Shore Road Waste to Energy/Chemical Plant

Outline Planning Consent was granted for a Waste to Energy Incinerator at Shore Road

You can access the planning application on the Perth & Kinross Council website.

The Planning Application (Reserved Matters) was refused on 24th November 2009. A specially convened meeting of the Full Council on 24th March 2010 considered a report on the possible revocation of the outline planning permission but decided to refuse the application. This left the way open for Grundon to appeal. The Reporter turned down the Appeal.

Grundon have now come back with another application

The reference number is 11/00788/AMM

See Below

Comments on New Application
Explanation of Technology
History
Background
Summary of PKC Officer's Mistakes
Related documents

1. Comments on New Application

In this new application Grundon have moved on from a waste-burning plant to a very sophisticated chemical plant. This gives our experts many worries.
1)    Grundon have never demonstrated their ability to operate a complex chemical plant.
2)    They do not have the technical resources or technical back-up to support such an operation.
3)    Apart from a small pilot plant which has operated for a couple of years in Swindon, this process has not been commercially demonstrated.

Our experts are not aware that Grundon are associated with any organisation that understands scale-up of chemical plant, nor can they claim that the process has been demonstrated on a full variety of waste types.
The major concern is that this new operation involves considerable risks. There is the risk of air ingress into the syn-gas which can result in a very significant explosion. There is the risk in the manufacture of oxygen and there is a very major risk associated with a leak of the carbon monoxide-rich gas into the community/prison. These risks are all new and were not present in the first application.
So far, Grundon do not appear to have even recognised these risks. They do not feature prominently in their documents.
Grundon have moved from waste burning to the field of chemical engineering but do not appear to have chemical engineers. It is important to recognise that chemical plants always involve risks and the task of the chemical engineer is to manage these risks.
The first principle of risk management is to select a suitable location for a chemical plant. It is worth reflecting that the worst chemical disaster in history occurred in Bhopal, in India, where many thousands were killed due to the release of a toxic gas. Had the Bhopal plant not been in the middle of a large community, then Bhopal would merely be a chemical plant accident. In all likelihood there would have been no (or very few) fatalities, and Bhopal would not be a name that is familiar worldwide.
Thus location is the first and foremost consideration for any chemical development.
•    It is unproven technology
•    As far as chemical processes go it is one of the more difficult, dangerous and complex
•    Grundon have no track record for operating this type of plant
•    The proposed plant location has the potential to put a very large part of the community at risk.

In the new Environmental Impact Assessment there appears to be no mention of the production and management of large volumes of poisonous and explosive gases. This is a very major omission and from an impact-on-neighbour-aspect, should have been a major theme of the EIA.

Grundon are making use of the scoping opinions that were solicited for their last application and do not appear to be requesting new scoping advice. Given the new safety issues that this present proposal raises our experts say that it is unacceptable that Grundon are not asking for scoping advice from PKC and SEPA as to how this aspect of their proposal should have been handled in their EIA.

We believe that PKC has strong grounds to refuse to accept this application as it in no way resembles any waste-to-energy technology that was practised at the time outline permission was granted. If we (generously) consider that the granter of outline permission had consciously thought about what he was granting, then he most certainly would not have been thinking about a complex, untested, unproven chemical complex in the centre of our city.
Grundon need to spell out the risks to the community and show how and where they have successfully demonstrated their ability to manage these risks.

In addition we trust that SEPA will not allow this development. However where Grundon discuss the choice of site location, they point out that the site meets SEPA's guidance for Waste to Energy plants. SEPA has given no directive that our experts are aware of on the location of carbon monoxide production and must be asked what consideration has been given to this aspect of the process and how the risks have been minimised (they can never be removed). They must also demonstrate that similar community risks have been deemed to be acceptable and manageable at other locations.

