Following the emergence of an anti-incineration campaign for Guernsey (supported by UKWIN), and recent presentations to deputies, key business leaders and the public by Alan Watson, Director of Public Interest Consultants (PIC), and by Dr Paul Connett, Professor of Environmental Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Guernsey has decided against building an incinerator at Longue Hougue.

Images from protest against Suez / SITA Guernsey Energy from Waste incinerator

The Guernsey campaigners earned the praise of the experts, with Dr Connett saying:

A classic case of great teamwork and great timing. The local group was very well organized with a number of very well informed (and lovely) people. My few days there were a delight – and the outcome was most exciting.

and with Alan Watson adding:

This was a great campaign and the island is now set for a zero waste strategy.

The island’s media are reporting that:

Guernsey’s States have voted overwhelmingly to scrap plans for a multi-million pound waste-to-energy plant at Longue Hougue. The decision follows a much closer earlier vote which amended a requete from Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher. That gave deputies the opportunity to throw out the Suez proposals… Members of the Environment Department did not take part in the votes because of a potential conflict of interest.

The short article also notes that the States have also decided to look into exporting Guernsey’s rubbish to Jersey.

And according to The Guernsey Press Jersey has agreed to accept Guernsey’s waste for a decade to come.

Senator Alan Maclean, minister for Economic Development, and reiterates a letter sent to Public Services in 2009 stating that Jersey could take 30,000 tonnes of Guernsey’s waste for 10 years.

A 2-minute interview with two local anti-incineration campaigners is available from http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_guernseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=485422 and a longer article about Guernsey’s abandonment of incinerator plans has been produced by the BBC.

This UKWIN Update attempts to bring together just some of what has been happening since our previous update. Inevitably I will miss some important items, so please feel invited to add more information of interest by leaving a comment on the UKWIN website (below).

Global Day of Action
UKWIN is joining forces with campaigners around the globe who are organising a Global day of Action Against Incineration. For more details please contact Neil.

Cheshire
The government has approved plans to build a 95MW incinerator in Cheshire which is set to burn 600,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel a year. The decision is obviously a disappointment for all those who campaigned hard to prevent this permission from being granted. Due to the current economic climate, and to the lack of local authority contracts, the facility, although approved, may never be built. Watch this (sad) space…
Links:
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53154
and
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn-widnes-news/runcorn-widnes-local-news/2009/08/20/mike-hall-mp-slams-ince-marshes-incinerator-plan-go-ahead-because-of-existing-ineoschlor-runcorn-plans-55368-24490218/
and
http://www.crewechronicle.co.uk/crewe-news/local-crewe-news/2009/08/19/middlewich-incinerator-protestors-demand-council-bosses-reject-plans-96135-24472513/

Veolia High Court
Veolia have taken legal action against their waste partner Nottinghamshire County Council. The case, involving the right of the public to see how public money is being spent on delivering public services, is being heard on Tuesday 25th August 2009 at the High Court.

WASTE COMPANY IN COURT BATTLE TO KEEP WASTE CONTRACT SECRET FROM RESIDENTS

A French-owned waste company is going to the High Court to try and prevent Nottinghamshire County Council making public details of its £850 million waste management contract and the invoices paid by the Council.

The full hearing of the Judicial Review is taking place after an interim injunction was obtained by Veolia Environmental after council officials agreed to release the information following a request by local resident Shlomo Dowen, of People Against Incineration [PAIN].

Mr Dowen is represented by lawyers from Friends of the Earth’s Rights & Justice Centre.

Information in the contract and the invoices will show how much money Veolia Environmental is charging the local council for each method of treatment (landfill, incineration, recycling, composting, etc.) and will help show whether or not the local authority is getting value for money.

Shlomo Dowen said:

Nottinghamshire residents have a right to seeing how tens of millions of pounds of our money is being spent, and our waste is being dealt with. This information must be made public. Veolia Environmental must not be allowed to keep this information secret.

