Plastics fantastic - but always work to reduce and recycle it!

It was back in November 2015 I first engaged with Asaf Afzal - the cabinet member for waste at Derby City Council in relation to the recycling of plastic film material at the Raynesway Household Waste Recycling Centre. After all the media coverage of the carrier bag tax - the 5 pence charge for carrier bags at larger stores it got me thinking if such material can be recycled - and it can as other councils already accept such material at the kerbside or at bring sites then why is Derby not doing so?

It is now widely noted that the recycling rate in Derby has collapsed - much of it due to the garden waste scheme becoming a charged for service but then the cities rate has actually been falling for years since a high in 2010/11. More on that can be read about here

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/recycling-going-dooooowwwnnn.html

This calls for an increase in the drive to recycle otherwise the council will fail to meet its 55% target by 2020 - a figure they already seem to be downgrading to 50% because they can see they wont make their enhanced target which it set with the County Council when coming together in a joint waste contract.

Now plastic film can be made from a number of plastic types but is commonly low density polyethylene commonly known as LDPE. This can be anything from a humble plastic carrier bag through to larger pieces of material such as what protects large white goods etc. It is important to recycle this material which replaces the use of new natural resources and also stops it from being landfilled or incinerated.

I therefore attended the Full Council meeting in Derby on November 25th 2015 to raise the issue of recycling such material in the city - which would boost the flagging recycling rate in Derby.

The question was as follows

 Question from Simon Bacon to Councillor Afzal 

The city council does not accept plastic film in the kerbside recycling scheme unlike some other councils in the UK. Plastic film needs to be recycled to keep it out of landfill or incineration.  
Can the public recycle plastic film types of plastic at the Raynesway HWRC site? 

The response was as follows

 

No, the public cannot recycle plastic film types at Raynesway The material is of very low value, is usually in small pieces and contaminated with food waste. This type of material can also lead to maintenance problems at the materials recovery facility (where materials are sorted and processed); the film becomes entangled in the belts and rollers leading to breakdowns on the processing lines.

The problem with Cllr Afzals reply was he was looking at the issue from a kerbside collection aspect instead of a dedicated plastic film skip at the Rayneway site sent to a dedicated plastic film recycler.

I followed up my question with a supplementary question placing greater focus on a dedicated skip sent to a dedicated plastic film recycler and he said he would look into it and speak to me outside the meeting.

 

THINGS WERE LOOKING POSITIVE!

OR SO I THOUGHT!

 

Giving it a few days I emailed Cllr Afzal in early December with views and information on the subject - including links to the recycling of such material at Suffolk HWRC sites. I got no response until late December when Cllr Afzal claimed he had not got my email. It was January 12th before he came back to me with a full response on the proposal.

He declined to put in place plastic film recycling at Raynesway and stated he had spoken to their contractors (the site is run under a contract with Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd who just happen to be building a controversial waste incineration plant in the city) and they had concluded that as it was low value and low in weight it was not viable to recycle the material and this issue was compounded by a suggested lack of space at the site.

It seems that Councillor Afzal and Derby City Council have lost sight of why we recycle! we do so to reuse materials to stop their disposal via landfill and incineration, to protect natural resources and to boost recycling figures - which are already in a dire position. 

In an interesting twist while reviewing the joint waste contract between the councils and Resource Recovery Solutions it was found that there was even a requirement to collect plastics separately INCLUDING plastic film at HWRC sites. Schedule 1 of the contract stated as follows.

 

Schedule 1 states

6.10.3 The Contractor shall provide capacity to segregate the following non exhaustive list of Contract Waste types for Re-Use, Recycling, Composting or Recovery:

 

6.10.3.10 Other plastic including film and carrier bags

 

So in black and white in the very contract that is controlling so much of the cities waste these days we have a requirement for the waste contractor to segregate plastic film and carrier bags.

What has been Councillor Afzals response when the waste contract was raised in relation to plastic film?

At this moment in time it is not viable to recycle this material. 

 

Once again an example of the council failing to grasp the need to recycle and so failing to reap the rewards of an increased recycling rate - which Derby is crying out for!

 





©SIMON BACON 2016

 





Derby City Council - The public are being robbed! Derby and its unfair share!

With just over a year to go until the Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) waste gasification incineration plant is completed on the ex tannery site on Sinfin Lane, Sinfin, Derby we find that Derby City Council's thoughts are turning to the payment they will be due to make to their contractor Shanks as their share of the build costs from the joint waste contract with Derbyshire County Council. Due to enter service on April 1st 2017 - no seriously April Fools day the plants construction is well under way with the recent construction of the plants 55 metre high smoke stack that now dominates the local community - even glowing a sinister shade of red at night.

