Gloucestershire County Council's waste chief on incinerator plan

“What a load of rubbish!”

“I see the picture of Stan Waddington sitting amongs the rubbish, and he is the champion of waste, I can certainly see that.

The origional decision about an incinerator was made in 2006/2007 with the latest so called incineration.

We are now in 2012 and technology has changed a lot, yet Stan Waddington still says that the type of incinerator in 2006/2007 is still the right one, well he has to as it was him and the tories that decided on this type.

The County Council will not listen to anyone about the latest and safest incineration, the one that they suggested is out dated and will damage your health, we must all stand up for our health, and tell the County Council this s not on, and why did the tax payers of Gloucester not have a say.

Due to problems about the planning committee they have now decided to get an outside body to decide, know doubt this will be guided by the tories....................”

“CommsGuy - the only thing I can agree with you is the lack of technical and commercial capability amongst local government officers; you can buy this size of plant for around £100M - and as you say flashing lifetime costs over 25 or 30 years is meaningless and you can get the answers you want by juggling data and assumptions.

However little doubt that an energy from waste plant is the most environmentally, and cost effective way to get rid of the huge amounts of waste we create, although in this particular situation we are lumbered with poor technical and contracting skills, and an inefficient and high cost collection system which needs re-jigging and matched to the EFW plant before anyone can save any money from the total arrangement.

Much erroneous notion about EFW, and emissions, and about modern combustion plants - but no point arguing with the anti's as they have made up their minds on 'hearsay'.”

“I am not going to talk about bag filters that can't stop PM10s, PM 2.5s and smaller than PM2.5 particles. UBB have merely said that this burner uses bag filters and have not commented on all the stuff that gets through the bags and goes up the chimney. Or the toxic waste produced.

I am not going to talk about the flume and the fact that this will dump residues over Gloucester and argue over health issues. When the people wake up and realise that houses downwind of the incinerator will be severely reduced in value it may be too late.

I am not going to talk about the removal of the case officer tasked with handling the planning application for the Javelin Park incinerator and the replacement by his superior. Or the employment of BPP Consulting, the fact that they have only been a company since March 2012, and have no track record and no published accounts.

The Council want to be Judge, Jury and Executioner and must have the planning succeed.

Stan Waddington is an old man and lives a long way from this beast and won't see it much; unlike all the people on the motorway and all the people along the Cotswold escarpment. Why can't he admit that they made a mistake and withdraw from this financial black hole despite the fact they will have to pay a hefty penalty. [this penalty also shows poor financial management]

What I do want to talk about is the cost. £500 million it says at the start of the article, then Stan states "This facility will save local people up to £190million over the next 25 years, and will be clean and safe."

So is the cost £690 million, £500 million or £310 million. How does he arrive at £190million?

On £500 million at 25 years = £20 million a year and that would fund 4,000 care packages using his figures.

£500 million divided by £8 million = 62.5 so at £8 million a year we could fund landfill for 62 and a half years. Even if the landfill cost £20 million a year it would have the same lifespan as the burner.

Could we sell this waste, load it on to barges then down the canal and over to the continent where they are desperate for waste. We could find ourselves desperate for waste and it might be quite soon in this 25 year lifespan.

The costs don't stack up, the waste figures don't stack up, the costs to the people [health issues, house values] don't stack up; the visual impact doesn't stack up.

He says doing nothing is not an option, environmentally or financially. Sorry Stan , doing nothing is an option. And anyway, you'll be dead before this starts to pay its way and if you don't like the sound of that, you could have a very long lifespan, and I have news for you: this will never pay its way.

This is very poor value for the people all you Councillors are supposed to represent i.e every person in the county, young, old or in between. You have a duty to do the right thing.

Halt this project immediately!”

“It is very disappointing when one-sided articles like this are printed on such a major issue, as they clearly do not give comprehensive views, but perhaps the Echo is intending to print an article from the other view point later this week that does not include any comments from GCC or Urbaser Balfour Beatty.”

