Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that the following questions
had been received under Standing Order 34.
Questions from Mrs. J. Howard
1. OJEU Notice
a. Expressly
should the Council now reconsider its recycling statements for the future to
make them more ambitious, despite allowing for a 1% increase in houses, in
order to take account of the targets for separate collection of waste (and its
management) in the Waste Management Plan for England released in January 2021.
Response by the Chairman:
The Chairman replied as follows:-
Our future approach will be considered as part of the review of the
Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy, work on which is now underway.
The review will set future recycling targets for Leicestershire and will ensure
they reflect the ambitions and appropriately align with national targets. As
this updated strategy is progressed, due consideration will be given to the
circular economy elements within the Environment Bill, the aims and ambitions
set within the Resources and Waste Strategy and other relevant strategies and
plans e.g. 25 Year Environment Plan and Industrial Strategy. In regards to the separate collection of
materials this will be further explored in the national consultations which we
expect to be released in March 2021 of which we will engage and respond
to.
b. Secondly why
does the Council need to have further dialogues on increasing that tonnage
quoted in the Notice. Or, Conversely, if it has set its minimum tonnage too
low, what target was it trying to meet? Will it therefore confirm that if it
achieves its target rates of recycling and the minimum tonnage is accurate,
that it should include into its procurement contract a clause to reflect these
targets for reducing that tonnage to reduce greenhouse emissions in accordance
with its Climate Emergency Council Declaration in May 2019 and in compliance
with the Waste Management Plan 2021
The Chairman
replied as follows:-
The published OJEU notice for the Contract for the Treatment of Post
2020 Residual Waste is being run via a competitive dialogue procurement
process, as such further dialogue is standard practice. When assessing the tonnage, variations in
waste arisings caused by housing growth or increases in recycling have been
considered while also providing the County Council with flexibility during the
contract period. For detail regarding
the Climate Emergency Declaration, please see the answer to (h) below.
c. Thirdly as
there are two OJEU notices for the same the contract, has the council deleted
from the April Notice the ability to include waste from other Waste Disposal
Authorities. Or is it restated in the July Notice as ‘intends to dialogue on
the options available to increase the tonnage ……’ please explain. The answer is
relevant to question 8.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
Please note
the two notices issued for the Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual
Waste procurement serve different purposes and are standard practice for a
contract of this nature. A Prior Information Notice (PIN) was issued in April
2019 advising the waste management sector that this procurement would be
commencing imminently. The OJEU Contract Notice was issued in July 2019 which
advertised and commenced the procurement. The notices allow for other named
Waste Disposal Authorities to utilise the resulting contract.
Please see
the answer to question (q) regarding other Waste Disposal Authority involvement
in the Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste.
2.
Heat Take
Off Incinerators, RI and the Procurement Process
d. Can the
Council therefore reappraise its minimum standard so that it will have as its
new minimum in any procurement process/contract, that any waste to energy
incinerator, has Heat Take Off. Therefore, in any calculations for R1, Heat
Take Off must be included as being operational** to comply with the
government’s proposals in the Waste Management Plan 2021 to promote Heat Take
Off.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
For the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste procurement it is set as a
minimum requirement that any solution that burns or incinerates the waste (or a
significant fraction of the waste) should utilise an R1 compliant facility as
defined in the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. Minimum standards for any future procurements
will be considered at the appropriate time and will take into account the
relevant guidance / legislation which is then in place.
e. Additionally,
can the council explain its technology neutral position in the light of the
targets in the Waste Management Plan for England 2021 to eliminate all D10
incinerators by 2030
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The reference to eliminating all D10 incinerators
by 2030 could not be identified in The Waste Management Plan for England
2021. The document does state that ‘the
Government does not express a preference for one technology over another, since
local circumstances differ’; the Leicestershire Waste Partnership’s technology
neutral position is, therefore, in line with the Waste Management Plan for
England.
3.
Waste
Management Scheme
f.
Can the Council explain why it removed the necessity
of having a Waste Management Scheme in the 2019/2020 Planning Permission if the
standard operated by the Environment Agency is to reduce a significant risk to
the environment only. The earlier Planning permission for Newhurst 2014 had
this condition included. There are standard planning conditions in this respect
set by the Secretary of State. (eg Pre-sorted Residual Waste Acceptance Scheme
con 8 of planning permission (APP/PO199/A/10/2140199)for the (SERC) Severnside
Energy Recovery Centre.)
The Chairman replied as follows:-
This question refers to Condition 36 on Planning Permission 2014/1440/02
relating to waste acceptance. This condition was removed from the most recent
planning permission as it was determined that this condition duplicates the
existing controls on the Environmental Permit.
g. Would the
council not agree that a Waste Management Plan set out as a planning condition
can enhance its controls and procedures to ensure recycling takes place
efficiently before delivered to any incinerator.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
When
deciding what conditions to apply, we have to have regard for the legal tests
outlined in Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. These tests
require conditions cannot be imposed that we believe may not be ‘necessary’ or
‘enforceable. The guidance is clear that local planning authorities should not
impose planning conditions that do not meet these legal tests, and this would
duplicate existing controls that are already regulated by the Environmental
Permit.