2. Explanation of Technology

Grundon have announced their intention to submit a new application for the Shore Road site. They are quite entitled to do so as the Reporter confirmed during the Appeal Process that their Outline Planning permission was “valid”.
Grundon has already visited PKC to confirm their plans and it would appear that they have linked up with a group named New Earth Energy (NEE) to develop a new joint venture at the site.
NEE has expertise in pyrolysis and gasification technology. It would appear that modern waste gasification plants have much smaller footprints than conventional incinerators. Switching to gasification may directionally mitigate the concern that Grundon’s last reserved matters application represented “over-development of the site.”
On the face of it, gasification should significantly reduce the production of the most toxic plant emissions, dioxins. Dioxins form in the presence of moderate temperatures and high oxygen concentrations. Gasification takes place in a high temperature environment that is partially starved of oxygen.
Whilst, in theory, no dioxins should form in gasification plants and it has certainly been established that high cost, high tech gasification plants in the petrochemical and refining industries perform well with respect to dioxins, it would appear that in the waste industry a low cost, low tech, “poor man’s version of the technology is being promoted. This is witnessed in the operation of a new, state of the art, gasification plant that was started up on the Isle of Wight last year. The measured dioxin levels were eight times the maximum legislative levels and the plant was forced to shut down for major modification late last year.
A similar plant was proposed for development in Derby but it was turned down on appeal (Nov 2010) because objectors pointed to the Isle of Wight operation and the developers couldn’t defend their position.
Thus, should Grundon be proposing to develop a gasification unit at Shore Road, we would need to be asking how it will be different to the Isle of Wight.
A further concern with a gasification unit at Shore Road is the production of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas and can kill in low concentrations.
The gasification environment (with starved oxygen) partially oxidises the carbon in the waste to carbon monoxide. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is inert, carbon monoxide burns readily and is indeed a major component of the fuel gas that is formed in the gasification process. It is this gas which is burned through a turbine to generate heat and electricity.
A gasification unit produces high volumes of high pressure carbon monoxide and any localised plant leak can result in lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide nearby. It has been standard practice in the petrochemical industry to sanitise an area adjacent to the plant where people cannot enter without breathing apparatus. Finding space for such a sanitised zone around Shore Road may present difficulties.
We need to be keep track of developments at Shore Road to ensure that, once more, Grundon are sent homewards to think again.

Stack Height
There is no legal limit or constraint on the volume of toxins that may be dispatched to atmosphere from an industrial process. What is controlled is the ground level concentration of toxins attributable to the industrial process. Thus the only purpose of a stack is to distribute the toxins widely around the countryside such that their ground level concentrations rarely exceed the legislated limits.
The gases leaving a burning/incineration process are predominantly carbon dioxide and, as such, are much heavier than air. The tendency, therefore, would be for the gases to drop adjacent to the stack. What stops this happening is
1) The buoyancy of the stack gases due to them being much hotter than the local air
2) The force with which the gases are dispelled from the stack
3) The prevailing weather that may encourage the scattering of the gases.
As one moves up into the atmosphere, the temperatures normally drop. Thus a high stack will normally release gases at a point where the air temperature is considerably lower than the temperature of the stack gases. Thus the gases will have high buoyancy and will be carried great distances from the stack.
Clearly, high winds will also significantly increase the dispersion of the gases.
However, a manufacturer can build a lower stack if he is able to reduce the level of the toxins. In this circumstance the toxins would not need to be distributed over such a wide area in order to meet the constraining ground level concentrations. He can also lower the stack height if he can expel the stack gases at a higher temperature (i.e., more buoyancy.) However, high stack gas temperature equates to waste of useful energy and lower efficiency of the overall process.
On the face of it, the operator of a gasification process should be able to build a lower stack than that needed for a conventional incinerator. Gasification is a two step process. Firstly the waste is gasified in starved oxygen, high temperature environment which should strongly discourage the formation of toxic dioxins. The gases made from this first step are then burned in a controlled manner and expanded through a turbine in a second step to generate heat and electricity. This second step could be operated in a manner that minimises NOx formation. NOx is another group of toxins that cause serious health problems.
An incineration process, on the other hand, has a single burning step where high levels of oxygen are always present. This encourages the formation of dioxins. The manufacturer attempts to suppress the formation of dioxins by increasing the burning temperature. This action causes greater volumes of NOx to be formed.
Thus, theoretically, a gasification process should produce less dioxins and less NOx than a conventional incineration process. And thus, in theory, should be able to operate with a lower stack height. However, we have seen that, in practice, they are not presently demonstrating the ability to produce low levels of toxins as witnessed from the Isle of Wight operation.
Of course, when a plant is being developed, it is not possible to know what the ground levels of the various toxins will be. To determine this, a computer model is used. These models are modestly accurate. However, they are only as good as the information that is input into the model. This is where we get into an integrity regime similar to MP’s expenses. The type of waste is not known and thus it is impossible to assess accurately the level of toxins that will be generated. In this case a developer will use the level of toxins measured at a similar plant. (There is some room for loading the outcome here, but an honest developer would not do this)
The temperature and the volume of the stack gases can be accurately assessed from engineering calculations and one would hope that this information is also honestly presented.
The big area for mischief is the weather.
Whilst it is normal for the temperatures always to reduce as we go up in altitude, this is not always the case. There are occasions when hot air gets trapped between two layers of colder air. When this occurs, the heavy exhaust gases are expelled into an air layer that is much warmer than would be expected. In these circumstances, the stack gases will have much lower buoyancy than normal and will proceed to fall to ground in an area adjacent to the stack. This type of trapped hot air scenario will only occur during periods of low wind. Thus in the circumstances described above, there would be no wind to scatter the toxins. This would result in very high local levels of toxins, almost certainly exceeding the legislative limit. What is described above is referred to as “plume inversion.”
The type of location that would generate frequent periods when hot air is trapped above cooler air is one where there is some ground influence to maintain the temperatures at low level, like a river. There also needs to be a cup- like valley that minimises the natural circulation of the air during times of low wind. Can you think of a location that matches these conditions?
If someone wished to avoid the reality of these conditions when setting up a computer model to show the dispersion of toxins, then they would attempt to avoid using local weather data. They would rather look for weather from a coastal location, with no valley, no major river and strong prevailing winds off shore. Leuchars would be a good choice!

