SUCCESS! Council comes out firmly against Biomass Incinerator

 All but one of the Vale of Glam Councillors voted on Wed. 27^th to

1 Share public concern that no EIA was ever done

2 Review all VoG planning decisions on the incinerator

3 Urge Welsh Govt to issue a Discontinuance Order

4 Consider the expediency of taking enforcement action

This massive industrial plant, close to homes, has no valid planning permission.
Many Conditions on the Outline permission are still unmet, and the buildings differ.
They have to re-start with a proper EIA for a DNS application, or just give up.

The Welsh Minister has to do what she has been avoiding since last April when her Planning officers advised her to issue a Discontinuance Order to comply with her duty to prevent the plant operating without EIA.

The Council Motion's 4th point was amended from the original moved by Cllr Vince Bailey that specified the cessation of all operations on site.  These words were copied from their own Planning Officer who warned the company that 

the only remedy to such a breach of planning control would be to require the removal of the development in its entirety or, at the very least, the cessation of all operations on site.

That is what the public is expecting, now that the Incinerator is in breach of a whole slew of Conditions on the 2015 outline planning consent.  The Vale officers allowed them to breach conditions on noise, emissions and no nightime working when constructing the plant.  At last the Councillors have stepped firmly against this lawless company.

Long-outdated Air Pollution assessment still used in Wales

The official Welsh (WG) classification of Air Pollution levels (link) is inherited from the old Department of Health (DoH), based on COMEAP 'experts' who've changed their minds below). It’s still posted up for use, despite new Welsh policy issued in 2017. This included statutory guidance to Local Authorities on giving special consideration to the long-term risks posed to babies and children via exposure to air pollution. The old DoH/WG classification doesn’t.  This daily air quality index (DAQI) is also based on quite outdated standards for adults.

The World Health Organisation produced guidance in 2012/13, including identifying PM2.5 as a human carcinogen, but the WG took no notice until the Minister’s statement of June 2017. Revised WHO Air quality guidelines are due out in 2020. 

The WHO annual mean concentration guideline for particulate matter stipulates that PM2.5 not exceed 10 μg/m³ annual mean and 25 μg/m³ 24-hour mean; also that PM10 not exceed 20 μg/m³ annual mean, or 50 μg/m³ daily mean ( 24-hour).  PM2.5 is most closely related to ill-health impacts (see below).

The DoH/Welsh classification clings to the pre-WHO numbers, calling PM2.5 values below 35  “low” (40% higher than the WHO limit) and below 53 “moderate” (double the WHO limit).  It’s highly remiss of the Environment Minister that she has failed to withdraw this completely misleading classification and issue a new one for guidance of the people of Wales.

Vale of Glamorgan monitoring of the Barry 'Biomass' Incinerator

The Council has purchased two monitors that measure PM10, PM2.5 and NO2 every 15 minutes.  The averages for each hour are now posted daily.   We presume the numbers are accurate as the monitors have been working for two years.  However, users should ignore the low/moderate/high classification and colouring, which are the old defective WG/DoH ones above. 

View of the World Health Organisation (WHO) on particulate pollution (link)

Outdoor air pollution is a major environmental health problem affecting everyone in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

   Ambient (outdoor) air pollution in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide per year in 2016; this mortality is due to exposure to small particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), which cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and cancers.

  People living in low- and middle-income countries disproportionately experience the burden of outdoor air pollution with 91% (of the 4.2 million premature deaths) occurring in low- and middle-income countries, and the greatest burden in the WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions. The latest burden estimates reflect the very significant role air pollution plays in cardiovascular illness and death. More and more, evidence demonstrating the linkages between ambient air pollution and the cardiovascular disease risk is becoming available, including studies from highly polluted areas.

  WHO estimates that in 2016, some 58% of outdoor air pollution-related premature deaths were due to ischaemic heart disease and strokes, while 18% of deaths were due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute lower respiratory infections respectively, and 6% of deaths were due to lung cancer.

  Some deaths may be attributed to more than one risk factor at the same time. For example, both smoking and ambient air pollution affect lung cancer. Some lung cancer deaths could have been averted by improving ambient air quality, or by reducing tobacco smoking.

  A 2013 assessment by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that outdoor air pollution is carcinogenic to humans, with the particulate matter component of air pollution most closely associated with increased cancer incidence, especially lung cancer. An association also has been observed between outdoor air pollution and increase in cancer of the urinary tract/bladder.

Origin of the Air Quality index and Banding

COMEAP first introduced the UK’s Air Quality index in 1998 (Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants:  Statement on Banding of Air Quality, 1998. Link).

Their subsequent 2011 Review of the UK Air Quality Index (Daily AQI or DAQI) was introduced by Defra and devolved administrations from 1 Jan.2012.  It was COMEAP’s final publication before being disbanded and the last effort of British medical pollution ‘experts’ to maintain that only sensitive people need worry about air pollution (even said as “exquisitely sensitive” in Prof. Harrison’s evidence for an incinerator company – Portsmouth Incinerator Inquiry, 2000**).  British medical policy leaders in COMEAP, including Prof Harrison, were compromised in favour of incinerators at that time. Evidence on permanent harm to child-lung development was accumulating, measured as lung function, US/Calif authorities were recommending against children exercising outdoors during high ozone episodes, and European experts were developing the WHO guidance.  Prof Stephen Holgate chaired the COMEAP Review, which is thick with material on asthma, Holgate’s speciality.  They devised the irresponsible advice that only children with ‘lung problems’ should ‘consider’ ‘reducing’ ‘strenuous’ exercise at times of moderate or high pollution. The report says they were motivated by inter alia 

•          the need to avoid an exaggerated level of worry and concern
•          our view that children with no known respiratory disease were unlikely to be particularly susceptible to the effects of air pollution.

