House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report

SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

COMPOSTING

101. In a number of respects, composting would appear to be the most successful facet of the waste strategy to date. The target set in Making Waste Work is for 40 per cent of householders with gardens to be composting waste by the year 2000:[179] we took evidence from both the Community Composting Network and the Composting Association, who told us that their current estimate of performance against the target is 22 per cent, and that they believe the target can be achieved.[180] We are not able to determine the validity of this claim, because the Department does not hold figures for composting centrally.[181] However, in the course of our inquiry we visited two composting facilities, both of which had proved effective and environmentally beneficial.[182]

102. Composting is the process by which aerobic bacteria act upon organic matter (such as garden and vegetable wastes), breaking it down to produce "a reasonably stable, granular material" which can be used as a soil conditioner.[183] The degradation process is similar to that which takes place in landfill except that it is carried out in the open air. The twin benefits of this difference are that little methane is produced and that the end product can be retrieved and used: a number of witnesses emphasised to us the potential for compost to be used as a substitute for peat or chemical fertilisers.[184] It is a traditional means of waste management requiring little by way of technology and can therefore be practised at individual household level.

Household composting

103. The possibility for individual action is considered to be very important by the environmental campaign groups, who would like to see a much greater acceptance of personal responsibility for waste produced. At this level, where matter is removed from the waste stream at source and re-used, it is possible to view composting as a 'closed loop' system and Frank Middlemass of the Community Composting Network argued on this basis for composting to be moved up the hierarchy.[185]

104. Local authorities have also seen composting as an option in which it is possible to make significant progress: Andrew Short said that Manchester City Council last year distributed 3,150 subsidised composting kits to householders as part of its new waste management initiative and Frank Middlemass told us that many authorities had run similar initiatives.[186] The problem with such initiatives, we learned, lies in following up individual progress in getting the process to work.

105. As we have come to recognise time and again in the course of our inquiry there is a significant problem with information and data relating to composting. The Composting Association guessed that the number of households with compost bins could be as much as 40 per cent, "but it is debatable whether they are actually used";[187] Michael Walker asked us:

188

Both the composting groups who appeared before us expressed concerns that "too often" the compost bins "appear on peoples' doorsteps without any sort of context about why it is there and the usefulness of doing it". The failure to provide subsequent information and support to individuals could lead to bad composting-with the potential for the process to become anaerobic and emit methane-and discouragement. Mr Middlemass commented that one such failure is often enough to "put people off for life".[189]

106. Clearly, the responsibility for providing this support will rest in the first instance on local government. The local authority recycling officer should take the lead in researching the effectiveness of the local composting strategy and developing an educational initiative to run alongside it. Such work could be supported by the determination of simple guidelines on best practice for household composting: we would like to see such guidelines produced by the Government in conjunction with the voluntary sector. It will also be necessary to gain a national overview of the extent and success of household composting and we therefore call upon the Government to review existing local authority data by the end of 1999. A subsequent Government review should be held every two years.

Community and centralised composting

107. Although household composting has an intrinsic educational merit regardless of its specific impact upon the waste stream, it is to be hoped that when its potential is fully exploited it will serve to reduce the amount of organic matter being sent to incineration or landfill. At present, home composting is not providing a "statistically significant" reduction.[190] Alternatives to home composting are street or neighbourhood, community or centralised composting. These, being managed by voluntary groups or local waste disposal authorities (WDAs) are perhaps more likely to be controlled and produce a useful soil conditioner. We were told that the number of such sites had grown from 12 in 1992 to 60 in 1997; only three had been shut down.[191] Michael Walker also suggested that the establishment of such sites had helped the local authorities concerned to achieve some of the highest recycling rates in the country.[192] Certainly the sites which we saw on our visits to Hampshire and Liverpool gave the appearance of being well operated and producing a valuable soil conditioner, for which a market had been found.[193]

108. Such projects inevitably are not without disadvantages and problems. Once material is transported away from the home there are transport costs; the compost produced is perhaps more easily contaminated by the bags in which the waste is carried to the site, unless they are biodegradable; larger centralised or community facilities can be resisted by local residents who perceive them to be "waste facilities" presenting a possibility of air pollution, odour nuisance or vermin attraction.[194] Hampshire Waste Services told us that in very hot weather there is a small risk of poorly managed compost heaps combusting.[195] The main problem, however, is the capital cost in setting up a site.

