Cool Waste Management

A new report for waste managers and local authorities detailing how to deal with the small fraction of household waste that is currently non-recyclable will be published by Greenpeace Environmental Trust on March 17. Cool Waste Management shows how the process of Mechanical and Biological Treatment is a safer and cleaner alternative to burning rubbish in polluting incinerators or burying it in landfill sites.

'Cool Waste Management' not only includes a detailed design plan for a state-of-the-art Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant but provides data on emissions from MBT, costs of building and running a plant. MBT combined with a big drive to recycle in Edmonton in Canada has enabled the town to reduce its waste by 70%.

Used after the maximum amount of dry recyclables and organic waste has been removed, MBT uses sieving, magnets and air currents to extract any remaining recyclables. MBT then cleans the waste to make it biologically stable so it can be landfilled without the risk of fires or leaching.

Greenpeace campaigner Mark Strutt said,
"Any local authority serious about environmental goals should look at this report. The MBT plant described in it can be built instead of a polluting incinerator to deal with any waste left over after recycling. Not only will it not churn out huge amounts of poisonous gases over the surrounding area but it is cost competitive, flexible, and allows local authorities to adapt to future changes in the quantity and composition of our household rubbish".

Greenpeace's report compares three alternatives for dealing with residual waste: (1) incineration, (2) landfill of untreated waste and (3) MBT followed by landfill. The results show that MBT followed by landfill is the best environmental option, preferable to incineration in terms of toxic emissions, climate impacts and resource and energy conservation.

Public opposition to incineration has grown during the past three years with six applications for planning permission refused and several councils ruling out incineration as an option. The Government has also backtracked and now offers little support to incineration.

Increased interest in new techniques for treating residual waste, means MBT is now a serious option for waste managers. The plant proposed by Greenpeace and designed by Austrian Environmental Engineers TBU, is energy self-sufficient and produces the same amount of waste requiring landfill as a modern incinerator.

'Cool Waste Management' makes a distinction between 'fuel preparation plants' which use a version of MBT to split waste into high and low calorific value streams before burning it in incinerators, and MBT designed to follow intensive kerbside recycling schemes and can help achieve recycling rates of up to 85%. The cleansed and stabilised residue from this form of MBT can be safely landfilled.

The new report follows How to comply with the Landfill Directive without Incineration and Zero Waste all published by Greenpeace. All these reports can be downloaded as Adobe Acrobat files or a hard copy can be obtained free of charge from:
Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN.

Further information:
Contact:
The Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255

A State-of-the-Art Alternative to Incineration for Residual Municipal Waste- MBT

Publication date: February 2003

Summary
The aim of this study is to assess the possibilities for a system for managing residual waste which does not include any thermal treatment process. The study includes a review of mechanical biological treatment (MBT) systems and their potential effects.

MBT systems are not new. In their more primitive guises, they can be considered a basic evolution from the (usually failed) mixed waste composting plants of two decades ago. However, the potential for integrating systems based around biological treatment of degradable fractions with increasingly efficient mechanical separation techniques is a more recent development, as is the tendency to look to employ digestion techniques for the biological treatment phase as opposed to aerobic treatments.

Submission to the Governments Strategy Unit review of UK waste policy

Publication date: July 2002

Summary
The UK Government knows its current waste policy is not working and not popular. It has set up an investigation into whether the reliance on incineration should be abandoned. Greenpeace has attended the seminars held by the Strategy Unit and submitted the following document:

Greenpeace believes that the Government's "Waste Strategy 2000" is not achieving its desired outcome either in terms of quality ("more sustainable waste management") or quantity (maximising the amount of waste recycled and reducing the quantity of waste produced).

Although mandatory recycling targets are beginning to encourage better collection methods and increased recycling of some materials in some areas, the strategy as it stands is unlikely to achieve more than very moderate gains.

This is because of clear policy shortcomings, particularly a lack of incentives for local authorities to avoid waste disposal altogether, incentives for some forms of disposal (particularly incineration under the guise of "energy recovery") and extreme ambiguity from the Government regarding best practice.

Greenpeace briefing

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
The entire waste management industry is currently in a state of virtual paralysis with regard to composting.

The Department of the Environment says that composting of municipal organic waste is "a vital component of meeting Waste Strategy targets" and that "The Government supports the composting of waste". (DEFRA Briefing note on compost June 2001). Yet it's regulatory body, the Environment Agency, will not currently permit compost derived from kitchen waste to be used in the open and has made it virtually impossible for new composting initiatives to gain a licence.

As a consequence local authorities and waste companies are turning to incineration to get organic waste out of landfill sites. This is totally nonsensical. Incinerators release many chemicals with potentially severe health impacts in stack gases and in ashes. Food waste, mixed with all manner of other materials is dumped in huge bunkers where it can remain rotting for days. Kitchen waste is a very poor material to burn - it is very wet and has a low calorific value. The organic material should be going back into the soil where it can return nutrients, carbon and improve soil texture. Compost has a high environmental value. It also has a potentially high economic value, but not until the Government sorts out the mess it has made.