Statements submitted by Capel Action Group, in conjunction with Capel Parish Council, to lines of enquiry issued by the Inspector

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.2 Basis, Generation, Growth

1. Should waste be distinguished by type and composition as well as source?

1.1 We commend the following extract from GAIN's submission to the Environment & Economy Select Committee review of Waste Technologies undertaken in April 2006:

"Surrey County Council now proposes that different types of waste should be collected separately, including biodegradable food waste. If the full consequences of this are followed through, Surrey will not need incineration as part of its strategy. The possibility of working with the community on the efficient delivery of an incinerator-free strategy that enjoys significant support and meets targets is within reach. If, as proposed, the waste materials are separated, it becomes possible to match the waste treatment plant to the material. This greatly reduces the adverse pollution impacts and also means that simple, proven, affordable waste treatment processes can be used. By contrast, dealing with mixed waste presents problems for the effectiveness of all waste treatment processes and exacerbates pollution risks.

The level of ignorance about the composition of waste nationally is shocking and is symptomatic of how little effort has been put into cleaning up waste processing. Surrey has made an excellent start at analysing its waste composition. It must now use that knowledge to identify the best processes for dealing with the different parts of its waste stream. Surrey has discovered that over 60% of our waste is biodegradable and, of that, a lot is food waste. It is this biodegradable fraction that can no longer be sent to landfill. Whenever possible, the paper or wood should be recycled. The rest will be far better suited to some form of biological treatment than to burning. It makes little sense to waste energy trying to burn a sloppy waste porridge in an incinerator, producing toxic combustion by-products. Biological treatment offers great flexibility because it works well in smaller units that it would be relatively easy to accommodate in Surrey as long as all parts of the process are sealed."

1.2 The above demonstrates the importance of analysis and segregation. To achieve much higher recycling and composting rates requires stepping the game up. There needs to be an explicit commitment by the Waste Planning Authority to support the plans of the waste collection authorities. In this respect Policy CW2 fails to comply with Conformity test (iv) as it does not have proper regard to the needs and plans of the Waste Collection Authorities.

1.3 We therefore propose that a further section be added to Policy CW2:

The promotion and facilitation of the reuse, recycling and recovery of resources from waste will be undertaken by:

(i) to (viii) as written

(ix) in conjunction with the collection authorities, proactively focusing on waste
arisings with a view to identifying and segregating new categories of waste
that are capable of being recycled, composted or recovered on a sustainable
basis.

1.4 On the issue of the type and range of facilities that should be provided it is relevant to refer to RPG9, which states at para 2.115 on page 42:

"--- larger integrated waste management facilities should be seen as part of a mosaic of facilities, complementing smaller single purpose operations. Waste planning authorities will need to plan for a range of scales of facilities in order to meet the recovery and recycling targets."

1.5 We also consider it appropriate to refer to PPS 10. The first key planning objective states that:

"Regional planning bodies and all planning authorities should, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, prepare and deliver planning strategies that help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option, but one which must be adequately catered for."

And the fifth Decision Making Principle states that:

"Indicators should be monitored and reported on in regional planning bodies' and
waste planning authorities' annual monitoring reports. Such monitoring should be the basis on which regional planning bodies and waste planning authorities periodically review and roll forward their waste planning strategies. Reviews should reflect any changes to the national waste strategy and occur at least every five years, or sooner if there are signs of under-provision of waste management capacity or over-provision of disposal options where these would undermine movement up the waste hierarchy."

1.6 By setting the first key planning objective and linking it to the requirement for regular reviews the Government strongly signals that the waste hierarchy has primacy and that waste planning authorities should ensure that the planning decisions they make reflect a sequential approach in favour of the upper reaches of the hierarchy (i.e. recycling and composting) in the early years of the Waste Plan.

1.7 We believe Policy CW4 to be unsound as it places no priority to permitting appropriate facilities at an early stage to enable the significant growth to be achieved in recycling and composting, that is required and to which the Waste Plan is committed. In this regard it fails Conformity test (iv) as it does not have proper regard to the needs and plans of the Waste Collection Authorities.

1.8 To remedy this we propose that the second paragraph be amended and a third paragraph introduced into Policy CW4:

Planning permissions will be granted to enable sufficient waste management capacity to be provided to:

(i) as stated

(ii) permit sufficient and relevant facilities to enable the County's 50% target for recycling and composting to be fully achieved by 2015 and to enable further progress to be made towards the recycling and composting goal of 60%.

(iii) permit a range of recovery facilities to achieve the County's target for recovery once it is possible to size and scope such facilities in the light of plans to segregate new categories of waste.

