Showing posts with label Prosiect Gwyrdd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prosiect Gwyrdd. Show all posts

Saturday, 5 March 2016

CATI condemns Euro funding for the Cardiff Incinerator

The EIB announcement is here and the Walesonline/W.Mail/Echo report is here
Draft decision of the Euro-Investment Bank shows pro-incineration corruption
Incinerating waste is contrary to the circular economy, where we re-use materials of end-of-life products.  “Recovering energy” is a hoary old myth, as the ‘recovery’ is far less than the recovery of materials and CO2 emissions are maximised.
The EIA says “waste is being transformed into vital renewable energy”, an ignorant statement when huge volumes of fumes and CO2 are emitted and 70,000 tonnes of nasty ash is produced per year.
Viridor’s incinerator is badly inefficient in energy terms, about 22%, far from the 60% of ‘high efficiency combined-heat-and-power’ plants that the Welsh government decided should be the aim. The company claims to a future heat-piping system to use the 78% wasted heat energy have come to nought.
The Viridor contract with Cardiff and other local authorities is in fact set up to burn recyclable materials.  80-90% of the municipal waste stream can be recycled, 70% was set as the minimum in  Welsh government targets, but Viridor’s contract builds in a maximum of 65% recyclables.
Viridor’s Cardiff incinerator performance has been poor.  The plume comes to ground, shown by a plasticky smell from potentially toxic compounds in homes as far as 2-3km away.  Viridor failed to extract metals from the ash, and had to put in magnetic equipment under enforcement (by NRW, Natural Resource Wales in April 2015).  Viridor did not set up re-use of the ash, but sent huge amounts to Lamby Way tip (about 50 000 tonnes from January to Sept.) until the tip was full.  Since then, Viridor has been paid £60 000 per month to truck out the ash to England, contrary to the proximity principle of waste management policy.
The EIB belief that the Viridor incinerator ‘reflects Cardiff’s environmental commitment’ is quite false.  The Council started processing the ash on Lamby Way site, unlawfully, but were forced to stop because they could not control the spread of toxic dust and pollution from the ash (Incinerator campaigners hit out over Lamby Way ash dumping).   Cardiff are trying to escape the 70% minimum recycling level by offsetting it with incinerator ash aggregate, which European legislation excludes.  They are also trying to offload Viridor’s incinerator ash to Barry Dock, with lengthy lorry trips though the city and Dinas Powys. (Barry action in High Court against ash dump)  

It’s a disgrace for the EIB to invest in such a bad facility, adopting the propagandist arguments of self-serving officials.  We call on Welsh politicians to condemn this and set up an inquiry on how the Welsh Government came to support and subsidise incineration at such a bad plant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4th March 2016

CATI has written to political leaders in the Senedd, asking them to question the EIB investment in this un-green project, contrary to the EIB mandate.  CATI has also asked Jill Evans MEP to raise the issue with the Bank and to seek disclosure of the biased reports from the Welsh Government on the Viridor project.

ANNEX – UKWIN (United Kingdom Without Incineration Network) writes to EIB (vice-president Jonathan Taylor  j.taylor@eib.org) 3 Mar 2016.

We are disappointed to read that the EIB is still supporting incineration projects.

The EIB should be supporting the circular economy and removing waste from the residual stream, not perpetuating outdated technologies that result in the lock-in of valuable resources into the bottom tiers of the waste hierarchy.

There are no guarantees that the feedstock would not be reduced, re-used and recycled given appropriate education, collection, sorting and treatment infrastructure. Furthermore, there is already more incineration capacity built and under construction in the UK than there is genuinely residual waste to burn.

"We have to have a circular economy concept, so it’s highly important that we’re pumping back materials into the economy rather than burning or burying them." – William Neale, then member of cabinet for European Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik with responsibility for waste.