Most or all of the Review group published a scientific paper (Gowers et al. 2012) which found “outdoor air pollution might play a role in causing asthma in susceptible individuals”, but dismissed it as only a small contribution and a small proportion of the population. COMEAP in effect dismissed the then evidence of the pollution causing onset of new asthma cases, instead of taking a precautionary approach ("exaggerated level of worry and concern"). They had failed to learn from the BSE episode - scientists...part of the problem: Nature, Oct. 2000).   Their advice to asthmatic children was just use their inhaler.

Nowadays, however, Stephen Holgate talks of pollution worsening asthma and COPD and even emphasises the need to reduce NO2 as a cause of new-onset child asthma.  Prof Harrison likewise changed his view, but their COMEAP report lives on the DAQI.  Even though Welsh government policy is reduction of NO2, their Health Boards play it down and their NRW permits increases in NO2 up to the old limits. 

** Unpublished Evidence, via Public Interest Consultants, 2000 

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?

Large wood-incinerator rejected in Manchester area

Barton wood-fuelled incinerator rejected against Council officer advice

Trafford Council’s planning committee voted unanimously to reject Peel’s proposal for a 200,000 tonne incinerator, described by Peel as the “Barton Energy Plant”, which would have primarily burned waste wood.

    The committee rejected the plant against officer recommendation, as it would harm the regeneration of the area - because it would cause people to move away. The similar ‘Sunrise’ wood-burner in Barry dock is smaller at 70 000 tpa, but the argument about people and businesses moving away was never used. 

    Their Council spokeswoman was open-minded enough to say was a "genuine and significant public concern over the perceived impact on public health" of the planned incinerator, whereas our Council officers were just sore at the rejection of ‘Sunrise’.

    The proposal submitted in December 2010 was opposed by the Breathe Clean Air Group (BCAG) and Biofuelwatch.  “Last night’s decision vindicates all the hard work undertaken by the Breathe Clean Air Group” said chairman Pete Kilvert. “We have worked tirelessly to ensure that our case was based on strong scientific evidence. We are thrilled that the whole community stood together and wish to thank all the Councillors who spoke out against the plant last night. This is an historic victory for the people of Urmston”

    The company has 3 months to decide whether to appeal the decision, which would result in a public inquiry.  Their incinerator was to burn 90% biomass: 70-75% “waste wood” and “15-25% from other plant-derived biomass, such as managed forestry residues, energy crops and agricultural residues”, but also solid recovered fuel from municipal waste etc.

      More details in these media reports:
Barton Energy Plant plans rejected by Trafford Council (BBC news)
Plans for biomass power plant in Davyhulme are rejected by councillors (Manchester Evening News)

No to incineration in Wales

United lobby of AMs and demonstration at the Senedd
     Cardiff Bay:  Tuesday, November 15  12:00pm - 3:00pm

The Merthyr campaign's victory should hearten us all. In Cardiff and Newport, where incinerators are still planned, we need to send a clear message that toxic waste-burning is not acceptable anywhere in Wales -- not near our homes, not near our neighbors, not in our air!  In Barry Dock, where the Council gave outline planning permission for 80 00 tonnes pa waste burning, tell them no!

The story of the Welsh government collusion over Covanta's incinerator proposed near Merthyr - and just abandoned - is given by South Wales WIN using documents obtained under Freedom of Information.

HOT NEWS! Covanta quits mega-Incinerator at Methyr

BBC- Covanta pulls out of Merthyr Tydfil £400m waste plan

Great news!  Covanta have recognised the writing on the wall for high-cost mass-burn mega-incinerators that waste most or all of the heat.

It’s also a blow to the Welsh government’s pro-incineration policy, for they invited Covanta to Wales.  Ieuan Wyn Jones (as Deputy First Minister) visited Covanta in the USA and his officials set up contacts for Covanta and helped with plans for rail transhipment of waste from all over Wales (revealed by FoI disclosures) .

For Prosiect Gwyrdd, who chose four incinerator projects for S-E Wales municipal waste, Covanta’s retreat means two down, two to go.  Let’s see Newport turn down Veolia’s plan for Newport/Llanwern – this would leave PG’s plan to shortlist two incinerators in ruins.

Prosiect Gwyrdd phoney roadshow

Prosiect Gwyrdd (incinerator scam) phoney roadshow came to Barry on Saturday 15th Ocotber.  People approached seeing a pile of recycling bins being given away and the prominent messages about what's in your bin. 

Barry DIAG and Friends of the Earth
explained that the real agenda is promoting incinerators - one needs to look at the small print inside P Gwyrdd's caravan - and distributed the flyer on
Scam Gwyrdd in town



Their PR man, Ian Lloyd-Davies was very shy when we opened a camera - he grabbed a green-waste bag to hide behind as below.  But the picture to the lower right got him.

incinerator spin-doctor - so shy

PR-man caught on camera