The stack is to the left end of the storage container

The new stack looms over the local bowling alley at night

 

A Derby City Council document submitted for the 20th January 2016 cabinet meeting shows that the council are already lining up their payment of £25 MILLION

 

So that's £25 million to be paid in just over a years time when the plant starts accepting contract waste - the total payment by the councils being £50 million paid as an equal share by both councils.

We know its being paid as an equal share because the waste contract tells us this - in the image below.

Now when paying an equal share in a relationship such as this you would expect the councils to be equal partners. Derby City Council - and so its residents already have to host the controversial waste incineration plant while the county faces none of the controversial issues such a plant brings.

SO IS THIS AN EQUAL PARTNERSHIP?

IT WOULD APPEAR NOT!

The Inter Authority Agreement between the councils sets out issues around what they call the NWTF which is the New Waste Treatment Facility - which is being built on Sinfin Lane. Most of us call it what it is - an incineration plant.

An equal partnership would be a 50/50 split in everything - from the payments the councils are to make through to the plants projected use.

While the councils are indeed paying equal shares do they get equal benefit?

 

Paying 50% of the council payment towards the build cost of the plant - £25 million should allow Derby City Council to send 50% of the waste to the 190,000 tonne a year plant.

BUT!

Derby City Council DOES NOT collect 95,000 tonnes of residual waste! 

DEFRA waste findings published in December 2015 for the year 2014/15 highlight that the city council collected 114,800 tonnes of waste BUT after recycling is taken into account it only collected 79,320 tonnes of residual waste! leaving the council over 15,600 tonnes short!

 

So why are Derby City Council and its residents getting the raw deal here!

PAY 50% OF THE BUILD CHARGE WITHOUT THE SAME BENEFITS OF YOUR PARTNER!

Once again the residents of Derby are being short changed - and at the agreement of their council! 

 

©SIMON BACON 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Recycling going DOOOOOWWWNNN !

Waste is a major issue across the UK, across Europe and beyond as globally we fight to save natural resources via recycling and composting. Europe has set a 2020 recycling target of 50% and is about to set an increased target of 65% by 2030 as part of its circular economy package. Here in Derby UK the city council joined forces with Derbyshire County Council to set a 2020 recycling target of 55% although it isn't clear if the councils will meet that target. For their part in this Derby City is consistently failing to boost recycling by removing the free garden waste collection and now removing blue bin recycling from areas of the city which has led to a dramatic decline in the recycling rate for the city which you can read more about here http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-decay-of-recycling-in-derby.html  .
The graph below shows the recycling rate for Derby UK since 2005/6 -

Reaching a high of 48% in 2010/11 the cities recycling rate entered a steady decline before falling an impressive 9% once recycling restrictions were put in place. This places Derby recycling back to pre 2007/8 rates. Lets Recycle magazine are now reporting that the recycling rate in Derby fell faster in 2014/15 than any other council in England ! You can read more about it here ! http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/derby-recycling-nosedives-after-council-axes-service/
The council really has managed to turn its recycling rate around because god forbid for them they were almost getting pretty good at it before someone realised with a waste incineration contract to be provided for recycling didn't really sit comfortably with such projects due to the requirement to procure waste to feed the beast.
The councils poor attempt to turn round the recycling by providing bring sites for the communities recycling was removed from has simply led to the development of fly tipping hubs

Even when people try and recycle at the bring sites they are restricted by the small opening for materials to be put in - meaning larger material such as cardboard boxes get dumped around the facility - which then attracts any amount of non recyclable waste.

Derby has a recycling target! when will the council wake up to this?

 

©SIMON BACON 2016

 

FOI - Freedom Of Information or Fear Of Informing the public

Freedom of information often known as FOI is currently a commonly used method of finding out aspects of your local councils business. We as council tax payers have a right to know what our taxes are being spent on.
It was with this in mind having noted recently that Derby City Council was facing charges from its recycler Biffa for contamination (which previously was not the case) that I set about requesting a copy of the contracts linked to the blue bin recycling scheme which I thought was a simple thing to do and expected few problems.
I asked for the following-

a copy of all current contracts relating to the blue bin material collected and its onward treatment - ie BIFFA etc.

The council had 20 working days to provide the requested information and I sat back and waited.
This is when the council started to play hard to get because on day 18 they decided they didn't know which contract I wanted and asked me to clarify this for them - I concluded this was a delaying tactic and so lodged a formal complaint - and clarified which contract I was interested in when responding to the councils FOI dept.
They then wheeled out another excuse to delay issuing what is only a contract linked to some recycling ! this time they said the following -
"In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 - Regulation 7, Question 1 due to the volume and complexity of the request , we will need to extend the period to respond from 20 to 40 working days.  The revised deadline for our response is 21 October 2015."
So they had managed to stretch their response time to 40 days! what were they trying to hide!
Finally they gave their response - and it wasn't good news ! they partly declined to answer my requests siting commercial interests.
They said the following

