Plans for incinerators 'impractical', says report

Proposals to build a network of incinerators around Ireland are unrealistic and impractical, a new report by waste management…

Proposals to build a network of incinerators around Ireland are unrealistic and impractical, a new report by waste management experts has warned.

The report claims that Ireland needs to develop an alternative to the incinerator proposals, or it will face fines running into the millions of euro for failing to meet EU waste targets.

Written by British-based Eunomia Research and Tobin engineering, the report also warns that the way the waste business is regulated could act as a barrier to private firms investing in facilities to deal with the growing levels of waste from Irish homes and businesses.

The report was commissioned by Greenstar, one of the largest waste firms in the State, which operates a number of landfill and waste facilities around the State. The company has said it had no role in drafting the report's findings or conclusions.

READ MORE

The chief author of the report, Dr Dominic Hogg, said there was an over-emphasis on incinerators in local and national plans on how to deal with waste.

He said the economies of scale meant that large volumes of waste were needed before incinerators become financially viable, while they also take a considerable period of time to plan and construct.

The requirement for large volumes of waste "runs the risk of crowding out recycling in Ireland's battle to meet EU targets".

The proposed incinerator for Dublin, which will be able to process up to 600,000 tonnes of waste, would have the capacity to deal with the residual waste from every home in the State if recycling rates of more than 60 per cent were achieved.

Dr Hogg said the fact that none had been built to date showed that the business case for such facilities was not there.

According to the report, the Republic will have to meet stringent EU targets on reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill, and these would not be met if alternatives to landfill were not constructed within the next three years.

"The incinerator-only approach has failed," he said. "I think the time has come to reconsider that approach."

The report proposed that smaller facilities which provide mechanical and biological treatments should be examined as alternatives to incineration and landfill. Such plants, which are popular in Germany, remove recyclable and biodegradable materials through mechanical and biological means, with the residual waste transferred to landfill or for incineration.

The report calls for changes to waste management laws to make such facilities more feasible.

It also raises concerns about the fact that local authorities, which are developing incinerators, are also responsible for drawing up waste policy.

Dr Hogg highlighted plans by local authorities in the Dublin region to direct that waste be sent for incineration, at a time when they are planning the largest incinerator in the State. Such a move could be anti-competitive and unlawful, he said.

Greenstar managing director Steve Cowman acknowledged that the report favoured facilities such as mechanical and biological treatment plants, which his firm is developing. However, he rejected suggestions that the firm was using the report to seek changes from Government that would benefit the firm.

Greenstar competitors were also planning or had already built similar plants, he said.