109. Composting is a low technology option which produces a relatively low value product. The Composting Association told us that, in spite of the Landfill Tax, it has proved very difficult for composting to compete with landfill since the start-up costs are higher and therefore it is "not economically advantageous" either for local authorities or the private sector to invest in facilities.[196] Large-scale operations require a considerable amount of land for the establishment of compost mounds (windrows): perhaps one square metre of land for each tonne of compost being created; sites may also have to be lined with concrete and properly drained.[197] However, the Association added, once the site is established the continuing cost is comparable with the cost of landfill. The Association therefore suggested that the initial investment might be met by the re-introduction of Supplementary Credit Approvals in a revised form, or through Landfill Tax revenue, or by a partnership between Government and the local authority.[198] We shall discuss SCAs in more detail later, in our comments on local authorities (see paragraph 194).

110. We asked both composting groups what the quality of the compost produced at a community or local authority site would be. Both responded that the quality of the compost would be very high, provided that sufficient care had been taken in selecting the organic matter put in. Hampshire Waste Services and Liverpool City Council individually told us that they specified garden wastes or particular green wastes for their centralised composting operations, in order to ensure a product of a satisfactory quality.[199] Frank Middlemass said that source separated compost will "satisfy the strictest European Union eco-label criteria for compost" but was dismissive of mixed waste composts.[200] Michael Walker, too, was unable to name a successful mixed waste composting operation within northern Europe.[201] Even with a high quality compost there is no guarantee of a market: while local authorities may be encouraging composting and providing material or sites, they and their contractors can be reluctant then to take back the compost.[202] We are convinced by the evidence we have received that a future national composting strategy should require the use of source separated waste, to produce an environmentally beneficial end product. We expect that this compost will provide a valuable alternative to peat for garden and nursery use and we would like to see local authorities supporting composting through their green procurement policies, and encouraging contractors and householders to do likewise. The educational initiative previously advocated will clearly have a role to play in this respect.

111. The composting groups raised other concerns with us, relating to the management of sites through the waste management licensing system.[203] We understand that discussions are being held with the DETR in respect of these concerns and hope that the talks come to a successful conclusion. We were pleased to note that the Government has made a swift start in promoting composting, with two guidance documents issued at the end of 1997.[204] We welcome both its commitment to this option and the willingness it has demonstrated to

consider the ideas and experience of the voluntary sector. We hope that a successful partnership will be established to exploit the full potential of composting beyond the year 2000.

Energy recovery

INCINERATION

112. Even when reduction and re-use of resources are increased, and recycling has stabilised, there will be a need to dispose of remaining and difficult wastes. The primary disposal options are incineration and landfill.

113. Although incineration has been practised in this country for a century, its reputation has been tarnished in recent years through concerns about the poor performance of incinerators built in the 1970s.[205] While our focus is primarily on the incineration of municipal waste, we note that industrial incineration processes have also provoked disquiet, serving to increase public concern as a whole.[206] The European Commission, recognising these concerns, introduced two new Directives on air pollution from municipal waste incinerators in 1989 which came into force in the UK in December 1996.[207] As a result of the Directives, and with new plant coming on stream, there are currently seven plants operating in England and Wales.[208]

114. The raising of standards has not in itself allayed public concerns. We received a number of submissions and further background and anecdotal evidence bearing witness to the deep anxieties which some sections of the public retain. Incineration is perceived to destroy resources "irrevocably", to consume large quantities of energy and to work against the higher options in the hierarchy by requiring continual supplies of waste to sustain the process.[209] There are fears about dioxins and toxic material escaping from plants via the chimneys, or from the landfills where the remaining ash will be deposited.[210] Exeter Friends of the Earth wrote to us that "the combustion-chamber of a mixed waste incinerator cooks up a devil's broth of dangerous materials which ... there is no way of preventing from being unleashed on the environment"[211] and, while more strongly worded than most, this statement is not unrepresentative of the concerns we have heard. David Coleman said that he had been involved in a recent contested proposal for an incinerator at Belvedere, South London, noting that "We have not had so much unitedness on the political parties or the public side since we tried to put a rail link through";[212] while we did not seek specific evidence on the degree of opposition to energy from waste across the country, we are aware that proposals at Portsmouth and in Greater Manchester have also been contested.[213]

