Agenda item

That the Committee note and receive the report.

The Director of Environment introduced an update reporton the progress of the North Wales Residual Waste Treatment Project (NWRWTP) procurement process.

The report stressed one of the key reasons for the project was to comply with the range of waste related targets that now challenged the Welsh authorities.  If Flintshire failed to meet these targets, the Authority would face fines of up to £400 per tonne.  The NWRWTP would play a key role in helping Flintshire County Council to meet the Municipal Waste targets.  The project was worth around £600 million, with £142 million contribution from Welsh Government, of which £38 million related to Flintshire County Council over the 25 years of the project.

The Director of Environment said that as of 1 August 2012, there were two companies bidding for the contract; SITA and Wheelabrator.  On 28 November 2012, Jasper Roberts from the Welsh Government had given a presentation at a Member Seminar in County Hall, attended by 35 members which received very positive feedback.  A further workshop, scheduled for 6 February 2013, in the Council Chamber, had been arranged with the Health Protection Agency to address health issues.    This workshop was one of two being arranged for all Members of the Partner authorities for the project, the second workshop would take place in Gwynedd on 7^th February. 

The new facility would handle 150-180k tonnes of waste per annum. It was projected that the partnership would provide 115k tonnes per annum of residual municipal waste.  The remaining capacity would be used by the operator to take in waste from other authorities or similar waste from the commercial sector.  It was projected that there would be about 55 vehicle movements per day, 32 of them from Flintshire.  It was anticipated that two trains per week would be used to transport waste from the west of the Partnership area.  Both bidders had confirmed that they would monitor particulate on a more regular frequency than the statutory requirement, emissions as part of their sampling routine.

The Director of Environment said that Community Benefit Schemes were being explored, such as funding for a community facility or renewable energy schemes.  The next stages of the procurement process were outlined in the table in Point 3.13 of the report.

Councillor C. A. Thomas asked about funding for transport and its        sustainability and if there had been a survey of local needs for the local community.  The Director of the Environment said that the two companies that were bidding for the contract were looking at rail based solutions and that there would be a rail head inside the facility.  The methods of transportation would be sustainable for the lifetime of the 25 year contract.  The Flintshire road based vehicles would carry trackers which would guide them away from the residential areas.  The Chief Executive said that the capital costs for a rail head were included in the project and would be a permanent facility. He added that there was ample capacity on the rail system which was sustainable.

Councillor N. Matthews asked if the two companies bidding for the contract were aware of the 2.5 PM particulate European legislation due to take effect in 2015.

The Director of Environment said that the two companies would have included this in their bids and that both had agreed to monitor 2.5 PM.  The Chief Executive said that at a joint committee meeting, the other councils agreed that the monitoring be conducted on a monthly basis.  The Cabinet Member for Waste said that current regulations did not require this, but Flintshire would seek regular monitoring with all partners contributing to the cost. 

Councillor D. Mackie asked that in view of the proximity of a national boundary to the proposed site, had sufficient early consultations been conducted with our neighbours to comply with international treaty requirements. The Director of Environment said that as part of the planning process, there would be discussions with neighbouring authorities in England.

Councillor D. Evans asked for a financial breakdown of the reported £50 million penalty to be paid should the project fail to complete.  He asked if Flintshire County Council had spoken to a waste facility in Kings Lynn which used non incinerating technology.   The Director for the Environment said that they had been in touch with the organisation but it was too late for them to enter into the procurement process.  The Cabinet Member for Public Protection, Waste and Recycling said the company could not offer the full process required.  The Director of Environment agreed to forward all members of the Committee a breakdown of the costs.      

Councillor G.H. Bateman asked if municipal trade waste would be accepted at the facility if there was spare capacity due to a reduction in household residual waste.  The Director of Environment said that they had based the project on 63% of household waste having been recycled which equated to 115 tonnes of residual waste.  To make up tonnage being treated to the facility’s full capacity, the two bidders would source commercial waste similar to municipal waste in its composition or seek other municipal waste; there was the possibility that Wrexham Borough Council would use the facility.

Councillor G. Banks asked how Flintshire County Council would manage the movement of non Flintshire vehicles and asked for more information about the Community Benefit Scheme.  The Director of Environment said that there would be a Contract Management Team and they would manage the waste vehicles, as too would the Council manage its only vehicles’ movements.  There would not be any vehicles from the west of the region as this would come via rail.  Proposals for a Community Benefit Scheme were currently being developed. More information would be available at future meetings.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee note and receive the report.