2. Should overall past and predicted waste quantities be included and tabulated as a basis for assessment of need where relevant to development control decisions?

2.1 t is essential to take account of past performance when forecasting for the future. Actual performance should be reported and monitored at all levels of the waste hierarchy. Given the focus by Districts and Boroughs on actions to increase the levels of composting and recycling and the greater awareness by the public to minimize and re-use, rapid changes are taking place. These must be carefully monitored lest decisions are taken at the bottom end of the waste hierarchy, which may be unneccesary, over-sized or simply inappropriate for what is left for disposal.

2.2 The Waste Plan refers to an "Assessment of Need for Waste Disposal and Management Facilities in Surrey" produced by the Babtie Group Ltd in December 2003. Waste issues have moved on significantly in the last three years. Waste arisings growth is now forecast to grow at a much slower rate up to 2025 (with 2005/6 actually having recorded a decrease) and the goal for recycling and composting is set at 60%. So much has changed that the Babtie report is of very limited value.

2.3 The Waste Plan does not contain tabulations of past actual and forecast future waste arisings, recycling and composting levels and residual waste and therefore fails to demonstrate the need for any treatment facilities for residual waste. Additionally the plan forecasts a surplus of landfill capacity in 2015, which places considerable doubt on the need for disposal facilities (we cover this issue fully in our statement on matter 1.9) In this respect the Waste Plan fails Coherence, consistency and effectiveness test (vii) as a robust and credible evidence base of need is absent.

2.4 To remedy this the Planning Authority should be required urgently to produce a current need assessment that provides the context and clarity that is necessary.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.3 Policy

1 Does the Core Strategy comply with the proximity principle?

1. 1 Surrey has a population of just over 1million, which is predominantly concentrated in the northern and western parts of the county. Municipal waste is a product of people, consequently where there is a concentration of people there will also be a concentration of waste generation.

1.2 The locations of the 15 Community Recycling Centres and Transfer Stations within Surrey are situated at principal points of waste generation.

1.3 In order to maintain a sustainable strategy for waste recovery, waste recycling, and for further waste treatment, any major new or expanded facilities should be concentrated as close as practicable to the sources of the waste, namely in the western and northern parts of the county.

1.4 In singling out the Clockhouse site in Policy WD5 the CS clearly fails to comply with the proximity principle. To remedy this the Clockhouse site should be removed from Policy WD5.

1.5 Further details will be provided to support this Position Statement in Site Specific submissions.

2 Is the degree of presumption toward incineration appropriate, including the reference to the Principles of the Waste Policy Statement?

2.2 When the Waste Policy Statement was issued in late 2004 its status was unclear. It did not form part of the draft Waste Plan and as such did not go out for consultation. Yet with its strong endorsement of EfW, at para (vi), together with its formal adoption by the Council in November 2004, it effectively served as a "fait accompli" in the County Council's policy on waste disposal technology. This despite one of strategic objectives of the Waste Plan's vision at B4 of the Core Strategy being stated as "to enable the provision of a range of waste technologies."

2.3 The Select Committee review into Waste Technologies in April 2006 maintained the presumption in that all other options presented had to measure up to the preferred option. When the Waste Disposal Policy Action Plan was published in January 2006 EfW remained the preferred option, despite the fact that it had not come out as the best option in the Residual Waste Treatment Assessment, undertaken by Entec.

2.4 The West Sussex County Council (WSCC) approach was very different. Their plan stated:

"It cannot promote one technology in preference to another or be prescriptive about the possible waste management facilities on sites which are acceptable in principle."

As a result the WSCC plan identifies other options such as MBT, open-air composting, in-vessel composting, ruling none in or out. We submit that the Surrey Waste Plan should take a similar approach.

2.5 Surrey Waste Management (SWM, part of SITA UK) is the dedicated contractor to Surrey County Council. This reality is a highly relevant factor as SWM's intellectual capital is heavily invested in EfW. In the light of this any presumption or bias in favour of incineration is not appropriate.

2.6 As such the Waste Plan fails three of the tests on Coherence, consistency and effectiveness:

(vi) given that it does accord with its own stated vision and the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy does not favour incineration as the preferred option.

(vii) the choice of incineration is not soundly based, given that it was not the best
option in the Residual Waste Treatment Assessment.

(ix) the plan lacks flexibility as other waste disposal technologies are effectively
ruled out, despite the plan's stated vision of enabling the provision of a range
of waste technologies.

