PART 4 THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS
OF THE LANDFILL DIRECTIVE (continued)
Composting
135. Both the Commission
and the European Parliament the European Parliament favour composting,
as do (with particular enthusiasm) Friends of the Earth. Dr Krämer
told us that the Commission planned to bring forward a proposal
on composting in the Community (Q 286): the Parliament, no
doubt to cement this intention, has proposed a new recital to
the Directive (see paragraph 29) which would call on the Commission
to make proposals for a Directive on composting and biogas production
by the end of this year. The Local Government Association reported
that although many local authorities were looking at composting
of municipal waste, the barriers to increasing current levels
of composting were a lack of markets and poor or inconsistent
product quality (p 169).
136. The elements of
biodegradable waste which are compostable are derived from renewable
resources. If managed properly to produce carbon dioxide, composting
is neutral in global warming terms. Other components will continue
to degrade over a longer period and, as with any organic soil
additive, will degrade either aerobically to produce CO2
or anaerobically to produce methane.
137. Asked if Friends
of the Earth had any information on the methane-generating potential
of composting, Mr Childs referred to a report by the US Environmental
Protection Agency which had found that there was little to choose
between landfilling and composting, assuming 85 per cent
capture of methane at the landfill site (which he would have regarded
as being on the high side: cf paragraph 52). He added,
however, that there were wider considerations which favoured composting
(Q 154).
138. We agree in
principle with the amendment proposed by the European Parliament.
We consider that where conditions for collection and processing
are appropriate, municipal composting operations should be encouraged.
We look forward to the Commission's proposals for encouraging
composting in the Community.
139. We were impressed
when on visits by the quality of compost produced at a private
sector composting plant attached to a landfill site near Peterborough
and at a municipal plant in Dundee. Although the market for
compost derived from municipal waste may be limited, and needs
to be demand-led to be successful, its potential should be compared
with the large established market for peat-the commercial exploitation
of which causes undisputed environmental damage to certain areas
of the British Isles of high nature conservation value. To all
intents and purposes peat is a non-renewable resource. We believe
that better quality control, in combination with public support
for the green agenda, will help to overcome current consumer resistance.
We welcome the fact that the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions has recently issued technical guidance on specifications
for municipal compost.[58]
Incineration and
energy recovery
140. The Energy from
Waste Association (EWA) and Professor Porteous argued that incineration
with energy recovery-or energy from waste (EfW)-was the optimum
way of achieving the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
and that if local circumstances permitted, waste incineration
was highly suitable as a source both of district heating and of
power generation (Combined Heat and Power) (pp 153-9, 176-84).
In a critique of the comparative benefits of landfill and EfW,
Aspinwalls concluded that by 2010 on cost grounds alone there
was likely to be a significant diversion away from landfill towards
EfW, but that current levels of investment in EfW plants were
unlikely to achieve more than a 30 per cent diversion
of biodegradable wastes (compared with the Directive's 75 per cent
target) (pp 140-2). Robert Long Consultancy pointed out that
a trend towards incineration might impede progress in waste minimisation
and recycling, because of the need to provide an incinerator with
a constant waste stream (p 173).
141. In its Report on
incineration of waste,[59]
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended that
if wastes were unavoidable and could not be recycled in the form
of materials, the next best option was to recovery energy from
them. It also concluded that "by incinerating municipal waste
rather than landfilling it a significant and worthwhile contribution
could be made to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases".
142. The European Parliament
has proposed a new recital to the Directive which reads: "Whereas
incineration subject to stringent requirements for flue gas cleaning
and the efficient use of energy constitutes a sound alternative
to landfill, and would eliminate methane gas emissions altogether".
As we have discussed earlier (paragraphs 46-54), the question
whether EfW by incineration is more efficient than landfill gas
recovery depends crucially on assumptions about the efficiency
of methane capture, on which the evidence is inconsistent.
143. Incineration is
unpopular with the public-partly because of memories of local
incinerators using relatively low technology in the 1980s or earlier,
but also because of more sophisticated concerns about dioxin emissions.
The latter were very thoroughly examined by the Royal Commission.
We do, of course, share the Minister's concern about a "dash
to incineration", if by that is meant a return to the practices
of two or three decades ago. But technology has moved on, and
we feel that Friends of the Earth, in their otherwise persuasive
evidence, have not taken sufficient account of rising standards
in declaring their strong opposition to incineration.
