The only TWO options are the SIX options they really considered!

 When are two options not really two options? Well when Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council are involved it is usually when the councils are claiming to the public there are only two options to be considered for the controversial Sinfin incinerator - the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Treatment Centre on Sinfin Lane in Derby. 

The councils claimed as follows in November 2021.

"Cabinet members at Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council will be asked to approve a recommendation to develop a business case for the future of the waste treatment facility in Sinfin at their respective Council Cabinet meetings later today.

The business case compares two options:

•            To rectify and use the facility and,

•            To close the facility and dispose of the councils’ waste using a third party.

The business case will be developed over the next few months. Once complete, both councils will reconvene to review and decide how to proceed."

So it was fix it and use it, or dump it. No more than that, no suggestion that there was a raft of alternative options! options that could be considered as an alternative for the site in Sinfin Lane. The reality however was rather different to the picture the councils painted to the public back in November 2021 when they were considering the future of the site. 

Now us mere resident nobodies were excluded from the meetings of the council cabinets and had at the time no access to the cabinet documents or in the case of Derby City also access to the documents provided to the councils Executive Scrutiny Board which met the day before the cabinet meetings in question. Obviously they had nothing to hide being so open and transparent as this - it is perfectly normal to hide all the documents on the subject from residents because come on there are two options being considered, the councils said so and so that must be true right?

WRONG!

 THERE WERE SIX OPTIONS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED !

Clearly in the interests of being open and transparent the councils decided to only tell the public they were considering TWO options. Maybe the councils thought that the public could not handle all this information that they would face so wanted to protect the public from this - or maybe they just set out to mislead the public into thinking there were only two options being considered!

As a resident of Derby and also a member of the Sinfin plants Community Liaison Group (CLG) personally I consider that the councils set out to mislead the public when issuing their statements because the councils clearly want to pitch repairing and using the plant - which just so happens to tick all of the boxes in the strategic aims against complete closure which ticked almost none of the boxes. We all know that it is very easy to formulate a set of tests to gain the result you want which in my view is why it was important for the councils to keep the other options hidden from the public because some of them could be considered to be better options in the public eye than the councils want - and obviously that would never do!

A Freedom of Information / Environmental Information request was submitted in November 2021 for the documents from the meeting to Derby City Council. The council managed to fob off my request for far longer than is usually considered acceptable by blaming issues around work levels at the council department in question. Finally they had to issue the documents to me - although in a redacted state there was enough left un redacted for readers to identify that unlike the claimed two options considered there were actually SIX options being considered. Ranging from full repair to closure but also including use of specific sections of the plant to produce refuse derived fuel or to act as a waste transfer site and also even an option considering leasing or selling the site off to a third party.

So what could possibly be the reason for the councils only telling the public there were two options being considered? Surely from past experience they would know that some members of the public would cast their eye over the situation and even make a Freedom Of Information request - FOI or its Environmental brother the EIR. It is not clear why someone somewhere decided to make a public statement that they were to consider two options because surely it would be better to admit to six options while saying two would be considered further. By doing so they would be open and transparent and this would encourage public trust.

So obviously I had to make a request to Derby City Council for the documents from the November 2021 Scrutiny Board meeting and Council Cabinet meetings which took place in an attempt to help the councils to be open and transparent because clearly it is something they struggle with! So that is where it became clear scattered between the heavily redacted texts that there was a broader series of options.

Option ONE was to fix and use the full plant - but on that option the councils redacted all the text relating to RISK 

Being open and transparent the councils clearly have nothing to hide by errr hiding all the risks being considered!

We know that even if "fixed" the inefficient plant which is considered a disposal plant at the bottom of the waste hierarchy will be even worse from an efficiency perspective because the document tells us this!

Also strangely no acknowledgement of fly related issues in the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned.

Option TWO was a secret option ssshhhh dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to use the front end of the plant which was the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and the Mechanical Biological Treatment section (MBT) to create a refuse derived fuel (RDF) to be burnt off site. No acknowledgement of fly related issues on the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned. No reference to odour related objections. 

