EXCLUSIVE - by Doug Collie
Scottish Borders Council would be wise to steer clear of all
forms of incineration when members and officials ‘return to the drawing board’
to rethink their integrated waste strategy in the wake of the recent Easter
Langlee debacle, according to a network of environmental campaigners.
The attempt to develop a so-called gasification and
pyrolysis plant at Galashiels to deal with 25,000 tonnes of Borders rubbish
each year ended in a dismal and embarrassing failure last month when it became
clear neither the technology nor the funding was in place to deliver the
project.
As a result SBC and their chosen developers New Earth
Solutions Group agreed to abandon a 24-year contract after only four years and
at a cost of at least £2 million to Borders taxpayers. Now the local authority
will have to carry out a complete rethink of its waste disposal policies if it
is to comply with national and European targets.
In a hard hitting interview with our ‘Not Just Sheep and Rugby’ staff, office bearers from the United
Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) told us: “This supposedly advanced
and state of the art project ended up proving itself to have been obsolete
before it was ever even built because it failed to treat waste as a series of
separate waste streams that could individually be reduced, re-used, recycled or
composted.”
UKWIN national coordinator Shlomo Dowen said: “We are glad
that the council took the time to re-evaluate this project in light of changing
circumstances, and hope that other local authorities across the UK will do
likewise for their own outdated incineration arrangements.”
We asked if SBC should have been aware of the technological
problems associated with gasification before signing the New Earth contract in
April 2011, and whether the council had been sold a ‘pig in a poke’ given the
technology was unproven.
Mr Dowen replied: “The council was probably aware that this
sort of technology was risky, but might not have appreciated the true extent of
that risk. Councils are often expected to make decisions about complex
proposals without much in-house expertise and are therefore very reliant on
outside consultants who might have little incentive to place the long-term
interests of sustainable waste management at the heart of their advice.
“It is not uncommon for local authorities to regret entering
into long-term incineration contracts, for example because the contracts prove
inflexible, overestimate the need for waste disposal capacity, and/or
underestimate the need for capacity higher up in the waste hierarchy.”
UKWIN explained that while it was not privy to the technical
report considered by councillors, as it was withheld on the basis of commercial
confidentiality, it appeared that one of the issues which led to the contract
being ended was that New Earth was unable to convince the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency that the technology would actually work.
Mr Dowen claimed: “Various forms of so-called advanced
thermal treatment technology (ATT) have been attempted for waste management,
and they have all faced difficulties, so it is not surprising there are
concerns that the technology would not have performed as advertised.
“UKWIN published a briefing paper advising caution regarding
gasification and pyrolysis back in 2010, so issues with ATT are not new”.
Asked what UKWIN’s advice would be as SBC returns to square
one to formulate an amended strategy, Mr Dowen said: “They should avoid paying
for new incineration capacity and ensure they are not overly committed to
residual waste infrastructure. They should minimise waste arisings, for example
through education and re-use schemes. And they should maximise recycling and
composting.”
Tim Hill, UKWIN’s technical advisor, commented: “The council
needs to look to maximise recycling revenues by working with the recycling
industry. In particular they should maximise the collection of aluminium cans;
maximise the collection of plastics with minimal contamination and ensure that
high quality plastics are segregated by type. This may involve some
investment.”
No comments:
Post a Comment