WAG Greenwash

Desperately needed to draw attention to the really bad anti environment policies being rolled out by WAG despite the grand greenwash...

The WAG heritage minister is happy for Cardiff libdems/Plaid Cymru to build a new bridge £1.4million and a ROAD into listed city centre for articulated lorries!!!

The WAG are promoting Project 'GREEN'!!! which is promoting incineration! Plus ignoring other better options.

ask the WAG why incinerator residues not counted in the recycling/composting indicator?

Couldn't make it up! What are they thinking of?

UKWin response to Wales waste Strategy is very concerned about the apparent promotion of incineration.. in project 'green' P Gwyrdd


WAG Approval of the business case and subsidy for Prosiect Gwyrdd, 27 Jan. 2009 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)

Keeping incineration on the table seriously risks undermining targets for recycling and waste reduction.


Gordon James, director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said:

While the Assembly Government’s target of achieving 70% recycling by 2025 is a step in the right direction, we have to be more ambitious. Parts of Europe, such as Flanders and Germany, are already achieving this rate, so we believe we should be aiming for 70% recycling by 2015 and 80% by 2020.

We also want to see a much greater emphasis on waste reduction. Wales could become a zero waste nation, in which residual waste has been eliminated by 2030 rather than the proposed target of 2050. This is far too long to wait given the current environmental problems we face. Bold and urgent action is necessary now.

The Assembly Government’s own consultants have stated that it is fundamental that recycling becomes an option for waste management only after reduction and reuse. Without significant waste reduction, even 70% recycling by 2025 would fail to meet the Assembly Government’s own target to reduce Wales’ ‘ecological footprint’ to a fair 1.88 global hectares per person.

NOTE UK WIN's response to the Welsh Waste Strategy emphasises that
the incineration brigadiers are wrongly ignoring the value of biogas.

As does The Ecologist - 7 Aug 09 (full article requires sub.)

Councils accused of ignoring biogas - by David Strahan

Throughout the UK Councils are making a panicked rush into PFI incinerator contracts which will run 25 years, prove problematic, very expensive to sustain and more costly to terminate.

In fact, current British targets, subsidies, and procurement rules are driving councils and their private sector waste contractors towards a range of far less energy efficient options such as incineration, and some that recover no energy at all, such as industrial composting. The government, which is a recent convert to biogas, plans to introduce new incentives in 2011, but by then it may be too late. To avoid swingeing fines under the EU directive, councils are rushing to seal PFI deals with waste disposal contractors that could effectively lock in their choices for a quarter of a century. According to Johnny Johnston, sustainable gas manager for National Grid, 'There is a concern that valuable waste streams for generating biogas may be lost'.

Ex Biffa Waste Director, Peter Jones, now waste advisor to Boris Johnson, says -

As glacial as the development of British waste policy may be, the direction of travel is clear, and organic waste is going to become a valuable commodity that local authorities will be able to sell, not pay to be taken away. Any council signing an incinerator contract today that ties it into rising fees for 25 years would be 'crazy'.

The problem is, that may be exactly what many are about to do.
David Strahan is a journalist specialising in energy issues,
and author of 'The Last Oil Shock'

Can't TRUST Viridor

Viridor Denies Falsified Incinerator Records

Viridor, new to incinerators, are applying to build a large incinerator in Cardiff Bay

The authoritative ENDS (Environmental Data Services) Report for April 2009 reports allegations of malpractice and environmental failures at the Raikes Lane incinerator in Bolton plant by a former employee.

Patrick Sudlow served seven years as a process controller with Greater Manchester Waste, the former council waste company that ran the incinerator and was recently taken over by Viridor.

He told ENDS that he experienced routine falsification of pollution-monitoring records and logbook data, illicit effluent discharges to sewer and engineering problems which have endangered the health of operators. The malpractices, he said, were never spotted by the Environment Agency.

Mr Sudlow had an engineering background running high-pressure steam boilers in the Royal Navy, but said he was appalled by the incinerator’s poor mechanical condition, improper maintenance and the covering up of the plant’s poor performance. He said he “left because of the plant’s continued breaches of the Environment Protection Act, the site licence and other legislation."

One of his most serious allegations is that the plant’s continuous emissions monitoring system was regularly turned off during start-up and shutdown, and when the plant was operating abnormally. This means no accurate record of emissions would be made at these times and the flue gas treatment system was also not in use.

Normally abatement and emissions monitoring would be required at all times when waste was on the incinerator’s grate, but Mr Sudlow said there was an established procedure for turning off the monitoring and abatement system to make it appear the plant was shut down when it was still burning waste.

Mr Sudlow also alleged the management rewrote the incinerator logbooks which he said were bound in a plastic comb binder, allowing pages to be replaced at will. Changes were made to make it appear all waste was burnt off before shutdown, he said, when in fact it had not been. The aim, he said, was to obtain maximum throughput of waste and to ensure the logbook agreed with emissions-monitoring data. An example of rewritten log-book pages is available.

Viridor is aware of the plant’s alleged problems. Mr Sudlow said he contacted them in the past but there was no response. Yet Viridor told ENDS that Mr Sudlow failed to bring these issues to the management’s attention either informally or using established grievance procedures.

Effluent was supposed to be recycled in the process or tankered off-site for disposal, but Mr Sudlow alleged the liquid (likely to be high in dissolved metals) had been discharged to sewer at night.

Viridor deny that processed water has been discharged to sewer and that the grate performs badly. Refractory wall failures have occurred on a very small number of occasions, Viridor said, but the failures were immediately repaired. But Mr Sudlow describes regular breaches of the refractory wall and rock wool padding being used to plug the holes.

The Environment Agency said it was investigating Mr Sudlow’s claims. In a statement to ENDS it said: "All significant emissions to air are continuously monitored and reported… monthly. We also carry out regular inspections including unannounced spot checks."

As Viridor have only recently taken over running of the plant, one might expect them to promise to investigate and, if necessary, tighten up management procedures. Just dismissing the reports as from a “disgruntled former employee" indicates they intent to remain in denial.

Cost of Hazardous waste!

"An Environment Agency spokesman explained zinc oxide has been reclassified as ecotoxic, so if bottom ash contains zinc oxide, it is now hazardous. It has been added to a list of other substances that render bottom ash hazardous.
If bottom ash is not hazardous it can be sold as an aggregate. If it is hazardous it must be disposed of at a specialist site. Fees to dispose of hazardous waste are higher. In addition taxes rise from from £2.50 per tonne for material HM Revenue and Customs considers inert to £40 per tonne for material it considers hazardous."
http://beaconsfield.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/2009/04/county-council-says-brains-wro.html

Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Incinerators: Hazardous Substances

All Written Answers on 23 Mar 2009 « Previous answer Next answer »

Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether incinerator operators are required to test incinerator bottom ash for H14 ecotoxicity; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy (Minister of State (Farming and the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Liverpool, Wavertree, Labour) | Hansard source

holding answer 18 March 2009

Incinerator operators are required to test and assess their bottom ash for all hazards including H14.

Environment Agency - Classification of Incinerator Bottom Ash

Group fears waste made non toxic will cost taxpayer

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - ‎Apr 23, 2009‎

The Environment Agency is considering declaring incinerator ash as a hazardous material. If the ash is ruled as toxic, the cost of running the incinerator ...