BURNING COMPOSTABLE WASTE IS ROTTEN!

People who say it is good to burn compostable waste as it creates renewable energy are talking rot !

In the city of Derby UK a waste gasification incineration plant is under construction and one of the driving forces behind the development are government bungs known as ROCs for energy generated by burning biodegradable waste.
You can read more about ROCs and the Sinfin Lane waste gasification plant here-
 http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2018/05/get-ya-rocs-off.html
 

Judging by the amount of odour complaints about the plant before the plant is fully operational there is certainly something rotten about the proposal.

The council in Derby changed to a Conservative administration in May 2018 and part of their electioneering was to state they would return to a free garden waste collection service - after the previous Labour council removed the free garden and food waste service which had run all year and replaced it with a charged for service (£40) for a garden waste only part year service.
With the prospect of a return to a free service brings with it the ability to also accept food waste in the cities brown bin recycling scheme. Ever since the free collection was removed the council still continued to send garden waste to Vital Earth at Ashbourne in Derbyshire which runs an in vessel composting process which produces a sterile product from garden and food waste.
The key point here however is that when there was a charged for service the council could not collect food waste in the same recycling bin because it would be considered that the council was also charging for food waste collections - which is not legal under government regulations on waste disposal. Common sense should say that the food waste was an extra to the charged for garden service - which could have been seen as good as it would have diverted biodegradable waste from landfill and incineration but here at the Rubbish Blog we don't set government regulation.
The public of Derby will now be expecting the election pledge by the now Conservative council in the city to be put in place as soon as possible and there is talk of this happening in 2019 however little evidence of this proposal is currently in the public domain.
Residual waste inspections carried out in the city in Summer 2017 have led to a better understanding of what is the composition of the waste Derby residents place in their black residual waste bins.
What we know is that around 44% of the waste heading to the Sinfin waste incineration plant is a mix of garden and food waste.
So what is likely sinking in with Derby City Council is that there is 44% of their waste being shipped to be burnt in Sinfin which could potentially be processed a lot cheaper at Vital Earth in Ashbourne where the councils garden waste was composted in 2017/18 for just £31.53 per tonne after the council got a generous rebate of £10 per tonne of waste shipped to the site.
But how can the council make use of this cheap service - which would also boost the cities recycling rate by a vast amount when they are contractually required to feed the Sinfin waste incineration plant?
They are not only required in the contract to procure waste of specific characteristics, organic content, moisture content etc but also when investing a lump sum of £25 million into the project the lower the amount of waste sent to Sinfin the higher the per tonne cost the council faces when we divide the payment by tonnage sent which then undermines the councils business case.
Almost ten years down the line with the incineration plant still not handed over not only does the plant itself stink but so does the project the council has signed up to.

©SIMON BACON 2018
 

 



Permit to fly ?

 

"IN REACHING THE DECISION WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE PERMIT WILL ENSURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IS PROVIDED"

So stated the decision notice issued by the Environment Agency when transferring the waste permit for 201 Slack lane from Transcycle to Shows Waste Management.

 

Part of the transfer document is shown below

 

 

 

If EVER we needed an example of a statement not worth the paper it was written on it would have to be this statement when judged against the horrific fly infestation from the site which months later would overwhelm the community of Mackworth and New Zealand in Derby UK.

 

Reports suggest that the site was home to up to 5,000 tonnes of waste at the time news of the fly infestation hit the media and similar tonnages were confirmed at the public meeting held on 6th June which the sites owner attended.
 

BUT HOW MUCH WAS THE SITE PERMITTED TO HOUSE VIA THE SITES WASTE PERMIT - WHICH WAS TRANSFERED TO SHOWS WASTE MANAGEMENT?

The waste permit makes reference to two forms of waste - INERT and NON INERT
The waste permit defines INERT waste as follows

“inert waste”

means wastes which will not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. Inert waste will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm to human health. The total leachability and pollutant content of the waste and the ecotoxicity of the leachate must be insignificant and in particular not endanger the quality of surface water and/or groundwater;

 

NON INERT waste is not defined in the permit but should be taken to be the opposite definition to that shown for inert waste.

