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]

VoG Council limits Recycling to feed 25-year Incinerator contract

The VoG Council is being asked to confirm its 65% limit on recycling for the 25-year Project Gwyrdd / Incinerator contract.

Project Gwyrdd wants Councils to sign contracts for Guaranteed Minimum Payments for 25 years, based on supplying municipal waste whatever success in reducing volumes and recycling rates.

Calling them Guaranteed Minimum Annual Tonnages last November, P. Gwyrdd recognised this looked like guaranteeing production of waste to feed their incinerator, so changed the name to guaranteed Payments.

Same difference! Each Council is to pay based on guesses at future waste volumes and aiming for only 65% recycling by 2025. Both should be challenged.

P Gwyrdd planned in 2007/8 for increasing waste volumes, yet the statistics show continuing decrease since 2005, from 1.9 to 1.7 million tonnes in 2009/10 (diagram below). WAG set a target for slower decreases by 1.2% pa, then the total dropped faster last year because of the recession. Yet P. Gwyrdd clings to arguments for increasing waste to feed its incinerator.

Second, the Vale Council policy is to maximise recycling and composting, to conform to the Welsh Strategy. The rate has risen from 30% to 50% in a few years. Our leading Councillors talk of boosting recycling and foodwaste collections. They've contracted to Biffa who claim levels of 70% in exemplar Councils. Levels of 80-90% are said to be practicable.

So how can Council leaders contract to only 65% recycling and only by 2025?

FoE asks - will Plaid, the Independents and the Labour groups reject this figure? Will they reject any P. Gwyrdd contract that binds the VoG to residual waste levels based on the 65% and growing waste volumes​?

Welsh Assembly accepts anti-Incineration Petition

The anti-Incineration Petition (over 13 000 signatures) accepted by the Assembly Petitions Committee on 15th November reads:
We call upon the National Assembly to urge the Welsh Government to review
1. Prosiect Gwyrdd, which is against WAG policy of localised facilities, and allow our councils to choose their own waste technology and waste management procurement;
2. The flawed Wales waste survey that only gave people a 2 choice option on waste disposal;
3. By 2020, make it illegal to burn recyclable waste which would promote councils to recycle.


The Petitions Committee is asking (letter of 16th Nov) for views of the public and organisations on this and on the questions:



1. What, in your view, is the best method of disposing of non-recyclable waste?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages (in terms of the environment, health, local economy etc) of incineration?
3. Do you think it’s a good idea for local authorities to collaborate on waste policy, which could lead to resource savings, or it more important for them to find the most appropriate solution for their locality? What are the reasons for your answer?


Responses are requested by 3rd Jan. 2012.  
While this open invitation is fine, note how the questions are slanted:
... the best treatment of 'non-recyclable' waste is to develop means of separation, detoxification and stabilisation, so it can be recycled or sequester carbon and contaminants (in landfill or building materials)
... collaboration on an incinerator, as P Gwyrdd, wastes both money and resources on high-cost and polluting old technology.