115. The Minister assured us that technologies have changed and that the regulatory regime, under European law, is now tighter than it has ever been.[214] A significant development has been the move towards energy recovery within incineration, converting energy released by the incineration process into electricity and/or useful heat. This provision of benefit has enabled energy recovery to be seen by the DETR, local authorities and by the waste industry as providing a way forward for incineration within a sustainable waste strategy.[215] The Energy from Waste Association suggested that a significant increase in capacity would be required in order to give the UK a chance of reaching the 40 per cent recovery target by 2005.[216]

The purpose of energy recovery

116. The purpose of energy recovery is to draw out some value from resources which it is not viable to re-use or recover in a more direct way. An example of a waste for which energy recovery could be the Best Practicable Environmental Option might be the packaging for a

'ready meal': a mixture of board, plastic and plastic film which may not be re-used under EU food hygiene regulations,[217] and which it is expensive to recycle because it is contaminated with food waste. Ecologika, in a supporting paper, endeavoured to place an economic value on recovered materials and suggested that, while falling a long way behind the value of any recycled material (£300 or more per tonne), energy recovery at £13-24 per tonne is an improvement on landfill without energy recovery, which provides no value at all.[218] Energy which is produced can be used to power the plant-making it self-sustaining-or fed into the National Grid; heat can also be used within the plant, or fed into a district or industrial heating scheme.[219]

117. The industry showed itself to be aware of, and sensitive to, the public's concerns about incineration. Presenting oral evidence, the Energy from Waste Association declared only modest ambitions: to establish energy from waste as a support to recycling;[220] to handle a maximum of 40 per cent of UK waste arising;[221] and to work with and for local communities.[222] Consultation and the provision of compensation for disamenity are considered to be particularly important in gaining local support for a plant. Jane Bickerstaffe of Incpen noted that energy recovery is widely practised in continental Europe, and that the provision of district heating helps to ensure public support;[223] Malcolm Chilton, the Energy from Waste Association's Chairman, expressed the belief that acceptance is more likely to be gained where local people are able to identify a direct benefit from the presence of a recovery plant.[224] In a previous inquiry we have seen a sludge incinerator where operators managed to achieve public acceptance, and their success would appear to support this statement.[225] We shall discuss the importance of public consultation further in the section beginning at paragraph 185.

The size of energy from waste plants

118. Energy from waste plants, perhaps even more than recycling facilities, are expensive to establish. The Association's written evidence suggested that between thirty and forty new plants would be needed over the next decade to meet the 40 per cent recycling target, at a possible cost of £1.7 billion: this provides an average price per plant of £48.5 million.[226] It is the size of this investment which leads to the requirement for a guaranteed quantity of waste to feed the plant for, as Mr Chilton said, "What the industry cannot really do is invest ... not knowing whether or not it is going to see waste coming through the door in two years' time": the banks would not allow it.[227] The provision of a guarantee has caused problems: our attention was drawn to other parts of Europe where it is alleged that the success of recycling has ended in the importing of waste to keep incinerators functioning.[228]

119. Mr Chilton considered the establishment of very large incinerators to be fundamentally wrong since it assumes that "recycling will not develop ...[and] that waste arisings will either remain static or keep growing".[229] Instead, he argued that there should be a guaranteed minimum input of waste to satisfy financiers, "set at a level that allows maximum flexibility for all the other options to be fully developed"; he suggested that this level might be approximately half the tonnage of waste arising in the locality.[230] However, he noted also that there is a balance to be struck between producing modestly-sized plants and maintaining efficiency in plant operation. The Local Authority Waste Disposal Companies Association suggested that the industry's preferred size of plant would absorb about 200,000 tonnes of waste per year;[231] while the Energy from Waste Association (EfWA) conceded that in the future plants taking about 50,000 tonnes per year might prove the preferred option as part of an integrated local waste strategy. The EfWA said that the cost of running such a plant might be double the cost of a larger plant.[232] It appeared to us that the EfWA is not overly optimistic about the likelihood of an expansion in energy recovery in the near future, for Mr Chilton concluded by saying that however good the proposal, and however much the principle of energy recovery is supported:

"... we will not ... convince people living in the immediate neighbourhood of a plant that this is a good thing and get them to vote democratically in favour of it".[233]

Without such support it will continue to be difficult for developers to gain planning consent for these or indeed any other types of facility.

