Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
This is Plymouth -- MVV, the company behind the controversial Devonport waste incinerator, took part in a recent Q&A session with thisisplymouth.co.uk, where Managing Director of MVV Environment Ltd, Paul Carey, answered your questions about the incinerator. The event proved to be extremely popular and it was impossible to answer all the questions during the two hours the Q&A took place. Thisisplymouth.co.uk collected the unanswered questions and sent them on to MVV and Paul Carey. Below you will find the questions, comments and answers, grouped by topic. *Bradd:* What about the collection infrastructure and the quality of the waste product. Will there need to be secondary screening at site to ensure integrity in the types of waste that is incinerated - Municipal wastes have a high calorific value and are ideally suited to incineration as a means of disposal, it is a proven method, but what plans are in place for unacceptable waste arriving and the incumbent rejection and treatment of this waste when all other avanues are closed...?. And the transport - will this go out to tender..?. You are correct in saying the traffic volumes will not change, merely the direction they travel, as this transport network will replace the current landfill lorries, albeit this will still carry on in a smaller way, due to the recent extension on the landfill at Lean Quarry....? *MVV:* There will not be any front-end sorting of waste at the Facility, however we will carry out visual inspections to ensure that waste entering the plant conforms with the EWC codes in the environmental permit. Local Authority residual waste will arrive from Plymouth in the usual collection vehicles which are, as you say, already on the roads of Plymouth. Local Authority residual waste from the other areas in the SWDWP will be bulked before transport to Plymouth via the A38 and the St Budeaux Bypass to reduce the number of vehicle movements to a minimum. Similarly, the residual Commercial and Industrial vehicles will simply be redirected to our facility, reducing the waste miles travelled and there will be strict minimum weight limits applied, again to minimise the number of individual vehicle movements. *Benefits as a waste solution* *Rick OShay:* Can you list the 3 main advantages of incineration over other methods of waste disposal? *MVV:* EfW is a robust technology that deals with a wide range of materials and can operate at a variety of different scales (1st advantage). It also efficiently recovers energy that would otherwise be generated from fossil fuels (2nd advantage) and reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases compared to landfill (3rd advantage). That is not to say that other technologies should not be used as each have their place in a carefully planned waste management strategy, for example anaerobic digestion might be a solution if food waste is collected separately by householders. EfW makes the most of waste that cannot be recycled and would otherwise go to landfill. *Your Name:* Any idea why the Germans and Americans are ruling out building this type of plant in the future and are moving towards different technologies ie plasma far away from populated areas? *MVV:* They are not ruling out incineration. Indeed Germany has a high level of incineration capacity, complemented by an equally high level of recycling. They are not following technologies such as plasma arc which have yet to be proven at a viable commercial scale. *Benefits to local community* *Question from ?:* will there be plans to help heat local homes like they do in Germany? *MVV:* Unfortunately, the infrastructure required for providing heat to local homes does not currently exist. That said we are paying PCC £2 million over three years to invest in low carbon infrastructure across the City which could include a district heating system. *F Turner:* What are the long term plans for investing in the local area? Will you make a commitment to residents that there will be continuing support to mitigate the effects of the plant over the course of its operational life. 2 Million S106 payment spread over the life of the plant is not a lot. *MVV:* The approximate value of the S106 is £6.8 million, including the annual North Yard Community Trust payments of £150 000 over the life of the Facility and other payments such as biodiversity gain, Visual Impact Mitigation and air quality monitoring. This figure does not include, for example, funding apprenticeships throughout the life of the facility or the costs associated with installing monitoring equipment. *Monners:* so there are no benefits to local residents whatsoever apart from increased noise and the smell of pollution from diesel engines and rotting rubbish then? *MVV:* There are a number of benefits for local people, particularly through the S106 agreement and local employment / education opportunities. Your question appears to relate to the operational period of the Facility, during which time a noise management plan will be in place; however, we do not believe that there will be an issue with noise levels. The vehicles are already on the roads and those being directed via Weston Mill Drive will amount to an approximate 1% increase in current traffic volume at that junction. Furthermore, our tipping hall will be completely enclosed, preventing smells from escaping during tipping. *Om:* I understood MVV WILL NOT be providing civilian electricity/ heating, yet several times it