DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental, Economic and Social Impacts of the Use of Sewage Sludge on Land

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental, Economic and Social Impacts of the Use of Sewage Sludge on Land Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land Final Report Part II: Report on Options and Impacts RPA This report has been prepared by RPA, Milieu Ltd and WRc for the European Commission, DG Environment under Study Contract DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0076r. The primary author was Ms Rocio Salado. Additional expertise was provided by Daniel Vencovsky, Elizabeth Daly, Tony Zamparutti and Rod Palfrey. The views expressed herein are those of the consultants alone and do not necessarily represent the official views of the European Commission. Milieu Ltd. (Belgium), Rue Blanche 15, B-1050 Brussels, tel: +32 2 506 1000; fax: +32 2 514 3603; e- mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; web address: www.milieu.be Executive Summary Introduction Milieu Ltd, together with partners WRc and Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), has carried out a contract for the European Commission’s DG Environment, entitled Study on the environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land (DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0076r). The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) could be said to have stood the test of time in that sludge recycling has expanded since its adoption without environmental problems. Since its adoption, however, several Member States have put in place stricter national requirements. Moreover, EC legislation has evolved in many related fields, such as chemicals regulation. Any revision should aim to retain the flexibility of the original Directive which has permitted sludge recycling to operate effectively across the wide range of agricultural and other environmental conditions found within the expanded EU. The aim of the study is to provide the Commission with the necessary elements for assessing the environmental, economic and social impacts, including health impacts, of present practices of sewage sludge use on land, provide an overview of prospective risks and opportunities and identify policy options related to the use of sewage sludge on land. This could lay the basis for the possible revision of Community legislation in this field. This is the final deliverable of the study: the first was a review of literature on the topic, Assessment of existing knowledge. The second was the development of a baseline scenario to 2020 concerning the spreading of sewage sludge on land and an analysis of the relevant risks and opportunities. The project Interim Report reviewed the results of the first consultation. This report provides the list of Options for the revision of Directive 86/278/EEC as well as an assessment of the impacts of these Options, including a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The Options An initial set of five options for the revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive (Directive 86/278/EEC) was developed based on the review of literature and of regulations in Member States as well as comments received from Member States and stakeholders in the first consultation for this study and the first workshop. The options are as follows: Option 1: do-nothing: keeping the Directive as it is; Option 2: introduce certain more stringent standards, especially for heavy metals, standards for some organics and pathogens, and more stringent requirements on the application, sampling and monitoring of sludge; Option 3: introduce more stringent standards across all substances and bans on application of sludge to some crops; Option 4: total ban on the use of sludge on land; and Option 5: repeal of the Directive. The Options were formulated in discussion with the Commission, based on the interim project results. The specific components of the Options are detailed in section 1.2 of this report. Service contract No 070307/2008/517358/ETU/G4 i Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land Approach to Data Gathering The information used for the analysis was gathered in several stages. Report III provides the results of the information-gathering phase of the project, together with an overview of the results of the first consultation, held in July and August 2009. On this basis, a preliminary impact assessment was prepared: this was the subject of the second project consultation, held in December 2009 and January 2010. Results from this consultation, including additional information on costs, were used in revising the assessment. In total, 39 responses were received in the second consultation, providing valuable information on the costs and benefits from the different options and the magnitude of impacts on sludge recycling. A summary of the responses is provided in Annex 1. The following table summarises the numbers and types of stakeholders that replied in the consultation. Some further information was gathered at a workshop held in Brussels in late January 2010. Table 1: Project consultation 2: Number of responses by type of stakeholder National authority (MS) 8 Regional authority (MS- R) 4 Statutory advisor, agency, public institution (MS-A) 3 International Professional association/federation (EF) 6 National Professional association/federation (NF) 7 Company/industry (IS) 8 Consultancy 1 Research/academic institute 0 NGO 1 Other 1 Comparison of the Options An impact screening of the different options was one of the first steps of the assessment. This was carried out following the EC Impact Assessment Guidelines. The most important impacts identified in this screening were carried forward for detailed assessment. Table 2 sets out the results of this first assessment of the Options in qualitative terms (this assessment uses the information gathered throughout the project, including the responses provided in the second consultation). It should be noted that the original list was longer: only those impacts considered as significant are presented in the table below (other impacts, e.g. impacts on agricultural production, are considered to be limited; the consultation responses agreed with these judgements). Table 2: Initial qualitative assessment Option Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts Option 1 - 0 0 0 Baseline Scenario Option 2 – Costs of alternative disposal (-) Environmental benefits from Human health benefits from “moderate Obligation of treatment (-) reduced application (?