforcement action since the start of work on 20 July.  The law firm Richard Buxton demanded action again in December, when the officers agreed a compromise of taking the issue to the Committee of 9th January.  They turned down the request for an immediate Stop Order, on the basis that little work was to be done over the Xmas/New year period.

The Planning committee failed to take action** on 9th February, by chairman's casting vote, despite strong pleas from Splott councillors, Huw Thomas, Luke Holland and Gretta Marshall.

Papers for the 13 Feb. Planning Committee should be available later today.  But whatever transpires at that Committee, the case will be up in Court within 2 or 3 weeks.

--

** report on cardiffagainsttheincinerator.blogspot.com

Time Plaid to condemn subsidy for £1.1bn incinerator PFI

South Wales Without Incineration Network will be lobbying the Plaid conference on Sat 26th March  against WAGs funding for incineration and Plaid Councillors in power in Caerphilly and Cardiff promoting incineration and PFI totally against Plaid Policy. 

WASTE A BURNING ISSUE Time for PLAID TO STAND UP against Incinerator Ambitions Driving Waste Policy in Wales 
Reality of Poor recycling targets and drive to mega-incinerators

Plaid’s 2010 election manifesto is clear – 80% recycling/composting by 2020 & oppose the use of waste incinerators. High Time for Plaid to condemn WAG’s rotten targets with subsidies for incinerators - £9 million/yr for Prosiect 'Gwyrdd'

Contrary to Jane Davidson’s ‘green’ claims, there are no ambitious recycling targets in Wales. Only 70% recycling, or 65% excluding incinerator ash, not the 80-90% judged feasible, with 75% already met in Flanders etc. Not by 2015 as is quite practicable, but deferred till 2025(!)

WAG bias to incineration - both subsidy and promoting regional consortia for 'residual' waste - is stronger than either England or Scotland.  

The 5-county Prosiect 'Gwyrdd'/Incinerator  is leading WAG's drive for privatisation of waste in Wales, with a projected value of £1.1 billion over 25 years. The 4 chosen companies to bid for 25-year PFI contract are Covanta/Brig y Cwm; Viridor/Cardiff; Waste Recycling Group Ltd/Barry; Veolia ES Aurora Ltd/Newport, all variants of incinerators disguised as energy plants. Two claim to be CHP, provide heat and as well as energy but don't qualify as they will use little of the Heat and under half the 60% energy efficiency set in Wales.

 Their 'Design, Build, Finance and Operate' arrangement is a version of PFI,the disreputable Private Finance Initiative. Chair (Lib Dem Cllr Stephens) claimed it’s only a PPP (private-public partnership) yet “financing for the Project will be predominantly, if not wholly, procured from private finance.”

WAG recruited Howel Jones from Partnerships UK – promoter of Blair-Brown’s PFIs – to cajole and bribe all Welsh councils into similar waste projects.

Why oppose the incineration of household waste?

• Shoving more waste up a chimney and spewing toxic emissions into the air will undermine recycling, not increase it
• Far from helping to 'tackle climate change', burning more rubbish produces far more carbon emissions (eg. from oil-based plastics) than it saves through electricity generation. WAG pretend incinerator CO2 can be ignored by calling it ‘industrial’, so maintaining ‘green’ pretensions
• Relies on exaggerating future quantities of waste instead of strongly increased recycling and composting. Waste PFIs need guaranteed amounts of waste per week & assume waste tonnages will grow over the length of the contract.
• Poses health risks with toxic emissions and huge tonnages of hazardous ash sent to landfill

WAG's policy claims to be technology-neutral, yet

• The Private Finance trap locks us into 25-year contracts
• forces authorities to choose mega-waste companies and squeeze out Welsh businesses

The alternatives to incineration are cheaper, more flexible, quicker to implement and better for the environment. Rather than incinerating waste, The best option is to reduce residual waste to a minimum, through more intensive recycling and sorting.

P Gwyrdd/Incinerator ignores risks

• locked into PFI they call 'Design, Build, Finance and Operate' capital funding which relies too heavily on banks and more expensive since credit crunch
• incinerator ash will be classed as 'hazardous waste', with high costs of treatment or disposal penalties will be attached to the huge amounts of CO2 emitted by incinerators.