The EIB should cease all unsustainable investments in harmful technologies, including incineration, and attempt to de-fund any incineration projects (including gasification and pyrolysis) already funded so as to allow for a rapid move towards a more circular economy and a recycling society.

Shlomo Dowen, National Coordinator of UKWIN

Tuesday, 10 December 2013

Prosiect Gwyrdd Unlawful - costly day for taxpayers

On the day Prosiect Gwyrdd led by Russell Goodway gets the Go ahead for Prosiect Gwyrdd..


South Wales WIN says:
This will prove a very costly day for taxpayers in Cardiff and the other Councils. Max Wallis added 
"The bureaucrats have forced through a 25-year promise to send wastes for old technology
 incineration, a dismal 22% efficient in energy terms. Cllr Russell Goodway, 
Chairman of the Joint Committee is wrong to say they will make significant savings from this project."

Anne Greagsby said "Much of the promised wastes are recyclable materials and we expect that 
increasingly stricter requirements on recycling will ban burning of them. Like other Councils 
in England who contracted for excessive tonnages of waste, future councils in Cardiff, 
Newport, Caerphilly, Monmouth and the Vale of Glamorgan will have to try and escape
from this huge long-term burden." 

Response from SNIC  :
 "Rob Hepworth, the Bishton-based Chair of Stop Newport and Monmouthshire Incinerator 
Campaign (SNIC) warned that this was not the end of the story. He said 
" What more can you expect from a cabal of profiteering corporate interests and biased officials 
 who want to impose waste policies on SE Wales that are at least 20 years out of date?
SNIC believe the decision is illegal as well as perverse. If it is allowed,  we will pay an
unacceptable price in terms of  cancer deaths, increased carbon emissions,
lower recycling and higher taxes on Newport & Monmouthshire people.”

SNIC Vice Chair Haydn Cullen-Jones of Monmouth added 
“We will  be sending today’s announcement to the European Commission as we believe it 
constitutes,  unagreed and hence unlawful, state aid to a private, speculative waste
incinerator already under construction in Cardiff.  Sadly PG have settled for the next
worst solution to landfilling residual waste and guaranteed £400m of taxpayers
money into the bargain." Monmouthshire is already close to the 2025 70% target for
recycling and hence will end up paying more and more per tonne of residual waste
for the next 25 years. While incineration in the guise of Energy from Waste
is so heavily subsidised, it is no surprise that other more financially and
environmentally viable processes have been disregarded."

Contact SNIC - Rob Hepworth  01633 413253 rghepworth@gmail.com

Future future plans for a district heating network are total fantasy as the cost 
would be enormous 

5% Recycling from bottom ash with no market for use as aggregate for 
building materials 

Silence on toxic ash - where will it go? 

Produces significant quantities of CO2.

Long-term council contracts to provide waste for incinerators will 

discourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling efforts.

Viridor signs 25-year Prosiect Gwyrdd EfW deal

THE BIG ISSUES THAT GOODWAY hasn't answered
Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Dear Cllr Goodway,
We believe that you as chair of PG take ultimate responsibility for the key financial issues being properly
 checked prior to signing the huge contract with Viridor.
The answers on two basic financial issues appear to be outstanding  
1. State Aid – the risk of the European Commission ruling the 25% WG subsidy to be illegal has
not been accessed by Accounting officers
2. No updated Value-for-Money assessment has been made, neither by the Project or by the WG review.
You should be aware that the National Audit Office has just announced it is investigating 
three 25-yr incinerator contracts in England 
www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/defras-oversight-pfi-waste-projects/;
also that Defra withdrew WIC (waste infrastructure credits) last week for the Norfolk CC’s incinerator, 
putting Norfolk CC in trouble over their recent 25-yr contract  
www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/defra-withdraws-ps169m-norfolk-efw-funding
You may have seen that EdF yesterday specified the State Aid issue as needing a decision 
before they sign the Hinkley Point nuclear deal.
We question that the Project officers are capable of giving appropriate advice on these 
issues and suggest appropriate independent experts should be consulted, eg. the WAO 
who are already considering the PG contract.
From Cardiff Against the Incinerator CATI