2.7 We suggest that the reference to energy from waste via incineration as the favoured option is removed from para vi) of the Waste Policy Statement. We also propose that Policy WD5 is removed in its entirety and that the reference to
" Excluding Thermal Treatment" is removed from Policy WD2.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.4 Monitoring

1 Should provision be made for independent monitoring especially of health risks?

1.1 We commend the British Society for Ecological Medicine's approach to this matter (Extract from British Society for Ecological Medicine's response To Enviros evaluation (2) at www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php):

"We believe that incinerators should be regulated carefully and in detail. Most people would consider a carefully regulated system to be one that monitors the most dangerous pollutants for the majority of the time and one where most of pollutants emitted are monitored. They would also expect a regulatory system with frequent unannounced inspections and effective deterrents for breaches of regulations.

The BSEM consider continuous monitoring of dioxins should be an absolute requirement for all incinerators. The study by De Fre and Wevers has shown that spot monitoring, as done at present, is unrepresentative and that continuous monitoring has found actual emissions to be 30 - 50 times higher. We previously pointed out that a worst case scenario, using recent data that has found dioxins 9 times over the limit, could mean dioxin levels remaining at over 400 times normal for a period of 6 months. This would put an entire population at great risk.

BSEM have also stated that a system of at least 24 monitors should be present around all incinerators. These are needed to measure PM2.5 particulates and heavy metals. This should be the absolute minimum standard of safety.

A comprehensive monitoring system as suggested would cost less than 1% of the price of an incinerator, which is a very small price to pay for people's safety. This level of monitoring should be mandatory around all incinerators."

1.2 Policy CW7 as stated is unsound, as it provides no direction on how health risks should be protected. Its reference to development control policies providing the means for this is hollow as Policy DC3 refers only to "any health impacts" at para (xvi), with no further comment on this critical issue. As such Policy CW7 fails Coherence, consistency and effectiveness test (viii) as there are clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring are not identified.

1.3 To remedy this deficiency Policy CW7 should be amended to read:

In considering proposals for waste management facilities protection of human health, the environment and amenity will be provided through development control policies. In the case of human health a baseline assessment of air quality should be a stated requirement to accompany a planning application. This should include measurement of PM2.5 particulates, heavy metals and dioxins. Continuous monitoring of dioxins and systems to monitor and measure PM2.5 particulates and heavy metals should be stipulated as the minimum required standard of safety for an incinerator.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.5 Strategies

1 Is it appropriate to refer to and rely upon existing Council waste disposal contracts with respect to this review of planning for best practice?

1.1 A search for best practice must be broadly structured and open and go beyond the relationship with SWM. There is no evidence that such an approach was taken in developing the Waste Plan.

1.2 During the Select Committee review of waste technologies presentations were made by other organisations and alternative technologies were discussed. Ultimately none of these explicitly found their way into the Waste Plan as options.

1.3 What we find of great concern is the reason given for choosing EfW as the most favoured option.

1.4 On 17 January 2006 the Executive approved the Waste Disposal Authority: Joint Municipal Waste Strategy - Draft Action Plan. The paper referred to a Residual Waste Treatment Assessment (see our response to the question on BPEO under matter 2.8) which overall did not identify EfW as the best option. Despite this EfW was chosen because:

1.4.1 A number of candidate technologies, in their present state of development, are unproven and therefore it is difficult to attract commercial support for them.

1.4.2 A number of the technologies rely on securing markets for materials they produce. These markets are uncertain and therefore present a high risk of market failure.

These two assertions pose some serious questions:

" The Waste Plan is looks forward to 2025. What may be of concern today may not be so in 1-5 years' time.

1.4.4 Alternative technologies such as MBT and Anaerobic Digestion, as well as variants of thermal treatment, are operating successfully on the continent. One must therefore reasonably presume that the statement in 1.4.1, to the effect that a number of candidate technologies are "unproven", must refer to UK experience and/or the experience of SWM, whose waste disposal technology experience is predominantly in operating EfW plants. This is far too narrow an approach for the County Council, as Planning Authority, to take.

1.4.5 Surely decisions on commercial viability are a matter for potential applicants, in the first place? There are increasing numbers of proposals for residual waste treatment technologies other than EfW e.g. Cleanaway's planning approval for an Autoclave plant at Rainham and Viridor's application for an MBT plant at Walpole near Bridgwater. Why should the Surrey Waste Plan be allowed to rule other technologies out on the grounds of the short-term concerns of the Waste Disposal Authority and Surrey's waste contractor SWM?