3. History

This application for a waste to energy facility at Shore Road was submitted by Holden but sold on to Grundon, a large English waste company, It did not come before the PKC Development Control Committee but was granted under delegated powers. The original application made clear (by comparison with another site) the size and scale of this development.

The original planning application was 05/02318/OUT

http://193.63.61.24/WAM133/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=05/02318/OUT

The Reserved Matters Application was refused on 24th November 2009.

PKC then obtained Counsel's Opinion and a Report on the possible revocation of the outline planning permission was prepared by PKC officials for Councillors.

PKC held a specially convened meeting of the Full Council on 24th March 2010 to consider the Report. It decided against revocation and refused the application.

Grundon then had 6 months from the date of the refusal to make a fresh application. They have now done so. The reference number is 11/00788/AMM.

4. Background

We were very fortunate in that we were able to assemble a fantastic support team of Dave Beattie, Joe Cairns, Douglas Fulton and Denis Munro. Amongst them we had all the expertise we needed.

We called a public meeting on 16th April 2009 which was attended by nearly 200 people. There was anger and concern at PKC's handling of this matter as well as great worry and concern about the plant itself. Our M.P. Pete Wishart summed up at the end of the meeting and told Grundon they should go away - reflecting the mood of the meeting.

The Reserved Matters Application should have been decided by 3rd October 2009. PKC made another application to Grundon's representative for a further deferral to 17th November 2009. Grundon could have declined to agree an extension of time and elect to appeal non-determination of the application. There were confused signals on dates ranging from late October to late November. PKC started preparing its position on 6th October which did not leave much room for us to interact but we stepped up our media campaign in newspapers, TV and radio.

It was a great disappointment to learn that the officers concluded that the case for revocation was not strong and that their recommendation to the Councillors was to rely on defeating the appeal and using landlord's rights with revocation as a measure of the last resort.

We wanted to stop this incinerator being built by the surest and quickest means possible. Permission for the development had been granted 'in principle' so all that stood between Grundon and their goal was to win an appeal against the Council's refusal of the Reserved matters Application. It was quite possible Grundon would lose but, statistically, 30 - 40% of all appeals are successful and we did not think the Council should have staked everything against those odds. Revocation of the outline consent would have wiped the slate clean and was, therefore, the surest way to bring an end to this sorry and rather lengthy saga.

The fact that the Council own half the site has been known from the outset and, if they could defeat this proposal by withholding landlord's consent , we were surprised that they did not act upon this. If they can now, of course, we would be delighted.

The Reserved Matters application was refused at the DCC meeting on 24th November 2009.

The Reserved Matters (conditions that must be fulfilled for full planning permission) were exceedingly trivial and it iwas most unlikely that Grundon could fail to meet them in full. Perth & Kinross Council having refused this application had to have valid grounds that wouldl withstand scrutiny when Grundon appealled the refusal decision. We believed that there were no obvious refusal grounds that could withstand such scrutiny.