4.
Monitoring
Waste before incineration as producer of the waste/waste disposal authority.
h. If the
Council intends to meet its targets in Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
for its own operations how can it ensure all plastics and any hazardous
materials are removed from residual household waste before it is sent to the
incinerator tipping floor. Reliance on these types of checks alone, as stated
by Biffa/Covanta above, cannot be the only and or an acceptable practice.
{We note that removal of plastics is indeed
discussed as being a minimal standard set out in the procurement process, In
questions to Cabinet November 2020.}
The Chairman replied as follows:-
Leicestershire County Council are not the producers
of household waste and this waste is not counted as part of its operational
output
5.
Co2
Emissions in the Council’s Environmental Performance Report 2019/20 and Carbon
Capture
i.
Can the Council confirm whether it will be
including into its Greenhouse Gas Report and Emissions Report (latest
2019/2020) co2 emissions from Newhurst (when commissioned) and any other
incinerator it uses the facilities of, in calculating its target of net zero
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 for the waste the County produces in
relation to its own operations and in its contribution to the improvement of
the wider environment as set out in its Environment Strategy as amended on July
2020. [Agenda Item 9 page 35.] (Also recognising the legal challenge to the
government’s decision to exclude waste incinerators from its post Brexit carbon
emissions trading scheme which is continuing through the courts.)
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The question makes the assumption that LCC will be
sending residual waste to the Newhurst EfW facility. The outcome of the procurement for the
Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste is not known at this time. As already
stated above, emissions from household waste are not included in the greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions report for the Council’s own operations and are not in
scope of the Environment Strategy target to achieve net zero for the Council’s
own emissions by 2030.
The Council has followed the Government’s Environmental Reporting
Guidelines, published by DEFRA (2019).
j.
Can the Council confirm whether it calculates its
own Co2 emissions in the above report for the transportation of waste to sites
for incineration or landfill. If the procurement contract includes other Waste
disposal Authorities, those Co2 emissions also.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
In
calculating the Council’s own operational GHG emissions we include the
emissions from County Council vehicles used to transport waste. The emissions
of third-party contractors or other authorities are not included in the annual GHG
emissions report.
k. Can the
Council confirm that in order to reduce Co2 emissions it will promote carbon
capture as part of its policy on reaching Zero Carbon Emissions by 2030. And
therefore promote all incinerators to advance towards this technology in
particular any R1 Energy from Waste incinerator. See Climate Change Committee
Sixth Carbon Budget Report December 2020 and recognising the recent
announcement by Veolia. And if so, how.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The Council
currently does not have a policy position on carbon capture. This will be
considered as part of ongoing work to respond to the climate emergency.
6.
PM 2.5 Air
Pollution
l. Can the
Council confirm that it is critical that the Director of Public Health at
Leicestershire County Council takes action to co-ordinate an approach across
the County to monitor PM2.5 levels, and to acquire Zephyrs** to routinely
monitor these particulates for the health and safety of its residents. And
recognising hot spots, despite the lack of close residents, where incinerators
emit these particulates.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The Council, led by the departments of Public Health and Environment
& Transport is taking action to co-ordinate an approach to improving air
quality involving the County Council, district councils, the NHS and other
partners. Responsibility for monitoring air quality rests with districts
councils and is not a direct responsibility of the County Council.
However, the Council with partners has developed an action plan to address
the impact of air pollution on health. This includes looking to reduce PM2.5
from the source perspective. The plan co-ordinates action across the
partnership including;
To ensure all appropriate planning and
development proposals are rigorously and systematically scrutinised, taking
into consideration existing air pollution levels in the area the development is
proposed and the current health needs of the population living there to ensure
any developments – health impacts are known and mitigated against to not
exacerbate poor air quality and consequently poor health.
To work with communities on a series of
behaviour change campaigns to promote active and sustainable travel,
anti-idling, Clean Air Day and reduced multi fuel stove use - to understand the
barriers to improving air quality in their areas.
m. Following
the recent very sad death of Ella Kissa-Debrah, as stated by the Coroner due to
‘having been exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulates in excess of
world Health Organisation guidelines’ can the Council confirm that it will
lobby Parliament to include into the Environment Bill a safe level of PM2.5
particulates and a legal requirement to measure those particulates.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
Please see
answer above.
7.
Funds for
Future Recycling
n. Can the
council confirm how it will finance (or use private finance) to create a
hierarchy of improved waste recycling in the Circular Economy as Producer of
the waste/Waste disposal Authority. And avoid any liability as a producer of
that waste in the Environment Bill.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The financial burden of producer responsibility is intended to fall on
the manufacturers of products which eventually become waste. The County Council is not a producer of waste
in this sense.
LCC as a Waste Disposal Authority works with partners to encourage waste
prevention, reuse and recycling and achieves this through targeted campaigns
and other appropriate methods to raise awareness and promote ‘environmentally
aware’ behaviours.