1.5 There is no particular policy statement to refer to on this matter as the issue is one of process and approach taken by planning officers in identifying best practice. We suggest that attempts to identify genuine waste technology options for recovery have been too limited and as such fail Coherence, consistency and effectiveness tests (vii) and (ix) in that they rule out all options other than incineration. We suggest that the best way to remedy this is to take the action we have proposed under Matter 1.3, which we repeat here for ease of reference:

We suggest that the reference to energy from waste via incineration as the favoured option is removed from para vi) of the Waste Policy Statement. We also propose that Policy WD5 is removed in its entirety and that the reference to " " Excluding Thermal Treatment" is removed from Policy WD2.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.9 Waste Management Capacity

1 Should projections be subdivided by waste stream and management technology?

We would support this as it would in turn facilitate more rapid progress to be achieved in recycling and composting together with the identification of suitable technologies for recover. We have addressed this more fully in our statement on Matter 2.

2 Should the amount of landfill void surplus (or deficit?) be clarified?

2.1 In the Waste Plan Surrey County Council are projecting a landfill void surplus up to 2015. When the draft waste plan was published in October 2005 a shortfall of landfill void was forecast by 2007. This is a very significant change indeed and no explanation is given for it. Possibly it reflects the particular circumstances in Surrey which have been suspected but not confirmed for some time namely that landfill void continues to emerge without sufficient arisings to fill it. Nonetheless it is most surprising for Surrey County Council to have it so late to advise such a change.

2.2 In the evidence that the Capel Action Group (CAG) submitted to the Select Committee, when it considered Waste Technologies in April 2006, it said:

"CAG has never countenanced a continuation of traditional unsorted waste being disposed of to landfill, any more than it has supported unsorted waste being incinerated. But it has countenanced landfill continuing to play a significant role but in a context of established processes that segregate waste through recycling and composting and also through the use of technologies, such as MBT, AD and/or Autoclaving, which can contribute to higher recycling levels and which, importantly, can enable full segregation.

However given the surplus landfill challenge now facing the County, the Select Committee needs to consider the appropriateness of an Action Plan centred on EfW, before concluding its review work."

To our knowledge the Select Committee did no consider the point. We continue to hold this view.

2.3 It is not evident from the Waste Plan that the Waste Disposal Authority is intent on diverting all residual waste from landfill. It is no secret either.

2.4 As we said in our evidence to the Select Committee we support diversion from landfill to the upper reaches of the waste hierarchy. No rational, thinking being would prefer to see resources buried that could otherwise be reclaimed to create value. The excellent recycling efforts being spearheaded by the Districts and Boroughs have thus far made the major contribution towards achieving this aim. The County can also contribute by addressing its Civic Amenity Sites.

But the almost pathological hatred of landfill displayed by some is quite extraordinary. Some have gone as far as to suggest that landfill should be eliminated. This would be quite impossible with incinerators handling 40% of waste, of which a third will be residual!

2.5 SITA UK understand this well. Their position on landfill is worthy of note:

"SITA UK believes that landfill remains a critical element in an integrated waste management strategy. Even with the best attempts at waste minimisation, recovery and recycling, its use as a repository for residues is unavoidable. To this end, SITA UK will maintain a viable landfill portfolio as part of a suite of management options available to the UK waste market" (SITA UK website)

SITA UK's view must be heavily influenced by the reality that residues from EfW will not find often their way markets. Nonetheless its view remains in stark contrast to that stated by SCC. The reason for this gulf in thinking needs to be exposed.

We accept that some landfill will continue to be with us. So long as holes in the ground are dug most will have to filled.

But the fact is that the EU Landfill Directive places no restriction on the amount of non-biodegradable waste going to landfill. The restriction is on biodegradable waste, which is what causes the blight.

2.6 If there is adequate landfill void until 2015 and if waste arisings continue to be subject to rigorous and increasing segregation to remove the bio-degradable elements then a strategy of driving the upper reaches of the waste hierarchy to an optimum level before committing to major waste facilities would be a credible and workable option, one which would gain much support at local level whilst meeting all relevant targets. But the Waste Disposal Authority appears unwilling to consider this.

2.7 The uncertainty and lack of clarity surrounding landfill void capacity must be removed. As matters stand the Waste Plan is most unsound, not least because the test for need is simply not met. If there is adequate landfill capacity for 10 years then the Waste Planning Authority preference for incineration may well prove to be wholly unjustified and well as unnecessary.

2.8 In our statement on Matter 1.2, concerning need assessment, we suggested that the remedy was for the Planning Authority to be required urgently to produce a current need assessment which provides the context and clarity that is necessary. We suggest that the urgency for this to be undertaken is even greater given the uncertainty over landfill void and the effect that this might have on the Waste Plan as a whole.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.11 - Green Belt

1 Should sites be expressly allocated in the Green Belt?

1.1 The Waste Plan identifies sites in the Green Belt in Policies WD2 and WD5. As such the plan demonstrates a preparedness to contemplate development in the Green Belt.

