IT'S GETTING HOT AND STEAMY AT THE SINFIN INCINERATION PLANT

Nine years after the Sinfin incineration plant project became the hottest topic in the

Derby City Council planning department Resource Recovery Solutions or at least one of its parents Interserve have finally struck the match to light up the waste plants burners.
 

Interserve - a major player in construction projects across the UK and a parent of Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) has been on the ropes in the last year or so as they suffered a number of problems in their energy from waste project portfolio with strong links to the collapse of ENERGOS the incineration technology developers for the Sinfin plant.
 

In the case of the Sinfin project Interserve and Renewi the other parent in this project have relied heavily on the experiences of two other projects in the UK in Milton Keynes and Glasgow which also use Energos technology. In the case of the Glasgow project who also employed Interserve to construct the plant Interserve suffered the ultimate shame of being thrown off the project.

Because of the collapse of ENERGOS and its claimed updated technology contractors have had to work through the plants installation learning from the experiences of the likes of the Milton Keynes facility.

Thank god we were able to delay the plant long enough that ENERGOS collapsed otherwise the Sinfin plant in Derby would already be polluting the city.

 

As it stands the Sinfin project has begun some forms of testing.
 The plant has started accepting waste again which is being converted into refuse derived fuel known as RDF. This "fuel" is currently being exported off site while the incineration section of the plant begins the warm up process so that it is able to be tested before becoming operational later in 2018.

We are told that currently the plant is using its diesel fuelled backup burners to warm the incineration lines up and that steam is being generated for steam blows to clean out the plants systems.

Emissions relating to this have been seen leaving the plants stack in recent weeks as shown below when in the early stages emissions were just a lazy flow.
 

 

As time has passed the plant has vastly ramped up its emissions which included steam being vented at low level from the rear of the plant.

 

 

Things developed further and in recent days the volume of steam being emitted from the rear of the plant around the cooling system reached far beyond what local people expected and in one case someone called the fire brigade thinking that the plant was on fire.

 

 

The plant unlike energy from waste plants in Holland etc has installed a giant cooling plant at the back of the plant to cool the steam produced after it has been used in the plants turbine. In Holland they use that energy in the steam to heat local buildings to get worth from the waste that was burnt. Here in Derby we waste that energy to the atmosphere which is quite shameful and why the plant is considered to be an inefficient D10 waste disposal plant compared to an R1 recovery facility.

 

While the contractor RRS indicates it has notified the fire service and also local businesses it isn't clear what if anything they have done to notify local residents in the likes of Victory Road and Sinfin Lane in relation to the large volume steam vents.

You would expect a contractor working for the local council would show the local community - its neighbours more respect than this.

 

In the coming weeks the plant will be testing its turbine to prove it can generate electricity and this includes providing proof to meet the requirements for ROC accreditation (but that's another story).

Then the contractor has to make the plant run for 25 years successfully - and within 10 working days of handover both the city and county council have to stump up £25 MILLION towards the plant.

 

Locals are steaming about this and the burners have only just been lit!

 

 

 

 ©SIMON BACON 2018

 

 

 

  

Hidden contracts! the public strikes back!

On 22nd October 2015 I Simon Bacon the writer of this blog applied to Derby City Council in Derby UK via FOI / EIR requesting the following information relating to the controversial joint waste contract linked to the highly controversial Sinfin, Derby gasification incineration plant.

 1- ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DERBY CITY COUNCIL AND DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE JOINT WASTE CONTRACT.

 2- ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DERBY CITY COUNCIL AND ITS PARTNER DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (RRS) AND / OR ITS PARENT COMPANY SHANKS / INTERSERVE.

 3- ALL CONTRACTS RELATING TO THE USE OF THE SINFIN TANNERY SITE - OWNED BY DERBY CITY COUNCIL BY RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (RRS) OR OTHER PARTIES.

