Waste must be burned, says watchdog
A SPENDING watchdog is backing the idea of incinerators as a long-term answer for dealing with household waste.
This is likely to incense opponents of plans by the West of England Partnership – the body which represents councils in the former Avon area – which includes the possibility of an incinerator at Avonmouth.
-
No decision on technology will be made for another two years.
But three councils – Bristol (led by Labour), North Somerset and South Gloucestershire (both Tory) – are bidding for up to £80 million of outside funding for a treatment method. And they insist an incinerator has to be kept in as one of the options.
But the Liberal Democrat opposition on Bristol City Council – together with Greens, Friends of the Earth and Labour parliamentary candidate in Bristol West Paul Smith – want the incinerator ruled out.
Despite assurances about modern incinerators, their concerns, include that of toxic emissions.
But the Audit Commission – which monitors councils and whether they are giving good value for money – says authorities must push ahead with new incinerators to meet long-term targets to cut landfill and avoid landing taxpayers with millions of pounds of fines.
A report on waste disposal from the commission congratulated local authorities on their efforts to reduce household waste and boost recycling.
But while councils should meet EU targets to cut the amount of biodegradable waste ending up in the ground to 75 per cent of 1995 levels by 2010, hitting longer-term goals would be harder, it said.
Recycling and waste minimisation will not be enough on their own to reduce the amount of biodegradable domestic waste going to landfill to 50 per cent of 1995 levels by 2013 and 35 per cent by 2020.
If councils fail to meet the targets, taxpayers in those areas will face paying fines of up to £2 million, the Commission warned.
England also faces increasing costs of sending rubbish to landfill through a rising landfill tax – and the prospect of running out of room to dump it in the ground in seven years.
While incineration is a less desirable way of reducing waste than reusing or recycling it, most plants now use the energy created to generate electricity. Although the projects are often very controversial in their local area and take up to 10 years to build, the investment is necessary to tackle the UK's landfill problem, says the Audit Commission.
Councillor Gary Hopkins, the Lib Dems' spokesman on waste in Bristol, told the Evening Post: "I haven't had a chance to read the Audit Commission's report in detail.
"However, they have pointed out themselves that it takes up to 10 years to build an incinerator. We favour a technology (gasification-pyrolysis, currently being pioneered by Ethos Recycling at Avonmouth) which is on our doorstep and which, within a year and a half, could be up and running and handling up to 80,000 tonnes of residual waste."
The entire output of households across the city is not much more than 100,000 tonnes a year. An incinerator – if that is eventually agreed – would probably be able to handle 200,000 tonnes, including residual waste – the rubbish we cannot recycle – from North Somerset and South Gloucestershire.
2 Comments
by stanislaw, sutton surrey
Monday, October 13 2008, 8:10AM
“Dear Bristol Post,
I hope you don`t mind me sending you a copy of this. The points to note are:
1. The new hazardous waste stream (changes in regulations) which will include radioactive waste, asbestos and pesticides.
2. The wind rose of the smokestack 7- ish miles for every 100ft of height(be aware that the plume will flow in diametrically opposed directions because the wind rose measures the source of the wind direction, not its destination).
3. Commercial profitability often means burning outborough waste (the Germans imported 280,000 tons of Australian hexachlorobenzenes to burn in their incinerators)
I went to a local consultation meeting on the South London Waste Plan in Sutton ( organised out of Kinsgton, web address: southlondonwasteplan@rbk.kingston.gov.uk) on Monday this week and I became very concerned about what is happening.
The ¿Issues¿ document was muddled and obfuscatory and the ¿Technical¿ information did not highlight what was going to be new and dangerous .
London-wide changes are being planned for waste disposal, driven by a 2.2 billion PFI credit offer by central government.
Boroughs have been lumped together to provide critical mass to enable the building of incinerators. These are being called "modern" but are in effect experimental without independent, peer reviewed, emissions, waste water and ash studies. I attended a very bad attempt by Sutton Council at consultation on future waste handling. Councillors heading the plan wanted to build 110% capacity to handle "foreign" waste to earn money for Sutton.
New regulations mean hazardous waste will now need to be handled in the boroughs (Business, Agricultural (organo-phosphorous pesticides) and Hazardous streams including at least 1,000 tons a year medical radioactively contaminated).
The issues we were allowed to discuss in the meeting were very shepherded to avoid anything really important.
1. What is known about existing and modern experimental hazardous waste incinerators and their impacts on human health?
2. Can the impacts of a proposed facility be evaluated before it is built, and if so how?
3. What is the regulatory compliance record of existing commercial hazardous waste incinerators and how are they inspected?
4. What methods can be used to monitor a facility's impacts after it is built?
None of this was allowed discussion...I fear that this charade will be repeated borough by borough to make sure that no strong, coordinated or informed protest occurs. The bottom line is that adequate monitoring of burns for dioxins, heavy metals VOCS, etc. adds 1% to the total incinerator cost. The density of the London population means that the well known risks are going to be magnified. It will be a terrible experiment unless it is stopped. The foetus, mother and child are particularly vulnerable. The wind rose diagrams for the emission spreads go transboundary to boroughs not on the consultation list for some 20 miles mostly in an arc from North to East. Selective placement occurs for the poorest wards.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. S. Prokop. BSC, MBBS, MRCPsych. Retired Consultant Child Psychiatrist.”
by Glenn Vowles (vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com), Knowle, Bristol
Saturday, September 27 2008, 10:02AM
“The Audit Commission appear to be ignorant of the latest waste management technologies. Why have incineration when you can have a smarter, cleaner, greener and more efficient approach??”