We call on Plaid Cymru to

• continue to oppose the use of waste incinerators even when called EfW
• urgently demand a independent review of the value for money case of private finance when interest margins which financiers now demand on PFI projects are higher and likely to stay at elevated levels.
• Ask whether the disclosure of commercial information about the project is adequate and whether more information could be put in the public domain without endangering commercial confidentiality
• Stop Plaid Cllrs in power in Cardiff and Caerphilly supporting Prosiect 'Gwyrdd'/Incinerator
• Stop the Greenwash and stick to reality

Stick to 2010 Plaid’s Westminster Manifesto

“We will continue to oppose the use of waste incinerators and support binding targets for waste prevention. We support recycling targets of 80% of domestic waste by 2020 and the introduction of a higher landfill tax. We will campaign for changes in public procurement legislation so that Local Authorities can favour materials from recycled and local sources”.

2008: Conference further calls:

On the Assembly Government to work with all local authorities across Wales to promote a consistent and standardized approach to waste management which takes recognition of the fact that recovery of energy from waste is fullest through maximising recycling including that of plastics, and the separate collection and anaerobic digestion of food waste; and that, by contrast, incineration is a bad solution, inefficient in energy generation, and damaging to the environment and climate change.

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.

Cardiff Planning Officers give incinerator ahelping hand

Do we believe the officers that 'no urban incinerator will accept a visit' -?

THIS is an INCINERATOR even though it avoids this word where possible!!!
NOT a clean 'ENERGY from Waste' ??? Who are they kiddding and there is no customer for this dirty energy!

A HUGE amount of emphasis in the report on energy from Waste
8.6 Sustainability
The proposed facility would provide (at capacity) approximately 30 Mega
Watts of electricity, enough to serve 30,000 homes. This is considered to be in
accordance with the aims of Planning Policy Wales and TAN 21. This is an
important feature of the proposal and..

The Welsh Assembly Government states that energy from waste facilities are
only acceptable if ‘they form part of an integrated approach and that they only
recover energy from residual waste that remains after as much recyclable and
compostable material as practically possible has been removed; they include
heat and power wherever practicable.

The applicant states that the proposed facility is intended to treat residual waste and that materials (such as metals) are to be recovered for recycling..

The carbon footprint of the development
Chapter 5.3 of the submitted Environmental Statement analyses the carbon
footprint of the proposed facility compared with landfill...(WRATE). Compared with Landfill an overall carbon saving of
between -108,000 tonnes and -196,000 tonnes will be achieved in the year 2013. Provided a user for the heat produced can be located the carbon footprint of the proposed facility is estimated to be in the order of -30,000
tonnes CO2eqv in 2013

Hazards of disposing of toxic fly ash sdismissed in this ONE para so this is big issue no 2 to tackle!!
The toxic fly ash is the residue of combustion removed from the flue gases
prior to release into the atmosphere, in order to reduce the pollutants emitted.
The facility would produce approximately 10,500 tonnes per annum. The fly
ash would be removed from the facility using enclosed tankers and would be
transported to a hazardous waste landfill (currently there are none in Wales)..


Looks like this will clash with SEW Waste group meeting - do we have a protest outside..etc7.5 Cardiff Friends of the Earth and South-East Wales Friends of the Earth Waste

From the report..the objections in addition to those by cllrs.
Then 8. ANALYSIS starts
8.1 This is a major application for an energy from waste facility which will comprise
14,400 square metres of internal floorspace and will treat approximately
350,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum.

FROM THE PAPERS to be found here
http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?id=2292&$state=calendarmeeting&$committeeID=1423&$meetingdate=06/05/2009&$eventrec=5616

Group object to the proposed development on the following grounds (The full
objection letter is available for public viewing as a background paper):
• The proposed incinerator will, during the long period of its contract,
contravene the requirements laid down in the Waste Hierarchy to;
minimise waste arisings by reduction / prevention, and secure every
possible recovery of materials by re-use, recycling or composting before
burning.
• The proposed incinerator is not demonstrated to be the Best Practicable
Environmental Option, particularly with respect to climate change impact.
• There is public concern that the proposed incinerator will constitute a
health risk because hazardous substances produced, for example ultra
fine particle (
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This is a major application for an energy from waste facility which will comprise
14,400 square metres of internal floorspace and will treat approximately
350,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum. The facility has a predicted
lifespan of approximately 25 years but may operate beyond this timeframe.
The proposed development includes a waste reception area including tipping
hall and bunkers, offices, a visitors centre, two stacks a weighbridge and
parking for HGVs and cars. The site will employ approximately 50 employees
on a shift basis and will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Deliveries
to the facility will generally be between the hours of 0700 and 1700 hours.