has been claimed/written in the Herald that the incinerator would provide heating and energy to local residents. Come on children get your stories straight! The Herald, complicit yet again with such misinformation. *MVV:* MVV has always made it clear that we will provide heat and electricity to the Dockyard as our customer. Any electric energy not used by the Dockyard will be fed into the National Grid. If an infrastructure was in place, we could also provide heat energy to the local community; this infrastructure is for PCC to decide. *Rick OShay:* What are the projected profits from the incinerator and how much of those profits will be passed onto the local community? *MVV:* Projected profits are dependent on a number of factors and are commercially confidential. We are already making substantial payments to the community via the S106 agreement and apprenticeship funding. We will continue with these commitments throughout the life of the Facility, including payment of the North Yard Community Fund contributions (£150 000 per year). *s clark:* people whatever their background are entitled to live in a peace and quiet not have their lives turned around with constant noise and light lose. How many local firms are from Plymouth then? *MVV:* All local firms are, by definition, from Plymouth. I suspect what you are wondering is how many local firms are working on the project at the moment and below is a list of the local firms used directly by MVV as well as a list of local firms used by our main sub-contractors: Kall Kwik Printing – Union Street, Plymouth Francis Clark – Sutton Harbour, Plymouth URS – Armada Way, Plymouth PriceWaterhouseCoopers – Princess Street, Plymouth Hunters Personnel – The Crescent, Plymouth Wolferstans – North Hill, Plymouth SSE Contracting Ltd – (local office) - Burrington Way, Plymouth Staples – (Plymouth branch) TJ Purdy – Oreston Road Plymouth Aztec West Ltd – Burrington Way, Plymouth Target Travel – Langage Business Park, Plymouth New Continental – Millbay Road, Plymouth Jury's Inn – Exeter Street, Plymouth Martin Luck - Row Down House, Langage Park, Plymouth Wolseley Trust - Scott Business Park, Plymouth Rentokil - Chantry Mill Business Park, Plymouth, Plymouth Thirsty Work – Plymouth branch The AV Group – Deer Park, Ivybridge, PL21 0HY Continental Engravers (CEP), Huxley Close, Plymouth Construction Services South West - Exeter/Plymouth – Reinforced concrete works Waycon – Plymouth – precast stair towers Lorne Stewart - Plymouth - Mechanical & Electrical Linter - Plymouth - provision of attendant labour, carpenters, plant operators, storemen etc Ainscough Crane Hire – (including the former West Country Crane hire) – Plymouth depot - mobile crane hire Miscellaneous metal work/stairs/landing and architectural ribs. Now awarded to Underhill Engineering Ltd., Plymouth Underhill Engineering are also reviewing the Architectural Rib package *Om:* where in the UK is civilian housing as close as or less than 60 metres to a 48 metre, tall 180 metres long, 266,000 tonne per year wasteful incinerator complex? *MVV:* There is housing very close to the Coventry energy from waste plant – approximately 50 m, as can be seen on Google Earth. Plus, there are more examples of close proximity between EfW plants and housing areas across Europe, from Frankfurt to Vienna. *Fiora:* Has the visual impact it will inevitably have on the residents living in Barne Barton been taken into account? Will it block the view which many people, including non-residents, cherish dearly? We have all heard the exact height the building will be, it sounds very substantial. *MVV:* The visual impact was indeed assessed and addressed in the original approved planning application, and any impacts are to be mitigated through a Visual Impact Mitigation scheme which has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Plymouth City Council is currently in the process of consulting with the North Yard Community Trust on this scheme. It is hoped that the money provided under this scheme will be spent on visual mitigation that is welcomed by the local community. *H Geraldine Lane:* I would refer you to the recently published scientific paper - Cancer mortality in towns in the vicinity of incinerators and installations for the recovery or disposal of hazardous waste (Pub Oct 2012 - Environment International - Elsevier) which does indicate health problems resulting from the proximity of waste incinerators. Does the North Yard Community Trust have members who are environmental health and pollution specialists? Will the monitoring of potential hazardous emissions and particulates be constant as happens with German incinerators? UK residents are well aware that the Health Protection Agency relies on a 2004 report to indicate that modern incinerators are safe, yet admits that there is insufficient monitoring yet to be sure. Will MVV ensure that they employ a very rigorous monitoring in order to reassure very concerned residents of Plymouth that this method of waste disposal will not harm their health? *MVV:* Monitoring of emissions will be in accordance with the environmental permit within the chimney itself and data will be publicly available on our website. We are also obliged to report regularly to the Environment Agency in line with strict Waste Incineration Directive limits for all emissions. For the majority of emissions monitoring will be continuous but some pollutants can only be tested on a discrete sample basis. In addition we will install extra air quality monitoring equipment to supplement Plymouth City Council's own, to measure very small particles. The North Yard Community Trust is not responsible for monitoring the plant's emissions. *Ian Williams:* Surely the 95 metre high chimney although high, the surrounding area of Barne Barton is at a height level where any omissions will effectively be released at ground level for some properties. *MVV:* The height of the chimney was determined using a complex computer programme and the top is well above ground level in Barne Barton. *LHayden:* Please can you answer a previous question from L Willcocks of Hartley: If the emissions are harmless why does the chimney stack need to be so high to disperse them. Why do they need to be dispersed if they are HARMLESS *MVV:* L Willcocks' question was answered at 12:32 during the online session. The answer is: The height of the chimney was determined using a complex computer programme approved by the Environment Agency. This uses historical weather information to predict the concentrations of the pollutants with different heights of chimney. The analysis showed that with a chimney 95 metres high the pollutants were widely dispersed to well below the levels allowed. *Your Name:* Would you be willing to put it in black and white that there will be NO HEALTH risks what so ever and do you have any back up to state this? *MVV:* There are so many factors affecting peoples' health on a daily basis, it is quite hard to single out the one determining factor. Having said that however, there is substantial evidence presented in the health impact assessment, which forms part of our planning application. This evidence points out that the impact of the plant on people's health will be so small as to be all but immeasurable. This is a public document and is readily available on our website at mvvuk.co.uk. *Other safety issues* *KP:* What precautions are you putting in place for the safety of the children at the local primary school in relation to the increased number of heavy vehicles passing through the very road they cross everyday. *MVV:* The traffic impact and air quality assessments in the original approved planning application showed there were no concerns regarding Weston Mill School. The crossing on Weston Mill Drive is signal-controlled, so there will be no additional danger in respect of lorries passing by the school. MVV gave £5,000 under the S106 agreement for use by Weston Mill School; some of the money has been used for improving their grounds by planting along the fence line adjacent to Weston Mill Drive. *LHayden: How many lorries are already on the roads of Plymouth? Approx 264 lorry movements per day to a junction that already suffers major congestion. How is that going to be managed for other road users and the local primary school? What have you put in place for when there are accidents as we have experienced in recent weeks and all the traffic had to travel via St Budeaux and along Wolseley Road? *MVV:* The Highways Agency or PCC might be able to provide you with an estimate for the number of lorries currently on all of Plymouth's roads. The original approved planning application carried out an assessment of the existing traffic (cars and lorries etc) on the roads local to the plant and proved that the increase in traffic overall was just 1%. In terms of managing the lorry movements to and from our facility, deliveries will be staggered throughout the day so that they are not all arriving at once. I am not aware of recent accidents at that particular junction however any accidents there will be managed in the usual way by the local police force. *LHayden:* Please can you let local drivers know what plans you have in place for when there are accidents on the A38? There are frequent accidents on this stretch which adds to the already congested St Budeaux By Pass and Camel Head junction. Recently due to an accident traffic was diverted through St Budeaux Square and as a result traffic backed up along Poole Park Road and other local residential roads. What do you have in place to accommodate the waste laden lorries in such an event? *MVV:* One of our planning conditions relates to the Weston Mill junction slip road off the A38 and required us to make improvements to the road surface and signage at that spot. This was the result of that junction being identified as a potential accident spot; the works have been carried out already, well ahead of the operational phase. We cannot be responsible for dealing with accidents on the A38; this will remain the responsibility of the police and the Highways Agency. *s clark: how come we seen an article in a foreign magazine quoting you were to build this here before the planning date in December. *MVV:* Although the planning committee did not meet until December, the contract was signed before then with the condition being that planning permission would be have to be obtained first. When planning a project like this, there are some parts (like turbines) that have to be ordered well in advance. These orders usually include a cancellation clause if the contract for the project should not be signed. Our orders on the turbine were indeed commented on in a German industrial magazine in 2011. *Mo:* So you haven't actually got a solution for the 65,000 tonnes per year of residual ash waste you are going to produce then! *MVV:* There is a well-established practice of recycling IBA in the UK, currently around 800 000 T per annum are recycled in the same way we