Agenda item

North London Heat and Power Project - NLWA

To receive a presentation for noting from the NLWA regarding the Heat and Power project, including the proposed incinerator upgrade.

Minutes:

The Panel received a presentation from the North London Waste Authority regarding the North London Heat & Power Project. The NLWA were asked to come and speak to the Panel following the last meeting during which there was a deputation around the proposed replacement of the waste incinerator at Edmonton. The presentation was introduced by Martin Capstick, Managing Director of the NLWA as set out in the agenda pack at page 11. David Cullen, Programme Director of the North London Heat & Power Project was also present. The following arose in discussion of the presentation:

a.    The Panel noted that the Heat and Power Project proposals supported increased levels of recycling alongside provision of the cleanest energy recovery system in the country for waste that could not be recycled.

b.    The NLWA emphasised that the facility was capable of dealing with forecasted increased levels of waste and that the facility was predicated on the expectation of dealing with between 500k – 700k tonnes of waste per year by 2050. The NLWA emphasised that they needed to be able to provide an appropriate infrastructure to deal with waste for the coming decades, at a time when population numbers were also due to increase.

c.    The Panel noted that the NLWA recently became the first authority to have the facility to recycle polystyrene packing.

d.    The Chair commented that a lot of the concerns expressed by the community were around the proposed size and scale of the facility. The Chair questioned whether in light of other facilities across London closing down, whether the NLWA was considering having waste from other facilities directed to the new facility in Edmonton. In response, the NLWA  advised that they were a few months from beginning the process of building the facility and that the focus was very much on the waste processing needs of North London only. The Panel was advised that, in simple terms, if NLWA did not build the facility then North London would not be able to deal with its own waste.

e.    The Panel raised concerns about the location of the new facility and the fact that it was in deprived area with existing health and air pollution concerns. In response, the NLWA advised that the facility was being built within an existing waste management site and that the new facility would be the cleanest in the country. The NLWA set out that emissions from the site would be largely undetectable, and that detectable emissions would only be present for no more than a few days of the year.

f.     In response to concerns raised, the NLWA advised that air pollution would improve as a result of the new facility. Under the industrial emissions directive the safe level of emissions was 200 units, the site was licenced from the Environment Agency at 80 units and the expected emissions from the facility were between 10-15 units. The NLWA advised that a simple assumption that the site was going to be a source of significant pollution was wrong.

*Clerk’s note 18:56 – Cllr Bull entered the room at this point.* 

g.    The Panel sought clarification around the fact that there was no safe limit for particular matter. The NLWA confirmed that this was the case but highlighted that emissions from the facility would be very low, to the extent that they would be effectively zero.

h.    The Panel queried whether the NLWA saw a future where the UK no longer needed waste incineration. In response, the Panel was advised that energy from waste was expected to remain as the biggest source of carbon output for the next 40 plus years. The importance of carbon capture was highlighted in this context. The new facility would not have carbon capture but it would be compatible if this was required in the future. The NLWA commented that they believed that the need for processing waste along current lines would remain for some time to come.

i.      In regards to a questions around the economies of scale and whether there were cost implications from running the facility at a reduced scale, the NLWA reiterated that there was a significant amount of flexibility built into the site and that it could easily operate at a levels of 500 tonnes per year, which was significantly below current waste levels. The NLWA acknowledged that operating on reduced scale would be less cost effective in terms of costs per ton, but that there was very little difference in overall costs from operating at 500k tonnes to 700k tonnes. The NLWA considered a range of different sizes and outputs when drawing up proposals. The Panel was advised that it made sense to build the facility at the proposed size, with a capacity to scale this up if required.

j.      In relation to a follow up question around whether a 10% reduction in waste would equate to a 10% reduction in costs, the NLWA advised that having a smaller facility would not achieve equivalent savings but that it was important to consider that a smaller facility would run the risk of not being able to meet future waste output in North London.

k.    Cllr Bull noted that he had been sent some fairly detailed questions on the site from the Haringey Climate Action group and it was agreed to send these to NLWA for a response in writing. (Action: Martin Capstick - NLWA).

 

RESOLVED

 

Noted

Supporting documents: