Obsession with incineration could be costly in the longer term

There's no doubt that waste management practices in the UK have to change if we are to catch-up with our European counterparts and improve overall environmental performance.

This is especially true when it comes to managing hazardous waste.

Novel, new technologies are emerging all the time, but it seems that in some quarters of the UK waste management industry, there are businesses that appear determined to promote incineration as the only credible option for treating and disposing of our hazardous waste.

For instance, at a recent hazardous waste update seminar run by Envirolink Northwest in Lancashire, representatives from Veolia Environmental Services talked at length about their investment in hazardous waste management in the North West of England but this appeared to focus mostly on high temperature incineration - whether at the company's Ellesmere Port hazardous waste incinerator or, indirectly, via solvent blending and destruction in cement kilns.  There was no mention of plans to invest in upgrading their hazardous waste treatment and transfer facilities in the region, nor talk of developing innovative new treatment solutions that do not rely principally on incineration.

So, are the major players doing enough?

Apparently not.  Biffa Waste Services, demerged from Severn Trent plc, appear to have somewhat stagnated in recent times and there is very litte evidence to suggest that they are planning any significant investment in new technologies to combat the very many hazardous waste challenges facing British businesses today.  Companies like Sita and Waste Recycling Group (WRG) are aligned with landfill and municipal waste contracts. This leaves the only waste management companies of any size that seem keen to invest in the future being Augean plc and Tradebe.

It would seem that most innovations in waste management practices are largely being driven by SMEs.  It is the independent BCB Environmental, for example, that is continuing efforts to bring plasma arc gasification technology on stream to treat the most intractable hazardous chemical wastes, and not the waste behemoths Sita, Veolia, Biffa or WRG.

There could be too much focus on solving our hazardous waste problems with technology, however, when more effort and emphasis placed on operational improvements in waste producers' businesses could yield more significant results.

Lee Petts, managing director at Remsol, agrees.

"Between those companies that are obsessed with burning all forms of waste, those that want to continue landfilling it, and those eager to bring forwards new technologies, there seem to be very few organisations promoting a shift from treating the symptoms to tackling the root causes of hazardous waste," says Lee.

Businesses inevitably play to their own strengths.  If you operate a high temperature incinerator that cost £65 million to construct, you're going to want to maximise your use of that facility in order to achieve an acceptable return on investment.  Similarly, if your investment is tied-up in landfill, you want to maximise inputs.  In fact, this apparent 'conflict of interest' is rife throughout the waste industry, whether the investment is in treatment and disposal assets or the vehicles used to transport waste to them, meaning that waste producers will often find their waste being dealt with in a way that doesn't necessarily offer best value.

"It is easy to see why waste producers sometimes seem oblivious to the many things they can do themselves to reduce their costs of managing hazardous wastes and reduce their dependency on end-of-pipe solutions such as incineration and landfill, when few waste management companies promote this.  Sometimes, very simple steps can be taken with little or no capital expenditure to achieve big reductions in waste quantities and costs.  For instance, substituting hazardous raw materials for less dangerous substances or receiving hazardous goods in bulk rather than packages can all help."

Recovery within manufacturing processes is also another option worthy of greater exploration.  Historically, it was often deemed too expensive to re-work materials lost to waste: off site disposal was plentiful and cheap.  In today's climate, the economic argument for reprocessing rather than discarding may now stand up.  "Pharmaceutical companies that find themselves with finished product in damaged or otherwise defective packaging should be considering ways to de-package so that the product can be retained and only the unwanted packaging disposed of, for instance.  It sounds obvious, but very few businesses take such steps." concludes Lee.

At Remsol, finding and promoting ways for businesses to reduce waste quantities at source, or make production changes that will give rise to waste that is less hazardous or easier to recover and recycle, is a top priority.  To find out more about how Remsol's unique and refreshing approach could help your business to reduce costs and improve its environmental footprint, contact us for a free, no obligation consultation.