Option THREE was another secret option ssshhhh dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to only use the MRF as a "dirty" MRF to extract some recyclables from the waste before shredding the waste and sending it out as an RDF fuel to be burnt off site. No acknowledgement of fly related issues in the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned. Strangely refers to odour issues - which it strangely did not refer to in option two.

Option FOUR was another secret option ssshhhh dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to use the site as a waste transfer station where the waste would be bulked up and not treated on site before being sent for disposal elsewhere. No acknowledgement of fly related issues in the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned.

Option FIVE is the option of closure of the plant - the residents all time favourite option but sadly it appears not the councils favourite option but one which is a useful tool for pushing through the councils favoured option of fixing and using the plant. This option which almost without fail successfully gives the answer NO to the councils selected strategic aims plays a key part in the councils consideration as it is the only other option they told the public about!

Option SIX was the final ssshhhh secret option dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to sell or lease the plant to the private market. The document indicates that soft marketing along those lines did not turn up any interested parties in the purchase or lease of the plant.

 Maybe the fact that nobody is interested should be taken on board by the councils when considering if they themselves should attempt to fix and use the plant!

The councils in their documents go on to point score options 1-5 in relation to strategic fit. They do not consider option 6 (sale or lease) as they conclude it is not a likely option - considering no parties came forward via soft marketing.

The point scoring was as follows

We can see from the strategic fit criteria that as expected repair and use is ranked 1st compared to closure as ranked joint 4th.

It is not possible to judge the councils approach to the options financial fit because that section of the documents has a sponsorship deal with a redaction pen company and so it is not possible currently to understand the costs involved in relation to the SIX sorry TWO options the councils told the public they were considering. 

The councils are going through the motions attempting to convince the public they are considering long term closure of the site while running up ever higher multi million pound maintenance bills and considering the out of date plant at the bottom of the waste hierarchy against a joint waste strategy that will be out of date in 2026.

Surely they would not invest heavily in old technology that has been shown to be even less efficient than planned and unable to meet the requirements of the current joint waste contract never mind the expected efficiency you would expect of a future waste strategy that works to head towards net zero! 

©SIMON BACON 2022

 

The Sinfin Incinerator has more than a spanner in the works!

 The Derby and Derbyshire Waste Treatment Centre – or the Sinfin Incinerator to Derby residents was built in recent years on Sinfin Lane, Derby UK after a protracted battle by the community starting in 2008/9 to stop the project being built.

The plant was constructed to handle 190,000 tonnes of waste from Derby and Derbyshire as part of a waste contract with RRS (Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd) which was a vehicle for Renewi and Interserve as parent companies. 

The plan was to extract metals and hard plastics for recycling from incoming waste in the MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) although the target rate was less than 10%. The process was then to dry a percentage of the waste in an MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) and finally create RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) which is then burnt (gasified to use the developers term) to produce steam to generate electricity for sale. 

A percentage of the waste when burnt attracts ROC’s (Renewable Obligation Certificates) due to that percentage being biodegradable and so considered renewable.

 The project it has been suggested has cost around £150 million which was funded via a series of banks including the Green Investment Bank. The project was based on Energos incineration technology using a gasification process which it was claimed had long standing operational history in Norway, Energos went into administration part way through the plants construction.

The Environment Agency permit the plant as an incinerator.

With such a large budget and many aspects of the plant being supplied by experienced technology developers and installers overseen by Interserve Construction you would expect a smooth construction and commissioning process. Noting the delay since first planned you would expect the project to develop over time using new designs and technology as it came forward.

The plant through the commissioning process has been a regular blight on the local community creating odour, noise and fly issues which only ended when the facility closed in August 2019.

The liaison group at the plant made up of councillors, resident members and staff from the councils and contractors along with guests such as the Environment Agency and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust sat through meeting after meeting while Interserve and Renewi kept talking about tests being completed etc. The talk was that the plant was weeks away from completing its tests – but it was always just weeks away from completing those tests.

