Petitions Committee acts over Waste Incineration policy

The National Assembly Petitions Committee held its 3rd oral session on petitions against incineration on Tuesday 29th, taking evidence over video-link from Prof. Vyvyan Howard of Ulster Univ. and Fellow of Royal College of Pathologists.

After questioning Prof. Howard, the committee agreed to:

• Issue a report on the issue of incineration of waste, and request a Plenary debate.
• Write to the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development to ask him to consider the weight of support for this petition when considering the committee's letter calling for the Cardiff Incinerator plans to be called in.
• Write to those who have given evidence to Committee on this subject to seek their views on the modeling used to inform decisions in relation to Incinerators".

You can find Professor Howard's evidence on the Petitions Committee webpages (Item 2 of 29 May: P-04-341 Waste and Incineration) and see him answering questions from the Committee on the Senedd TV archive – click on 29th May.

His central argument was that official estimates of 'risk' from incinerator pollutants are flawed, giving single numbers when there is a wide envelope of uncertainty. The government relies on epidemiology, which is a "very blunt instrument". The research has not been carried out – both the hazard characterisation and exposures are very uncertain.  Those who present "unparameterised" modelling express an "opinion dressed up in numbers".  He explained exposures may be 100 times higher than estimates by comparing the Viridor claim for Cardiff of 0.24% of PM2.5 expected to come from their incinerator with the 17-32% actually measured in a small Swedish town due to a modern incinerator (meeting Euro-standards). The hazard of average incinerator PM2.5 may be many times worse than a power station's because of the toxic chemicals in waste and produced in burning. The very smallest (nanoparticles) fraction of PM2.5 are a worry as little can be done to filter them out and the volumes of emissions are very large.
[PM2.5 means particles smaller than 2.5micrometres, or 2500 nanometres, which humans breathe into their lungs. 
Nanoparticles means particles in the 10-100 nanometre range]

Llandow Fracking Inquiry 22-23 May

Friends of the Earth were well represented, with a statement from FoE Cymru's Director, Gareth Clubb and written plus verbal statements from Barry & Vale FoE - see Fracking Inquiry page.  Coastal Oil & Gas and the Vale Council discussed it as simply a test drilling operation, with CO&G claiming they were seeking ordinary coal-measure gas with no intentions for high-pressure fracking. They convinced no-one.  FoE argued the test drilling was part of a staged application for fracking and therefore needs full environmental impact assessment.  The Council had failed to 'screen' it for EIA, despite the Minister mentioning this in his letter declining to call-in the proposal.

FoE quoted the First Minister's letter of 29 Sept. to the Vale Council:

•  A “precautionary approach should be taken” and “additional environmental considerations” should be included. It referred to Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) which specifies “an environmentally acceptable way” of operation and being “consistent with the principles of sustainable development” for unconventional gas development.

The Vale Council officers had ignored this at the Planning Committee and did not argue for any 'additional' environmental precautions at this Inquiry.

There was a lengthy exchange about a Condition to be set on noise levels if the application was permitted. The Inspector first proposed noise guidance levels used for opencast mining and quarrying. FoE said no - to use the policy for industrial areas close to homes, with non-disturbing night-time levels in accord with WHO guidance.  The Vale officers failed to support FoE's approach, even though this was used at the Sunrise wood-burner inquiry.  So the issue is left to the Inspector's decision.  Whose side are the Vale officers on?