 Derby City Council responded on 17th December 2015 in which it disclosed some of the requested information but withheld some of the information in part 2 of the request claiming the adverse affect to the confidentiality of commercial information. What was provided was a series of documents with many redacted (blacked out pages) where the council and its supporters - Derbyshire County Council and Resource Recovery Solutions edited the documents to hide certain aspects of the documents which they did not want the public to see.
Here are a couple of examples from schedule 14 of the contract which covers the performance mechanism.

 

As you can see from the images when they redact information they really black it out!

 

I appealed this ruling and Derby City Council carried out an internal review and responded to me on December 24th 2015 that it maintained this position.

Having considered this battle of wills further I made a complaint against Derby City Council on 22nd February 2016 to the ICO - the Information Commissioner. The ICO then gave full consideration to my strongly put appeal while engaging with Derby City Council further.

The council and its fellow contract members attempted to paint a picture which included impacts on interests of Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) siting that the withheld information included price mechanisms, volume allocations and proprietary contract tools and processes.

The council argued that RRS operated in a competitive waste market and disclosure would allow competitors to work out the deal and how it was structured resulting in a loss of its competitive edge.

The council went on to argue that the Sinfin waste sites novel nature has the capacity to become a "BEACON OF EXCELLENCE"

 

ENERGOS the developer of the incineration equipment being installed into this beacon of excellence had gone into administration in mid July 2016.
 

It was suggested that the competitors of RRS would benefit from the unique know how contained within the information and thus undermine the ability of RRS to utilise this for its own benefit damaging its commercial interests.

Other than the Derby, Glasgow and Milton Keynes projects that have moved ahead there is little evidence of other projects moving forward using such technology and in recent weeks a proposal to install similar tech on the Isle of Wight has been dropped - so not quite the beacon being suggested.

The ICO asked the council to provide a new schedule setting out in each instance the councils rationale for withholding information so that it matched the specific parts of the documents. Having been given further time to do so the council advised it had approached RRS and Derbyshire County Council but that they had declined to provide any further arguments or clarification.
The ICO in their ruling considered that the lack of clarity in the councils submissions suggests that the council either does not properly understand what the effects of disclosure would be or has struggled to meet the evidential and explanatory burden set by the exception.
 

 On 4th August 2016 the Information commissioner at the ICO RULED IN MY FAVOUR instructing Derby City Council to disclose the withheld information to myself as the complainant.

 

In early September 2016 Derby City Council was in no mood to lose their battle again a resident of Derby so instructed its legal team to appeal the ICO ruling and so work started on a legal appeal.

I as the original applicant was also in no mood to lose the battle and so registered as a party to the appeal which WAS set to be heard later in 2017 in London UK. After a delay of a number of months as two similar cases passed through the tribunal system the Derby case began to move forward.

In recent months a similar case relating to an incineration plant in Gloucestershire and its associated contract pretty much ruled in the original applicants favour - while the council in that case attempted to put a brave face on things while putting some spin on the ruling the applicants in Gloucestershire are very happy with the result of their battle. A similar ruling regarding an incineration plant contract in Worcestershire also placed pressure on Derby City Council who were then set a date by the General Regulatory Chamber who were running the appeal by Derby City Council where the council had to acknowledge if it proposed to continue with their appeal.

So two other appeals went against the local councils which forced Derby City Council into a corner over their appeal against the ICO ruling.

 Did they continue or did they rollover!

 

THEY ROLLED OVER AND BAILED OUT OF THEIR APPEAL ON MAY 11TH 2017

The councils legal team made the following statements when terminating the councils appeal.
"

"Our clients have been carrying out a fresh, detailed, careful and considered review of the disputed information with all interested parties taking into account the passage of time and developments since the initial request and the commencement of the Appeal.