Finally the councils pulled the plug on the contract – before awarding a replacement contract to Renewi – one of the parent companies of RRS who are now employed to clean and maintain the facility while trying to get the councils out of the mess they find themselves in.

The public now have access to the full waste contract and Inter Authority Agreement after the UK Information Commissioner ruled that the contracts should be made public (but that is another story).

 it became clear there was a Service Delivery Plan that was put together around the time that the contract for the plant was terminated. A copy of this has since been provided by the plants liaison group including a faults list put together in October 2019

 22/10/2019

The plants front end is the acceptance pit – where the waste is tipped and then the MRF – Materials Recovery Facility where waste is sorted to extract metals and rigid plastics and also the MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment. This section was the starting point for waste inputs and was the first section to have long term testing as commissioning was taking place.

The report indicates it has not been demonstrated that the front end MRF/MBT can provide enough RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel to maintain performance of the ACT (the three incineration lines). This led to the input pit overflowing delaying delivery of waste to the site – which was seen at times at the site and in the local community.

Cranes in the MBT suffered repeat breakdowns.

MRF multiple breakdowns and blockages including shredder breakdowns.

MRF – Not complying with the agreed facility recycling target with no evidence that acceptance tests can be passed.

MRF target recycling rate was only 7.4% but actual rate was just 4.8% with suggestions that 2019 tests not carried out under normal operational conditions.

MRF recycling purity poor – document suggests the lower the purity the higher performance – not rocket science – shove it through to get material through the process will always lead to poor results.

MRF air knife used for sorting plastics materials for recycling was failing as there were high levels of plastic film in the rigid plastic bales.

ACT (Incineration lines) in previous 12 months only processed 51% of the waste diversion target.

Each of the smoke tube boilers on each of the 3 line plant failed twice in commissioning.

ACT (Incineration lines) overheated when all 3 lines of the plant ran.

ACT (Incineration lines) overheating of CEMS – CEMS is the monitoring. equipment – facility cannot lawfully operate if CEMS is not operational.

ACT (Incineration hall) ambient temperature in the hall caused an unsafe working environment.

Shotball system for cleaning boiler tubes unreliable.

ACT (Incineration lines) numerous valve faults.

Kone Cranes – numerous faults causing unreliable service.

Issues with access for maintenance.

Instrumentation not recording data due to being set to simulation mode.

Alarms incorrectly set and inhibited.

Income from electrical generation significantly lower than base case.

Significant risk that ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) will not be available.

Turbine appears to have a 2MW shortfall in power production compared to that expected from design data.

Turbine and generator cannot be safely lifted or removed.

Syngas analysers that are permanently installed to gather data for ROCs do not work.

Ofgem audit relating to ROCs queries the basis for accreditation.

Odours leading to non-compliance with Environmental Permit and preventing use of onsite offices on welfare grounds.

Bio Filter not preventing odour emissions.

Fugitive emissions from MBT hall detected on Sinfin Lane.

Fugitive emissions from MBT bunker detected in B&Q and Sainsburys.

Fugitive emissions into administration block make offices unusable. When ACT is shut down this includes into the control room.

Carbon Monoxide in ash bunker and basement requires vent system – no scientific or engineering data to back up the design objectives.

Firewalls not completed / certified to allow insurability and comply with fire protection plan.

Excess levels of noise.

Roller doors not safe to operate due to failed components and design defects.

Recycling baler not fastening bales correctly leading to safety issues.

Insufficient documentation to operate the plant safely.

No Final Health and Safety file.

No commissioning records since Sept/Oct 2018.

Licence expired on optical sorters.

Education Centre sprinkler system not installed.

Leachate (liquids from waste) not draining from waste pit.

Corrosion of structural steel in RDF pit.

Electrical Safety – junction boxes not earthed, inadequate labelling.

It is not clear how a project overseen by multiple councils and contractors supported by paid advisors has managed to construct a £150 million white elephant which has now been closed for 18 months.

Councils often say that lessons will be learnt.

 If ever there were lessons councils across the UK should learn from this saga it is do NOT take advice from Derby City and Derbyshire County Council's on waste management! 