1.2 This is consistent with RPG9, which states, at page 41, para 2.111:

In future, policy constraints including Green Belt, and in exceptional circumstances, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, should not be considered a barrier to the development of waste management facilities if the objectives of more environmentally sustainable forms of waste management are to be met particularly with regard to the proximity principle.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 1.12 Environment, Health and Amenity

1. Should Policy CW7 set clear strategic principles for the protection of health and amenity from the effects of waste development, especially toxins emissions and air pollution with reference to aircraft flight path vortices?

1.1 Policy CW7 should set clear and explicit strategic principles for the protection of health and amenity. The impact of wake turbulence is unique to the Clockhouse site. None of the other sites in Policy WD5 are affected by this phenomenon. It is quite clear that the strength of vortices from large aircraft when landing is significant. The Civil Aviation Authority strongly advises pilots to beware of the hazards involved:

"The wake of large aircraft deserves the respect of all pilots. The area up to 1000 ft below and behind such aircraft should be avoided, especially at low altitude where even a momentary wake vortex encounter could be hazardous" (CAA Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) 17/1999 on Wake Turbulence)

The AIC also advises:

"In a stable airflow, the wake vortex system will drift with the wind."

"Special attention needs to be given to situations of light wind, when vortices may stay in the approach and touchdown areas of airports or sink to the landing or take-off paths of succeeding aircraft."

and NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center's research on Wake Vortices states:

" In calm wind conditions, vortices created by large aircraft during landing operations can remain for many minutes over the normal touchdown area."

" Vortices of large aircraft often move laterally at speeds of 2-3 knots when they sink to within 100-200 feet of the ground."

1.2 We are convinced that the impact of wake vortices will be felt over the site and that the effect of the wake vortices will be to drive emissions from the chimney stack back down to the ground, achieving exactly the opposite intention of a chimney stack.

We shall be submitting a full paper for consideration at the formal site specific sessions in March. The paper will identify the potential impact of wake turbulence on a planned incinerator at the Clockhouse site in Capel and potential implications on health".

2 Has a sufficient study of health impacts been undertaken in the preparation of the CS? Should Policy CW7 expressly require human health assessments in any waste proposal?

2.1 We do not believe that a sufficient study has been undertaken on the impact of mass burn incineration for the purposes of the CS. There is no evidence that explicit consideration has been given to the wealth of evidence that exists on health impacts.

2.2 We are aware that Defra's position is that incineration is safe but this does not mean that they are right neither is it behoven on any local or planning authority to pursue mass burn incineration if it chooses not to do so, on sound grounds.

2.3 There is a wealth of information on this issue. We cite some of it here:

2.3.1 Evidence from the British Society for Ecological Medicine (Extracts from British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM) - Reply to Enviros Communication, September 2006 (See Response to Evaluation (2) at www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php)

a) "The building of new incinerators has virtually been stopped in the USA since the mid 1990s because the danger to health is regarded as so serious. We can add that regulations are far stricter in the USA."

b) " Incinerators convert waste into particulates and gas. Large quantities of fine (PM2.5) particulates are formed. It is well-established that as levels of PM2.5 particulates levels increase, mortality, morbidity and hospital admissions increase. There is no safe level at which health effects do not occur."

c) "The BSEM, using data derived from the World Health Organisation, estimated that for a population of 250,000 living near an incinerator, an increase in PM2.5 particulates of only 1mcg/m3 would lead to a loss of 27,500 years of life over a 15 year period."

d) "The bottom line is that a decision to build an incinerator is a decision that will inevitably cost the lives of many innocent people."

e) "Enviros state that they support efforts to reduce carcinogens. However incinerators emit PM2.5 particulates, many heavy metals and a large number of other substances that are known carcinogens. Operating incinerators will inevitably cause the release of multiple carcinogens into the atmosphere and is therefore incompatible with a policy of reducing carcinogens."

f) "Enviros state that incidents involving short-term excursions above emission limits are highly unlikely to pose a significant risk to health. This is simply not true. Numerous studies have shown that short-term increases in particulates cause rises in mortality. We are aware of modelling data, now in the possession of the Environment Agency, which has indicated that, for a person living 2 miles from an incinerator there would be a 10mcg increase in PM2.5 particulates, if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction in certain weather conditions."

g) " ----incinerators are anything but carefully regulated. The pollutants most strongly associated with health effects are PM2.5 particulates, heavy metals and dioxins. How thoroughly are these being monitored? The answer is hardly at all. PM2.5 particulates are not being measured (only the far less relevant PM10s), and for over 99% of the time dioxins and heavy metals are also not being measured. We could also add that only a few percent of any of the pollutants emitted are being measured. Among those not being monitored are the highly toxic PBDEs, now increasing in the waste stream. To say that the present level of monitoring is appalling would be an understatement. Many would consider it negligent"

h) "The BSEM consider continuous monitoring of dioxins should be an absolute requirement for all incinerators. The BSEM have also stated that a system of 24 monitors should be present around all incinerators. These are needed to measure PM2.5 particulates and heavy metals. This should be the absolute minimum standard of safety."