8.2 The agent has advised that there are approximately 22 energy from waste
facilities which are operating within the United Kingdom, treating residual
municipal, commercial and industrial waste and that there are also
approximately 10 further energy from waste facilities which are in the pipeline.
The applicant Viridor currently operates a clinical energy from waste facility in
Plymouth and is currently developing additional facilities in Exeter, (permission
was granted in May 2008 for a 60,000 tonne per annum facility) and Slough
(planning permission was granted in 2000 for a 400,000 tonne per annum
facility). Viridor has also submitted planning applications for similar facilities in
Oxford and East Lothian, which are being considered currently by the relevant
local planning authorities. It should be noted that the energy from waste
facilities which have been approved by other local planning authorities have
also given rise to a great deal of opposition.

8.3 There is an identified need for another method of disposing of residual waste
for not only Cardiff but for all of the Project Gwerdd Local Authorities of South
East Wales: Caerphilly, Cardiff, Monmouthshire, Newport and the Vale of
Glamorgan. The Lamby Way landfill site had a remaining capacity of only
approximately 200,000 tonnes in September 2008, with historic rates of
300,000 tonnes of waste per annum. The only other operating landfill site
within the Project Gwerdd authorities is at Dock Way Newport which has a
remaining capacity of approximately 300,000 tonnes with a disposal rate of
approximately 90,000 tonnes per annum (ie. approximately 4 years
remaining).