Friends of the Earth’s executive director Andy Atkins said:

The law gives the public explicit rights to see this type of information precisely so that they can hold authorities to account on major issues such as this. Companies like Veolia that wish to take enormous amounts of public money must recognise that members of the public have an interest in ensuring that the money is well spent.

Mr Dowen has already accessed some information from the Council and has asked the District Auditor to investigate amount of money it is charging Nottinghamshire’s County Council in respect of landfill tax.

Veolia is also embroiled in another controversy with Nottinghamshire County Council over its plans to build an incinerator on a former Colliery site in Sherwood Forest. The company claims that local waste levels are expected to rise significantly in the coming years– a fact hotly disputed by PAIN, who point to evidence that Nottinghamshire’s waste levels have actually fallen.

Hearings for the Public Inquiry into the proposed Sherwood Forest Incinerator will begin on 6th October 2009 in Rainworth, near Mansfield. These hearings are expected to last for three weeks. PAIN is joined at the Inquiry by Newark and Sherwood District Council and Notts Wildlife Trust who also oppose Veolia’s incinerator plans.

Shocked in Shepshed
Residents of Shepshed in Northwest Leicestershire we shocked to learn of possible plans for an incinerator in their village. The plans for an incinerator near Shepshed have been put forward by Biffa. Biffa are one of three companies short-listed by the County Council to build a new facility to process the County’s waste. Leicester Friends of the Earth have backed local residents in their opposition to plans to build a giant waste incinerator near Shepshed. You can read more about this at:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Fury-grows-incinerator-plan/article-1276006-detail/article.html
and
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Massive-waste-burner-planned-Leicestershire/article-1273645-detail/article.html
and
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53228

Emerging Global Anti-Covanta coalition
Campaigners from North America are joining with others faced with the prospect of a Covanta-run incinerator in locations around the world to share information and campaign tips. UKWIN is supporting this effort. If you would like to join this coalition, please contact paul@fluoridealert.org

Invergordon
“Controversial plans for a £43m waste incinerator in Invergordon have been rejected by Highland Council.” “Planners snubbed over Invergordon project…Company considers appeal…Highland town celebrates as waste plan thrown out…” “Highland Council chief executive Alistair Dodds is considering a plea from SNP opposition group leader John Finnie to launch an inquiry into his senior planners’ handling of the application.”
See
http://www.north-star-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4964/Incinerator_plan_is_extinguished.html
and
http://www.highlandlibdems.org.uk/news/000155/thurso_welcomes_decision_to_throw_out_plan_for_incinerator_in_invergordon.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8204937.stm

Perth
“Residents against the building of a waste incinerator in Perth believe the local council acted unlawfully when granting outline planning permission…Outline planning consent for the development was granted in 2006, but full details only emerged this year. The Grundon Waste Management plans for the £100m incinerator, which include a 260ft chimney, have attracted hundreds of objections. Bridgend, Gannochy and Kinnoull Community Council hired planning lawyers to look into the matter.” “The community council turned to Roy Martin QC and advocate Stephen O’Rourke in their David versus Goliath battle to prevent English-based Grundon Waste Management creating a towering £100 million recycling plant on the Shore Road.”
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8213662.stm
and
http://www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk/perthshire-news/local-news-perthshire/perth-city/2009/08/21/community-council-reveal-incinerator-legal-hurdle-73103-24492774/

RAID – Residents Against Inappropriate Developments
In their August 2009 e-newsletter the newly formed RAID are announcing their plans for further public meetings to inform more people about the proposed developments associated with the Hatfield Power Park (Doncaster) and especially one known as the DEW Project. If you have not yet seen the presentation or know someone who has not seen it please come along on one of the dates below:
Thorne – 3rd September at the Assembly Rooms
Dunscroft – 9th September at St Lawrence Community Centre
Dunsville – 18th September at the Community Centre
Hatfield Woodhouse – 25th September in the Village Hall
Stainforth – 2nd October at the Resource Centre (Old Folks Centre)
All the meetings will start at 7.30pm.