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

Labour wont support Pauline in Splott against the Incinerator

Two Candidates support CATI against the Incinerator
Splott By-election.  
Only UKIP and TUSC candidates - Brian Morris and Katrine Williams  - are concerned to oppose the Viridor waste Incinerator, bringing wastes from over S-E Wales to burn in our city.  
 The Lib-Dems started the project and Labour continued it with Tory support; all want to give Viridor a long-term contract to burn the city's waste, despite the toxic fumes, waste lorries trucking through the city and huge tonnages of incinerator ash with toxic dust.  Apart from Neil McEvoy for Plaid, Cardiff politicians rubber-stamped a Viridor contract of several £100 millions for 25-years.  Extraordinary irresponsibility with Council funds, and in contracting for tonnages far higher than expected to be produced in future years. Result of brown envelopes or blind party-voting?  

CATI hasnt heard anything from  the labour candidate who works for a Islwyn Labour AM Gwyn Price. As soon as Labour got into office they voted to privatise residual waste Prosiect Gwyrdd - without any scrutiny, locking Cardiff into payments for burning waste for the next 25 years in a PFI style contract. Labours Gretta Marshall, Luke Holland and Huw Thomas all failed to vote against it. Surprise! Russell Goodway is chair of the 5 council Prosiect Gwyrdd group. 

No support either from FibDem Jamie Matthews  or Tory Daniel Mason 
Nearby Bayside Estate resident Pauline Ellaway, supported by CATI, is taking Cardiff Council to the Cardiff High Court on 17-18 December.



PartyCandidate
IndependentElys John
ConservativeDaniel Mason
Lib DemsJamie Matthews
UKIPBrian Morris
LabourEdward Stubbs
TUSCKatrine Williams

Friday, 25 October 2013

Russell Goodway highly Secretive over Financial Risks of illegal State Aid

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN QUESTIONS: COUNCIL, 24 OCTOBER 2013
W18 WRITTEN QUESTION FROM COUNTY COUNCILLOR McEVOY

Could you outline legal written advice given regarding Cardiff’s financial exposure with Prosiect Gwyrdd and allegations of the Welsh Government grant contravening state aid rules?

Reply
I am advised that any such advice would be covered by legal professional privilege and it would not be appropriate for this to be disclosed publicly.

Note - 'priviledge' is not absolute: "Legal Professional Privilege (“Privilege”) entitles a client to refuse to disclose certain confidential, legal communications...  It protects confidential communications between a lawyer and his client provided that the communications are for the purpose of seeking and receiving legal advice in a relevant legal context." 
Why the false answer from Goodway, if not to mislead?

Friday, 29 March 2013

CARDIFF INCINERATOR FIGHT GOES TO HIGH COURT


CARDIFF INCINERATOR FIGHT GOES TO HIGH COURT

Cardiff campaigners against a giant incinerator at Trident Park, between Splott and Cardiff Bay, have renewed their fight at the High Court.
  Acting on behalf of local residents, environmental law firm Buxton's of Cambridge have submitted fresh applications to stop building work on the site by multinational corporation Viridor.
  In particular, Cardiff Against the Incinerator (CATI) campaigners want a High Court judge to quash the recent decision by Cardiff Council not to enforce planning consent conditions after six months of unlawful work on the site. Their original submission has been reformulated in the light of recent council decisions.
  CATI chair Robert Griffiths today accused the Cardiff Council of undermining the law by allowing building work to proceed without the necessary permits and permissions.
  'The whole planning permission process has been an undemocratic shambles. The wishes of local people and businesses have been ignored and councillors have tied themselves in knots as officials have tried to steamroller Viridor's scheme through the council', he declared.
  CATI have already secured agreement from the High Court for a swift judgement on its application to halt building work and enforce planning conditions on the company.
  But now campaigners have to raise £3,000 towards the costs of the court challenge. 
  'We are confident that local residents and businesses will respond generously to our appeal, knowing that an incinerator presents major health, safety and environmental hazards', Mr Griffiths insisted.
  He dismissed recent claims by Viridor and Cardiff Council that the scheme could bring extensive and cheap piped hot water to the city as 'a pipe dream full of hot air', pointing out that similar pledges have rarely materialised in relation to other incinerators across Britain.