8.4 It is considered that the key planning considerations are as follows:
• European and National Policy
• Sustainability
• Land use policy
• Landscape and Visual Amenity
• Amenity including Air quality and health
• Water resources
• Transportation
• Archaeology and Cultural heritage
• Impact upon the Statutory Designated sites (ie. the Severn Estuary
Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Conservation Importance (SCI) and
Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Site) and Cardiff Beech
Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
8.5 European and National Policy
In accordance with the requirements of European Directives, it is necessary to
divert the amount of municipal solid waste disposed of by landfill. Technical
Advice Note (TAN) 21 states that another potential for the waste resource is
as a fuel. ‘Recovery of energy can be done in a number of ways including
direct incineration of parts of the waste arisings that are otherwise of limited
use. Proposals that incorporate combined power and heat plant could
contribute towards district heating schemes. Energy recovery via incineration
is known not to be popular with some sectors of the public, even thought the
industry is now using cleaner and safer technologies than ever, with vastly
reduced and controllable emissions. In a policy area that is aiming to rely less
and less on landfill, the potential for energy from waste facilities is growing’.
The provision of an energy from waste facility accords with the local authority’s
overall commitment to reducing the amount of waste generated within Cardiff,
the reuse of waste materials wherever possible, and the recovery of value
from the residual waste fraction. It is considered that such a facility is required
as part of an integrated and sustainable waste management strategy. The
proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the Deposit
Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003), which states ‘Proposals for
the development of waste management facilities will be permitted if: g) they
include suitable proposals for energy recovery and the beneficial after-use
products’.
8.6 Sustainability
The proposed facility would provide (at capacity) approximately 30 Mega
Watts of electricity, enough to serve 30,000 homes. This is considered to be in
accordance with the aims of Planning Policy Wales and TAN 21. This is an
important feature of the proposal and, in the interests of sustainability, it is
considered that if planning permission were to be granted, persons having
relevant interest in the application site should enter into a binding planning
obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 requiring them to use best endeavours to use and
market the energy generated from the incineration process and to produce an
annual report detailing the outcome of these endeavours for presentation to
the local planning authority and also to use reasonable endeavours to market
the bottom ash derived from the incineration process for use as a secondary
aggregate, as indicated in paragraph 1.2 (iv) above.
8.7 Land Use Policy
In terms of land use policy the principle of the development of the site for such
a use is considered acceptable. The site falls within an area of land with
planning permission for business, industry and warehousing. The proposal is
considered in accordance with the aims of Policy 55 of the Local Plan and the
supplementary guidance on ‘Locating Waste Management Facilities’(2006)
which both state that such proposals will generally be encouraged toward
existing areas or allocations for general industry. (see the Strategic Planning
Manager’s advice, paragraph 5.1)
8.8 Landscape and Visual Amenity
The design and external appearance of the development is considered
acceptable. The site is located within an industrial area which is typified by
utilitarian looking industrial buildings. The Strategic Planning Manager
(Design) comments that the quality of the design is high for a facility of this
type (see paragraph 5.2 above). The design has also been endorsed by the
Design Commission for Wales.
8.9 Amenity including Air quality and health
The closest residential areas are a distance of approximately 580 metres away
at Adventurer’s Quay, Galleon Way and Lewis Road (see paragraph 1.2(ii).
The Environmental Statement (ES) contains an assessment of ‘Amenity
Issues’ (Section19) which covers the following matters: Litter, vermin and
pests, waste, discharge to water, air quality, dust and odour, traffic and noise
and concludes that the proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the
surrounding environment.
The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) addresses emissions in two
categories; traffic emissions and emissions from the stack. The ES states that
the majority of traffic will access the site via Rover Way and Ocean Way. A
DMRB assessment was carried out in relation to the Gypsy / Traveller site at
Rover Way. The assessment indicates that ‘long term and short term air
quality objectives / limit values for NO2 and PM10 will be achieved, with or
without the operational traffic for all assessment years’. The ES states that the
maximum predicted short term and long term ground level process
contributions from the facility at the appropriate WID emissions limits have
been classified as extremely small or very small (ie. <5%>2000) between the highest predicted soil concentrations and soil
assessment criteria that are protective of the most sensitive human receptors’.
Furthermore, following consideration of the proposal including the submitted
Environmental Statement neither the Environment Agency (EA) nor the
Operational Manager Environment (Pollution Control) have raised any
objections, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions (see paragraphs
5.3 and 6.1 above). It is not considered that the proposed development would
prejudice the amenities of residents etc. within the surrounding areas.
It should also be noted that the proposed facility will require an Environmental
Permit from the EA prior to beneficial operation. The potential emissions from
the incinerator will have to be analysed very stringently by the EA to ensure
that the emissions comply with EU legislation. The EA is the competent
authority for assessing the detailed impacts upon the environment from
emissions.
In view of the public concern regarding the proposal (see section 7 above), it is
recommended that the persons having relevant interest in the application site
should enter into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council
under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring them
to establish and support a Liaison Group to involve, (inter alia), the operator,
the local planning authority, local members and representatives of the local
community.
Furthermore, it is considered that the Environment Agency should be
requested to give consideration to the inclusion of a condition to secure a
programme for monitoring and mitigation of emissions to air using a
continuous sampling system on any pollution prevention and Control
Authorisation, and if not, to continually monitor the need for the inclusion of
such a condition in any subsequent review of this authorisation.
8.10 Water Resources
There are no water features present on the site and the site is not within an
area which is prone to flooding. The submitted Environmental Statement
states that the main potential for impact upon hydrogeology is during the
construction phase. Conditions 4-7 regarding contaminated land measures will
ensure that risks to ground water during both construction and operation are
monitored and minimised (see the consultation response received from the
Environment Agency paragraph 6.1 above).
8.11 Transportation
The applicant has carried out a Transport Assessment which was submitted
as part of the Environmental Statement. The Transport Assessment indicates
that the proposed development would generate approximately 82 additional 2-
way trips on the local highway network during the morning peak (ie. 0730 to
0900) and some 62 trips during the evening peak. The additional traffic
generated from the energy from waste facility is predicted to represent an
increase of 3%. Many of the objections received relate to the increase in traffic
from the proposed facility. However, on the proviso that the applicant is willing
to enter into a section 106 Agreement with regard to the provision of a
financial contribution of £180,293 towards public transport movements, traffic
management and telematics, the Operational Manager Transportation has no
objections. The applicant would also be required to enter into a section 106
Agreement with regard to the provision of a revised Travel Plan, in order to
promote travel by sustainable modes of transportation amongst employees
(see paragraph 5.4 above).
8.12 Archaeology and cultural heritage
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) advise that due to the ground
conditions it would be inappropriate to require a scheme of archaeological
work to be undertaken prior to commencement of development on the site, as
this could result in damage to archaeological resource which may otherwise
remain undisturbed on the site. GGAT have advised (see paragraph 6.3
above) that subject to a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed
programme of investigation for the archaeological resource following the
outline given in the environmental statement being attached to any consent
then there would be no objections (see Condition 22).
8.13 Impact upon the Statutory Designated sites
In response to the objections received from CCW (see paragraph 6.2 above),
regarding the need for an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken by the
Local Authority prior to the determination of the application, the Strategic
Planning Manager (Ecology) (see paragraph 5.5) advises that Cardiff Council
has to reach a view on the possible significant effect of these proposals in the
context of European sites. The possible significant effects would be through
the media of aerial and water pollution, which are regulated by the
Environment Agency. The facility would require an Environmental Permit to
operate even if planning permission was granted. Furthermore, if an
Appropriate Assessment were to be undertaken for this proposal then this
would be inconsistent with the local authority’s stance on previous proposals
(such as Celsa Steelworks and Biomass Plant 08/2653C), and would set a
precedent for future projects. It should be noted that the local planning
authority does not have the technical competencies in assessing complex
issues relating to emissions.
8.14 Many objections have been received to the proposed energy from waste
facility (see section 7 above). In response to objections received and not
already addressed within the above report:
Concerns regarding emissions and the resultant impact upon health
The Operational Manager Environment (Pollution Control) and the
Environment Agency (EA) have been consulted with regard to the emissions
from the proposed facility and both have no objections (see paragraphs 5.3,
6.1 and 8.9 above). It will fall to the EA to consider the emissions very
stringently during the Environmental Permit stage. It should be noted that
without an Environmental Permit the facility will not be permitted to operate.
Incineration is not an efficient method of waste treatment and will discourage
recycling
The Welsh Assembly Government states that energy from waste facilities are
only acceptable if ‘they form part of an integrated approach and that they only
recover energy from residual waste that remains after as much recyclable and
compostable material as practically possible has been removed; they include
heat and power wherever practicable. The applicant states that the proposed
facility is intended to treat residual waste and that materials (such as metals)
are to be recovered for recycling. It should be noted that significant investment
has been made in recycling and composting within the local authority in recent
years and the local authority is committed to increasing rates of recycling and
reducing residual waste.