Also, the Barnsley Doncaster and Rotherham (Dearne Valley) Joint Strategic Waste consultation is coming to Dunsville Community Centre. On Friday 4th September there will be a public consultation meeting at Dunsville Community Centre to discuss the suitability of Hatfield Power Park as a waste management site as part of the DPD process. There will be a display from 2pm until 5pm and then a presentation from 6pm until 8pm with questions and answers.

Please encourage anyone you know to visit the RAID website and sign the online petition.

Newcastle
An ongoing political row is rumbling on over the issue of the incineration of waste in Newcastle.
See:
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/the-environment/go-green-news/2009/06/20/controversial-debate-over-newcastle-incinerator-72703-23932252/

Crymlyn Burrows
There is news on the infamous Crymlyn Burrows Incinerator on the outskirts of Swansea. Neath Port Talbot Council has accepted a payout of £6.7 Million in a court case against the firm of consultants that advised them to go ahead with the plant. The local residents are also taking a class action suit against the incinerator for the odour problems it is causing. For those unfamiliar with the background story see the Swansea FoE website.

Jersey
“A damning new report on the euro rate incinerator fiasco has raised serious concerns about the management of the Treasury.”
See
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/08/10/incinerator-report-serious-concerns-over-treasury/

Kingston
KINGSTON AGAINST INCINERATION NETWORK
Networked to UK WIN – Networking Communities fighting Incineration
The last Kingston Council “consultation” workshop on Waste and last year’s Energy seminar did not reflect adequately input from local residents and there were various individual protests at the waste workshop. It is therefore very important that there is grassroots understanding and consensus on this before the waste consultation workshop on the 16th September to ensure that what we want is not manipulated into what we don’t want…For more info contact PennyKFOE@aol.com

A letter from the Co-ordinator of Colchester and NE Essex Friends of the Earth, Paula Whitney to her local Gazette Letters page:

Dear Editor,

Cllr Tim Young (6 Aug) has robustly defended Colchester council’s formal opposition to the Essex Waste Strategy last May when the coalition took control. Last autumn Colchester’s Cabinet formally opposed the county’s second bid for PFI funding since 2005. Well done!

Cllr Tina Dopson informed Defra that Colchester did not support the
bid. Our LibDem MP Bob Russell, many opposition councillors and campaigners told Defra and the Minister this, and that many thousands of Essex people have opposed MBT and incineration since 1999.

Since May 2006 waste PFI rules require bids to show that all relevant councils and the public ‘have been consulted and that there is broad
consensus’. Hence the 2008 trick public consultation, widely
condemned as misleading.

Colchester rather put a spoke in the last PFI bid by pulling out. If we can scupper the bid we will save Essex council taxpayers huge costs and recycle and compost more instead.

Now the surprise news has just hit the headlines (3 Aug) of a third
desperate attempt by ECC for costly PFI finance from Government. This one deftly includes Colchester as one of the councils supporting the bid as a member of the previous Essex waste ‘Partnership’. Pardon?

The ‘MBT’ plant for 351,000 tonnes a year at Basildon would shred and
compost ‘black bag’ waste in massive warehouses, reducing its weight
by a fifth. ECC officers said it may be landfilled or turned into polluting fuel pellets to burn in an incinerator on one of the sites.

Let’s hope Colchester council, our MP and some of us can move fast to
inform Defra and the Minister that neither they nor the Essex people
support the PFI bid. These 27.5 year contracts will cost the taxpayers huge sums to destroy our valuable resources.

And finally…
Music to our ears
Yet another anti-incinerator song has been composed. “It Was Madness” will be released on the 14th September. On this note UKWIN has been asked if there is anyone who would be able to help promote the single…

A 1-minute preview of the song can be heard at http://web2.nessmp3.com/bands/1327. There is a possibility it could be a National hit and with it massive exposure for the cause. The artist who wrote and performed the song is keen to do appearances, etc, however he won’t be able to work the ‘machine’ on his own. Are there any offers of help?