120. It seems improbable that large incinerators will ever be accepted by the communities in which they might be placed. The establishment of regional facilities, in particular, is likely to be resented by affected communities, who may consider that other districts are abdicating their responsibilities to manage their own waste. If incinerators are to play a part in a new waste management strategy, they must be appropriately sized and sited in areas where the community benefits of district heating and hot water will be optimised. Without the benefit of combined heat and power such plants may not constitute the Best Practicable Environmental Option.

121. While we acknowledge in principle the role for energy from waste incineration in a sustainable waste strategy, we regret that we are concerned as to the means of implementation. It is clear to us that the choice in respect of energy from waste will ultimately rest with local communities who will, rightly, demand the fullest reassurance as to the safety and beneficial nature of any such enterprise. Therefore there will need to be robust and independent monitoring of all energy from waste facilities. We welcome the industry's awareness that energy recovery must be integrated into local strategies which optimise recycling, and that the public's trust needs to be won and held if progress is to be made.

An incineration tax

122. A few witnesses suggested that a tax should be applied to incineration in the same way as to landfill in order to encourage waste reduction and recycling.[234] The Energy from Waste Association, quite understandably, were unable "to see the point" of the suggestion, saying that development of the option is still in its infancy and faces enough problems as it is.[235] The DETR were cautious in their comments, expressing concern that to introduce such a tax now would merely push waste back 'down' the hierarchy into landfill, but that they would re-examine the possibility in coming years.[236] Bearing in mind the European Commission's proposed Landfill Directive (which we shall discuss below), we do not consider there to be a great danger of increased landfill as the result of such a tax.[237] The Government should consult on the likely effectiveness and impact of an incineration tax with a view to introducing the tax before the end of this Parliament. Consideration should be given to means whereby the tax might encourage the development of small, locally situated Combined Heat and Power plants in preference to large regional plants which do not provide direct community benefits.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

123. Anaerobic digestion is, in a sense, a more controlled version of the process by which organic waste is broken down in a landfill. Organic waste is put into a digester where microbial degradation proceeds in an oxygen-starved environment: the gases which are produced by the decomposing matter-mostly methane and carbon dioxide-are drawn off and converted into energy or used to generate steam. The degraded matter can be used as a soil conditioner in the same way as compost. It is a modern technology which has not, until now, been attempted in the UK for municipal waste: we were therefore unable to question an expert witness closely. In principle, the technology was supported by Friends of the Earth, by parts of the waste industry and by the United Kingdom Environmental Lawyers' Association.[238]

124. Witnesses who were prepared to comment upon the possibility of anaerobic digestion all raised the same potential difficulty. This, as with composting, is the difficulty in controlling the wastes put into the process to ensure the end product is not contaminated, and is of a high quality.[239] John Birch, representing LAWDCA, told us that he had been involved in two attempts to set up such a process, and both had failed because "the input waste could not be separated with sufficient reliability".[240] David Beadle, also of LAWDCA, advocated source separation as the guarantee of quality.[241]

125. In the course of our inquiry we received evidence from WMC Resource Recovery Ltd informing us that it has been awarded a twenty year contract to build an anaerobic digestion plant in Kent. It will be, clearly, a significant undertaking, intended to "recycle 66 per cent of household waste without the need for source separation", taking out cans, plastics and glass and digesting remaining wastes to provide heat, power, and a compost-like end product.[242] We were also told informally that Hampshire Waste Services is seeking to build an anaerobic digestion plant to complement its existing waste management facilities.[243] We will be interested to see if these projects are successful in addressing the problem of cross-contamination.

179 Making Waste Work, Cm 3040, HMSO London 1995 p9 Back

180 QQ463, 451 Back

181 Ev p 170 Back

182 See Annex 1, Annex 2 Back

183 Making Waste Work, p46 Back

184 QQ441, 470; Ev pp 32, 121 Back

185 Q441 Back

186 Q609, Q444 Back

187 Q451 Back

188 Q463 Back

189 Q463 Back

190 Q463 Back