Hazards of disposing of toxic fly ash
The toxic fly ash is the residue of combustion removed from the flue gases
prior to release into the atmosphere, in order to reduce the pollutants emitted.
The facility would produce approximately 10,500 tonnes per annum. The fly
ash would be removed from the facility using enclosed tankers and would be
transported to a hazardous waste landfill (currently there are none in Wales).

The carbon footprint of the development
Chapter 5.3 of the submitted Environmental Statement analyses the carbon
footprint of the proposed facility compared with landfill. The calculations are
carried out in accordance with Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the
Environment (WRATE). Compared with Landfill an overall carbon saving of
between -108,000 tonnes and -196,000 tonnes will be achieved in the year
2013. Provided a user for the heat produced can be located the carbon
footprint of the proposed facility is estimated to be in the order of -30,000
tonnes CO2eqv in 2013.

Height of chimney stack
There is currently a chimney stack on the site which measures approximately
80 metres in height. The proposed measures a maximum of 90 metres with an
additional 10 metre lightning rod. The facility is located within an area of
industry and is a typical feature which one would expect to see in such an
area. It should also be noted that the Strategic Planning Manager (design)
has no objections (see paragraph 5.2 above).
8.15 Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (see paragraphs 5.4,
8.6, 8.9 and 8.11 above), it is recommended that planning permission be
granted, subject to appropriate conditions.

SITE VISIT today 2.30 Trident Park

URGENT take action today!!! SITE VISIT - need to be there to show cllrs concern -
Mon 6th 2.30pm - letter from Phil Williams
Development manager re incinerator
land at trident park app 08/2616/E.. CAN YOU BE THERE???
county hall 02920 87 2000

Where...Site plans

http://www.viridor-consultation.co.uk/UserFiles/APPLICATION%20PLANS.pdf

Incinerator decision was deferred to allow a site visit (as requested by G Cox). The site visit, however, was already planned with Viridor and is to Colnbrook incinerator which happens to be run by... Viridor!! Also, is not yet operating..!!!

