FCC Environment UK answers campaigners' questions on Calvert Incinerator ahead of key meeting

Buckinghamshire County Council's scrutiny committee will examine the proposed waste from energy plant in Calvert and the contract awarded to run it.

The authority says the plant would save £100m over 30 years and generate low carbon electricity for up to 36,000 homes.

But opponents believe there are better and cheaper alternatives and an action group has been formed to fight the proposal.

The Free Press put some concerns, points and questions from campaigners to FCC Environment UK, which was awarded the contract.

Here, in this Q and A, FCC answers those questions.

Campaigners: What is the evidence that the proposed incinerator will produce sufficient electricity for 36,000 homes?

FCC: There are many different ways in which a comparison of energy need vs. households can be undertaken.

For Greatmoor EfW, the facility will generate in the region of 22MW electricity (net) over an 8,000h year. According to the South East Energy Statistics (www.see-stats.org), average household electricity consumption is 4.95 MWh/yr.

If the generation is multiplied by the number of hours this gives a total of 176,000MWh and then dividing by the average household consumption in the south east to give the number of homes this will satisfy gives us 35,556. This means that, assuming an average electricity consumption, the amount of electricity generated by Greatmoor Energy from Waste (EfW) should be sufficient to satisfy the energy requirements of 35,556 households.

Campaigners:Why did you propose a mass-burn incinerator at Calvert and not one of the ATT solutions like you have at Milton Keynes ?

FCC: The Authority’s procurement process allowed bidders to propose alternative solutions and Energy from Waste was considered to offer the most appropriate to meet the needs of the Authority. Importantly the solution is aligned with policy since the adopted Minerals and Waste Local Plan and also identifies EfW as being an appropriate technology for the County.

Campaigners: The BucksCC Minerals & Waste public inspection has shown there isn’t enough waste from within Bucks to fill the 300,000 tonne capacity. In fact there is about 100,000tonnes of municipal waste and about 50,000tonnes of C&I waste. Where will you source the remaining 150,000 tonnes from ?

FCC: The proposed changes to the Bucks Core Strategy represent the most up to date forecasts of waste arisings in the County. The original figures were reviewed and revised downwards following scrutiny at the Public Examination of the Core Strategy. The Inspector took a pessimistic view on waste arisings in order to define the worst-case scenario and thus ensure the robustness of the Strategy. The figures shown can thus be regarded as very conservative in terms of the level of provision required.

Nevertheless the amended wording at proposed changes 52 and 54 identify a need for recovery capacity by 2026 for 112,000 tonnes of MSW and 178,000 C&I waste from within the County. That gives a total recovery capacity requirement of 290,000 tonnes, i.e. justification in planning policy terms for a 300,000 tonne EfW plant.

Campaigners: Why did you resist a condition in the planning application to limit waste to just from Bucks. Why do you want to import other counties’ waste ?

FCC: Greatmoor EfW has been designed to satisfy the needs of the County, however waste does not exclusively travel along County boundaries and therefore a ‘hinterland’ condition is not considered appropriate.

Campaigners: How will out of county waste be delivered to Calvert ? Will it be by HGV ?

FCC: The Calvert site has the benefit of a railhead; therefore waste could potentially be delivered to site via road or rail.

Campaigners: What would happen if you couldn’t source any or all of the additional 150,000 tonnes to fill capacity ?

FCC: FCC Environment is confident that it can source the required amount of commercial waste arisings to fill the plant capacity.

Campaigners: What is the price/cost implication of running the incinerator at below 100% capacity ?

FCC: FCC Environment does not envisage running Greatmoor EfW below capacity. Importantly there is no price/cost implication to the Authority should this unlikely scenario occur.

Campaigners: What percentage of the income derived in gate fees from 300,000 – 100,000 = 200,000tonnes of non municipal waste will you be giving to Bucks ?

FCC: This is addressed within the project financial model which remains commercially confidential. However our proposals have been subject to a rigorous procurement process and have been successful when considered against the proposals of other bidders.

Campaigners: What percentage of electricity sales from burning 300,000 tonnes of waste will you be giving to Bucks ?

FCC: As above, this is addressed within the project financial model which remains commercially confidential.

Campaigners: How much profit over 30years is WRG/FCC projecting from this venture ?

FCC: As above, this is addressed within the project financial model which remains commercially confidential.

Campaigners: If it’s such a good idea, then why are Bucks ratepayers needed to finance the capital and all interest for the project ?

FCC: The financial structure of the project is consistent with a number of other UK PFI/PPP type procurements.

Campaigners: Why didn’t you just finance it yourselves and take a market rate gate fee for Bucks municipal waste ?

FCC: Greatmoor EfW is not a ‘merchant’ facility; it is being developed to provide an integrated solution to service the needs of the County and has been procured by the Authority as such. The funding structure was determined at an early stage of the procurement.

Campaigners: Can you name any other Waste Authority who is proposing a similar Design,Build,Maintain & Operate solution [that is any ones that don’t involve FCC].

FCC: There are a numerous PFI/PPP type procurements of a similar nature that have been undertaken, either completed or in process, across the country. Neighbouring Oxfordshire County Council has recently procured a similar, 300,000 tonnes per year, EfW for their residual waste and construction is now underway.

Campaigners: Can you name any such projects that have been operating for any significant time ?

FCC: As above - there are numerous procurements of a similar nature. The DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) website provides a useful list of such procurements and their status (in procurement, partially operational, fully operational). This can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/local-authorities/widp/pfi-projects/ It should also be remembered that there are more than 400 EfW plants across the European Union – some are very large – and annually these facilities supply some 13 million people with electricity and some 12 million people with heat (www.cewep.eu/information/publicationsandstudies/statements/ceweppublications/m_862).

Campaigners: Can you name any FCC EfW plants in England that have been fully commissioned and have been operating successfully for a few years ?

FCC: The Eastcroft EfW has been fully commissioned and has been operating successfully for more than 40 years. It provides steam for Nottingham City’s district heating scheme and FCC Environment has operated the plant since 1998. Further detail can be found at http://www.wrg.co.uk/page.php?article=709&name=Eastcroft+Energy+from+Waste+Facility Allington EfW in Kent began commercial operations in 2008 and this year (2012) has been a particularly successful year for energy production with the EfW plant generating 102,000 megawatts of electricity for export to the national grid from 226,000 tonnes of rubbish that would otherwise have been sent to landfill.

Campaigners: Emission control regulations will be tightened at least once more in the next 30 years (they’ve been tightened 2 or 3 times in the last 30). Who is responsible for the capital cost of technology upgrades in response to such new emission control regulations?

FCC: The contract contains specific mechanisms for dealing with any such changes that may occur during the life of the contract.

Campaigners: Technology upgrades can take 1-2 years. Who is responsible for Bucks waste while such upgrades are being carried out ?

FCC: Technology upgrades do not take 1-2 years. Typically, should an upgrade be required as a result of a change in legislation, or part of the robust lifecycle and maintenance arrangements, this will be planned for and undertaken during a scheduled annual shut down. Such shut downs can typically last for up to two weeks (dependent on the works being undertaken) and contingency arrangements for such periods are in place. There will be no interruption of service during scheduled maintenance shut downs.

Campaigners: If for some reason WRG/FCC can’t make a go of this project and the incinerator reverts to BucksCC. Which of your competitors do you think would want to run it ?

FCC: This is purely hypothetical! FCC Environment is fully committed to the successful delivery of Greatmoor EfW and its continued operation over the duration of the contract.

Campaigners: What would they do differently to avoid having the same losses that caused you to abandon the project ?

FCC: See previous answer.