144. Whilst recognising
the pressures of public opinion which make it so difficult for
incineration plants to obtain planning permission, we recommend
that, as a general principle, anything that can safely be burnt
should be, and that wherever possible it should be combined with
energy production. Only the difficult residues from incineration
should go to landfill: for relatively harmless residues, such
as bottom ashes from incinerators, uses should be found, eg
as road surface material.
145. Incineration
must be seen as a longterm option, not a quick and cheap
one: as we have said (paragraph 97), it would be unfortunate
if implementation of the Directive created pressure for investment
in small local incinerators to inferior specifications and levels
of performance. We would therefore share the Government's concern
if there were a real risk of a "dash to incineration".
The costs of collection and transport and economies of scale would
suggest that incineration is best suited to larger centres of
population, leaving landfill as a better option in rural communities.
State of the art performance depends on substantial capital investment,
and it is essential to incinerators' viability that they have
a steady and minimum assured throughput, and a guaranteed operational
lifetime.
146. It goes without
saying that all incineration of waste should be carried out using
best available technology, the licensing authorities having been
satisfied that the processes involved pose no threats to health
or the environment. Like any system of waste management-but perhaps
particularly so, because of the need to provide assurance to the
public-incinerators require constant and attentive monitoring
and maintenance to ensure that a wide variety of waste is subjected
to the correct temperatures and incineration times necessary for
its safe destruction.
SOME
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The scientific
basis for policy
147. As in many previous
Reports of the Committee, particularly those dealing with environmental
matters, we find ourselves once again dissatisfied with the extent
to which policy has been informed by science and, conversely,
frustrated by the failure of scientific research-eg in
the case of co-disposal, methane capture and global warming potential-to
provide an adequate basis for policy-making. We do not propose
to repeat here the strictures of those previous Reports;[60]
but we found the DETR and the Environment Agency less than
convincing in their responses to our questions about the scientific
basis of the waste hierarchy. While we accept the constraints
within which the UK Presidency is working, we find it unsatisfactory
that political expediency in this instance weighs more heavily
than the wealth of practical experience of landfill in the UK,
even allowing for a less than perfect scientific understanding
of the processes within landfill sites.
Sustainable waste
management is of concern to us all
148. We conclude
with a plea for a wider vision. As we have seen, landfill will
continue to play an essential part in the portfolio of waste disposal
practices which-in the right combination and developed over the
right timescale-must feature in sustainable waste management policy.
But it must be accepted that in the relatively small islands which
make up the United Kingdom, both the population pressures in the
centres of economic activity and the need to protect an irreplaceable
natural heritage present a powerful challenge to landfill in the
long run. Both landfill and land raising are landhungry:
sites which are acceptable to their neighbours are increasingly
difficult to find. There may be no immediate threat to the supply
of traditional holes in the ground; and where they rest on substantial
clay deposits they will continue to be the BPEO for a substantial
proportion of total waste disposals. But it should be recognised
that their continued availability depends, in part, on unsustainable
practices in the construction industry. The construction industry
cannot take it for granted that raw materials can be quarried
and extracted from the environment on demand without regard to
the alternative of using recycled construction wastes as aggregate
and hardcore.[61]
149. Waste reduction
is not just an option: it is an imperative. We need to create,
through education and example, a new social spirit in which Government,
industry and citizens positively want to see waste reduced at
all stages. In encouraging the Government to be more active in
promoting waste prevention and recycling and in creating the right
market conditions for them, we recognise that decisions sometimes
have to be made for reasons other than those of economics: there
can be other perceived benefits in the form of public education,
enhanced amenity, employment opportunities and so on.
150. We commend these
thoughts to the Government and look forward to seeing some reflection
of them in the national waste management strategy.
58
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Product
Guide for Compost Specifiers, November 1997; Marketing
Guide for Producers of Waste Derived Compost, November 1997. Back
59
RCEP 17th Report, op cit. Back
60
See, for example, 16th Report, 1988-89, Nitrate in Water,
HL Paper 73; 1st Report, 1994-95, Bathing Water, HL Paper
6-I; 4th Report, 1995-96, Drinking Water, HL Paper 31;
2nd Report, 1997-98, Community Environmental Law: Making it
Work, HL Paper 12. Back
61
The evidence from SERPLAN emphasises the unsustainability of landfill
in the long run, at least in the South East, as the main waste
disposal option and argues that a radical shift towards alternative
options is needed to avoid a predicted risk of exhaustion of the
region's identified landfill capacity before 2010 (p 193). Back
|