propose, and we are confident we will find a a suitable site on which to do this. As we are not producing any IBA yet there is time to identify a solution; however we are confident we will win the appeal at Buckfastleigh and are concentrating our efforts there. In the original transcript we said the appeal would be in May but this should be corrected to June. *Your Name:* If you are not successful with Whitecleaves Quarry where else will you apply for? Other communities may like to know in advance *MVV:* We are concentrating our efforts on the appeal at Buckfastleigh which will take place in June and we are confident that we will be successful there. We are not prepared to discuss potential alternative sites or solutions. *Your Name:* It is recommended that wind turbines be 1.4miles from homes. Why is is then deemed to be OK to have the turbines less than 200 metres from homes here. They will be noisy too *MVV:* We are unaware of such a restriction on wind turbines. However, we will use steam turbines, not wind turbines, and these will be enclosed within the building itself, not open to the air. Any sound will be reduced to well below statutory levels. *Comments / non-questions* *LHayden:* Mr Carey you obviously don't feel the need to defend the local people in 'subsidised housing'. After all we all know that this would NEVER have been sited in an affluent area of Plymouth. Money is power. If questions are lumped together, from past experience, not all will be answered. *MVV:* I am not sure if this is really a question, but I am responding to all of the comments and questions that I have received from the Herald. The sole reason for choosing North Yard as the preferred site for our plant is the proximity to the Naval Dockyard, enabling us to use the highly efficient Combined Heat and Power (CHP) process. This would not have been possible at the other potential sites. *LHayden:* But we have not been given the choice and we will not receive district heating as we all know. Plants in Germany tend to have roads especially built to service them and German planners etc are a bit more savvy than here in the UK . In this situation you are trying to make the area suit the plant and the infrastructure is not adequate now never mind in years to come. We are not Germany and there is much of what Germany does that is good that we do not do here. Here we get the muddled together version. Even our recycling has not been sorted out to be like Germany's. *MVV:* As you are aware, recycling efficiently relies on individuals to make responsible choices when purchasing and to be disciplined when dealing with their waste. This also happens in Germany and results in very high levels of recycling there, along with high levels of energy from waste for the remaining residual waste. Our Community Liaison Manager will continue to work with schools, colleges and communities to educate and improve their attitudes to sustainable waste management. *Me:* So this company will be making a profit from our waste..? Essentially - at the expense of the people of Plymouth? *MVV:* As a business we will of course aim to make a profit, but in doing so are providing a very cost competitive and environmentally friendly way of dealing with the regions' residual waste. We are building a power plant to supply energy to the Dockyard using a fuel source which is far more sustainable than burning fossil fuels which is currently the case. *Mo:* 264 HGV movements per day which equates to an increase in 53% HGV traffic alone on Plymouth's roads (Weston Mill drive will be especially bad with congestion, such as it currently suffers every day) *MVV:* It is important to remember that the waste collection vehicles are already on the roads, and the real increase in traffic is just 1%. *Om:* 264 HGV movements per day which equates to an increase in 53% HGV traffic alone on Plymouth's roads (Weston Mill drive will be especially bad with congestion, such as it currently suffers *s clark:* what a thing working 24 hours a day 7 days a week 364 days a year and will blight peoples homes when they look out to see this thing some will have it towering into their homes.Oh you forget to say it should be like a ship to look at.Its in a danger zone of 450 homes many who cannot move out from the area as they have to have a home to live in *MVV:* This is not a question but appears to be a statement, with which we do not agree. *s clark:* heating system to go to Devonport as stated in the planners report from the planning committee not to the Barne Barton *MVV:* The development of any future district heating network will be at the discretion of Plymouth City Council. *S clark:* well move all those closed to the incinerator out and you move your workers in there.Seems fair after all its safe and doesn't make a noise thou there is that constant humming sound even thou it will be working 24 hours a day 7 days a week 364 days a year *MVV:* This appears to be a comment rather than a question. *Sclark:* what with nuclear submarines nearby and the dockyard.Have you seen the emergency plan on the ply city council website and the area that will be covered if god forbids anything happens.There are 450 homes in a danger zone.Every life is precious whether you are poor or rich *MVV:* I agree that every life is precious and am aware of the emergency plan. We have shown that any risk originating from our plant is indeed minimal. This was confirmed by the MoD as well as the planning department of PCC.