/+) reduced application (?/+) Service contract No 070307/2008/517358/ETU/G4 ii Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land Option Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts changes” Changes to regulation: including costs of consultation (-) Environmental benefits/costs Human health costs from Policy implementation and from alternative routes of alternative routes of control (-) disposal including climate disposal, e.g. air pollution Benefits/costs if meeting other change impacts from from incineration (-) related legislation requirements incineration, landfilling (-) (i.e. WFD, Waste Directive) (?) Odour/amenity impacts (-/?) Loss of use of sludge as a fertiliser and fertiliser replacement costs (-/?) Option 3 – more As above but greater in magnitude significant changes Option 4 - Total Fertiliser replacement costs (--) Environmental benefits from Human health benefits from Ban Alternative routes of disposal reduced application (?/+) reduced application (?/+) for all sludge arisings (--) Environmental benefits/costs Human health from from alternative routes of alternative routes of disposal disposal including climate including climate change change impacts (--) impacts (--) Odour/amenity impacts from increased landfilling and incineration (-/?) Option 5 - Repeal Benefits from reduced policy Environmental benefits/costs Human health from of the Directive monitoring and compliance (+) from alternative routes of alternative routes of disposal disposal including climate including climate change (?) change (?) Potential risks to human Potential environmental risks health if a MS abandons all if a MS abandons all sludge sludge regulation (?/--) regulation (?/--) Odour/amenity impacts from increased landfilling and incineration (-/?) 0: impact expected to be negligible; - : low/moderate negative impacts expected --: significant negative impacts expected +: low/moderate positive impacts ++: significant impacts expected This report presents a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for a number of impacts. It should be emphasised, however, that not all impacts could be valued. The following table summarises which impacts are valued in the assessment. Table 3: Overview of impacts considered and approach Economic Stakeholder Description Quantified? Qualitative assessment when impacts no quantification/other comments Costs of Water and As sludge recycling will be Yes - alternative sludge ended, there will be internal disposal management costs from its disposal operators Obligation of Water and Sludge will need further Yes - treatment sludge treatment to deal with new management standards Service contract No 070307/2008/517358/ETU/G4 iii Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land Economic Stakeholder Description Quantified? Qualitative assessment when impacts no quantification/other comments operators Changes to Regulators There will be costs from No These are expected to be regulation changing legislation and moderate in comparison with consultation (not monetised) total costs Policy Regulators Costs from monitoring in No These are expected to be implementation order to check that legislation moderate in comparison with and control is being met total costs Benefits/costs if Regulators Option 2 and 3 likely to No Depends on the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waste Minimisation
    Waste Minimisation An Environmental Good Practice Guide For Industry This guide will help industry and the Environment Agency move forward together to minimise waste and achieve national environmental goals WASTE MINIMISATION An Environmental Good Practice Guide for Industry “The cost of your waste is not so much the cost of getting rid of it as the value of what you are getting rid of!” Published by the Environment Agency April 2001, to help business achieve sustainable practice through waste minimisation. Revised edition April 2001. First published April 1998. i Waste Minimisation Good Practice Guide Environment Agency April 2001 FOREWORD Minimise waste – maximise profit The way we use our planet’s natural resources is now widely recognised as one of the root causes of many environmental problems. Waste and industrial emissions have a major impact on the environment both nationally and globally. Effects such as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, air and water pollution are all derived from local emissions, but the resources consumed may be mined and manufactured from anywhere in the world. From extraction to consumption the global economy consumes vast quantities of raw materials, water and energy. In the UK some 600 million tonnes of raw materials, excluding water, are used each year. More than 90 per cent of the resources we consume are either thrown away as wastes or discharged to the environment as effluent or air emissions. Since the Environment Agency first published this guide in 1998, waste minimisation has become an established business practice for many organisations and thousands of businesses have now implemented waste reduction programmes.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Protection Agency Batneec Guidance