"Your request has now been considered and part of the information you have requested in Question 1 is covered by an exemption under Freedom of Information.  We have attached part of the information however, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this part of the email acts as a part Refusal Notice.
The exemption applied is Section 43 – Commercial Interests  
We have applied this exemption because detailed costs cannot be disclosed as this would prejudice the commercial interests of both the Council and third parties.
Disclosure of this information would compromise future tenders and the cost of providing this service in the future could increase, as a result. Also, third parties could be commercially disadvantaged if their detailed pricing information was in the public domain.   
On balance we feel that the potential prejudice to the commercial interests of the Council and the other parties in disclosing this information outweighs the public interest in making it available in the public domain. It is therefore, not considered in the public interest to release this information because the cost of providing this service could increase in the future which could affect public services provided by the Council."

Now what struck me straight away was that this was a contract processing my rubbish using my money and I had a right to the facts. I already view the councils accounts so would know many of the facts they were looking to withhold.
So what did they do? well they issued a few documents relating to the processing of recyclables but then redacted large parts of the most recent correspondence between the council and Biffa - as shown below.

As you can see not only did they redact figures in the letter - which incidentally was relating to the contracts extension but also redacted whole paragraphs - so it wasn't possible to even work out what was being redacted.
These things are sent to try us but it is our right to know so there was only one thing to do - make an appeal to the council about the redaction.
If you make an FOI on a subject don't just accept the first result - they don't want to tell you their secrets so will try and fudge you with a redaction so set out why you should be issued a full copy of what you have asked for. In my case in the end I was successful when the Principal Information Governance Officer at Derby City Council found in my favour.
So what were they trying to hide? nothing more it would appear than the fact the more recycling that goes into the blue bin the less the council - and so us as residents pay via our taxes!
You would think this would be exactly what the council SHOULD be promoting to its residents - to inspire residents to recycle more but instead it hides the facts from the public by redacting aspects of the contract!
The unredacted letter appears below -

 

Why do the council fear telling the public the truth ! why do they fear FOI !

©SIMON BACON 2016

 

 

NO ! please don't pay us !

CUTS ! CUTS! CUTS! that's all we hear about in Derby UK from the council and the leader Ranjit Banwait. Service after service is being cut and jobs and pay are being reviewed!
The latest example being here http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Protest-outside-Council-House-pay-dispute/story-27941303-detail/story.html
With this in mind you would expect the council to generate income from buildings and sites it owns in the city to help fight these cuts ! well it would make common sense wouldn't it ?
Well you would think it would but then this is Derby City Council we are talking about which is why we learnt in recent weeks after I put a question to the council at a recent Full Council meeting that the council is not being paid any rent for the use of the Sinfin Tannery site as a construction site for the controversial Sinfin waste incineration plant. The site comprising 4.2 hectares of land sited next to Sinfin Lane in Sinfin, Derby will be used by Resource Recovery Solutions - a Shanks / Interserve company for more than two decades to process and burn via a gasification process the waste of Derby and Derbyshire.

On 16th September 2015 I asked the following at the Derby City Council Full Council meeting.

"Question from Simon Bacon to Councillor Rawson 
At a recent Blagreaves Forum Councillor Banwait suggested the council lacked property that it could generate income from to help in these times of financial hardship. The city council is owner of the Sinfin Tannery site on Sinfin Lane which is now in use as a building site for the joint waste management contract.  
Please confirm how much the Council is being paid yearly since work started for use of the site?"

The council response - given by Councillor Martin Rawson came as something of a surprise !
 
"The Council is not seeking to generate an income from this site; we are building a waste processing centre on it with our partners.  The facility will provide a sustainable way of dealing with the residual waste produced by the City and parts of the County."

So while we have the leader of the city council claiming we lacked property to generate income we gift a valuable parcel of land to others !

The deal Derby residents are getting is as raw as an uncooked sausage !

©SIMON BACON 2016



The council that paid to fight itself! yep thats Derby for you!

Level playing fields tend to be fair! as a resident you have faith when something is fair! but then this is Derby UK where the playing fields are not level and very unfair!
Back in 2008/9 the councils of Derby and Derbyshire came together to set up a joint waste contract with a waste incineration plant at its core and as part of this a contract was put in place where the councils agreed to pay planning costs of the selected developer above an agreed appeal contingency fund. It soon started to raise campaigners eyebrows when a copy of the contract was issued to us - but the redactors pen had been out in force and the appeal contingency fund figure was redacted - as shown below!

This left us all smelling a big fat rat which really I guess we should not have been surprised about!

It was only a number of months later when we came across an un redacted copy of the contract that we found out the reality was that the little black smudge was hiding a BIG FAT ZERO ! the fund was nothing! as can be seen below.