Save Our Shoreline have now submitted a substantive dossier to the Environment Scrutiny Panel containing strong and expert evidence that the Planning Consent for the ‘Energy from Waste’ plant is seriously flawed in several aspects.

The Environmental Scrutiny Panel have agreed to conduct a full review on the basis of the evidence so far submitted, and SOS has joined other campaigners in calling for a halt of the construction until the evidence has been heard and judged by the Panel.

Recent evidence has been sent to SOS by Dr. Stephan Funk Phd MSc MsC, a respected expert on EIA methodology, together with evidence regarding Planning Law infringements from Mrs Lara Luke who has a Bsc (Honours) degree in Environmental Studies and holds a diploma in Pollution Control. Both parties have concluded that the EIS is not compliant with current Planning Laws.

Some of this evidence can be downloaded from the Jersey in Peril website. Concerns include:

1. AIR POLLUTION
The chimney will be re-used for the incinerator as will the culvert. The chimney and culvert are exempt from current emission laws, which may be convenient for TTS and Planning but is contrary to currently declared policy and will not conform to EU standards. The Planning department have said that there was no need for any EIA with regard to airborne emissions relating to the Ramsar area. Why not? Dr. Funk is clear that marine organisms react differently to human organisms and this has been ignored.

In Dr. Funks’ words:

It is a well established fact that levels of toxicity of chemicals is not identical for all organisms and varies greatly. Bio-accumulations of pollutants through the food chain is well documented and can cause disease. What might pose no risk for humans might be highly toxic to other organisms and vice versa…the EIS did not provide evidence that there is NO rise to noticeable impacts on the ecology of an adjacent marine system.

Yet the basic requirements have not been carried out – no baseline samples have been taken. No account has been taken of the fact that there are shellfish farms to the east within the Ramsar area.

Babtie Fichtner commissioned Ambios Environmental Consultants to carry out a baseline ecological assessment of land at the La Collette reclamation site. The report does not include any survey or scientific data on the Ramsar site and did not assess any potential risk to the Ramsar Site. The report states that “There will be no impact on the adjacent RAMSAR Site.” Ambios were tasked only with looking at the inert waste upon which the incinerator will be built, yet for some reason made conclusions about the adjacent area. This conclusion is not substantiated by any data or evidence.

2. WATER POLLUTION
Heated ‘cooling’ which will be piped into the Ramsar area through a culvert previously used by the JEC Power station, again under old permits and therefore not subject to more stringent modern environment legislation. These effects have not been properly addressed in the Babtie FIchtner EIS or at all in the Ambios EIA. The same culvert will be used, emerging this time further into the Ramsar area as can be judged from the second photo. This marine intrusion is not recognised as being significant and other probable effects upon the Ramsar area, such as chemical leachates from the porous base of the incinerator or wind borne surface material (including toxic fly ash) are not considered by the Planning or TTS as worth addressing. They rely solely on the contractor’s good will in this area. SOS does not.

With regard to cooling water, the EIS states “It is therefore expected that any impact on coastal habitat would continue as currently i.e. extremely localised and of minor significance.”

Dr. Funk responds:

The EIS fails to present data substantiating the statement of minor significance. It mentions a previous assessment but without citing data or evidence the report contains the word ‘cooling’ 21 times yet no underpinning data.) Thus the Babtie Fichtner EIS did not conduct an independent impact assessment on this issue.

3. PLANNING CONSENTS AND THE LAW
Old out of date consents are to be used on both the chimney and the culvert. SOS believes this contravenes not only our Planning Laws and EU legislation, but the ‘Wise Use’ policy of Ramsar.