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BATNEEC GUIDANCE NOTE Class 3.3 FERROUS METAL FOUNDRIES (DRAFT 3) Processing of Iron & Steel in Forges - BATNEEC Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Interpretation of BATNEEC 4 3. Sectors covered 6 4. Control Technologies 7 5. Emission Limit Values 11 6. Compliance Monitoring 14 7. References 15 8. Appendix 1 - Sources & Emissions 16 BAT33v3.DOC 14/05/96 Page 2 of 21 Processing of Iron & Steel in Forges - BATNEEC 1. INTRODUCTION This Guidance Note is one of a series issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and is designed to provide guidance to those applying for integrated pollution control licences under the EPA Act. It should also be read in conjunction with Application Guidance Notes, available under separate cover. It should be noted at the outset, that noise is not included within the scope of this work and guidance on this parameter has been issued separately. This Guidance Note is comprised of seven main sections and an appendix. Following this introduction, Section 2 contains a general note on the interpretation of BATNEEC. The industrial activity covered by the terms of this note is given in Section 3. In Section 4, the technologies to control emissions are tabulated and in Section 5 the specific emission limit values (ELVs) are given. Section 6 contains comments on compliance monitoring requirements, while the principal references are given in Section 7. The Appendix gives the main sources of emissions, and the principal releases from such sources. All applicants for Integrated Pollution Control licences, in the sector covered by this note, should carefully examine the information laid down in this Guidance Note, and should use this information to assist in the making of a satisfactory application for an Integrated Pollution Control licence to the Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting of the MED POL National Coordinators
    UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.231/6 5 May 2003 ENGLISH MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN Meeting of the MED POL National Coordinators Sangemini, Italy, 27 - 30 May 2003 STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME GUIDELINES SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION In cooperation with WHO UNEP Athens, 2003 Table of Contents Page No. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Document 1 Target Audience 2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 3 Background water quality 3 Wastewater characteristics 3 Characteristics of wastewater discharges 5 Aesthetics 5 Pathogens 5 Nutrients 6 Toxicants 6 Dissolved solids 7 Suspended solids 7 Other considerations 7 Environmental uses and water quality 8 Use area definition 8 Environmental Quality Objective and Environmental Quality Standards 9 Legislation and role of authorities 12 Approaches 12 Role of authorities 13 Monitoring 14 3. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 16 Aims and Objectives 16 Strategy and Principles 16 Control Mechanisms 17 Regulations 17 Enforcement 18 Economic tools 18 Effluent Quality 19 Effluent management and environmental values/water uses 19 Technology-based guidelines 21 Determination of effluent quality 21 Receiving Water Body and Aquatic Ecosystem Protection 22 Stakeholders 23 The Role of the Wastewater Company/Authority 23 Page No. Community Consultation 24 4. OPTIONS FOR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT 26 Waste Minimisation 27 Managing the Collection Systems 28 Managing the Treatment Systems 30 Effluent Reuse 30 Land Application 32 Discharge to Coastal Waters 35 Discharge to Inland Waters 37 Treatment of wastewater 38 Treatment processes 38 Sludge processing and disposal/reuse 39 Selection of flow scheme 41 Submarine Outfall 42 Mixing zone 44 Treatment and disposal design philosophy 45 Environmental quality objectives 45 Use areas 46 Design of wastewater sanitation schemes/sewerage schemes 46 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Terms
    The Study on Master Plan for Hazardous Waste Management in Romania Final Report Japan International Cooperation Agency Volume 7 Pilot Project 2 Waste Minimisation and Treatment in Metal Surface Treatment Process GLOSSARY OF TERMS Terms Meaning Acquis Communautaire or Acquis The ‘Body of Law’ of the European Union covering all legislation prepared and adopted by EU institutions. ADR European Agreement for international transport of hazardous substances (Accord Européen Relatif au Transport International des Marchandises Dangerouses par Route) BAT Best Available Techniques BG Bulgaria CAP Common Agricultural Policy CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBC Cross-border Co-operation CEE Central and Eastern European countries CPC Clean Production Centre DDBRA Danube Delta Biodiversity Reserve Authority or DfID Department for International Development DISAE Development of Implementation Strategies for Approximation in Environment EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EDC Ethylene Dichloride EEC European Economic Communities EIA Environmental impact assessment EIB European Investment Bank EIS Environmental impact statement EIU Economist Intelligence Unit EMAS Eco-management and Audit Scheme EPI Environmental Protection Inspectorate EPR Environmental Performance Report Ref: 28. EQS Environment Quality Standard ERM Environmental Resources Management EWC European Waste Catalogue EU The European Union GD Government Decision GEF Global Environment Fund GEO Government Emergency Ordinance GMP Genetically modified products GO Government Ordinance