** Reported by This is 2 hours ago.
Clik here to view.
This is Plymouth -- MVV, the company behind the controversial Devonport waste incinerator, took part in a recent Q&A session with thisisplymouth.co.uk, where Managing Director of MVV Environment Ltd, Paul Carey, answered your questions about the incinerator. The event proved to be extremely popular and it was impossible to answer all the questions during the two hours the Q&A took place. Thisisplymouth.co.uk collected the unanswered questions and sent them on to MVV and Paul Carey. Below you will find the questions, comments and answers, grouped by topic. *Bradd:* What about the collection infrastructure and the quality of the waste product. Will there need to be secondary screening at site to ensure integrity in the types of waste that is incinerated - Municipal wastes have a high calorific value and are ideally suited to incineration as a means of disposal, it is a proven method, but what plans are in place for unacceptable waste arriving and the incumbent rejection and treatment of this waste when all other avanues are closed...?. And the transport - will this go out to tender..?. You are correct in saying the traffic volumes will not change, merely the direction they travel, as this transport network will replace the current landfill lorries, albeit this will still carry on in a smaller way, due to the recent extension on the landfill at Lean Quarry....? *MVV:* There will not be any front-end sorting of waste at the Facility, however we will carry out visual inspections to ensure that waste entering the plant conforms with the EWC codes in the environmental permit. Local Authority residual waste will arrive from Plymouth in the usual collection vehicles which are, as you say, already on the roads of Plymouth. Local Authority residual waste from the other areas in the SWDWP will be bulked before transport to Plymouth via the A38 and the St Budeaux Bypass to reduce the number of vehicle movements to a minimum. Similarly, the residual Commercial and Industrial vehicles will simply be redirected to our facility, reducing the waste miles travelled and there will be strict minimum weight limits applied, again to minimise the number of individual vehicle movements. *Benefits as a waste solution* *Rick OShay:* Can you list the 3 main advantages of incineration over other methods of waste disposal? *MVV:* EfW is a robust technology that deals with a wide range of materials and can operate at a variety of different scales (1st advantage). It also efficiently recovers energy that would otherwise be generated from fossil fuels (2nd advantage) and reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases compared to landfill (3rd advantage). That is not to say that other technologies should not be used as each have their place in a carefully planned waste management strategy, for example anaerobic digestion might be a solution if food waste is collected separately by householders. EfW makes the most of waste that cannot be recycled and would otherwise go to landfill. *Your Name:* Any idea why the Germans and Americans are ruling out building this type of plant in the future and are moving towards different technologies ie plasma far away from populated areas? *MVV:* They are not ruling out incineration. Indeed Germany has a high level of incineration capacity, complemented by an equally high level of recycling. They are not following technologies such as plasma arc which have yet to be proven at a viable commercial scale. *Benefits to local community* *Question from ?:* will there be plans to help heat local homes like they do in Germany? *MVV:* Unfortunately, the infrastructure required for providing heat to local homes does not currently exist. That said we are paying PCC £2 million over three years to invest in low carbon infrastructure across the City which could include a district heating system. *F Turner:* What are the long term plans for investing in the local area? Will you make a commitment to residents that there will be continuing support to mitigate the effects of the plant over the course of its operational life. 2 Million S106 payment spread over the life of the plant is not a lot. *MVV:* The approximate value of the S106 is £6.8 million, including the annual North Yard Community Trust payments of £150 000 over the life of the Facility and other payments such as biodiversity gain, Visual Impact Mitigation and air quality monitoring. This figure does not include, for example, funding apprenticeships throughout the life of the facility or the costs associated with installing monitoring equipment. *Monners:* so there are no benefits to local residents whatsoever apart from increased noise and the smell of pollution from diesel engines and rotting rubbish then? *MVV:* There are a number of benefits for local people, particularly through the S106 agreement and local employment / education opportunities. Your question appears to relate to the operational period of the Facility, during which time a noise management plan will be in place; however, we do not believe that there will be an issue with noise levels. The vehicles are already on the roads and those being directed via Weston Mill Drive will amount to an approximate 1% increase in current traffic volume at that junction. Furthermore, our tipping hall will be completely enclosed, preventing smells from escaping during tipping. *Om:* I understood MVV WILL NOT be providing civilian electricity/ heating, yet several times it has been