NOTE: Newcastle city council Executive will meet on Wednesday June 10th (4pm Newcastle Civic Centre) to decide wither to accept officer or scrutiny recommendations.
See details below
Newcastle City Council Waste Strategy
Update May 2009
The current development of Newcastle’s Waste Strategy was identified by officers as dealing with:
i) how much waste there would be left after all measures such as recycling, composting and waste reduction had been taken
ii) what type of technology should be used to treat the remainder, given that we will be only able to landfill 25% of total waste currently produced in 2020.
As part of this, in spring 2008 Ban Waste members attended a study tour of 4 waste treatment facilities (an incinerator, an MBT plant, autoclave and anaerobic digester) in the UK and a gasification plant in Norway. Giles Sergant produced a report on the visits, with assistance from Alice Massey on the Norway visit.
We then had meetings with officers and were promised 2 months to consult on the report they were producing, which we were told would come out in the summer, it was nearly ready in September. (There had in fact been 17 draft reports), but we were only presented with the 65 page document ‘Completing the Municipal Waste Strategy’ on December 22nd 2008, and told that we had to respond by January 5th 2009, 10 days over Christmas!!
This went against DEFRA & the Liberal Party’s (the ruling part of Newcastle City Council) own guidelines on consultation and the Newcastle City’s own VCO Voluntary and Community Organisations Compact on consultation which gives a minimum of 6 – 8 weeks.
Suspension of BAN Waste – Newcastle City Council Partnership
After several letters to the Executive Cabinet to complain about this, we were left with no alternative but to suspend the partnership with the council and go to the press (article below), which resulted in coverage by the Journal and Evening Chronicle (local press).
This resulted in accusations of over reaction by Cllr Wendy Taylor and others, but in light of lack of progress was the only path left open to us. BAN Waste then appealed to the Environmental Scrutiny Panel and got a compromise period of 4 weeks to extend consultation.
As far as the content of the reports go; key issues included in the Newcastle City Council ‘Completing the Municipal Waste Strategy’ Report were:
• A recommendation to treat 40,000 tonnes of waste per annum.
• Inclusion of 4 technologies including incineration, SRF, gasification and autoclaving but the dropping anaerobic digestion.
• A recommendation to enter into a procurement process without being technology specific. Commercial companies will be able to propose what technology or process they think would suit.
Freedoms of Information requests have shown that Gasification is very popular with the officers; in fact, it was the preferred option in 10 of the previous draft versions of the report. A report by OVE ARUP on a proposed community heat and power system for Newcastle mentioned plans for a new “incinerator” possibly to be located at one of 4 sites near the river Tyne.
BAN Waste Response to the Consultation
The BAN Waste Strategy Working Group responded with ‘Aiming for Zero Waste’; a substantial report that included the following proposals:
• Propose more robust measures to reduce the amount of waste that needs treating, and identifies a scenario that only requires the treatment of 20,000 tonnes of residual waste. Further measures include recycling and composting commercial waste, and extending green ‘garden’ waste collections.
• Rather than enter into long term fixed contract with considerable investment in infrastructure, enter into short term flexible contracts initially with third party (merchant) facilities.
• Waste technology options should be restricted to non-thermal solutions:
i) autoclaving followed by further treatment such as conversion to bio-fuel;
ii) upgrading or replacing of current Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) at Byker and associated in-vessel compost operations at Ellington;
iii) Anaerobic digestion with further treatment such as conversion to bio-fuel.
This report was presented initially to a public meeting at Ouseburn Farm, Newcastle City Councillors and the Environmental Scrutiny Panel.
After listening to the officers and BAN Waste, the Scrutiny Panel made the following recommendations to the Newcastle Full Executive on March 25th.
• Procurement process should ask for options that would treat varying levels including 30,000 tonnes, 40,000 tonnes & 50,000 tonnes, to allow for changes in waste growth and recycling measures etc
• Anaerobic Digestion should be included
• Incineration should be excluded
• Officers should develop an action plan setting out measures to, or if possible exceed targets. These measures should be costed and a business plan developed.
• Also that the Scrutiny Panel have final say what goes into evaluation criteria (weightings for different criteria)
On the whole BAN Waste support these recommendations, but would like the proposal to ‘exclude incineration’ to also include the other technologies that burn rubbish. At the Executive meeting they decided to delay their decision until June 10th; to consider all the issues raised, both the amount to be treated and on the “technology neutral” procurement that looks to go ahead over the coming years, and hear another response from the officers.
On May 26th the Environmental Management Scrutiny Panel of Newcastle City Council met on to review with the Environmental Services officers’ response to last month’s recommendations. The Scrutiny Panel reiterated its support for its previous recommends.
BUT when the Executive Portfolio holder for the environment, Wendy Taylor, was asked what she intended to advice the Executive and replied that in an ideal world she would like to rule out incineration and that it was very unlikely that an incinerator would be built in Newcastle (previously having stated this would not be efficient ), she will advice the Executive to keep incineration and not rule out sending rubbish to the Teesside incinerator!
