Zero Waste incinerater policy greenwash

 What Jane Davisdson Greenwash report TOWARDS ZERO WASTE doesn't say!

 Incinerators produce TOXIC ash which report fails to mention so where is that going?

Q what is the risk of choosing Viridor-type incineration, if incinerator bottom ash is found to be hazardous waste

HELP WALES reduce its carbon footprint  the report shouts - impossible if you build incineraotrs! You simply add to it! But you can get around that by not counting these emissions! But that may change in the future!  

Q what is the risk if CO2 from incineration is counted (it isn't at the moment) as adding to the carbon-footprint of 'waste management/disposal', as needed to conform with the EU ETS scheme, whereby the waste sector has to reduce CO2 equiv emissions by 16% (2020 levels compared with 2005)?

 Q Myth recycling bottom ash?

and Jane Davidson proposes that the recycling of EfW residue bottom ashwill be included as counting towards recycling targets!!

TOXIC WASTE It is a Myth that an incinerator turns rubbish into nothing! for example The Viridor incinerator just given planning permsission in Cardiff  will produce around 120,000 tonnes of waste ash per year!
for some of this bottom ash it is assumed, will find a use in the road building and construction – hence, they classify this waste as 'recycling'. However, at present, only half of the bottom ash produced by incinerators finds a market with the rest being landfilled. One third of waste will become ASH. 17,500 plus  tonnes of that will be toxic and need special hazardous waste disposal.
What do we do with the 17,500 tonnes plus of hazardous toxic ash?
They expect to send it to England at great cost to dumps with huge local opposition. This is Non compliant with TAN 21 concerning minimisation of transport movements and the Proximity Principle *(should be disposed close to the point at which it is generated 

 Q Increasing incineration!!!

recycling target for individual Local Authorities is 58 per cent for 2015-16,

Now 42 per cent of municipal waste can be sent to incineration!counted as being subjected to energy recovery. Plans for a 30% cap on municipal waste shelved? With increased recycling building big burners is shortsighted and will lead to a reluctance by councils to increase recycling rates.

 Incineration is quite simply the wrong option environmentally. The climate change impact of a mass burn incinerator is far greater than many other technologies, including mechanical and biological treatment.

Greenhouse gases - ultra fine particles and dioxins
Incinerators have the highest emissions of harmful substances compared with other waste management options. It produces of poisonous dioxins -An incinerator of this sort has toxic emissions, particularly ultrafine particles (nanoparticles) Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.

Cheaper alternatives

 Alternative technologies are available or in development such as Mechanical Biological Treatment, Anaerobic Digestion (MBT/AD), Autoclaving or Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) using steam or plasma arc gasification PGP, or combinations of these treatments. Erection of incinerators block out the development and introduction of other emerging technologies. A UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK median incinerator costs per ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by £18 per metric ton; and £27 per metric ton most for modern (post 2000) incinerators.

Costs compared for waste treatment options". letsrecycle.com. 15 August 2008. http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10309.