“Incineration turns inert waste into toxic substances as it creates dioxins that are emitted into the air and cannot be filtered, and creates toxic fly ash.”

“only other comment - this guy must be looney squatting on the landfill site in his trousers and high-visibility jacket without a protective suit, gloves, and face mask - unless they have airbrushed him in the photo.”

“I note that a photo of Cllr. Waddington by some trash has now been added, it reminds me of the movie "Trashed", a brilliant UK movie with Jeremy Irons, about waste and how we should deal with it. It includes interviews with Prof. Paul Connett (who has spoken in Gloucestershire several times on the dangers of incineration) and Prof. Vyvyan Howard (who has examined the Urbaser Balfour Beatty (UBB) Health Assessment for the Gloucestershire incinerator and said that UBB have got their modelling wrong and that Glos. residents have cause to be worried).

The movie also covers two incinerators where there have been serious consequences for residents living in the vicinity. The film won an award in Cannes - don't miss it, but prepare for a shock - it will help you to see the truth about large incinerators and the really healthy, efficient alternatives.”

“Stan Waddington's case for the incinerator is seriously flawed. What really scares him is that his incompetence as "Waste Champion" is exposed - hence his persistence in trying to justify this massive, unnecessary incinerator.

Quote by Waddington - "we are moving away from burying the county's household waste, after as much as possible has been recycled or composted".

This is misleading. The amount of waste recycled is "as much as possible" only because GCC are not building more recycling and composting facilities but want to build an incinerator instead! He states the choice is between landfill and incineration. This is not true. Avonmouth have built a very successful MBT recycling plant to sort and recycle household black bag waste and soon to generate electricity from what remains by a cleaner process than incineration. This is cheaper than a massive incinerator and has far less environmental impact.

Waddington also fails to mention that incineration produces large amounts of toxic ash that contains high levels of highly poisonous heavy metals and dioxins. This needs to be landfilled. The dangerous ash can easily be blown around (as at Bishops Cleeve) and the toxins leak into the earth and the water table.

Waddington states GCC has a recycling rate of 49% and will not reach 70% until 2030. That is incompetence. The target should be reached much sooner. Incinerating waste is not recycling. The more you burn the less you can recycle. If GCC built an MBT plant instead on a incinerator recycling rates in Glocucestershire would increase significantly.

Independent waste consultants Eunomia state that waste amounts in the South West are FALLING as recycling rates increase. This will continue, so there will be less "fuel" for the incinerator. Eunomia also state that there will be huge incineration overcapacity in the South West as other incinerators on Gloucestershire's borders come online. The Javelin Park incinerator is not needed to treat our waste.

In the Netherlands and Germany they have already built a large number of waste incinerators. But as recycling rates in those countries have risen they are having difficulty finding enough rubbish to burn in them. Ironically, there is a market in incinerator waste - GCC could SELL our black bag waste to those countries rather than waste our money on building our own incinerator! There are already enough incinerators!

Safety. The incinerator filter bags do not trap the finest particulates which are proven to be damaging to health. There have been several safety breaches by incinerators in the UK over the last few years. There is no reason to assume Javelin Park will be any different. More info at http://tinyurl.com/9wesral

Ask yourself - if incinerators are proven to be safe why has the Health Protection Agency commissioned a new study just this year to look into the effects of incinerators on human health?”

“Unfortunately Cllr. Waddington is very behind the times. His constant repetition of incinerators being "Modern Energy from waste facilities" is incorrect and when at a recent GCC Cabinet meeting he repeated this well worn catch phrase, he quite soon followed it by a comment that: incinerators have been in Europe for years and years! Well that speaks for itself! As does the fact that none of these large incinerators have been built in the US for years and years and the fact that one or two are already closing in Europe. We need to move forward with modern SAFE technology for handing our waste, incineration does not fall into this category.”