©SIMON BACON 2021

He was a fool to make refuse derived fuel!

It is four long years since the great fly and odour saga of Mackworth Derby UK and for many it is now a distant memory put to the back of residents minds.

But oh to be a fly on the wall at Shows Waste Management back in 2016 when the local media placed it's attention on this company that had been working away in the back streets of Mackworth making refuse derived fuel known as RDF used in incineration plants to generate power.

Issues had been ongoing in the local area since late 2015 but with an explosion in flies and odour as the weather warmed in early 2016 the odour hit the fan and the media was all over it like err FLIES!

To learn more about what the Environment found on a site visit in 2016 it is well worth checking out my blog post from July 2016.

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-be-fly-on-wall.html

It is anyone's guess as to why it has taken four years to reach court but it finally arrived in Southern Derbyshire Magistrates Court in early February where two of the directors of Shows Waste Management Warren Steele and Samantha Turton faced charges of breaking environmental rules while operating the site. It is not currently clear why Samantha's husband Wayne Turton who was also a director was not also party to the case as he was a director for the period in question while Warren Steele was a director until late December 2015. 

At the court case in February 2020 local paper The Derby Evening Telegraph reports that Warren Steele pleaded guilty to the charges put to him however Samantha Turton pleaded not guilty and asked for the case to be heard at Derby Crown Court. This report by Carl Slater from The Derby Telegraph made front page news.

Warren Steele was later sentenced for his part in the terrible fly and odour situation that unfolded in 2015/16 in the Derby UK suburb of Mackworth. Mr Steele was given a Community Order requiring him to to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work and required to pay £10,000 towards the prosecution costs in a case heard at Derby Crown Court.

A full report by the Environment Agency can be read here  

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/director-of-firm-that-caused-fly-infestation-and-odour-sentenced

The case continues as the other director in the case Samantha Turton is due in court at a later date as the case has been delayed due to Covid19.

©SIMON BACON 2020 

How to save money? make someone else pay!

Back in February 2019 it was becoming clear that Derbyshire Dales District Council were proposing to remove their previously free garden waste recycling service and replace it with a charged for service just at the time that in reverse Derby City Council were returning their garden waste service to a free service in an attempt to boost the recycling service in the city.

A vast improvement in tonnage of garden waste collected has already been noted by Derby City Council in response to a recent public question at Full Council. 

Between 01/04/19 and 31/10/19 the council collected 10,264 tonnes of organic waste compared to 3,786 tonnes for the same period in 2018.

This means an increased collection of 6,478 tonnes 

So with this obvious benefit which can be seen by the results of Derby City Council why have Derbyshire Dales suddenly moved the other way? 

WELL

It could have something to do with if sly old Derbyshire Dales District Council can get residents to put their waste into the residual waste bin instead because people will say I AM NOT PAYING THAT then its happy days -

 BECAUSE DERBYSHIRE DALES DISTRICT COUNCIL DO NOT PAY FOR RESIDUAL WASTE DISPOSAL AS THAT COST IS MET BY DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL !

You can read more about that here in my blog post from 2019 

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2019/02/something-is-rotten-in-derbyshire-dales.html

So where are we now?
Local Democracy Reporter at the Derby Telegraph newspaper Eddie Bisknell wrote a report in late December 2019 that Derbyshire Dales District Council had now agreed to apply a FIFTY POUND garden waste charge !
Eddie reports that Councillors "wished there was another option on the table" With waste disposal costs facing an increase of over £2 million the council say this cost increase Is not affordable without there being an affect on residents.
BUT
As we know by forcing garden waste into the residual waste stream it WILL impact on local residents by putting a cost pressure on the County Council instead while also making residents pay!
The charged for service begins in Spring 2021 unless prior to this the UK government put in place changes in garden waste disposal legislation. 

©SIMON BACON 2020 

The plant pot that went to Full Council !

Single use plastic in the many forms it now comes in is a hot topic across the globe as it blocks rivers, streams and beaches. News is published it seems daily of one risk or other to wildlife and the human race and this focus is now bringing change - or at least it is when those trying to change are supported by those locally in power who can support and aid change.