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Waste Principles.Indd
    zero waste principles “The principle of zero waste is akin to Zero waste means a 100% such principles as ‘zero accidents’ or ‘zero resource-effi cient economy where, defects’ – which are now well established in manufacturing. By setting an extreme target as in nature, material fl ows are for waste reduction, new levels of innovation cyclical and everything is reused and e ciency are unleashed. or recycled harmlessly back into The concept of zero waste and the thinking society or nature. behind it challenge traditional approaches to waste management. Although zero waste ‘Waste’ as we think of it today will exists in nature, the theory and language is cease to exist because everything relatively new, and the breadth and depth of will be viewed as a resource. the ideas and practice surrounding it are still evolving. The key principle of zero waste is that it de nes ‘waste’ as something that is simply not acceptable. This sidesteps debate about what a ‘reasonable’ level of waste is, and instead puts the focus on steadily working towards a world without waste. The current business model is based on the industrial revolution assumption that the Earth provides an in nite source of raw materials, and an unlimited capacity to absorb our waste products. This assumption is clearly out dated and businesses now need to concentrate on creating goods and services, while reducing waste and resource consumption. Zero waste is based on the understanding that all of the materials we utilise are resources, and only become waste through poor design and end of life management.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Minimisation
    ISSUE PAPER N°10 October 2012 Waste Minimisation INTRODUCTION Over the past 100 years, people have consumed more goods and produced more waste than ever before. As a result, waste generation is growing exponentially. Currently, on average every citizen living in the EU throws away around half a tonne of household rubbish every year.1 Today, our common goal is to use resources in closed loops, so that consumption does not generate waste as it did in former times. Because of its economic, social and environmental impacts, waste is a fast growing issue for all industrialised and emerging economies. Waste removal, in particular, is an important cost factor for businesses, public authorities and private households. Decreasing waste generation in absolute terms is a long-term objective. In this vein, one of the main goals of improving waste management systems is to decouple economic and population growth from waste generation, as well as decrease the environmental impacts of the latter. Cleaner production, support for more environmentally friendlier products, development of sustainable services and promotion of sustainable consumption, should lead to economies which are more resource efficient, and thereby less dependent on the supply of expensive raw materials. Indeed, recycling waste is one way to recover valuable resources, such as metal or plastic, while at the same time reducing the waste’s environmental impact. Consequently, the retail sector is increasingly seeing waste as a valuable resource in its own right and is taking steps to reuse materials wherever possible so as to reduce reliance on raw-material inputs. Retailers can play an important role in encouraging waste prevention.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Minimisation
    ENDLESS ENERGY LIMITED ENDLESS ENERGY FACILITY WASTE MINIMISATION SEPTEMBER 2018 ENDLESS ENERGY LIMITED ENDLESS ENERGY FACILITY WASTE MINIMISATION CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2 WASTE STORAGE .......................................................................................................... 2 3 WASTE MINIMISATION ................................................................................................. 3 4 RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL ............................................................................................ 3 5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 4 TABLES Table 2:1 Waste Arisings, Waste Chemical Composition and Waste Storage ..................... 2 Table 4:1: Recovery and Disposal of Waste ......................................................................... 3 SH11087 September 2018 ENDLESS ENERGY LIMITED ENDLESS ENERGY FACILITY WASTE MINIMISATION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 This report details how wastes are minimised, stored and handled at the Endless Energy facility and their subsequent recovery or disposal. Wastes will be managed in accordance with the requirements of Environment Agency guidance, including S5.06 and S5.01. The procedures described are in compliance with indicative Best Available Techniques (BAT) described in these documents. 1.1.2 Careful control of the processes on site, such as combustion of waste, re-circulation
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into Waste Generation & Resource Recovery
