Lib Dems reiterate opposition to Waste Incinerators in Suffolk

12.00.00am BST (GMT +0100) Fri 9th Oct 2009

Liberal Democrats at Suffolk County Council have reiterated their objections to the proposals to build waste incinerators at five possible sites in Suffolk. The County Council has been consulting on the Waste Strategy for the County, and the consultation ended on the 9th of October.

Cllr John Field, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Environment and Waste and councillor for Great Blakenham, said, "Waste incineration as a technology is completely unacceptable on sites close to population. Suffolk should use technology that is the least environmentally damaging practical option and locate it where it minimises the impact on residents. It surely creates a conflict when the same body is choosing the technology to be employed, selecting the site and deciding on whether or not to approve the plans for waste treatment plants."

Cllr Kathy Pollard, Group Leader and Cllr for Sproughton added, "Local people are very worried about emissions from waste incineration. The tiny particulates pass straight into the bloodstream and accumulate in the body. In June 2008 33,000 doctors from across Europe wrote to the European Parliament to express their concerns about emissions of these ultra fine particles. The sites at Great Blakenham and Sproughton are both very close to Ipswich and therefore would affect a large number of people."

In addition Liberal Democrats have highlighted further reasons to reject waste incineration, including:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions - CHP Incinerators will, by 2020, produce around 350g of CO2 per KWh. This, whilst being well behind CO2 emissions from coal or oil power stations, will still be contributing to the overall Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere, and not to the Greenest County initiative.

• Effect on recycling rates - Recycling in Suffolk has been increasing over the last few years to become one of the highest in the country. Building a large incinerator to deal with waste could put the 60% targets, as identified in the 'Vision', in jeopardy. There are examples where incineration has seen councils miss their recycling targets: in Hampshire, for example, where three new incinerators have been built, the recycling rate has stagnated, and the majority of residual waste has been incinerated. This is in no small measure due to the fact that incinerators have to be constantly fed with waste to ensure the most efficient use. This contradicts the assertion in point 6.20.20 on page 41. ['The County Council does not rule out energy from waste development] because it does not necessarily preclude recycling.'

• Effect on Landfill - Incineration, although reducing the amount of waste to landfill, does not eradicate the problem altogether. At least 30% of the bi-product of incineration is ash. Much of this ash will contain toxic metals and dioxins, which must still be disposed of.

• Loss of scarce resources - there are many metals which should be recovered from the waste stream as they are becoming very rare e.g. nickel and gold.

The Liberal Democrats have suggested that technologies like Advanced Mechanical Biological Treatment and Anaerobic Digestion are far more suitable. A similar plant has recently been given the go-ahead in North Yorkshire, and such plants are widespread in Europe.