Waste Recycling Group

Transcription

1 Calvert Community Liaison Panel Meeting 2 15 July 2010 Calvert Landfill Site Present: Cllr Michael Edmonds (ME) - BCC, AVDC Cllr John Chilver (JC) - AVDC Cllr Jackie Phipps (JPh) - AVDC Cllr Penny Evershed (PE) - Marsh Gibbon PC Cllr Richard Goldsmith (RG) - Quainton PC Mr Spencer Wood (SW) - SAVI Cllr Paul Jackman (PJ) - Grendon Underwood PC Cllr Graham Plater (GP) - Woodham PC Cllr Kim Shepherd (KS) - Calvert Green PC Cllr Rae Sloan (RS) - Twyford PC Cllr Robert Webster (RW) - Edgcott PC Cllr Andrew Benfield (AB) - Grendon Underwood Mr John Plant (JPl) - Projects Director, FCC Mr Mike Abbott (MA) - Planning Manager, WRG Mr Harry Hudson (HH) - Green Issues Communications Apologies: Cllr Clive Preston (CP) - East Claydon PC Cllr David Vick (DV) - Waddesdon PC Notes of Meeting 1. Introductions Those present introduced themselves and stated which council or organisation they represented. 2. Notes of Previous Meeting There were no comments on the notes of the first meeting (previously circulated). 3. Update by Mike Abbott, Waste Recycling Group Mike Abbott gave an update on the scheme. He said that the design was moving forward and revised 3D images of the plant were being prepared. In terms of traffic routeing, he had been looking at the question of waste vehicles travelling from the north of the county. The planning application would specify that all waste-carrying vehicles should enter and leave the site via the new access from the A41. He proposed that this should include those vehicles collecting in the local area, to avoid confusion over where the vehicles had originated from, as leaving the old access open for certain waste vehicles would be difficult to control. JPh suggested that it should be straightforward to identify AVDC vehicles and it would make sense for them to continue to use the current entrance as people were used to them. 1

2 JPl said that until recently it had been difficult to police the routes public vehicles took on public roads but new GPS systems means that vehicle movements and speeds could be monitored and routes enforced. MA said that BCC s Planning Department could confirm that routes would be dictated to all their waste vehicles. This was more difficult to enforce on commercial vehicles but could be made subject to legal agreements. BCC would probably look for a lorry routeing agreement. KS said that an important issue was that no one had put a viable business plan on the table. No figures had been given as to how BCC would provide 130,000 tonnes of MSW a year. ME said this should be discussed later. MA presented vehicle movements in the following table, indicating that these were provisional figures but were not expected to change much in the final application: MA gave the following explanation of the figures: The difference between current and proposed waste inputs was not large, but the latter included more bulk vehicles. Waste from AVDC would continue to arrive primarily in 8 to 10 tonne loads, whilst waste from further afield would be bulked up at Transfer Stations into loads of around 21 tonnes. There is permission for an IVC facility on the site, which has a condition restricting waste inputs to 38 loads a day. This has to be factored in to the Traffic Impact Assessment and is therefore included in both the permitted and proposed traffic movements. The site currently has about 66 one-way movements a day, but has a maximum permitted HGV one way movements of 130. Other HGV movements associated with the proposed facility included residual loads direct to landfill, leachate tankers and export of processed bottom ash. HGV movements would take place on five and a half days a week. It was pointed out that there were currently no lorry movements on Saturdays, although these were permitted. MA said that the new road would be single track with passing places, and it would not be open to other users. (N.b. the design is currently under review and may actually be two way). 2

3 MA said that a landscaping scheme was currently being drawn up for the whole of the site, covering Pits 4, 5 and 6, the EfW site and peripheral areas. MA said that during construction there would be around 300 jobs on site and about 40 full-time posts during operation. KS said that WRG could not guarantee local labour would be used. JPl said that in practice they would employ a significant number of local people and the jobs would cover a range of skills. WRG was also offering apprenticeships to meet a skills shortage. MA said that the construction period would be from 2012 to 2014 followed by commissioning of the plant. With regard to a reference site visit, SW said that he would like to see a similar plant of equivalent size that WRG operated. JPl suggested visiting an FCC plant in Mallorca, or a plant in Coventry which used similar technology. It was agreed that JPl would contact the plant operators of the latter and would offer members dates for a visit. 4. General Discussion and Questions KS asked about the business plan and the cost per tonne of disposing of waste. MA said that he could not talk in detail about the business case. SW said that he wanted to know where the waste would be coming from and on what the figures were based. MA explained that the assumption was that the waste would consist of 50 per cent MSW and 50 per cent C&I, although as he had explained previously these figures would vary. KS said that they could not assume that C&I waste would still be there, as volumes were reducing and WRG did not have a business plan. MA said that WRG did have a business plan and this would be addressed in more detail in the planning application. JPl said that this was commercially sensitive but it would be WRG s risk with regard to C&I waste, not BCC s. WRG did not believe that it was a risk: the area produces more than sufficient waste and he was confident that the scheme was viable. KS asked where the data was available. SW said that BCC had to show planning need. ME said that this was up to the planning authority to sort out. It was WRG s risk if the figures did not stack up and the plant was a white elephant. SW said that waste would be transported long distances and this would have a carbon impact. JPl said that WRG had not yet done the WRATE calculation but on 200,000 tonnes of waste the saving of CO2 was 7,610 tonnes per annum through not burning fossil fuel. Landfill produced methane. EfW plants were carbon neutral and beneficial. JPl then described the PFI process and a typical SPV structure. In the past, companies had made money out of PFI projects by refinancing the debt and obtaining better terms, but the Treasury had now stopped this. Revenue was now shared between the parties. The BCC waste procurement contract was not a PFI project. WRG would not make huge profits from the generation of electricity as this would subsidise the gate fee and any surplus would be shared with the local authority. They would not contract to sell electricity to HS2 as there would be too much risk. 3