claimed/written in the Herald that the incinerator would provide heating and energy to local residents. Come on children get your stories straight! The Herald, complicit yet again with such misinformation. *MVV:* MVV has always made it clear that we will provide heat and electricity to the Dockyard as our customer. Any electric energy not used by the Dockyard will be fed into the National Grid. If an infrastructure was in place, we could also provide heat energy to the local community; this infrastructure is for PCC to decide. *Rick OShay:* What are the projected profits from the incinerator and how much of those profits will be passed onto the local community? *MVV:* Projected profits are dependent on a number of factors and are commercially confidential. We are already making substantial payments to the community via the S106 agreement and apprenticeship funding. We will continue with these commitments throughout the life of the Facility, including payment of the North Yard Community Fund contributions (£150 000 per year). *s clark:* people whatever their background are entitled to live in a peace and quiet not have their lives turned around with constant noise and light lose. How many local firms are from Plymouth then? *MVV:* All local firms are, by definition, from Plymouth. I suspect what you are wondering is how many local firms are working on the project at the moment and below is a list of the local firms used directly by MVV as well as a list of local firms used by our main sub-contractors: Kall Kwik Printing – Union Street, Plymouth Francis Clark – Sutton Harbour, Plymouth URS – Armada Way, Plymouth PriceWaterhouseCoopers – Princess Street, Plymouth Hunters Personnel – The Crescent, Plymouth Wolferstans – North Hill, Plymouth SSE Contracting Ltd – (local office) - Burrington Way, Plymouth Staples – (Plymouth branch) TJ Purdy – Oreston Road Plymouth Aztec West Ltd – Burrington Way, Plymouth Target Travel – Langage Business Park, Plymouth New Continental – Millbay Road, Plymouth Jury's Inn – Exeter Street, Plymouth Martin Luck - Row Down House, Langage Park, Plymouth Wolseley Trust - Scott Business Park, Plymouth Rentokil - Chantry Mill Business Park, Plymouth, Plymouth Thirsty Work – Plymouth branch The AV Group – Deer Park, Ivybridge, PL21 0HY Continental Engravers (CEP), Huxley Close, Plymouth Construction Services South West - Exeter/Plymouth – Reinforced concrete works Waycon – Plymouth – precast stair towers Lorne Stewart - Plymouth - Mechanical & Electrical Linter - Plymouth - provision of attendant labour, carpenters, plant operators, storemen etc Ainscough Crane Hire – (including the former West Country Crane hire) – Plymouth depot - mobile crane hire Miscellaneous metal work/stairs/landing and architectural ribs. Now awarded to Underhill Engineering Ltd., Plymouth Underhill Engineering are also reviewing the Architectural Rib package *Om:* where in the UK is civilian housing as close as or less than 60 metres to a 48 metre, tall 180 metres long, 266,000 tonne per year wasteful incinerator complex? *MVV:* There is housing very close to the Coventry energy from waste plant – approximately 50 m, as can be seen on Google Earth. Plus, there are more examples of close proximity between EfW plants and housing areas across Europe, from Frankfurt to Vienna. *Fiora:* Has the visual impact it will inevitably have on the residents living in Barne Barton been taken into account? Will it block the view which many people, including non-residents, cherish dearly? We have all heard the exact height the building will be, it sounds very substantial. *MVV:* The visual impact was indeed assessed and addressed in the original approved planning application, and any impacts are to be mitigated through a Visual Impact Mitigation scheme which has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Plymouth City Council is currently in the process of consulting with the North Yard Community Trust on this scheme. It is hoped that the money provided under this scheme will be spent on visual mitigation that is welcomed by the local community. *H Geraldine Lane:* I would refer you to the recently published scientific paper - Cancer mortality in towns in the vicinity of incinerators and installations for the recovery or disposal of hazardous waste (Pub Oct 2012 - Environment International - Elsevier) which does indicate health problems resulting from the proximity of waste incinerators. Does the North Yard Community Trust have members who are environmental health and pollution specialists? Will the monitoring of potential hazardous emissions and particulates be constant as happens with German incinerators? UK residents are well aware that the Health Protection Agency relies on a 2004 report to indicate that modern incinerators are safe, yet admits that there is insufficient monitoring yet to be sure. Will MVV ensure that they employ a very rigorous monitoring in order to reassure very concerned residents of Plymouth that this method of waste disposal will not harm their health? *MVV:* Monitoring of emissions will be in accordance with the environmental permit within the chimney itself and data will be publicly available on our website. We are also obliged to report regularly to the Environment Agency in line with strict Waste Incineration Directive limits for all emissions. For the majority of emissions monitoring will be continuous but some pollutants can only be tested on a discrete sample basis. In addition we will install extra air quality monitoring