i) "Monitoring can never be regarded as sufficient on its own and should be backed up by comprehensive studies on the local population, including body burdens and DNA adducts."

j)"The fact that pollution occurs from other sources can never be used as a justification for creating further pollution, especially when this pollution will be concentrated within a localized area"

2.3.2 Evidence from Dr Gev Eduljee, Environment and Technical Director, SITA at Surrey County Council's Select Committee Review of Waste Treatment Technologies held on 25 April 2006 (from Surrey County Council website)

a) Question: With regard to health, pollution and transport concerns, Mark Broomfield argued that we shouldn't worry too much about dioxins as long as the treatment process in an EfW is operating correctly.

b) Answer: SITA would disagree with Mark Broomfield if he did indeed say that we don't need to worry about dioxins. SITA do worry about dioxins and they need to because they are the bane of incineration.

c) Question: Do you believe that current monitoring systems for dioxins are robust enough and do SITA have any plans to change their monitoring arrangements?

d) Answer: Current dioxins monitoring systems are not robust enough, but they are the best we have. They need to be improved and there are other systems being tried, for example, in Austria the 'AMESA' system, which takes a steady flow of gas in and takes heat from the stack is an example of a semi continuous monitoring system. A continuous monitoring system is the gold standard for dioxin measurement.

2.3.3 Other Evidence

a) "-- it is also generally accepted that emissions standards are still based on what can be measured and what is technologically achievable, rather than what is safe", House of Commons Select Committee Report

b) "We must be able to distinguish between circumstances in which there is said to be no scientific evidence of a risk because there is lots of scientific evidence that does not support it, and circumstances in which there is simply no good evidence at all" Minister of Health, Hansard column 554, House of Commons, 15 February 2001

c) "Some mobile phone components are extremely poisonous: for example, the cadmium in one mobile phone battery can pollute 600,000 litres of water", Isis Telecommunications

d)"Incinerator emissions are poorly regulated. Less than half of the chemicals they produce are continuously monitored. Independent dioxin monitoring occurs no more than twice a year", Greenpeace

e)"Emissions may exceed the normal operating limits during start-up and shut-down" Defra commissioned Enviros report

f) "Dioxin emissions from some incinerators and cement kilns could be up to 8 times higher than previously thought. Research found that levels of dioxins were consistently higher when monitored by continuous sampling than by existing mandatory sampling methods" Ends report , 13 April 2006, on Environment Agency Release

g) "Dioxins are environmental "repeat offenders" and are part of a group of dangerous chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants. Once dioxins have entered the environment or body, they are there to stay due to their uncanny ability to dissolve in fats and to their rock-solid chemical stability. Their half-life in the body is, on average, seven years" World Health Organization

2.4 We also commend the following views of the BSEM (Extracts from British Society for Ecological Medicine's response To Enviros evaluation (2) at www.ecomed.org.uk/pub_waste.php)

a) "The pollutants most strongly associated with health effects are PM2.5
particulates, heavy metals and dioxins. How thoroughly are these being
monitored? The answer is hardly at all. PM2.5 particulates are not being
measured (only the far less relevant PM10s), and for over 99% of the time
dioxins and heavy metals are also not being measured. We could also
add that only a few per cent of any of the pollutants emitted are being
measured. Among those not being monitored are the highly toxic PBDEs, now
increasing in the waste stream. To say that the present level of monitoring is
appalling would be an understatement. Many would consider it negligent.

b) The AMESA system for continuous measurement of dioxins has been available since 1998. Legislation requires continuous monitoring of dioxin to be used in some countries in Europe and local authorities have every right to expect incinerators in this country to provide the same protection. Continuous PM2.5 monitoring is available using several systems including light-scattering and gravimetric monitors. Filters in these monitors can measure levels of metals with ICP optical spectroscopy. These can be used to give hourly and weekly measurements of heavy metals.

c) The effect of pollutants on the human body is incredibly complex and
unpredictable. It is highly likely that other pollutants that are not monitored,
and may not yet have been identified, have important and unrecognized
health effects. The effect of chemicals in combinations (synergistic effects)
also increases toxicity but this issue has been ignored by regulators.
Monitoring gives only indirect information on the effect of pollutants as they
accumulate in the body over time. Monitoring can never be regarded as
sufficient on its own and should be backed up by comprehensive studies on
the local population, including body burdens and DNA adducts."