END

1]  The request to the Cardiff High Court lodged on 26th  March is for the following:
a)      An order quashing the grant of subsequent applications approval dated 25 February 2013;
b)      A declaration that the decision of the Council to treat the subsequent applications approval as retroactively permitting the unlawful works and rendering enforcement action inexpedient was unlawful;
c)      An order requiring the Council to reconsider enforcement action against the unlawful works;
d)    An order directing the Council to issue an enforcement notice and/or stop notice prohibiting further continuation of unlawful development;
 [2] 25-year contract for £600million between the 5 Local Authorities, of which Cardiff will pay ~£250 million.  The Council voted through the Labour Cabinet recommendation, without referring it to the Scrutiny Committee and with Labour and Tory groups supporting it en bloc.
 [3] Entirely unsuitable for the Splott and Cardiff Bay site on grounds of lorry traffic, flood risk, hazard to health and processing  hazardous ash. It's also unsuitable for use of the huge quanities of waste heat, because the claims for a city-wide pipe network are unviable fantasy, not part of a full district heating scheme meeting the big seasonal variations in demand.
Appeal for our Community Legal Action fund 
Please contribute to our £3,000 legal action fund. You can do this by:
Making a donation by cash or cheque (made payable to 'CATI') and sending it to CATI, 58 Janet St., Splott, Cardiff CF24 2BE.
Donation to an accredited CATI representative (who will have proper ID).
Phoning David Prosser on 029 20791993 (h), 07504 323422 (m) or emailing us at cardiffagainsttheincinerator@gmail.com  to arrange a visit.
Paying online into our account (The Cooperative Bank, Sort Code 08-92-99 Account No. 65423583) or at the Bank in High Street, central Cardiff.
Paying online via PayPal at www.ukwin.org.uk (add “for CATI/Cardiff” in the comment box on second page, called 'Review Donation').

Notes to editors:

[1] The applications to the High Court have been submitted by Richard Buxton and Partners on behalf of local resident Pauline Ellaway.
[2] The case will be heard in Cardiff and a judgement is expected within the next six weeks.
[3] The applications are to quash as unlawful the decisions of Cardiff Council on February 13 and 25, 2013, retroactively permitting unlawful work and declaring enforcement of planning consent conditions 'inexpedient'; and to issue a court order requiring the council to reconsider its actions and whether to an enforcement and/or stop notice in relation to unlawful development at Trident Park.
[4] Robert Griffiths can be contacted on 07790 8841337 (m) and Pauline Ellaway on 07837 346114 (m)  029 20318519  (h)  


High Court challenge lodged to stop work on Splott incinerator site

Read more: Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/cardiffonline/cardiff-news/2013/03/29/high-court-challenge-lodged-to-stop-work-on-splott-incinerator-site-91466-33080967/#ixzz2OwICSbR8

Monday, 11 March 2013

Lab rams through privatisation Prosiect Gwyrdd/incinerator 25yr contract



At the Council meeting on 28th, the P Gwyrdd contract for Viridor (25 years, £600mM total, £250 million from Cardiff) was rammed through. The Splott Councillors absented themselves - Luke Holland away ill, Gretta Marshall and Huw Thomas failed to use their rights under the Localism Act to speak representing their electorate (and didn't use the normal 'dispensation' to speak against Labour group decision). They quit the meeting, leaving Cllrs Goodway and Govier with their commitment to P Gwyrdd free to ram though the approval of Viridor as preferred bidder (contract to be finalised in June or July).  No-one spoke in objection over the 'grave misconduct' by Viridor whose unlawful building allows the Council to rule out this company.