equipment to supplement Plymouth City Council's own, to measure very small particles. The North Yard Community Trust is not responsible for monitoring the plant's emissions. *Ian Williams:* Surely the 95 metre high chimney although high, the surrounding area of Barne Barton is at a height level where any omissions will effectively be released at ground level for some properties. *MVV:* The height of the chimney was determined using a complex computer programme and the top is well above ground level in Barne Barton. *LHayden:* Please can you answer a previous question from L Willcocks of Hartley: If the emissions are harmless why does the chimney stack need to be so high to disperse them. Why do they need to be dispersed if they are HARMLESS *MVV:* L Willcocks' question was answered at 12:32 during the online session. The answer is: The height of the chimney was determined using a complex computer programme approved by the Environment Agency. This uses historical weather information to predict the concentrations of the pollutants with different heights of chimney. The analysis showed that with a chimney 95 metres high the pollutants were widely dispersed to well below the levels allowed. *Your Name:* Would you be willing to put it in black and white that there will be NO HEALTH risks what so ever and do you have any back up to state this? *MVV:* There are so many factors affecting peoples' health on a daily basis, it is quite hard to single out the one determining factor. Having said that however, there is substantial evidence presented in the health impact assessment, which forms part of our planning application. This evidence points out that the impact of the plant on people's health will be so small as to be all but immeasurable. This is a public document and is readily available on our website at mvvuk.co.uk. *Other safety issues* *KP:* What precautions are you putting in place for the safety of the children at the local primary school in relation to the increased number of heavy vehicles passing through the very road they cross everyday. *MVV:* The traffic impact and air quality assessments in the original approved planning application showed there were no concerns regarding Weston Mill School. The crossing on Weston Mill Drive is signal-controlled, so there will be no additional danger in respect of lorries passing by the school. MVV gave £5,000 under the S106 agreement for use by Weston Mill School; some of the money has been used for improving their grounds by planting along the fence line adjacent to Weston Mill Drive. *LHayden: How many lorries are already on the roads of Plymouth? Approx 264 lorry movements per day to a junction that already suffers major congestion. How is that going to be managed for other road users and the local primary school? What have you put in place for when there are accidents as we have experienced in recent weeks and all the traffic had to travel via St Budeaux and along Wolseley Road? *MVV:* The Highways Agency or PCC might be able to provide you with an estimate for the number of lorries currently on all of Plymouth's roads. The original approved planning application carried out an assessment of the existing traffic (cars and lorries etc) on the roads local to the plant and proved that the increase in traffic overall was just 1%. In terms of managing the lorry movements to and from our facility, deliveries will be staggered throughout the day so that they are not all arriving at once. I am not aware of recent accidents at that particular junction however any accidents there will be managed in the usual way by the local police force. *LHayden:* Please can you let local drivers know what plans you have in place for when there are accidents on the A38? There are frequent accidents on this stretch which adds to the already congested St Budeaux By Pass and Camel Head junction. Recently due to an accident traffic was diverted through St Budeaux Square and as a result traffic backed up along Poole Park Road and other local residential roads. What do you have in place to accommodate the waste laden lorries in such an event? *MVV:* One of our planning conditions relates to the Weston Mill junction slip road off the A38 and required us to make improvements to the road surface and signage at that spot. This was the result of that junction being identified as a potential accident spot; the works have been carried out already, well ahead of the operational phase. We cannot be responsible for dealing with accidents on the A38; this will remain the responsibility of the police and the Highways Agency. *s clark: how come we seen an article in a foreign magazine quoting you were to build this here before the planning date in December. *MVV:* Although the planning committee did not meet until December, the contract was signed before then with the condition being that planning permission would be have to be obtained first. When planning a project like this, there are some parts (like turbines) that have to be ordered well in advance. These orders usually include a cancellation clause if the contract for the project should not be signed. Our orders on the turbine were indeed commented on in a German industrial magazine in 2011. *Mo:* So you haven't actually got a solution for the 65,000 tonnes per year of residual ash waste you are going to produce then! *MVV:* There is a well-established practice of recycling IBA in the UK, currently around 800 000 T per annum are recycled in the same way we propose, and we