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]

Scrap the Vale’s draft LDP (Local Development Plan)

The LDP is wrong not only for devoting huge greenfield areas for housing – a house-builders charter – but also

a) for suppressing all ideas of a Green Belt to the west of Cardiff.

FoE argued strongly for this at the 1999 Public Inquiry and won the argument against the Vale planners and won the Inspector’s support.  He recommended including all the eastern Vale up to Five-Mile-Lane, but the then Vale Council disregarded his arguments.  A Green Belt is the best way to resist developer pressures that would make the eastern Vale into residential suburbs for Cardiff.  Regional planning should meet more of Cardiff’s housing needs in Valley communities that want regeneration and have many brown-field sites waiting.  The LDP fails from the start in refusing to face these issues and going for quite ‘unsustainable’ development in sacrificing huge green-field areas.   

b) for allocating Barry dock for waste incinerators, with no full waste management plan as is required.

The Tory Cabinet and officers want to justify their past approvals of incinerators of waste wood and domestic waste amidst the light-industry businesses and close to housing on Dock View Road. They ignored waste-transporting lorry traffic, the high noise levels of power plant, the vast tonnages of potentially toxic ash that needs on-site processing, the probability of accidental fire and the inevitable emissions of toxic gases and dusts, all considerations for competent planning.

In addition to these obvious reasons, general policy says to site such plant adjacent to industrial heat users, as heat is the majority of the energy output. Barry's chemical complex has empty ex-industrial sites, and Dow Corning did express interest in the heat. Yet the LDP goes for incinerators (masquerading as 'waste management facilities') rather than devoting the half-empty dockland to mixed development with housing in accord with declared 'aspirations'.

The LDP has by law to include principles for an integrated waste plan and Friends of the Earth have put in a strong case that this one doesn't. It needs facilities for reclaiming waste materials including maximising recycling.  It has to justify incinerating household waste rather than previous policy for mechanical and bio-treatment after maximising recycling. It needs to show integration, including facilities for processing the ash from any incinerators. It's not acceptable to plan to send vast quantities of toxic ash for dumping in English landfills.

So Barry & Vale FoE wants Labour's scrapping the LDP to extend to scrapping its awful planning for waste and to addressing the Green Belt idea.

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.