Cllr McEvoy objected he'd been unable to view the documents because of the special 'security' that requires Cllrs to use particular computers in the Council office, or to pour through a foot-high pile of printed documents there. He opposed approval, talking of health risk, and saying Plaid favours alternatives to waste incineration. Deputy Leader Ralph Cook dismissed this with “I'm no environmental fundamentalist”. The Council had settled the issue in a debate in 2009 (which McEvoy had accepted). Bumbling Cllr Govier said they had no predisposed ideas on health effects, incinerators are cleaner than landfills and it saves landfill costs of £400M over 25 years, net saving of £157M.



The chair of the Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Derbyshire in discussion prior to the meeting, excused their failure to scrutinise this highly costly proposal and lengthy commitment because of the short-time allowed for decision (in contrast, the VoG held an extraordinary Scrutiny Committee on it). A recording of the meeting is on the Council website.
Following the majority approvals of Viridor's planning application on 13th February, Richard Buxton law firm are expanding their High Court action to cover a challenge to these new decisions, challenging the Council head-on this time.
-------------------
False and Biased claims by the Project
Prosiect Gwyrdd's Press Release of 7 March quotes Cllr Russell Goodway, Chairman of the Joint Committee for Prosiect Gwyrdd,as saying:
“The new Joint Committee which was formed following the May local elections has ensured that the project has been scrutinised in detail...”
The Minutes of the Joint Cttee give no evidence of detailed scrutiny, not in the Cttee or in officer reports. The first two meetings (July and Sept) were held in secret with no public Minutes, under the false claim that they were briefing meetings alone.
Cllr Goodway refused to meet with critics, asserting that the “incineration ship has already sailed” (14 October 2012, letter to R Hepworth/SNIC).
Cllr Govier met with CATI – his reply of 7th Sept. shows he was misinformed on the waste prevention/reduction target set by the Welsh Government in July.  He writes their "figure quoted of 1.2% pa is based on the national figures for Wales" so PG disregards it for figures based on the 5 partnering authorities... and the predicted population growth".  This shows he's not aware that 1.2% is a target and that waste increases from population increases is a separate factor. Over the 30 years, 1.2% pa aggregates to a 30% reduction in waste flows, much more than PG's 20% maximum flexibility.

Prosiect Gwyrdd's Press Release of 7 March claims savings of £500 million to the partnership as compared to landfill over the 25 years. This is a fictitious figure, dependent on the exaggerated projections of waste, low recycling rates and disregarding the Welsh waste prevention target.


Welsh waste prevention target.
This is set for LA municipal waste at 1.2% p.a., though recent reductions have been faster and the overall waste reduction target for Wales is 1.5% pa. PG conceals this target, mentioning only targets “set in law” in the Press Release.
They falsely write:
The Project will supply a Guaranteed Minimum Payment to Viridor, based on a waste tonnage that has been predicted on achieving the Welsh Government waste targets. The waste projections over the contract term are based on current recycling rates, future recycling rates and population growth over the contract term.
Note: this is untrue – the tonnage was derived ignoring the waste prevention target.

Hazardous nature of bottom ash
PG write:


Claims are made by campaign groups against incineration that the ash from this process is ‘toxic’. The Environment Agency advice on IBA is that it can be recycled and they are developing a quality protocol to ensure this waste is diverted from landfill.


This is misrepresentation. Incinerator bottom ash is well-known to be 'toxic' rather than 'inert' as Viridor and the incineration industry claim (Atkins report to Cdf Council, Sept'13). The Environment Agency agrees (Atkins report and Dr Allen at the Viridor Liaison Cttee) that the ash is potentially 'hazardous' waste (under European definitions) and has to be tested.

