Green Party objects to waste-burning plant at Avonmouth
Tuesday, 01 June 2010
1. Environmental impacts.
A study by Eunomia, Bristol-based waste consultants, conducted on behalf of Friends of the Earth, concluded:
"Recycling is better than incineration in terms of climate change.
Waste incinerators are being sold to the public and local authorities as a source of green electricity, yet the fact that they produce fossil fuel derived greenhouse gases is rarely mentioned.
This research shows that, currently, electricity-only incinerators produce 33% more fossil fuel derived CO2 per unit energy generated than a gas fired power station. By 2020, with increases in recycling and improved technology, these incinerators will be almost as polluting in terms of CO2 emissions as new or refitted coal fired power stations, and 78% worse than new gas power stations.
The best option in terms of climate and resources is to phase out residual waste, ensuring that all waste is reusable, recyclable or compostable.
However, residual waste will continue to exist for some time, so must be dealt with. This research shows that one of the best options from a climate point of view is a mechanical biological treatment process that extracts both the metals and plastics with the stabilised residual going to landfill."
The Green Party is greatly concerned about the particulates in any exhaust smoke from the proposed facility. These will affect not only Avonmouth, which is serious enough, but also the whole of Bristol and the greater Severn Estuary region.
The proposed site will also have an impact on resident water voles, a protected species, and it is close to a Ramsar site in the Severn Estuary. Increased pollution from the facility could have a serious impact on these sites.
2. Approval of a waste-burning generator sends out the wrong message.
Bristol City Council has been the most successful in the UK at improving recycling rates, although these are still low by the standards of other European countries. Approving a plant designed to burn waste rather than recycle it sends out the wrong message.
3. Waste will be brought to Avonmouth from outside the Bristol area.
Viridor's plans are for an incinerator with a capacity beyond the needs of the Bristol region, so it will inevitably lead to waste that other local authorities have not recycled being brought in from outside the region, leading to increased lorry traffic through Avonmouth.
4. Bristol and Bath and NE Somerset will not use the Viridor incinerator.
Both Bristol City Council and Bath & NE Somerset have non-incineration policies for waste. Only South Gloucestershire Council could possibly use this facility, but it has signed a 25-year contract to use SITA.
5. The planning application exceeds the provisions of the West of England Joint Waste Core Strategy.
Avonmouth has been assigned 390,000 tpa additional waste capacity. Planning permission to build waste-handling plants has already been granted to New Earth Solutions (200,000 tpa), Cyclamax (125,000 tpa) and Ethos Recycling (extension of current plant). If the Viridor plan is allowed to proceed, it will produce almost half a million tonnes per annum of excess waste. Let us not forget SITA has also submitted plans to build an incinerator in the Avonmouth area, possibly contributing another 400,000 tpa of waste.
6. Viridor does not include sufficient plans to recover recyclable material from waste for incineration.
7. While the plant will generate electricity from burning waste, much of the heat energy produced will be wasted.
Viridor has not included plans to divert the excess heat produced by the plant to homes, hospitals, schools and other public buildings in the area. The heat energy will just go "up the chimney".
8. Viridor does not include plans to deal with hazardous waste on site.
9. We feel there has been a lack of public consultation on Viridor's plans.
The fact that a similar application by SITA to build and operate an incinerator at Avonmouth has been considered simultaneously has greatly confused the issue. The Green Party's understanding is that there were only two public exhibitions in Avonmouth and Hallen for a few short hours on one day in the middle of the week; as a result only 36 people saw these exhibitions.
We also understand that Viridor had no correspondence by letter, e-mail or telephone despite having a consultation website and phoneline.
This application has not been properly publicised.
"There is no doubt that a majority of councillors on Bristol City Council oppose incineration," said former councillor Charlie Bolton.
"Lib Dem, Tory councillors and I vigorously campaigned against a pfi incinerator at Avonmouth as part of the then West of England waste strategy.
"The environmental case against incineration is clear: it adds to emissions; it destroys things which might otherwise be recycled; it changes the emphasis from recycling or reuse to burning.
"This application is for an enormous incinerator - which could result in bringing in waste from a wide area.
"The level of opposition on Bristol City Council has brought about a change of administration, with a Labour administration resigning over it.
"As such, it would be absurd for councillors to support a private incinerator in the very same place."
The application is due to be discussed at a planning meeting at Council House on Wednesday, 2nd June at 2 p.m.