Warrington Clinical Waste Treatment Centre Appeal Proposed Outline Evidence of Alan Watson

37.Annex 2: Recycling, Waste Reduction and Incineration:

1. 
   It has been shown in the Appendix above that to achieve the “One Planet” objective of WS2007 a recycling rate of at least 70%, together with a high level of waste reduction is required.
   
2. 
   The question of whether incineration undermines recycling and waste reduction is clearly an important one which needs to be investigated.
   
3. 
   Firstly there is little doubt that in the majority of circumstances recycling is environmentally beneficial.
   
4. 
   In their evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee for their report into Climate change and local, regional and devolved Government, WRAP drew attention to their specialist review of international studies “Environmental Benefits of Recycling” which shows how increased recycling is helping to tackle climate change and emphasises the importance of recycling over incineration and landfill as the appropriate way forward. The evidence from WRAP said:
   

1. 
   In the vast majority of cases, the recycling of materials has greater environmental benefits than incineration or landfill.
   
2. 
   The UK’s current recycling of these materials saves 18 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent greenhouse gases per year, compared to applying the current mix of landfill and incineration with energy recovery to the same materials.
   
3. 
   This is equivalent to about 14% of the annual CO₂ emissions from the transport sector and equates to taking 5 million cars off UK roads.
   

460. 
     WRAP concluded:
     

14. The message of this 2006 study is unequivocal. Recycling is good for the environment, saves energy, reduces raw material extraction and combats climate change. It has a vital role to play as waste and resource strategies are reviewed to meet the challenges posed by European Directives, as well as in moving the UK towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and in combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

461. 
     WRAP tabulated the results of their review showing the numbers of studies in each category:
     

462. 
     It is clear that for all material streams recycling was assessed as being preferable to incineration. This is remarkable considering that several of the original papers were supported by the waste disposal industry in an attempt to justify less recycling and more disposal. For paper just six out of 37 papers reviewed by WRAP supported incineration over recycling. When the original papers are examined it is clear that these tended to make assumptions that are known to favour incineration such as the displacement of high carbon electricity generation - as is the case in the Gloucestershire WRATE assessments. When future projected carbon intensities of displaced generation are substituted then few if any of the papers maintain the support for incineration over recycling.
     
463. 
     The specific benefits of recycling in relation to climate change are addressed in the final section of my report. The results show that with the possible exception of waste wood incineration is not the preferred option for any element of the waste stream and that recycling should be maximised.
     
464. 
     There is increasing evidence that higher levels of incineration undermine recycling. This is not surprising as incinerators rely particularly on paper and plastic waste to provide the homogenous waste stream with a stable calorific value that is necessary to achieve stable combustion. There is little doubt that this can, and does, happen. In Lewisham, for example, the (inaccurately named) SELCHP plant and the contract with the local authority has resulted in very low local recycling levels:
     

465. 
     A similar situation with poor recycling rates arises with the Portsmouth incinerator:
     

466. 
     Even Sheffield, one of the original “recycling cities” of the early 1990’s has ground to a halt and needs to dramatically reduce the proportion of waste incinerated if even the recycling targets in WS2007 are to be achieved:
     

It can be seen from the above tables that the incineration rate in each case has risen to about 70%. In each case the future growth of recycling is severely constrained and incineration capacity will need to reduced - this is likely to involve contractual penalties in each case although in principle reducing the levels of incineration and increasing should reduce total costs based on the data from WRAP¹⁴⁹ showing incineration at a scale of <200ktpa, as here, to be the most expensive treatment:

467. 
     The median price is £90/tonne with a range from £79 to £131. Whilst the actual costs for Gloucestershire remain a closely guarded secret, which is an indication in itself that the public would be unhappy if they knew what had been contracted as other authorities have provided significantly more details, it appears that the costs are likely to be at the top end, or even beyond this range.
     
468. 
     It is particularly notable that WRAP comment “MRF gate fees continue to fall and overall are substantially lower than our previous surveys, many local authorities are receiving revenue rather than paying gate fees for their recovered materials”.
     
469. 
     This financial benefit of recycling together with the rising gate fees for disposal and recovery provide a clear indication that commercial waste, which is much more sensitive to price signals than household waste is much more likely to be recycled where this is an option than to be delivered to incinerators.
     
470. 
     The cost information also indicates that in the absence of contracts then much more waste household would tend to be recycled rather than incinerated but the lenders require that the contracts that are necessary to secure funding for the very capital intensive incineration plant will ensure that waste is available over the life of the loan and that this is likely to be the main barrier to increasing recycling.