The Environment Agency has been “developing a quality protocol” for IBA for several years; there is no indication that any protocol with emerge, indeed the argument has moved to registering IBA under the REACH chemicals legislation.


Hazards to Health
PG refer only to the 'Health Protection Agency' finding of 2009 and earlier. They ignore the evidence accepted by the PG Scrutiny Committee from Prof. Howard and others, giving updated information and covering wider scientific evidence than the HPA. They also ignore that the Senedd Petitions Committee accepted similar evidence from Prof. Howard too, and concluded that further studies are needed. 

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

OPEN LETTER to Cardiff Cllrs - Prosiect Gwyrdd – Reject Viridor law-breakers


OPEN LETTER to Cardiff Cllrs for the full Council meeting Thursday 28th Feb.

Why is this matter on the busy budget agenda this Thursday after no hearing at a scrutiny committee? Does Cardiff's Labour Cabinet want to ram it through with minimal debate?
Cardiff's CEO Jon House refused to rule Cabinet members Goodway and Govier have an 'interest' though both are leading members of the PG Joint Committee that approved the choice of Viridor.  

Prosiect Gwyrdd/incinerator – Reject Viridor law-breakers  Details and references follow below.

For Cardiff Councillors to agree a 25-30 year PG waste contract with Viridor would be a travesty.  Council Officers admit the building work out at the Trident Park Site over the last 6 Months has been unlawful. Viridor rejected their requests to stop work.

Grave Misconduct Clause
You are permitted under the Public Contract Regulations, s.23(4), “not to select” Viridor for this“grave misconduct”.  CEO Jon House does not deny this – the officers should not be concealing this and threatening a £3million penalty if you do not select Viridor.

Cost Concealed- of Carbon Tax etc.
The Carbon Tax to be introduced in the next budget will start at £10-20 per tonne, set to  increase annually. This 15-30% extra is likely to fall on the Council under 'change in law' of s.75(vii).  Costs due to legal changes to exclude plastics will be high, as they remove the incinerator's main fuel

Over-estimating Waste Projections
PG wrongly says the waste projections meet Welsh targets. They ignore the target set in July for decreasing Municipal waste per person at 1.2% pa (30% over the 25 years).  They limit recycling to 65% for 25 years, far below the expected maximal levels of 90%.

Over-Contracting for Waste in Future Years
The report wrongly says (s.19)there's  flexibility to support 80% recycling (including ash).  This requires not 56 056, but 51 100 tonnes pa (Table D).  Taking last year's waste tonnage and recycling tonnage as base and including the 1.2% pa decrease mean  contracting nearer 30 000tonnes in the later years.  Binding Cardiff to pay for 25 years with no clause for revising down the guaranteed tonnage payment is irresponsible

High court challenge to Viridor
PG wrongly claim no planning and permitting problems for Viridor.  They ignore the High Court action started against the permit.  The Trident Park site being at flood risk, and Viridor's false information on incinerator bottom ash being ‘inert’ are both issues ignored in planning.
PG has thus ignored significant legal and environmental impediments – a proper re-assessment could score Veolia higher.

‘Best Value’ for Cardiff
PG claim this contract is good or best value, but they want to keep their project. Where is the  independent assessment from your finance officer or Auditor, or warnings about rushing to approve legal obligations and £250 million commitment without Councillor scrutiny?  The serious over-estimates of future waste tonnages have been referred to the Wales Audit Officer, Huw Vaughan Thomas.  It cannot be ‘best value’ to over-contract for waste 10 and 20 years to come.  You owe it to Cardiff people to require reliable independent scrutiny.