The company - Shows Waste Management as licence holder appears in the permit to but permitted to hold on site the following

 

INERT WASTE - 2,400 TONNES

NON INERT WASTE- 350 TONNES

 

This is shown in the following picture from the permit

 

 

 

Now even before considering if the material that has caused the smell and fly infestation is inert or not with a combined total tonnage of 2,750 tonnes of waste acceptable to be housed on site Shows Waste Management has completely failed to meet its permit targets and requirements - noting previous suggestions that the site held up to 5,000 tonnes.

 

Now if we are to consider that the material COULD be non inert waste then it is clear that the company in question as license holder has completely failed to meet its duties as a responsible waste management facility. Even if considered inert Shows Waste Management has failed the community it is housed in and must face robust action by the authorities.

 

Talking of robust action the permit comes across as being a robust instrument for controlling the waste site. 

 

Here are some examples

 

"Treatment for disposal of no more than 50 tonnes per day"

 

"Quantities of waste stored on site shall not exceed the maximum permitted storage capacities"

 

 

 

 

"Minimum staffing and supervision

1.3.1     Whenever the site is open to receive or dispatch wastes, or is carrying out any of the specified waste management operations, it shall be supervised by at least two members of staff who is suitably trained and fully conversant with the requirements of the licence regarding:

a    waste acceptance and control procedures;

b    operational controls;

c    maintenance;

d    record-keeping;

e    emergency action plans;

f     notifications to the Agency."

 

"b)       Odorous wastes, including wastes which are likely to be odour producing during storage

 

 

 

i)        These wastes only permitted if:

·        received in sealed containers and stored in sealed containers and in areas provided with impermeable pavement and sealed drainage; or

·        stored in covered buildings providing containment of aerial emissions; or

·        stored in bays provided with an impermeable pavement and sealed drainage.

ii)       These wastes shall be subject to monitoring in accordance with condition 5.2 and shall in any case not be stored for longer than 48 hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Agency."

 

 

 

"5.2                   Monitoring and control of odorous emissions

5.2.1                Measures shall be implemented and maintained throughout the operational life of the site to control and monitor emissions of odours from the site, in accordance with the standards specified in Table 5.2.

5.2.2                All emissions to air from the specified waste management operations on the site shall be free from odours at levels as are likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenity of the locality outside the site boundary, as perceived by an authorised officer of the Agency."

"5.3                   Monitoring and control of pest infestations

5.3..1                Measures shall be implemented and maintained throughout the operational life of the site to control and monitor the presence of pests on the site, in accordance with the standards specified in Table 5.3. The objective of these measures shall be to prevent pest infestations that are likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenity of the locality."

 

                      Important sections of the environmental protection act 1990

 Section 33

Prohibits under penalty the deposit, treatment, keeping or disposal of controlled waste in or on any land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a Waste Management Licence.

Non compliance with any licence condition may lead to prosecution under this Section.  A person who contravenes Section 33 subsection (1) shall, subject to subsection (7), be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 (six) months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 (at the date of issue of this licence) or both, or on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 (two) years or a fine or both, or in relation to special waste for a term not exceeding 5 (five) years or a fine or both.

 

Section 34

Places a duty on any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste to take all such measures applicable to him or her as are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent any other person contravening Section 33, and to prevent the escape of waste from his control or that of any other person and, on the transfer of the waste, to ensure that it is only to an authorised person, or to a person for authorised transport purposes, and that a written description is transferred with it.

A person who contravenes Section 34 subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 (at the date of issue of this licence) or on conviction on indictment to a fine.

Section 40

If the licence holder wishes to transfer the licence to another person ("the transferee,") the licence holder and the transferee shall jointly make an application to the Environment Agency (enclosing the prescribed fee). The Agency will not effect the transfer unless it is satisfied that the transferee is a Fit and Proper Person.

 

Section 59

The Environment Agency is empowered to require the removal of any controlled waste deposited in breach of Section 33(1), or to require the undertaking of such works as are required to reduce or eliminate the consequences of such deposits.

 

SO WITH ALL THIS IN MIND HOW HAS THE WASTE SITE IN MACKWORTH DERBY BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP INTO A SITUATION WHERE WASTE WAS ABLE TO BUILD UP AND BECOME A BREEDING GROUND FOR PLAGUES OF FLIES THAT WENT ON TO BLIGHT A WHOLE COMMUNITY?

 

OH TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY OFFICES