2.5 In consequence we believe most strongly that human health assessments should be expressly required in any waste proposal and suggest that Policy CW7 is unsound as it provides no direction on how health risks should be protected. Its reference to development control policies providing the means for this is hollow as Policy DC3 refers only to "any health impacts" at para (xvi), with no further comment on this critical issue. As such Policy CW7 fails Coherence, consistency and effectiveness test (viii) as there are clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring are not identified.

As we have suggested in our statement on Matter 1.4 we propose that Policy CW7 should be amended to read:

In considering proposals for waste management facilities protection of human health, the environment and amenity will be provided through development control policies. In the case of human health a baseline assessment of air quality should be a stated requirement to accompany a planning application. This should include measurement of PM2.5 particulates, heavy metals and dioxins. Continuous monitoring of dioxins and systems to monitor and measure PM2.5 particulates and heavy metals should be stipulated as the minimum required standard of safety for an incinerator.

1.3 What is now needed is for the Planning Authority to take whatever steps are needed, including removing green belt status for sites that are considered strong, suitable candidates for waste management facilities.

1.4 We suggest that compulsory purchase powers should also be included in Policy WD5, if this is to remain in the Waste Plan.

SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 2.5 Processing excluding Thermal Treatment

1 Should Policy WD2 include reference to the use of Compulsory Purchase powers for identified sites?

1.1 We welcome the identification of 29 urban sites and industrial estates as potential locations for the accommodation of waste development. (Table 3.1). Regrettably none of these finds its way into Policy WD2.

1.2 The reluctance to use compulsory purchase powers is understandable but it is crucial for the best sites to come forward in delivering a waste strategy capable of serving the county effectively, sustainably and at acceptable cost for generations to come.

1.3 Whilst not, at least at this stage, identifying particular sites, we believe the ability to use compulsory purchase powers should be included. This would enable the Policy's to meet Coherence, consistency and effectiveness tests (vii) & (ix).
SURREY WASTE PLAN - Matter 2.8 Thermal Treatment Sites

1 Should terminology regarding "advanced thermal treatment" or "energy from waste" be clarified and made more explicit, including with respect to gasification and pyrolysis, as in RPG9 para 10.209?

1.1 The terminology should be made more explicit and thereby encompass other technologies. The Core Strategy states, at B4, that the vision will be achieved through a number of strategic objectives, which include "the provision of a range of waste technologies". The Plan fails to deliver on this objective.

1.2 The Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS), produced under the auspices of the Surrey Local Government Association, has the following statement on page 22:

"There are a variety of views amongst the partner authorities of the SLGA
about what should be done with residual wastes; some waste
authorities currently regard Energy from Waste recovery via incineration
as a desirable method of treatment, whilst others do not and prefer other
technologies such as advanced thermal treatment or anaerobic digestion with
gas capture."

1.3 At a meeting of the SLGA held on 6th September 2005, attended by Surrey Local Authority officers responsible for waste matters, note 2.04 states:

"Meeting generally expressed concern at scenarios and felt this was not in line with approved Integrated Municipal Waste Strategy Statement where heat treatment was a last resort. ----------- An SCC representative agreed that there could be more use made of Anaerobic Digestion (AD) instead of EfW."

1.4 A Biffaward report on Thermal methods of municipal waste treatment identifies major advantages of gasification and pyrolysis over mass burn incineration.

1.5 Further clarification of terminology is required in the Waste Plan as is more explicit choice of waste treatment technology. Policy WD5 is unsound in this respect. It should not specify a single technology nor should it favour a single site. We suggest that Policy WD5 should be removed from the Waste Plan and that the phrase "Excluding Thermal Treatment" be removed from Policy WD2, thereby providing greater flexibility, meeting Coherence, consistency and effectives test (ix).

2 Should consideration of the cost and infrastructure associated with energy capture and transmission be incorporated into Policy WD5 and its supporting text?

2.1 For reasons that we have set out in our statement on Matter 1.3 we have suggested that Policy WD5 should be removed from the Waste Plan.

2.2 We do however concur with the intent behind the question and suggest that consideration of the cost and infrastructure associated with any major waste facility should be incorporated in Policy WD2 (with the reference to "Excluding Thermal Treatment" having been removed) and indeed in Policy WD5, were it ultimately to remain in the Waste Plan.

2.3 This addition will improve the soundness of Policy WD2 by enabling it to comply with Coherence, consistency and effectiveness tests (vii), (viii) and (ix).

3 Should there be more emphasis on biotechnologies for waste management and composting to be preferred over incineration?