----------TAKE ACTION ---------
Do copy sections of the above to your local Cllrs, asking them to move that the item be deferred for scrutiny 


You can e-mail from http://www.writetothem.com : just put in your postcode to find your Cllrs, click on name and use the e-form


Prosiect Gwyrdd Report to Council on 28th Feb. 2013.
CARBON TAX omitted.The carbon tax to be introduced in the next budget appears to mean £1.5 to £2 million per year from the start of the incineration contract and liable to increase in future years. Will Cardiff be liable for all or part of this sum under s.75:
(vii) Change in law. The PA contains provisions to deal with changes in law and who bears any consequential costs that flow.  In certain circumstances this may be the partner authorities:
76. For further legal implications on key contract provisions please see exempt Appendix C to Appendix 1.
 Why is this important Carbon tax information not included in the report and why is the public prevented from seeing it under the ‘exempt’ provisions?
What of other legal changes foreseen, eg. the EC declaring that plastics must be recycled, and banning recyclables from incinerators?  Will future Cardiff Councils have to bear the costs?
OVER-CONTRACTING
s.19 says: “should we over-perform on the Welsh Government targets beyond 2024/25 there is also sufficient flexibility in the contract to support 80% recycling, including ash recycling.”
This is untrue,
First, total residual waste is reducing (~1.7% per yr) and the Welsh target is continuing reduction at 1.2% per annum. PG and Cardiff projections take zero reduction, ignoring the 1.2 set last July (in Municipal Waste Sector Plan).
Second, the WG target for recycling beyond 2025 has not been set.  The expectation (from the Env Agency) is 80-90% recycling is feasible with current technology, so levels at the upper level need to be taken into account.
Third, the 80% figure is based on faulty arithmetic by PG - see Table D
The 71 489 tonnes is based on 35% delivered to the incinerator, 65% real recycling.
If 25% is delivered to the incinerator (ie. 75% real recycling plus 5% ash recyclilng) the total is 51100 tpa.
This is10% below the 56 056 tonnes minimum guaranteed to be delivered
If the 1.2% per year decrease is included, the incinerable waste drops well below 50 000tpa.
Fourth, Cardiff’s waste is already (2011/12) below the base figure by 4.5% (other Councils even more) and is likely to decrease further as the fortnightly black-bag collections bite.
 Obvious demand: make the contract flexible, allowing the 56 056 tpa to revised down after say 5 years and each 5 yrs after, as data on decreasing waste and higher recycling rates comes in.
VIRIDOR’s ‘Grave misconduct’
Cardiff CEO has failed to answer if Viridor’s flouting of planning law can be called “Grave misconduct” – We presume the answer is – yes. The can therefore be excluded under Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Reg 23(4)http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/5/regulation/23/made
Criteria for the rejection of economic operators.
A contracting authority may treat an economic operator as ineligible or decide not to selectan economic operator in accordance with these Regulations on one or more of the following grounds, namely that the economic operator—
(e)has committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of his business or profession;
The Press report that Viridor and Veolia bids were very close. Moreover, the Council report misleads in not mentioning the ‘grave misconduct’ and that High Court action against Viridor’s incinerator is underway. This case includes substantial environmental reasons
# that the Viridor site is subject to flood risk, which the planning officers disregarded
# that Viridor gave false information that incinerator bottom ash is ‘inert’, so cannot implement the planning permission as it stands.
Therefore demand a further report that gives the legal and environmental case for choosing Veolia

Monday, 14 January 2013

Prosiect Gwyrdd/Incinerator Senedd debate Wed 6 Feb 201


NEWS 
Prosiect Gwyrdd'Incineration Senedd debate is fixed for Wednesday 6 February 2013. Duration 1 hour at least we hope

We expect David Melding AM (Deputy Presiding Officer and not Rosemary Butler to be in the Chair)

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Prosiect Gwyrdd - Tara King needs to declare interest


With Prosiect Gwyrdd/Incinerator gravy train for consultants and advisers.. trundling on... postponing the next meeting. Still waiting for the revised the financial assessment- and Final Business Case

Whos who 

Tara King started life as Project manager for Prosiect Gwyrdd then we have Tara King, Cardiff council’s chief officer for waste management, 

More recently risen to Chief Officer for Cardiff Council City Services

Now for Prosiect Gwyrdd meetings going along as  Tara King, Business Advisor, Cardiff City Council 


Tara King Project Gwyrdd manager stated that "all need to‘sell’ the message of PG to wider stakeholders e.g. The Market professional bodies like CIWM." (19th March 2008, County Hall, Cardiff )
....amazing bias...