are confident we will find a a suitable site on which to do this. As we are not producing any IBA yet there is time to identify a solution; however we are confident we will win the appeal at Buckfastleigh and are concentrating our efforts there. In the original transcript we said the appeal would be in May but this should be corrected to June. *Your Name:* If you are not successful with Whitecleaves Quarry where else will you apply for? Other communities may like to know in advance *MVV:* We are concentrating our efforts on the appeal at Buckfastleigh which will take place in June and we are confident that we will be successful there. We are not prepared to discuss potential alternative sites or solutions. *Your Name:* It is recommended that wind turbines be 1.4miles from homes. Why is is then deemed to be OK to have the turbines less than 200 metres from homes here. They will be noisy too *MVV:* We are unaware of such a restriction on wind turbines. However, we will use steam turbines, not wind turbines, and these will be enclosed within the building itself, not open to the air. Any sound will be reduced to well below statutory levels. *Comments / non-questions* *LHayden:* Mr Carey you obviously don't feel the need to defend the local people in 'subsidised housing'. After all we all know that this would NEVER have been sited in an affluent area of Plymouth. Money is power. If questions are lumped together, from past experience, not all will be answered. *MVV:* I am not sure if this is really a question, but I am responding to all of the comments and questions that I have received from the Herald. The sole reason for choosing North Yard as the preferred site for our plant is the proximity to the Naval Dockyard, enabling us to use the highly efficient Combined Heat and Power (CHP) process. This would not have been possible at the other potential sites. *LHayden:* But we have not been given the choice and we will not receive district heating as we all know. Plants in Germany tend to have roads especially built to service them and German planners etc are a bit more savvy than here in the UK . In this situation you are trying to make the area suit the plant and the infrastructure is not adequate now never mind in years to come. We are not Germany and there is much of what Germany does that is good that we do not do here. Here we get the muddled together version. Even our recycling has not been sorted out to be like Germany's. *MVV:* As you are aware, recycling efficiently relies on individuals to make responsible choices when purchasing and to be disciplined when dealing with their waste. This also happens in Germany and results in very high levels of recycling there, along with high levels of energy from waste for the remaining residual waste. Our Community Liaison Manager will continue to work with schools, colleges and communities to educate and improve their attitudes to sustainable waste management. *Me:* So this company will be making a profit from our waste..? Essentially - at the expense of the people of Plymouth? *MVV:* As a business we will of course aim to make a profit, but in doing so are providing a very cost competitive and environmentally friendly way of dealing with the regions' residual waste. We are building a power plant to supply energy to the Dockyard using a fuel source which is far more sustainable than burning fossil fuels which is currently the case. *Mo:* 264 HGV movements per day which equates to an increase in 53% HGV traffic alone on Plymouth's roads (Weston Mill drive will be especially bad with congestion, such as it currently suffers every day) *MVV:* It is important to remember that the waste collection vehicles are already on the roads, and the real increase in traffic is just 1%. *Om:* 264 HGV movements per day which equates to an increase in 53% HGV traffic alone on Plymouth's roads (Weston Mill drive will be especially bad with congestion, such as it currently suffers *s clark:* what a thing working 24 hours a day 7 days a week 364 days a year and will blight peoples homes when they look out to see this thing some will have it towering into their homes.Oh you forget to say it should be like a ship to look at.Its in a danger zone of 450 homes many who cannot move out from the area as they have to have a home to live in *MVV:* This is not a question but appears to be a statement, with which we do not agree. *s clark:* heating system to go to Devonport as stated in the planners report from the planning committee not to the Barne Barton *MVV:* The development of any future district heating network will be at the discretion of Plymouth City Council. *S clark:* well move all those closed to the incinerator out and you move your workers in there.Seems fair after all its safe and doesn't make a noise thou there is that constant humming sound even thou it will be working 24 hours a day 7 days a week 364 days a year *MVV:* This appears to be a comment rather than a question. *Sclark:* what with nuclear submarines nearby and the dockyard.Have you seen the emergency plan on the ply city council website and the area that will be covered if god forbids anything happens.There are 450 homes in a danger zone.Every life is precious whether you are poor or rich *MVV:* I agree that every life is precious and am aware of the emergency plan. We have shown that any risk originating from our plant is indeed minimal. This was confirmed by the MoD as well as the planning department of PCC.** Reported by This is 2 hours ago.