When it comes to single use plastics if they cannot be designed out then they must at the very least be recyclable AND collected for recycling. There is little point in making a product recyclable if the infrastructure is not there to handle the product at end of life so that it can once again be returned as a resource to the manufacturers to complete the recycling circle.

A prime example of a single use plastic item which currently struggles to be recycled are plastic plant pots which can be found in almost all gardens across the UK as the public carry out the yearly ritual of planting out summer flowers. Many of these pots are made from polypropylene often called PP for short. Recycling should not be an issue as this plastic is already widely recycled in the UK when gathered in the recycling stream of household materials but there is a problem and that problem is that most of the plant pots are made from black polypropylene and as many of us know black plastic can rarely be sorted at UK materials recycling facilities because the sorting machines cannot see black plastics.

As single use plastics became more of a media story and as TV programs such as Gardeners World began to focus on the issue change began to take place in horticulture as pot manufacturers began producing alternative pots in specific shades which are now beginning to catch on. Taupe and blue are just two shades of recyclable plant pots now being sold into the horticultural industry.

It was with this in mind and with being employed in horticulture where I have spoken to many concerned customers that I decided I needed to take this up directly with my local council and so back in February 2019 a blue recyclable plant pot made by the manufacturer Poppelmann under their TEKU brand made it's way to the council chamber in Derby UK where I asked on it's behalf if the council would now finally accept such plant pots for recycling in the cities co-mingled waste recycling scheme.

.....

So that was a NO at that point but after the meeting I continued to push the issue of accepting recyclable plant pots by continuing to engage with the council cabinet member and staff from the councils recycling dept in Derby. They were provided with information directly from the manufacturers website

 https://www.poeppelmann.com/en/teku/advantages/more-resource-saving/ 

I thought having provided the manufacturers specific information on the product it would answer all the councils questions along with those of their current recycling processor Biffa Waste Services who would be the ones actually sorting and selling on the material.

One of the main sticking points claimed by the council was that Biffa their current contractor was concerned about the plant pots being contaminated with soil which they felt was a bacteria risk. Now this could be considered a risk if all the OTHER plastics collected by the council were clean and sterile but as we all know in the real world they are far from clean and likely carry just as many if not more bacteria of concern so to me this is just a fob off because the plastic in question does not have a high value. Lets face it plastics will be cleaned prior to being melted down so the councils contractor faces few risks. 

As someone who has worked with such scary soil daily in my work in horticulture it sounds like I am lucky to be alive if we trust the council and their contractor Biffa's concerns!

To take this blog post full circle I felt it only fair to once again ask the council about the potential for plant pot recycling having given them a number of months to digest my request.

Council cabinet member for waste Councillor Jonathan Smale stated the following.

" We are continuing to work with our suppliers to extend the offer to residents around recycling, we will continue this process with our future contacts as well.  At present under the current contract we cannot accept these materials, however, this is all being looked at with our new contract.

With regards to the consultant we are working with for the re-tendering of the dry recyclable and garden waste contracts, this consultant is Eunomia. We are also hoping DEFRA gives us some clear direction on the future waste strategy."

We can only hope that the councils advisers and DEFRA push the likes of Derby City Council in the direction of plant pot recycling instead of the potty idea that plant pot recycling is something to fear. 

©SIMON BACON 2019

No wonder we are drowning in plastic!

As 2019 dawns after all the media coverage of the plastic issue in 2018 then we all must look at the waste we produce - only then will we understand what needs to change.

As luck would have it back in January 2018 seeing all the plastic film I appeared to generate that couldn't be recycled I decided to collect all of this plastic over the period of the year - limiting it mainly to outer wrappers on many products which either showed no recycling information or claimed the material could not currently be recycled.

As 2019 then dawned how much waste material had I gathered from myself and my family of cats?

 

 

ALMOST A BATH TUB FULL !