Having concluded that reassessment and made recommendations accordingly, the interested parties have respectively reached agreed conclusions and advised the relevant public authority which has been able to make an updated decision on disclosure as a result.
Our clients have invested a great deal of time in reaching this decision and it is not one that has been taken lightly. Despite considering that much of the disputed information remains commercially sensitive and confidential, given the time that has now passed since the original request for information by the applicant and taking into consideration the current stage the facilities are now at, the likelihood of probable harm from disclosure of the disputed information into the public domain has reduced.
As a result our clients have asked us to confirm that the disputed information will be disclosed in its entirety. "
 

 Derby City Council admitted at a recent full council meeting that they and their supporters - Derbyshire County Council and RRS / SHANKS had already spent £20,000 on their fight to keep aspects of the Derby and Derbyshire waste contract secret - hidden away from the public. In a strange twist they appeared to be suggesting to the local newspaper the Derby Telegraph that they had NOT paid £20,000 to stop me from gaining a copy of the contracts as reported here http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-man-wins-right-to-see-controversial-sinfin-incinerator-contract-but-council-to-appeal/story-30288364-detail/story.html

 

The council was simply playing with words - £20,000 was spent but the city council only paid a third of the payment!

What are they trying to hide from the residents of Derby and Derbyshire ? what is so controversial that they redact whole pages of their waste contract ?  In these times of austerity and government cuts surely the public have a right to know what their taxes are being spent on.

NOW WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO FIND OUT!

©SIMON BACON 2017

 

Dont put it in the recovery position !

It was a simple innocent question that I put to Resource Recovery Solutions at a meeting of the Sinfin waste incineration plants Community Liaison Group (CLG) meeting back in early 2016.

 

We were part way though a presentation by a representative of RRS / SHANKS in relation to what they teach school children they visit at schools across Derby and Derbyshire or tours the construction site with and I was feeling somewhat uneasy that the councils were paying a company that was being employed to burn vast volumes of waste to then also educate school children what we should do with waste.

So at that point I thought hey ho lets just pop a question across to the the RRS / SHANKS  just to satisfy myself that they were in fact educating school children correctly and that I was being unfair to judge them. It was at this point that a representative of RRS / SHANKS (named in the meetings official minutes) told the meeting that they told children it was a recovery plant.

WOW THERE ! WOW THERE ! now hold on just a minute ! did they say it was a RECOVERY PLANT ? really ! a RECOVERY PLANT ?

 

Now burning waste is a funny old game because doing so can be considered to be one of two things when it comes to considering the process in the waste hierarchy it is considered a disposal process unless it can prove otherwise in which case it is a recovery process.

 The waste hierarchy just for clarity is a set of processes when dealing with the whole issue of waste that must be considered as it takes in best practices to deal with waste in the most sustainable way.

It starts with REDUCTION / PREVENTION where the aim is to reduce what waste we produce so managing materials in the best way - by not using them to start with ! Then we have RE-USE which is where whenever possible we take items that are now scrap and attempt to use them again in an innovative way to keep them out of landfill and incineration. Then comes RECYCLE which is when materials at the end of their life if not reused are reprocessed into new items by making use of the products raw material make up. As we head down the hierarchy we get closer to less sustainable methods of waste management such as incineration and landfill - neither of which are good methods of waste disposal. This brings us to RECOVERY which is when those handling waste start to use wastes for energy generation such as in incineration plants which meet an efficiency target called R1. These are plants which can show that their efficiency of energy generation meets a strict target and often requires such plants to export large volumes of heat or steam to customers to meet that efficiency rating. Finally we come to DISPOSAL which includes inefficient energy generation in incineration plants and also landfill.
In a twist to things a plant that meets R1 efficiency targets is STILL a disposal plant until it is granted recovery status.

Now rather conveniently for the UK government they use a waste hierarchy image as shown below which I consider to be incorrect as it blurs the lines between recovery and disposal in the waste hierarchy by using questionable wording.

The image shown below is the image in question and is used by DEFRA in their document

Energy from Waste a Guide to the Debate dated Feb 2014
 

 

Now reviewing the image it would be very easy to be misled into thinking that any incineration plant - including gasification is recovery in the waste hierarchy if it generates energy. The image appears to imply this is the case and as this image is commonly reproduced a gross misunderstanding takes place!