Planning Committee agreed yeasterday to a site visit to the Colnbrook incinerator. I hope they will please notify us of the details of the visit and ensure that the public can attend on site?

We observe that the officers had arranged things already with Viridor for next Wednesday. They did not inform the Committee how they selected this incinerator, that Viridor run it (joint venture with Grundon) and that it is not yet operating. Why was the the Committee were not given this information and does the officers arrangement with Viridor meets standards on impartiality and conflicting interest?

Protestors fight planned incinerator site in heart of city

Mar 12 2009 by Andrew Dagnell, South Wales Echo

THE heat was turned up on plans to build an incinerator in the heart of Cardiff yesterday.

Protesters gathered outside City Hall before a planning committee meeting, promising to fight the proposed £1bn development in Splott.

Waste management firm Viridor, backed by Cardiff City directors Mike Hall and Paul Guy, had hoped to get the go-ahead for the plant, which will burn 350,000 tonnes of rubbish a year.

But the decision was deferred until next montColnbrookh, so the committee could visit the proposed site at Trident Park and another incinerator in Colnbrook, near Slough.

Moments before the meeting, Friends of the Earth Cymru members living in the site’s surrounding area waved placards and banners and donned gas masks to show their disapproval.

Cardiff University lecturer Andy Williams, 31, of Adamsdown, said: “As a resident, I’m concerned that this is going to be on my doorstep.

“I’ve just had a son and he’s one month old. The thought that he is going to be growing up breathing in heightened levels of toxins and impurities is awful.

“There are better and greener solutions.”

Anne Greagsby, 56, of Lake Road East, Roath, said: “I think the plans are absolutely crazy and really stupid.

“This is like building the Titanic part two.

“This will bring extra lorries into the capital and it’s going to form a huge carbon footprint and recycling will be taken less seriously.”

Grandmother-of-four June Johnson, 62, lives at Bayside, Splott, just under a mile away from the site, and said she was concerned for her and her grandchildren’s health.

The community worker said: “We have already put up with the stench and smells from Corus and the sewage works.

“With the extra traffic as well this is going to be a disaster. Me and two of my grandchildren have asthma and from a health perspective we will be living in a nasty radius of this monstrosity.

“Where was the public consultation? I knew nothing about this plan until it was nearly through planning.”

Meanwhile, Splott Liberal Democrat councillor Gavin Cox, who requested the site visit, said: “I’m against it totally. I reject the options that have been put before the planning committee today.

“The area is unsuitable and the infrastructure cannot support the area. I’m also against the fact that this is a 25-year plan, as in five or 10 years there might be better alternatives.”

A Viridor spokesman said: “We welcome the request of Cardiff Council’s planning committee to undertake a visit to the site of another fully constructed energy- from-waste facility to help inform their decision on our application.

“While we are naturally eager to receive planning permission and progress with the Trident Park project, this request demonstrates the expected thorough approach being adopted by the council in reaching its decision.”

About the proposed site visit

Viridor has entered into a 50-50 joint venture with Grundon to run the £160 million ... Grundon and Viridor directors sign joint agreement (left to right): ...
www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=246&listitemid=6770

Colnbrook (Lakeside) incinerator – this plant, operated by Grundon/Viridor and sited next to the M25, (opposite Heathrow Terminal 5), was to have opened this year (2008) with a capacity of 410,000 tonnes. However, the main building contractor, Japanese company Itochu-Takuma, identified some defects in the plant during testing which has put back the opening date to July 2009. The problems relate to the economiser units, which recover heat from the combustion gases and help to make the plant more energy efficient. (see Grundon, Viridor or Let’s Recycle websites for further information). The plant is due to take waste from Berkshire, Wiltshire and Dorset .

Green Santa says NOT IN SPLOTT

No INCINERATOR for Cardiff
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. 19th Dec

Action Outside City Hall, Friday 19th December, 1.30pm

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.

256 lorries a day to Cardiff Bay incinerator!