A blend mainly of chocolate bar outers, biscuit packs, oven chip packaging and cat food outers along with some clear vegetable packaging I was struck by a few things. Firstly I eat to much chocolate - but then really I always knew that but more importantly how little of this material is recyclable - or even marked with any recycling information.

Sorting through the waste was quite an insight - if it was a chocolate bar outer it almost always carried no recycling information.

 

 

This led to me sorting out a whole bin bag full of wrappers displaying no recycling info

 

 

How could it be that in 2018 such big name producers of chocolate products as Nestle, Cadbury and Mars could get away with this?

 

There was one or two glimmers of hope as it became clear some of the waste - some biscuit wrappers and chocolate bar wrappers marketed by the likes of Mcvities could potentially be recycled if they were sent to a business called Terracycle - which specialises in recycling hard to recycle products which cannot be recycled at the kerbside - but even with Terracycle it is not an ideal situation to have to create waste to recycle waste - by shipping waste back to Terracycle.

 

This then also left me with a collection of rather stretchy plastic film packaging that looked very much like LDPE plastic - but even though it LOOKED like it once again the packaging either said nothing about recyclability or stated it wasn't currently recycled.

Much of this waste was found to be Sainsburys home brand products - all stretchy plastics but all claiming not currently recycled.

 

 

It was time to investigate - and I didn't have to look far to be able to confirm that yes that stretchy plastic that kind of looked like LDPE plastic WAS LDPE plastic - and so could actually be recycled at supermarket carrier bag recycling points. But why market products in your stores which CAN be recycled and then not show this on the packaging?

Other big brand similar products also displaying either questionable recycling information or no information marketed by McCains (oven chips), Aunt Bessies (oven chips) and Butchers Pet Care (outer cling wrap on multi pack cat food) have all now been confirmed by the manufacturers as also being LDPE so yet more waste I thought was not recyclable will be going to a supermarket recycling point soon - lets empty the bath!

But just like a bath tub there is an issue with recycling plastic film that's left me feeling a bit drained!

A number of waste management companies now claim that there is no market for plastic film - even if collected for recycling.

How can we be in a position where it is considered better to make plastic film from new raw materials than to recycle waste plastic back into new replacement products?

Then we wonder why so much waste goes to landfill and incineration!

 

  ©SIMON BACON 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

The brown bin charge is dead! Long live free recycling!

The brown bin recycling charge has been binned in the city of Derby UK!

Turning the tide of charges for garden waste collection which is gradually crippling recycling in the UK

 (as recycling is based on weight and garden waste is a heavy component of any recycling scheme)
 

The Conservative council which was voted into power in the May local election put forward in their election manifesto a return to a free collection.

Prior to this the poor residents of the city had to pay £40 for the service which didn't even last all year!

Back in 2012/13 the council collected almost 20,000 tonnes of garden and food waste which was sent for in vessel composting outside of the city via a free service.

Fast forward to 2017/18 and that tonnage had shrunk to less that 4,400 tonnes of waste composted which was clearly linked to not just the £40 charge but also the fact food waste was no longer accepted and the service was restricted to specific 32 weeks of the year.
 

The charge had devastated the recycling rate at Derby City Council and it is now hoped this will help recycling turn a corner in the city.
 

The return of food waste collections in with the garden waste collection over the full 52 week year takes us back in a positive direction which was previously removed because food waste cannot be processed in a charged for service due to government regulation.
 

Recent residual waste surveys carried out in the city by the council identified that a massive 44% of waste gathered in the cities residual waste bins was garden and food waste.

In 2017/18 the city paid just £31.53 per tonne for its garden waste to be composted in an in vessel process at Ashbourne in Derbyshire.

This compares to the same waste entering the Resource Recovery Solutions residual waste contract where total contract waste costs for 2017/18 were roughly £91.57 per tonne -
a difference of around £60.
A return to a recycling rate of 20,000 tonnes could save the council over £900,000 per year! the council could save a great deal more if it diverted the 44% of compostable garden and food waste from the residual waste bin into the brown composting bin.
Well it could but there is a catch !