It is only when you take the chance to read other areas of the document that the issue of R1 and its application are considered and at that point you realise the difference between recovery and disposal. Obviously there are some who favour this blurring as it allows them to paint a picture of a project that makes it conveniently sound better than it is.

To aid you readers below is produced a series of statements from DEFRA from the document in relation to R1 and what is known as D10 disposal.

 

Recovery or disposal – the meaning of R1

47. As described above the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) sets out the waste hierarchy and enshrines it in law. It requires that a waste management route defined as recovery should be used ahead of an alternative that is classified as disposal. Exceptions can be made (see below) but this general principle makes it important to know whether a process is considered recovery or disposal. 

48. Historically the Waste Framework Directives have included annexes which set out lists of what are considered to be recovery or disposal operations. Each is given a number and a letter: R for recovery, D for disposal. In the current directive the classifications of particular relevance to energy from waste are: • R1 – Use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy • D10 – Incineration on land 

49. What this means is that where waste is burnt as a fuel to generate energy it can potentially be considered a recovery operation (R1) but where the purpose of incineration is to get rid of waste, it is considered D10 and hence disposal.  All municipal waste incinerators were and are deemed as disposal activities (D10) unless and until they are shown to meet the requirements of R1. This is why the term R1 often crops up in the debate about how good an energy from waste plant might be and how it compares to other options. 

50. For municipal solid waste, which includes all the waste collected from households, the EU has gone further by defining what it considers to be sufficient for recovery status under R1. The WFD includes a formula relating to the efficiency of the combustion plant. A municipal waste combustion plant can only be considered to be a recovery operation under R1 if it generates energy and the plant meets the efficiency thresholds calculated using the R1 formula

SO THAT IS THE OFFICIAL BLURB FROM DEFRA ON RECOVERY OR DISPOSAL PLANTS AS GOVERNED BY EU DIRECTIVES - WHICH STILL GOVERN THE UK SINCE BREXIT.

So returning to what the RRS / SHANKS representative said they teach students the plant is. they stated they teach students that the plant is a RECOVERY plant - which raises the issue of R1 as noted above.
When we consider R1 and the claims of the RRS / SHANKS representative we know what they are teaching children is false because at the 2nd planning inquiry the developer had to admit that their plant fails the R1 test in its standard mode.
If you tell children something that is false then in general it is usually considered a lie.
It is a lie in this case because staff employed in waste disposal and waste management will know the requirements of the waste hierarchy

 IT IS THEIR JOB.


©SIMON BACON 2016

Last one out DONT turn the lights off!

When the 55 meter chimney stack was installed on the Resource Recovery Solutions waste incineration plant it was lit up like a replacement for Christmas fairy lights!

When asked why so much lighting was required on the stack Resource Recovery Solutions representatives stated it was required by East Midlands Airport - who had the final say due to local aviation issues.

In recent weeks however there has been a serious issue with the stacks lighting system leading to the stack being unlit in the hours of darkness! This directly placed aviation at risk so it was important to raise this with the developer and its contractors.

Below is an image of the plant taken from Sainsburys car park showing the stack unlit.

In a article in the Derby Telegraph published after the event it was suggested that lighting of the stack - at 180 feet was not mandatory but the CAA and East Midlands Airport advice is that the stack should be lit in the hours or darkness and poor weather.

You can read more here

 http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Safety-lights-huge-Derby-chimney-stack-night/story-29158546-detail/story.html#CqH8vw2mrxSJHCrr.01

It was noted that there had been an intermittent fault reported in the day on the Wednesday and Thursday, if so this situation raises some serious questions in relation to safe management of the site when we consider that the site has 24 hour security.

Did the security guard monitor the stacks lighting - considering it was known there had been faults?

Surely the security guard would notice that the large stack was unlit! after all it did dominate the site and glow a menacing red shade!

It calls into question the developers ability to run a safe site when something as serious as this is able to happen over a number of days and takes so long to address.

 

©SIMON BACON 2016