4 MA said that WRG had considered the implications of HS2 and there was no conflict with WRG s plans. The possibility of supplying CHP to HS2 had been mentioned and if they wanted heat, in theory it could be supplied. However, it seems unlikely that they would require heat in sufficient quantities to make this viable. JPl said that there was no secured off take for the heat at present but that this was the right thing to do as there were environmental benefits. MA said that CHP could potentially be used for heating greenhouses to grow tomatoes. SW said that the plant would therefore be greener if it were built where the heat could be used. JPl said that EfW was classified as recovery, not disposal in European law. JPl was asked if BCC would be penalised if they did not supply enough waste to the plant. JPl said that they would not, as the risk was carried by WRG. There was no penalty except for the guaranteed minimum tonnage which BCC was confident it could meet. The figure was commercially sensitive and he could not discuss the procurement contract. BCC had no authority for C&I recycling but landfill tax would rise to 80 a tonne. He was confident that there was sufficient C&I waste available within the county to make the plant viable. He could not confirm that no waste would be imported from outside the county as, for example, waste might be imported via transfer stations from neighbouring authorities. SW asked if BCC could reduce the minimum waste volume in the contract going forward over 25 years. JPl said that on a similar contract the minimum had been exceeded every year. BCC had taken a prudent view. KS asked from what industries C&I waste would be collected. JPl said that it would come from a whole series of sources, such as solicitors firms, restaurants and offices and was similar to domestic waste. ME asked why this was relevant. SW said that it was relevant because of the carbon impact of moving waste. JPl said that their assessment was based on the solution they were providing as most of the waste was in the county. They were not in the collection business. WRG was the largest owner of void space in the country. PJ said that he assumed that funding would come from the banks and that they would be satisfied with the business case. JPl said that they would carry out due diligence. RG said that there was a misconception that the waste would come from the county, as C&I waste could come from anywhere. This upset people as there would be a large commercial facility in Buckinghamshire to burn predominantly non- Buckinghamshire C&I waste. This was not what BCC was saying. JPl said that he appreciated local concern. ME said that if BCC felt strongly about this they could condition it. SW asked if in that case WRG would still build it as they would need extra waste to deal with the minimum tonnage. JPl confirmed that the minimum guaranteed figure was not the same as their landfill figure. It was lower, as BCC had taken a very prudent view. SW asked if WRG would have a duty to find waste from somewhere else if BCC could not produce the minimum. JPl said they would, if BCC had got their estimate wrong. RS asked where the rest of the waste would come from, if on the lower estimates one-third of the waste was MSW and one-third C&I. MA said that the capacity of the plant was designed around waste arisings in the county, and there was more than sufficient residual waste to feed the plant. There would, however, be some cross-boundary movement of waste as some C&I waste might go out of the county and they might 4

5 pull in some waste from outside. They were required to assess the worst case scenario. In fact, if they did have to import up to one-third of the waste from outside the county, traffic movements would be very slightly lower, albeit with more larger loads. SW asked if they would sort MSW or just store and burn it. JPl said the waste was pre-sorted, but metal would be recovered from the IBA. This represented around 6 per cent of the volume and was of high value. Councils were not incentivised to burn material they could otherwise recycle. EfW did not stop recycling. SW said that the figures were secret, so they could not judge them. JPl said that it was not a planning matter. SW said that it affected the size of the plant. JPl said that EfW was the last potential chance to recover value from waste. RS asked about the aggregate replacement material shown in the silos. JPl said that the bottom ash was inert and dry when it came out of the plant. The fly ash came from treatment of the fumes, and the APC mechanisms involved lime to neutralise the gases via bag filters. The residue dropped to the bottom and was classified as hazardous because it is alkaline. It would be treated and disposed of in landfill. It was inert like cement and would be mixed with water to solidify it. It would be placed in a monocell which would be lined as specified by the Environment Agency. SW said that it would be a long-term liability. JPl said WRG would have liability for the monocell through a sub-contract, indemnified by its parent company. This would be backed by a bank bond. SW asked what the timetable was for the planning application. MA said he was aiming at submitting in mid to late August. JPl confirmed that the tender would be submitted on 1 September (N.b. submission date has since been deferred to 14 th September). 6. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting would be held after the site visit. Subsequent to the meeting, JPl contacted the Coventry & Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd to arrange a visit to the Coventry plant. The visit has been arranged for Monday 6 th September (leaving from Calvert Landfill Site car park about mid-day). Those attending would need to wear stout flat shoes (no high heels), and ladies should be advised to wear trousers. Exact arrangements for transport and refreshments will be confirmed once numbers are known. Please advise Harry Hudson if you wish to attend or if someone else will be attending in your place. 7. Glossary of Abbreviations APC Air Pollution Control AVDC Aylesbury Vale District Council BCC Buckinghamshire County Council C&I Commercial and industrial Waste CHP Combined heat and power 5

6 EA EfW EP HS2 IBA IVC MBT MSW PFI SPV SRF WRATE WRG Environment Agency Energy from Waste Environmental Permit High speed two rail link Incinerator bottom ash In-vessel composting plant Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant Municipal Sorted Waste Private finance initiative Special purpose vehicle Solid Recovered Fuel Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment Waste Recycling Group 6