LCC continues to promote the waste hierarchy and support and influence
future national policies to minimise waste, packaging and promote sustainable
supply chains and circular economy thinking.
o. Would the
Council agree that if it set more ambitious recycling targets it should also
target reduced charges within the procurement contract over the 25 year term,
despite there being a break clause at 2031? A potential financial gain to be
included in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions data report. [But conversely, also
protect themselves from any higher gate fee charges in the event that there is
less waste produced].
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020
Residual Waste has been procured to provide a destination for black bag
type residual waste that remains after waste minimisation, recycling and
composting activities have taken place. The procurement process has been
developed to deliver a high quality, reliable, cost effective solution for
managing residual waste in the medium to long term.
p. How else
does the Council intend to benefit from the resource-value of the waste it
supplies as fuel to EfW operators.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The Contract for the Treatment of Post 2020 Residual Waste procurement
process has been developed to deliver a high quality, reliable, cost effective
solution for managing residual waste in the medium to long term. Energy from Waste facilities generally
charge a gate fee (cost per tonne of waste) which takes into account any income
that the operator may generate from its operations.
8.
Monitoring
Recycling Standards of other authorities in the OJEU
q. As other authorities
are stated to be part of the Procurement Contract, (April OJEU Notice – see
above query) how will the Council exact the same high standards of recycling
from those other authorities.
The Chairman replied as follows:-
The other Waste Disposal Authorities named in the
OJEU notice are required by national legislation and policy to deliver their
own recycling performance levels. The County Council has no powers over other
Waste Disposal Authorities.
Mrs. J. Howard
asked the following supplementary questions to which the Chairman invited the
Director of Environment and Transport to respond. At the Chairman’s discretion
Ms Howard was invited to set out the background to the questions put which
looked to explore he Council’s recycling targets and policies for the future
having recognised that the ways in which individuals and organisations consider
waste were rapidly changing. It was noted that the incinerator shortly to be
commissioned in Loughborough had focused their mind on the emissions that would
occur in and around Loughborough. Mrs Howard further set out her supplementary
questions, which would be answered following the meeting.
Given
that the amount of residual waste is projected to decrease can you provide timescales on the future work in progress
in respect of recycling targets to ensure that the recycling targets do not
take a retrograde step within the county whilst furthering incineration?
In
the Waste Management Plan England 2021 (P 45) the Government promotes the
greater efficiency of energy from waste plants through utilisation of the heat
generated in district heating networks or by industry…..particular attention
should be given to the location of the plant to maximise opportunities for heat
use.
Can
the Council confirm that it will, in line with the Government’s Waste
Management Plan, include in its future plans the desirability of utilising
incinerators that have a minimum R1 threshold to include a substantive heat
take off. If any incinerator does not
achieve this status then it should be removed from any contract?
It states in
Figure2 in the Waste Management Plan for England 2021 (page 15) that by 2030
that in the Evolution of Waste Management Practices the shift will be towards
R1 status.
As this is
a very moveable position, can the
Council confirm that it will not adopt a technology neutral position within its
work in progress of options available?
The
Environment Agency’s Permit requirements on an Operator of an incinerator is to
receive and handle waste in a way that does not impose a significant risk to
the environment. This is not a high
standard. As stated in the question
Biffa/Covanta’s operating checks are to only do spot checks on tipping floors
and visual inspection by crane drivers, which does not appear very satisfactory,
so it is up to the producer of the waste/disposal authority to ensure that sufficient recycling is
undertaken. Therefore this work is not duplicated.
Please can the council therefore reconsider its position
and explain how it will be taking plastic and other non replaceable resources
from household waste?
We
gave an example of a planning condition for a waste management scheme. Please can the council explain why this is
not necessary or appropriate if other councils apply them?
Please can
the Council answer the question as to how it intends to remove plastic from the
waste before it is transported to the incinerator the question stated that even
12% reduction in plastic will remove Co2 emissions considerably and ensure the
incinerator is not operating to the same levels as a coal fired power
plant. (See details in the question). If it does not do so will it include in its
own greenhouse gases these additional emissions despite being outside its own
area of operation.
If the Legal challenge as referred to above is successful can
the Council confirm that it will add these CO2 emissions to its target. Can the
council therefore consider including in its zero emissions targets greenhouse gases beyond its own operations ,
where it uses those services?
Please
can you provide a target date for this work in progress?
Please can the Council respond on the question regarding
Zephyrs in particular can it confirm the purchase of Zephyrs across the county
and how the data will be monitored from the machines and be made public ie in
which council reports.
Please can the Council exactly explain in practice how it
will increase recycling. If it is not
responsible for ensuring that greater recycling takes place within the
household waste it has collected who exactly is and how it is monitored?
Can the Council therefore confirm that it is not
tying itself into a procurement contract with massive financial gate charges
that it will not be able to extract itself from in the future, when reduced
recycling targets are met and or different methods of disposing of waste, ie
biostabilisation of waste before any landfill etc in the future years?
Supporting documents: