Concerns that incinerator trend undermines green progress

Concerns that incinerator trend undermines green progress
MRW - London,England,UK
Concerns that long-term incinerator contracts, and a “trend” towards using the process more, will undermine recycling and new waste technologies have been ...
See all stories on this topic

Viridor the preferred bidder for Cardiff Bay incinerator shortlisted for Oxford incinerator

BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | Waste incinerator companies named
The companies shortlisted to build a waste incinerator in Oxfordshire are named.
Viridor Waste Management proposes to a site at Ardley in Bicester, while the Waste Recycling Group chose Abingdon's Sutton Courtenay as its location.
A spokesman for Oxford Friends of the Earth said the county council's decision to tender a contract for the incinerator flies in the face of public opposition and sound environmental policy.

Councillors to visit other waste sites
Norwich Evening News - Norwich,England,UK
Councillors who will make a decision on whether to build an incinerator in Norfolk are to visit three plants to see how other counties are finding a way ...
Rob Whittle, from campaign group NAIL2 (Norfolk Against Incineration and Landfill), said the councillors should visit a plant which combined MBT with anaerobic digestion, even though there is not one currently operating in the country.

He said: “There is a plant which uses anaerobic digestion in Ludlow and ones which have both in Germany. If they really want to get a rounded view then they should go to Germany. I think the visits they are currently doing will skew the process from the start and smooth the way for the incinerator operators.”

Greenwashing index - any suggestions?

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/
Welcome to the Greenwashing Index — home of the world’s first online interactive forum that allows consumers to evaluate real advertisements making environmental claims. “Going green” has become mainstream for businesses large and small — and that’s a good thing. What’s not so great is when businesses make environmental marketing claims that can be misleading. The intent of this Web site is to:

Help consumers become more savvy about evaluating environmental marketing claims of advertisers;
Hold businesses accountable to their environmental marketing claims; and
Stimulate the market and demand for sustainable business practices that truly reduce the impact on the environment

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)

Incinerator News from elsewhere

MPs join fight against incinerator CAMPAIGNERS are poised to launch an all-out attack when plans for an incinerator in Lostock are submitted. This Is Cheshire | Northwich news - http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk

Public Inquiry needed on incinerator plans By Dick Cole(Dick Cole)
This week, I was one of three councillors from Restormel Borough Council who publicly re-stated calls for a Public Inquiry into the construction of a large waste to energy plant (incinerator) in Mid Cornwall. ...

Incinerator in Suffolk a waste of money? MRW - London,England,UK
A Suffolk County Councillor has said that proposed plans for the council to build an incinerator at Great Blakenham would waste the council money. ...

Talkin' Toxic Trash: The Clintons, Jackson Stephens & WTI By Zwoof
Years ago, someone had the brilliant idea to build a toxic waste incinerator located in a flood plain next to an elementary school. The project started during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush but was continued by the ...
Daily Kos - http://www.dailykos.com/section/Diary

Petitions criticise Waste Plans poor consultation

Petitions from organisations in Caerphilly and Wrecsam criticisng the poor/limited consultation over the NW and SE Regional Waste Plans are coming to the Senedd on 31 January, for prelimiary decision on how they are to be handled. They are scheduled for about 12.45 in the
Petitions Committee - Helen Brown on 029 20898998 Helen.Brown2@wales.gsi.gov.uk will fix entry in advance, though it's not normally necessary.

The papers can be seen at
http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-committees/bus-committees-
third-assem/bus-committees-third-pc-home/bus-committees-third-pc-
agendas.htm?ds=1/2008

January 23rd 2007

Dear Committee Support Officer

Regional Waste Plans First Review

Enclosed is Together Creating Communities' petition concerning the North Wales Regional Waste Plans 1st Review.

We have serious concerns both about the content and process of the consultation that were carried out in North Wales as detailed in our formal response to the consultation, which is enclosed. In addition, please find enclosed a copy of a letter that was sent to Jane Davidson AM, Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing, and the response we received to it. A similar letter was also sent to the Regional Member Group and the Regional Technical Group. This is also enclosed. Mark Isherwood AM, Lesley Griffiths AM and Brynle Williams AM have also written to Jane Davidson, copies and responses enclosed.

We request that the National Assembly for Wales scrutinize the Welsh Assembly Government and hold them to account on the following points in particular:

The Government should recognize that the consultation in North Wales was flawed in both process and content, as explained in our consultation responses. This consultation cannot, therefore, be considered representative of the views of the people of North Wales. That as
such, the consultation should be extended in both time and scope to enable these concerns to be addressed.
To ensure that, future waste management decisions and practice as a result of this consultation should the rights of the people of Wales under the formal planning system, so that Local Authorities cannot give approval for waste facilities under the Certificate of Lawfulness Procedure.
That, as a result of this wholly inadequate consultation, best practice guidelines be developed and that these should be followed by companies contracted to undertake future consultation procedures on any issue. These guidelines should be utilized by both the Welsh Assembly Government and local authorities.
It seems there has been considerable confusion amongst all parties both as to the extent of the Welsh Assembly Government's role in the North Wales Regional Waste Plans First Review consultation and the extent of public participation required (see p. 7 of TCC's
consultation response). A letter from Hyder Consulting on 1st October (enclosed) that was passed to TCC, states that, 'The Welsh Assembly Government firmly believes that the people of Wales should be involved in the process of developing these strategies.they want members of the public to get involved.and give your views'. The Welsh Assembly Government also agreed the consultation strategy, together with the Regional Waste Groups. Correspondence since then
indicates that at a Welsh Assembly Government liaison meeting, it was agreed that, 'public meetings should not be held' (enclosed). This contradicts the statement in 'Wise About Waste: The national waste strategy for Wales, Part 1' that, although allowing as much flexibility as possible at the local authority level, this should, 'take place in full consultation with local communities' and that this should be done, 'throughout the development of waste plans/strategies', with all sections of the community participating on an equal basis (pages 1 and 11).

Given this, and the Assembly Government's involvement at an inception meeting, liaison meeting and through attendance at the Regional Waste Groups, the Welsh Assembly Government therefore must bear some responsibility for the inadequate consultation and should be held accountable on all the points made above.

We have been in contact with other individuals and organizations that are equally concerned about the consultation process and content and understand that a number of petitions are being submitted on the issue.

Message from Greenpeace

Hi friends,

Last week you may have heard Gordon Brown announce his government's support for a new generation of nuclear power plants. It's been delivered to the media as a heroic move to fight climate change and bridge the energy gap. But the only thing bold about Brown's announcement is its deception.

So we thought you might want to hear what we have to say about the government's claims.

The government says it's the only way to reduce our climate change emissions...

But according to the government's own Sustainable Development Commission even if the UK built 10 new nuclear reactors, nuclear electricity could only theoretically deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025.

The real threat from Gordon Brown's brand of nuclear fundamentalism is that if cash and political energy get thrust at nuclear power, these technologies will be strangled.

They say we need nuclear power or the lights will go out...

Over the next few years, several existing nuclear and coal plants are set to close. This is the 'energy' (or electricity) gap. The government's figures suggest that this gap is about a third of our current electricity supply. The challenge is to bridge this gap in a way that allows us to meet our legitimate energy needs and sets us on course for massive emissions reductions over the coming decades. And the government's own figures show this can be done with renewables and energy efficiency.

Nuclear electricity cannot solve our energy problems. For starters, not one single nuclear power station will come into operation over the next decade when we will need to bridge the gap. The government estimates we won't have the new stations until at least 2025.

And they say we need nuclear power for energy independence and security of supply...

Electricity is not the same as energy. The majority of our energy demand is for heat and transport. While nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of our electricity generation, that is less than 4% of our total energy demand.

86% of our oil and gas consumption is used for purposes other than electricity. Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water, or for industrial purposes. Virtually all oil is used for transport. In this instance, new nuclear power - which can only generate electricity - is practically irrelevant.

There are real solutions though.

The real solutions to the energy gap and climate change are available now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in Scandinavia.

We can also decrease our oil dependence by improving vehicle efficiency, public transport systems and reducing the need to travel, especially for business by using new technology like video conferencing.

You can find out more about the real solutions to climate change by watching our film The Convenient Solution. And if you've watched it and you want to help spread the word, reply to this message with your mailing address and we'll send you a DVD and some organic popcorn to host your own screening of the film for friends and family.

Tracy Frauzel
17 January 2008