At the conclusion of this meeting it seemed that the elected members, officers and objectors were committed to revocation of the outline consent which was confirmed by a subsequent meeting with PKC officials who said they were proceeding on the assumption of recommending revocation to a meeting of the full Council.

We obtained Expert Opinion which showed that PKC had acted outside the law in the process it used to grant outline planning. Council officials acted outside their authority and numerous mistakes were made. Notwithstanding these failings the planning permission still stood.

To be as helpful as possible we allowed PKC officials to see our Expert Opinion. They did not let us see their legal advice on which their opinion wass based. We asked through FOI to see it but our request was been turned down so we asked for a review on that decision.

PKC's failings and errors are solid grounds for revoking or cancelling the outline planning permission and only cancelling this permission will ensure that the incinerator is not built.

There are no signs that PKC is prepared to admit its failings and it does not appear to be prepared for revocation. It is possible for the government to call the application in and decide it independently. However, we can not be sure that this pro-incinerator government will refuse the application

Revoking will cost PKC money. Fighting Grundon’s appeal will cost PKC money.

We have supported public meetings and information sharing. We wrote to every Councillor explaining why this application needs to be revoked. The Planners' illegal actions and errors are solid grounds for revocation. We have met all local M.P.s and are looking to urge them to get the government to call in the application.

There has been a comparison between the development at Binn Farm and this one.

Binn Farm's stack is 70m tall and the gas has an exit temperature of 140C. Grundon's is 80m tall with a gas exit temperature of 130C. The difference in capacity between the two plants is accounted for by stack diameter, not height.
A lower stack height reduces the visual impact. The higher gas temperature enhances the dispersion and allows the stack height to be reduced. Also, the higher gas temperature will reduce the incidence of visible plumes. One would therefore expect that in the city there would be low stack and higher temperature, whereas in the countryside there would be high stack lower temperature.
This demonstrates Grundon's general lack of consideration for the community. Grundon will always prefer their option since it will give them a higher operating efficiency.

5. Summary of PKC Officers' Mistakes

1 They mis-read the site plan, the local plan -or both. Consequently, they were unaware, until we told them, that over half of the site is in a Business Uses zone where industry is precluded. Even in the Industrial Uses part of the site the relevant policy states that permissible uses are only acceptable “providing the use is not detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area." The proposed use could not conceivably comply with that caveat.

2 . In our view the proposal is not even an "industrial use". In planning terms this hinges on a document called "the Use Classes Order 1997" and we regard the proposal as what is known as a sui generis use meaning, simply, that it does not fit into any of the categories of use defined in that document. PKC officers are denying this because it is another mistake they don't want to admit to. Furthermore, for that reason and the reasons given in 1 above, they should have flagged this up as a "significant departure to the development plan". The fact that it is a significant departure to the DP, combined with the fact that PKC owns half of the site means that they should have referred the application to the Scottish Government - which they failed to do. That is the reason Roy Martin QC and Stephen O'Rourke Advocate concluded that the subsequent outline consent issued by the officers was "unlawful".
There are two other major incinerator developments under consideration elsewhere in Scotland at the moment - Invergordon and Peterhead. In both cases they are on proper industrial sites but the councils involved - Highland and Aberdeenshire - have ruled that the uses are, as we have claimed sui generis and significant departures to the development plan. Perhaps everybody's wrong except PKC ?

3. The Environmental Impact Regulations require that planning applications for this type of development must be accompanied by an Environmental Statement showing how possible environmental issues have been adressed. Officers processed the application without asking for one and did not even specify as a condition on the outline consent that one be submitted with the current, reserved matters application. Grundon have submitted one but it was not a legal requirement set out in their consent.

4. At the time when the outline application was submitted (2005) PKC had a scheme of delegation which empowered the planners to determine planning applications with a series of exceptions which needed to be determined by the Development Control Committee. The very first of those exceptions was if the application is " of major land use or economic significance to Perth and Kinross or adjoining authorities." The officers concluded it was none of those things and issued a consent claiming delegated powers. From submission to consent was 11 weeks which is a very short space of time for any consent to be issued. They issued the consent despite written advice from SEPA that there was inadequate information. They failed to notify Historic Scotland despite the fact that Perth Prison is a category A listed buildng and adjoins the site.

These are the main errors.