4. FURTHER EROSION OF RAMSAR AREA
A new Emergency Road is to be constructed to the east of the plant. It will necessitate the demolition of shoreline rocks along the perimeter and within the Marine Protection Zone and the Ramsar area, and we contend that this will contravenes the Planning Law relating to SSIs (copy & notes attached) unless consent is granted with specific conditions.

5. EU INCINERATION PRACTICE
The ‘EfW’ plant will be burning Jersey’s waste which is not currently separated, Therefore nickel and cadmium batteries and electronic parts etc will all be burned, releasing heavy metals into the atmosphere. The chimney emissions fallout radius will be is very close to the most densely populated and school intensive areas of the Island, St. Helier when the wind is in the south and east , and close to the General Hospital where the most at risk and elderly residents of the island will be. When the wind is in the west, the emissions will fall on the Ramsar area. This release of emissions containing heavy metals is not allowed in the EU, yet Senator Cohen has confirmed that local standards must replicate EU standards.

6. RAMSAR ORGANISATION & DEFRA IGNORED
Finally but no less important. Up until 6th December 2008 not one letter or communication from the States of Jersey, Planning or TTS informing the Ramsar Organisation in Switzerland, or DEFRA in the UK, of their intentions to build a massive incinerator on porous ground only yards from a wetland of International importance was sent. Nor was advice on how best to conduct an EIA on the possible effects of this incinerator sought.

This is in contravention of our International Obligations, and at the least totally discourteous to the Ramsar Organisation, who have arranged for a web page to be displayed on a partner site (Wetlands.org) in support of our case. If the Ramsar Organisation support us, then we feel that our case is strong.

For more details, visit the SOS Press Release of 17th February, 2009. You can also read Stephan Funk’s Report and SOS’ comments on relevant Planning and Building Laws and much more!

A SECTION of the construction site of the new £100 million incinerator at La Collette was closed off at the weekend after contractors punctured the membrane of a pit holding toxic ash. Pollution prevention experts are investigating after potentially contaminated water escaped into a trench being dug at the time. Samples have been sent for analysis to determine any potential danger.

It was the sharp eyes of site project manager Steven Gouldburn that probably prevented a more serious pollution incident taking place. He spotted what had happened, got the contractors to stem the flow and called in a tanker to pump the water away. Workers from engineering company Geomarine clipped the edge of one of the ash pit membranes at about 3 pm on Friday while digging a trench along the north side of the site to install a temporary power cable. As a result, potentially contaminated water leaked into the cable trench.

Jersey doesn’t need a new incinerator and the plans States members have already accepted need rethinking. That’s the view of a group of politicians who are calling for the plans to be scrapped.

One of Guy de Faye’s last acts as Transport and Technical Services Minister was signing the contract for a new waste incinerator to replace the existing facility at Bellozanne back in November. The deal was worth more than a £100 million and will see the new incinerator come on line in 2011.

The new incinerator will burn people’s money as well as their rubbish, according to a collection of States members calling themselves, a bit misleadingly, the Incinerator Gang.

The Jersey Evening Post reports:

Ministers have been accused of trying to sneak around environmental treaties to get the new incinerator built at La Collette. During ministers’ questions on Tuesday, Deputy Daniel Wimberley said that there was ‘widespread suspicion’ that the Environment department did not discuss the matter with the Ramsar governing body because they did not want them to know about it.

The wetlands up to Havre des Pas are protected by the international Ramsar treaty right up to the point where the  proposed £100 million-plus incinerator would be built.

In a further article we read the following:

“The world is changing, people’s expectations are changing, ways of doing things are changing,” said Deputy Wimberley. “We are fearful that the incinerator is over-sized, it is out of step with public opinion and it is a waste of public money.”

Deputy Higgins is quoted as saying:

It is more than likely that the plant will have a serious cost overrun. The failure to hedge the contract against adverse currency movements could easily cost the Island an additional £10 million. I want to know what financial advice was given, who gave it and whether it was followed.