Project Gwyrdd...Project Green...more Cardiff Council greenwash...

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. 

MBT approved in Pontypool in spite of huge local oposition

This application was approved inspite of presentations which highlighted: no viability, lack of need, public perception of harm, weight of public opposition and traffic concerns as Material Planning Considerations....

letsrecycle.com

MBT approved in Wales in face of local opposition letsrecycle.com, UK - 7 Feb 2008 Plans to build a mechanical biological treatment plant in South Wales have been given the green light - despite fierce local opposition. ...

MRW	Shanks planning application gets green light MRW, UK - 7 Feb 2008 Shanks managing director Ian Goodfellow said: “We feel that Shanks MBT technology will go a long way to ensuring that South East Wales region is capable of ...

Shanks MBT plant in South Wales is intended to resemble the company's existing MBT facility in Dumfries, above Torfaen borough council has approved an application by waste firm
Shanks to build a facility capable of processing 120,000 tonnes of residual waste a year at its site on the Pontyfelin Industrial Estate in Pontypool.

Subject to conditions such as only treating municipa l waste generated in South Wales, the application would see Shanks turning residual waste into Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF).residual wate, Shanks already produce SRF at facilities in East London and Dumfries and recently agreed a new contract to provide it as fuel to construciton giant Castle Cement. The MBT planning application was submitted as a speculative gesture by Shanks to support a future bid for a forthcoming residual waste management contract in Torfaen, which is expected to be procured in
partnership with Blaenau Gwent council.

However, the planning proposal has generated opposition from locals who have voiced fears over health issues related to the site's former use as a hazardous waste incinerator, when it was owned by Rechem International Ltd.
Other objections - over noise, traffic and pollution - were submitted by Pontypool Community council and a letter of objection countersigned by 500 different addresses raised concerns that MBT was too expensive and would land residents with hefty council tax bills.
The letter said: "MBT is expensive. Cumbria County Council has agreed a 25 year £400,000,000 MBT contract with Shanks. We should be extremely cautious about committing this level of Council Tax revenue."
Approval of this planning application does not confirm any preference for the council's method of dealing with waste in future
Torfaen council Summing up its reasons to approve the facility, however, Torfaen
council said that it was aware of "the sensitivities in relation to the site due in the past activities", but that these should not affect the new application.
In the meeting report from February 5, the council said: "The council, as the local planning authority, have to judge the merits of the current proposal, not the previous operation of the site."
The council added that the issue over expense to council taxpayers was irrelevant because it was not signing a contract with Shanks but only approving a facility.
It said: "The decision to be taken on this planning application is not one of procurement; it is to determine whether this building and process is appropriate in land use terms on this particular site and compliant with relevant waste and planning policies."
Torfaen members added that even though MBT might be an option for the council to divert waste from landfill in future, approval of the planning application did not "confirm any preference for the council's method of dealing with waste in the future."
The council went on to explain that it deemed the proposal acceptable in terms of its implications on issues such as traffic, visual appearance, odour and noise.
The report said: "The proposal is considered an acceptable development at this industrial estate for what can be considered an industrial process to all intents and purposes."
Commenting on receiving planning permission for the MBT facility,
Shanks managing director Ian Goodfellow said he believed the facility would help South Wales to divert waste from landfill.
He said: "We are clearly delighted that this planning application has been approved. We feel that Shanks' MBT technology will go a long way to ensuring that the South East Wales region is capable of meeting Wales' challenging recycling and diversion targets."
Over the coming months Shanks will now start work to remover the existing plant and buildings from the site whilst commencing the process of securing appropriate contracts.

Waste Management Facility at Pontypool, S.E. Wales

http://www.planapps.torfaen.gov.uk/

View the Non Technical Summary of the Planning Application and Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary (view)

Browse the Contents of the Planning Application and Environmental Statement DVD by Volume

Volume 1 Planning Application (view)

Volume 2 Environmental Statement (view)

Volume 3a Phase I Environmental Assessment (view)

Volume 3b Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and Instusive Site Investigation Report (view)

Volume 4 Human Heath Risk Assessment (view)

Volume 5 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (view)

Volume 6 Ecological Risk Assessment (view)

Volume 7 Remedial Options Appriasal and Preliminary Remedial Strategy (view)