The waste contract itself even states how the developer will pay up to the limit of the contingency fund with the councils paying 90% beyond it even though the fund was ZERO. As that figure was redacted it could be concluded that the councils and their contractor was looking to deceive the public by making such a claim in the contract while hiding the facts from the public. The contract states as follows. - " 9.4 Appeal Contingency

9.4.1 The Contractor will bear all costs of any Proceedings (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the costs of obtaining any Leading Counsel's opinion under clause 9.3) up to the limit of the Appeal Contingency following which the Councils shall indemnify the Contractor for nine tenths of all amounts reasonably and prudently spent or contracted to be spent in excess of the Appeal Contingency in the proper and diligent conduct of the Proceedings provided that:"

 

Now why would councils spending tax payers money agree to such terms? further why would Derby City Council as planning authority agree to something that potentially puts their planning committee at odds with the proposal - and so condemn the council and so its tax payers to pay costs to fight itself!

Back in April 2013 the local newspaper the Derby Telegraph ran a story suggesting the council faced costs of £1.2 million from the legal battles over the waste incineration plant - this story can be read here http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Revealed-pound-1-2m-Sinfin-waste-plant-inquiry/story-18718360-detail/story.html and it was this story sat at the back of my mind that led to me making a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request in recent months in relation to the claimed costs.

The result of my FOI request showed that actually the claim that costs would be £1.2 million were wide of the mark but nobody had attempted to set the record straight until I made the FOI. The response from the councils FOI dept was as follows.

Total figure for the 1^st and 2^nd inquiries of £838, 198, which is made up as follows:-

 

• Agreed contribution and settlement costs paid to RRS = £725,943
• Internal City Council costs = £112,255; made up of:-
• Staff costs = £11,859
• Hire of rooms = £15,526
• Legal costs,(to No.5 Chambers) = £84,870

So from the FOI we can see that while the council spent less than £85,000 on its actual legal case - to defend its own planning committee and in total less than £113,000 including staffing and room hire it blew £725,943 paying the costs of the developer.

How can a council - a public body such as Derby City Council sign a contract which places the developer in a win win situation where what ever the outcome the residents of Derby lose out !

A prime example of an uneven playing field!

 



 

©SIMON BACON 2016

 

 



 

Fifty shades of greenwash !

When you think of a green investment bank you think of err a bank that is green that invests in green energy such as wind, solar and tidal power or innovative waste recycling technology. You don't think of a green bank investing in waste incineration which in many cases sits at the bottom of the waste hierarchy!

BUT!

 

that is exactly the case playing out here in Derby UK where the UK Green Investment Bank are funding an ENERGOS waste incineration plant being constructed in an area of poor health in the city and a plant subject to mass objection by local people across not one but two public inquiries. The project is defined as an incineration plant as covered in my previous blog post http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/burn-baby-burn.html
Funding to the tune of £64 MILLION has been secured by the developer SHANKS from the UK Green Investment Bank - often referred to as GIB for their project to burn the waste of Derby and Derbyshire.
What was exposed at the 2nd public inquiry into the Sinfin Lane project was that in its standard electricity only mode the plant would fail to meet the requirements of the R1 formula - which is a test of plant efficiency and by failing to meet the R1 standard the plant would be classed as a D10 disposal plant which sits in the disposal section of the waste hierarchy - or to give it its other name - the bottom of the hierarchy. SHANKS the company proposing the plants construction as part of a long term waste deal to dispose of the waste of Derby and Derbyshire have never put forward a customer for the large volume of heat and steam that the plant will generate as a bi-product of its disposal process.
The Green Investment Bank were quick to trumpet their funding proposal in a press release in August 2014 talking of a plant that would recycle 35,000 tonnes of materials and divert 170,000 tonnes from landfill of the 190,000 tonnes the plant will accept yearly. The 35,000 tonnes of materials recycled is at odds with the claimed recycling rate for the plant and must include the bottom ash being used in construction to get anywhere near that claimed by GIB and in relation to landfill diversion a percentage of the tonnage weight will be lost by natural drying processes which could be attained by pre treatment before landfill.
GIB also refer to the remaining waste being used to generate renewable energy in a statement by Shaun Kingsbury who is the chief executive of GIB. The elephant in the room with such a statement is that the GIB's own website defines such energy as coming from biogenic material but in the case of the Sinfin, Derby plant the mixed waste cannot be considered fully biogenic - because it contains plastics and other none biogenic feedstock. That's before we even consider if burning biogenic material is actually renewable! can it be if we have no control in relation to the replacement of such biogenic materials?
Further to this by providing funding for the Derby waste incineration plant GIB are supporting the burning of waste that could be recycled because the councils have signed up to a contract requiring them to procure waste of specific forms including tonnage, calorific, biodegradable and moisture content.
The Green Investment Bank has been challenged on a number of their claims - talk about fifty shades of green !
I await their reply !

©SIMON BACON 2016