3.1 There should be more emphasis on biotechnologies. Anaerobic Digestion is a disposal technique that was proposed in the JMWMS and by others but was rejected in the draft Waste Disposal Authority Action Plan that was approved by the Executive Committee of Surrey County Council on 17 January 2006.

3.2 In our statement on Matter 1.2 we have proposed changes to Policy CW2 in order to enable the propensity for such developments as Anaerobic Digestion to be assessed and developed.

3.3 We also consider Policy CW4 to be unsound as it places no priority to permitting appropriate facilities at an early stage to enable significant growth to be achieved in recycling and composting. In this regard it fails Conformity test (iv) as it does not have proper regard to the needs and plans of the Waste Collection Authorities. In our statement on Matter 2 we have therefore proposed changes to Policy CW4 to permit sufficient and relevant facilities to enable the County's 50% target for recycling and composting to be fully achieved by 2015 and to enable further progress to be made towards the recycling and composting goal of 60%.

4 Should further consideration be given to assessing need for thermal treatment by a larger number of small plants?

4.1 There is significant commitment to raising recycling and composting levels at District and Borough level. Providing a larger number of smaller plants around the county will not only engage communities directly in dealing with waste they produce; it will also enable faster progress to be made in reaching the 60% target and possibly beyond.

4.2 Putting maximum effort into driving recycling and composting faster respects the principles of the Waste Hierarchy and accords with the vision of the Waste Collection Authorities, as expressed in the JMWMS.

4.3 As we have indicated in our statement on Matter 1.2 we consider that priority should be given to providing the necessary facilities to enable recycling and composting levels to be driven up to fully achieve the 50% target for 2015 and to enable further progress to be made towards the 60% goal. We would expect that a large number of smaller facilities are likely to be required to deliver this.

4.4 We remain of the view that there is no need to commit to thermal treatment at this time.

5 Is policy WD5 based on reliable data as to need and demand for thermal treatment?

5.1 No such data is included in the Surrey Waste Plan. We have highlighted the absence of this in our statement on Matter 1.2, which we repeat here for ease of reference.

5.2 The Waste Plan does not contain tabulations of past actual and forecast future waste arisings, recycling & composting levels and residual waste and therefore fails to demonstrate the need for any treatment facilities for residual waste.

5.2 Additionally the plan forecasts a surplus of landfill capacity in 2015, which places further doubt on the need for disposal facilities. In this respect the Waste Plan fails Coherence, consistency and effectiveness test (vii) as a robust and credible evidence base of need is absent.

5.3 To remedy this the Planning Authority should be required to produce a current need assessment which provides the context and clarity that is necessary.

6 Should Policy WD5 refer to BPEO?

6.1 BPEO is not explicitly addressed in the plan. But in a presentation by Entec to the Select Committee in April 2006 (on Residual Waste Treatment Assessment) it was stated that of the seven options to landfill that were considered all options could meet LATS targets, all were technically feasible and no option clearly outperformed against sustainability criteria. On cost criteria thermal treatment was not the cheapest option, being beaten by two of the seven options. Using these results as a surrogate for BPEO, thermal treatment did not come out on top, yet in the Waste Disposal Authority Action Plan EfW was recommended and subsequently agreed by The Executive on 17 January 2006.

6.2 The Biffaward report states that mass burn incinerator plants that do not export heat for district heating schemes etc have achieved energy efficiency in the range 20-25%.

6.3 ENDS, Issue 381, October 2006 on page 16 reports that:

"Under proposals to revise the EU waste framework Directive an energy efficient threshold will determine whether municipal incineration is to be classed as waste "disposal" or "recovery". Using a formula from the guidance on best available techniques under the integrated pollution prevention and control Directive, the new text sets an efficiency threshold of 60% for existing plants, below which incinerators are to be classed as "disposal" facilities. New plants receiving permits after 2008 would have to achieve 65%. SITA confirmed that none of its plants would meet the proposed threshold." If the proposals are enacted a mass burn incinerator will clearly fail any BPEO test.

6.4 In our statement on Matter 1.5 we suggest that Policy WD5 is struck out of the Waste Plan given that it prefers Thermal Treatment to all other potential waste treatment technologies. We have also proposed that the phrase "Excluding Thermal Treatment" is removed from Policy WD2.

6.5 As amended Policy WD2 will enable planning permission to be granted for a range of waste treatment technologies. A key test for any individual proposal should a BPEO assessment, which should consider technical, sustainability and cost issues. We would favour a specific reference to BPEO in Policy WD2, and were it ultimately to remain, also in Policy WD5. By so doing the policies would pass Coherence, consistency and effectives test (vii), which they fail do as currently written.