So Not In My BackYard but happy to send to someone else’s nearby?
This goes against many of the statements she has made in public including the following:
• “she thought that incineration should be ranked bottom regardless of whether the incineration would be carried out in Newcastle”, and
• the policy of Newcastle Liberal Democrats that waste incineration should not be part of the future waste strategy.
In addition the officers want to only include a set tonnage figure of “around 40,000 tonnes” in the procurement specification, rather than provide flexibility to accommodate the potential range of 30,000 to 50,000T that could need treating. As everyone agrees that it is impossible to judge accurately municipal tonnages in future (the procurement will not be completed for another 2 years) so we felt allowing flexibility in the amount to require treatment within tenders was appropriate. We cannot understand why officers want to stick to only one figure other than they have said they want a dedicated small scale treatment of 40,000 tonnes which rules out most options locally but not its previously preferred technology of Gasification.
Next stages:
Newcastle city council Executive will meet on Wednesday June 10th (4pm Newcastle Civic Centre) to decide wither to accept officer or scrutiny recommendations.
If you wish to help please come along or contact Cllr John Shipley.
Ask him/the council to support the following:-
• Incineration should be excluded
• Anaerobic Digestion should be included
• Procurement process should ask for options that would treat varying levels including 30,000 to 50,000 tonnes, to allow for changes in waste growth and recycling measures etc
• Officers should develop an action plan setting out waste minimisation measures which should be adequately costed and funded.
You might also suggest further measure’s such as excluding all waste burning processes which include Gasification and Solid Refuse Fuel SRF.
CONTACT DETAILS
Councillor John Shipley OBE
Leader of the Council’s Office
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE99 2BN
john.shipley@newcastle.gov.uk
Council held talks with former Byker waste firm
Mar 6 2009 by Amy Hunt,
Evening Chronicle
WASTE bosses had talks with former owners of a controversial incinerator over plans for a new rubbish treatment plant.
Environment officers from Newcastle City Council met with Ener-G, the parent company of Contract Heat and Power (CHP), the firm behind the old Byker Incinerator.
They visited a plant in Norway run by Ener-G on a fact-finding mission into different types of waste treatment facilities while putting together the council’s Waste Strategy.
And in a draft version of a report from November, officers say the best way to deal with non-recyclable waste is a process championed by Ener-G called gasification, turning rubbish into gas to produce energy.
But by the time a report went to the council’s executive in January, other methods of treatment had been factored in.
Now council bosses are accused of having already made their decision for wanting a gasification plant, which opponents claim is an incinerator by any other name.
And they are also said to have earmarked a site in Scotswood on which to build it.
BAN Waste, a group which was originally set up to campaign against the Byker Incinerator and has more recently worked with the council to boost recycling in the city, is threatening to scrap its partnership over the issue.
It already suspended its work with the council in January after saying officers had not consulted it over the report and gave members just four weeks to respond to the proposals.
BAN claims gasification is a form of incineration and should not be used in Newcastle after the Byker scandal.
Group member Phil Capon said: “For officers to be getting back into bed with a company which brought such disgrace on the city beggars belief. And it seems like since early last year this is what they were going to do.
“They are supposed to be in a partnership with us, consulting and sharing information. Because they had picked an option they knew we wouldn’t like and they didn’t want to argue. They just didn’t tell us.”
The council’s executive is still due to consider and vote on its waste strategy.
It has already agreed tough targets for cutting waste going to landfill and increasing recycling.
Now it wants to decide on a method to treat what is left over to avoid paying hefty Government fines.
In the latest report it has earmarked four options. They are: Gasification, autoclaving (using high temperature to sterilise waste), solid recovered fuel (turning waste into pellets for burning) and energy from waste (incineration).
In 2005 the Government turned down a £3.2m council bid to pay for a gasification plant on the site of the Byker Incinerator.
Newcastle’s Labour environment spokesman Henri Murison said: “We’re very upset about the fact that incineration is still being considered – if the city council is opposed to incineration why on earth is it in this report?
“And gasification is a form of incineration. The fact that gasification was rejected in Byker a few years ago shows very clearly that it might not be an appropriate solution in a residential area.
“We’re concerned that there has been some thought about a site in Benwell and Scotswood but to our knowledge ward councillors haven’t been consulted.”
David Slater, executive director for environment and regeneration, said: “Council officers, members and representatives of BAN Waste undertook a Waste Study tour in March and April 2008. The tour did include a visit to a gasification facility in Norway as well as facilities using other technologies.
“The range of options was reviewed to ensure that the procurement process was not compromised, and only technologies that simply cannot deliver were excluded. The earlier version was a draft which was subsequently superseded by further work. This draft was never considered by senior council officers or by members.
“No work has gone into developing any site. Any consideration of sites would have to await the results of a procurement, which the executive has not yet agreed to.’’