Currently the residual waste is sent to be burnt in a D10 disposal gasification incineration plant in Sinfin, Derby.
The council is paying a set fee of £25 million towards the plants construction - which is hopelessly behind schedule.
The less waste that the council sends to that plant the more per tonne fee that becomes when you add the cost to the per tonne charge the council will pay.
The council has contractually agreed to send waste of specific characteristics to be burnt in Sinfin and that includes an agreement to supply waste of a minimum biodegradable content - along with other specific requirements.
The following statement from the brown bin cabinet document shows how the incineration plant contract has its claws into the garden waste recycling project.

Any reduction in biodegradable content sent by the council to the Sinfin Lane plant in Derby will be looked on in a bad way by the operator of the residual waste contract - Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) or as we know them RRS because in a twist they have been awarded ROCs - Renewable Obligation Certificates for electricity generated from the burning of the biodegradable waste - ROCs have a value and RRS will be able to bank them!
Paying a government bung for burning such waste in an inefficient disposal plant basically rewards FAILURE!

 ©SIMON BACON 2018

 

 

 

 

 

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
 

 



IT'S GLOBAL RECYCLING DAY 2018

IT'S GLOBAL RECYCLING DAY FOLKS - SUNDAY 18TH MARCH 218
So it would be rude not to take a look at Derby City Council who are busily promoting this day on their twitter feed.
Let's take a look at the city and its recent exposure on the BBC News website regarding the fall in recycling in 14 million homes in the UK.
When considering league tables usually the higher you, your team OR in this case your local council are towards the top of the league this is considered better - its the target.  But when that league table is a table of FAILING councils and in this case the decline in the councils ability to recycle the last thing you want is to be at the top of your league!

In recent weeks the BBC has published an article about household waste recycling rates

 

RECYCLING RATE FALLS FOR 14 MILLION HOMES IN ENGLAND!

 

 

This is an in depth report into the fall in recycling rates in England and can be read here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43197454

 

What the article highlights is that Derby - the home of this blog had the 2nd biggest decline in recycling between 2011/12 and 2016/17 and the articles graph on this subject is reproduced here please visit the link above to read the full story.

 

Source - BBC NEWS

 

What this shows is that Derby came second only to Hartlepool when it came to the collapse in recycling. If the data was pushed back to 2010/11 that collapse would be even greater. For a wider look at recycling rates in Derby the image below sets out recycling right back to 2005/6.

 

 

What the graph above shows is that the 2016/17 recycling rate was actually lower than the 2007/8 rate for recycling meaning in the course of the last nine years in Derby UK we got nowhere!

The BBC article reports how Derby city council stated-

"its recycling rates had fallen after it made changes to its recycling collection services in 2014, but said rates had increased in the past two years.

It said it had taken away "kerbside blue bin recycling" from some areas of the city "due to high levels of contamination" but was "reaching out" to people who had put the non-recyclable rubbish in the wrong bin."

 

The reality is that the councils recycling service started to decline after a peak of 48% in 2010/11 which was prior to changes made by the council.

The introduction of a controversial garden waste charge scheme led to high volumes of previously recycled garden and food waste being diverted into the residual black bin. Recycling rates are based on weight and so garden and food waste play a key part in recycling schemes.

Although this slaughtered the councils recycling rate they also removed recycling from large areas of the city claiming residents contaminated their recycling bins. The BBC article implies that the council said it was reaching out to people who had put the non recyclable rubbish in the wrong bin.

It is not clear what the council is trying to do by making such claims - a recent FOI / EIR request confirmed that circa 9,000 properties did not have a kerbside recycling collection and it should also be noted that the bring sites installed as replacements are being removed due to them becoming fly tip grot spots. The council removed the blue bin recycling service - they are not reaching out to anyone and recently refused my requests for the service to be returned to the communities now new Public Protection Officers are working in the city to address bins on streets etc

You can read more about that here

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/recycling-now-is-time-to-give-it-back.html  

 

It may be #GlobalRecyclingDay but here in Derby UK the council is top of the league in excuses as to WHY their recycling is so poor. 

 

 

 

 ©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