Just have a look back to 2010, questions we still have no answer to..we know Councils will be paying £166 a tonne when other councils in UK are paying only £56 a tonne  to wastefully burn their rubbish.

what we were saying ...Wednesday, March 10, 2010 Questions for Prosiect Gwyrdd


The NOT GREEN Prosiect 'Gwyrdd'  = project massive incinerator (Gwyrdd is welsh for green!) The 2nd joint scrutiny meeting is tonight!
10th March 2010 at 5.00 pm Committee Room 4, AtlanticWharf, County Hall, Cardiff -Prosiect Gwyrdd Joint Committee Agenda 10/03/10 (294k)
 Minutes of last meeting!! This was their first meeting  and minutes tell you Zilch!
Financial Position: Month 10 2009/10

Questions for Chair Cllr Mark Stephens Lib Dem and Tara King Project Manager Prosiect Gwyrdd
  • Has the financial assessment been revised to take into account the falling tonnages of residual waste (rather than increasing tonnages assumed)?
  • Has a financial assessment been calculated for scenarios in which residual household waste meets the targets given in the draft new Waste Strategy for Wales (maximum 295 kg per inhabitant per year in 2012-13, decreasing to 150 kg per inhabitant per year by 2024-5)?
  • what is the risk of choosing Viridor-type incineration, if incinerator bottom ash is found to be hazardous waste (cf. the EA says this is to be taken as the default) ?
  • what is the risk if CO2 from incineration is counted(it isn't at the moment) as adding to the carbon-footprint of 'waste management/disposal', as needed to conform with the EU ETS scheme, whereby the waste sector has to reduce CO2 equiv emissions by 16% (2020 levels compared with 2005)?
Tara King Project Manager Prosiect Gwyrdd wrote in Nov. that they haven't revised the financial assessment- and won't do so till the Final Business Case (after they've excluded better/cheaper options):
"reporting the Final Business Case (FBC). The FBC will not be proposed to Members for a decision for 18-20 months or more from now, the procurement is expected to take that long."

"Whichever way this Project is assessed, there are very significant affordability issues"
OBC Health-Check Addendum 2009
and in para 8.11.8. 9 "Given the magnitude of the ‘Gap’ that arises under both options, it is clear that partnering authorities will face a significant financial challenge to manage their future residual waste arrangements, irrespective of the final option that is chosen."

Tara King Project Gwyrdd manager stated that "all need to‘sell’ the message of PG to wider stakeholders e.g. The Market professional bodies like CIWM." (19th March 2008, County Hall, Cardiff )

Title: Prosiect Gwyrdd Joint Committee


Description: Prosiect Gwyrdd Joint Committee
Location: Committee Room 4 County Hall
Date: 10/03/2010
Start: 05:00 PM

Prosiect Gwyrdd Joint Committee Agenda 10/03/10 (294k) 
Prosiect Gwyrdd: Joint Committee Meeting
Meeting No: 02-10
Date & Time: 10th March 2010 at 5.00 pm
Location: Committee Room 4, Atlantic Wharf, County Hall,Cardiff

Membership: Councillor Mark Stephens (Chairperson)
Councillors Lyn Ackerman, David Atwell, Geoff Cox, David
Fouweather, Margaret Jones, Gordon Kemp, Colin Mann, Phil Murphy,
Eric Saxon
***

FIRST Meeting  - Minutes of last meeting!! Zilch
Financial Position: Month 10 2009/10