    Submission to Productivity Commission Issues Paper (Dec. 05) Inquiry into Waste Generation & Resource Recovery Submission by KESAB environmental solutions (Keep South Australia Beautiful Inc) February 2006 Prepared by/Contact: John Phillips OAM Executive Director KESAB environmental solutions 214 Grange Road Flinders Park SA 5025 P 08-8234-7255 Email [email protected] KESAB Background KESAB is a not for profit environmental organisation delivering a range of waste education programs in partnership with government, commerce and industry, and the community. KESAB is incorporated in South Australia (1966) and is a Member of Keep Australia Beautiful National Association. Core business is the development and facilitation of community environmental education initiatives. Key focus includes litter abatement, recycling, waste minimisation and resource recovery, waste eduction, and implementation of best practice programs. Programs include Tidy Towns community action, Clean Site Building a Better Environment, Road Watch, Wipe Out Waste Schools education, Better Bag Plastic Bag reduction, and Please Butt It, Then Bin It. KESAB is recognised throughout Australia, leading community engagement to embrace environmental protection through individual action at the local level. Programs and activities are supported by resources materials, interactive waste education in partnership with government and industry, train the trainer programs, development of curriculum based student lessons, and supporting community groups. KESAB has conducted regular research
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDELINES for NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: MOVING from CHALLENGES to OPPORTUNITIES Guidelines for National Waste Management Strategies
    GUIDELINES FOR NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Moving from Challenges to Opportunities ROGRAMME P NVIRONMENT E ATIONS N NITED U This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organisation Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen co-operation and increase international co-ordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organisations are FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote co-ordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organisations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2013 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its UNEP frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Cities: the Emergence of Urban Waste Systems in a Developed and a Developing City
    recycling Article A Tale of Two Cities: The Emergence of Urban Waste Systems in a Developed and a Developing City Erni M. Mukhtar, Ian D. Williams *, Peter J. Shaw and Francis O. Ongondo International Centre for Environmental Science, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ, UK; [email protected] (E.M.M.); [email protected] (P.J.S.); [email protected] (F.O.O.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-2380-59875 Academic Editor: Michele Rosano Received: 2 June 2016; Accepted: 16 August 2016; Published: 29 August 2016 Abstract: Developing cities have historically looked to developed cities as exemplary models for waste management systems and practices without considering the consequent resource requirements or the key characteristics of the local setting. However, direct adoption of developed cities’ approaches without proper consideration of the local circumstances may lead to unsustainable future waste management in developing cities. This study evaluates waste management in London and Kuala Lumpur, representing developed and developing cities, focusing on the integration of policy changes, socio-economic background and waste data trends on a multi-decadal scale. This analysis reveals the gradual implementation of initiatives, the challenges faced and the attempted solutions that were applied differently in both cities. Conceptual models of waste management status in different scenarios for both cities were developed. These models highlight that societal behaviour shifts from minimal waste generation (wasteless) to throw-away society (wasteful) and a drive to achieve sustainable waste behaviour with integration of resource recovery and waste minimization (wasting less).
    [Show full text]
  • Sutton's Waste Minimisation Strategy
    Page 21 Agenda Item 6 Sutton’s Waste minimisation strategy and waste reduction and recycling action plan 2019 - 2026 Agenda Item 6 Page 22 Waste minimisation strategy 2019-2026 Introduction Maximise the use of local waste sites A) Promote recycling and reuse at Kimpton Household Recycling and Reuse Centre. B) Continue to treat waste locally. Being a Council that is Ambitious for Sutton we have committed to becoming London’s most sustainable The council will achieve the above objectives by: borough by 2025 through the adoption of an ambitious Environment Strategy. Our ambitions include supporting Being innovative the transition to a circular economy - an economy where materials are kept in use for as long as possible at their A) Taking a ‘continuous improvement’ approach to highest value. This means reuse, remanufacture and waste management and minimisation. repair. B) Applying for funding to undertake ‘behavioural insights’ projects. In the shorter term, we’ll still need to recycle things we no longer need, and dispose of the items that cannot be recycled. This strategy sets out how we will do this, but Leading by example with our own waste staying focused on the longer-term aim of a zero waste A) Reducing council waste and increasing recycling. Sutton. B) Increasing material streams collected for recycling or reuse where this is financially viable, with a long-term aim of achieving zero waste. Vision C) Including the circular economy and managing waste in line with the waste hierarchy as part of Our vision is to create an environment in which we can our procurement processes and contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Into Waste Generation & Resource Efficiency
    Submission into Waste Generation & Resource Efficiency Dr. Michael C Clarke, CPEng, FIEAust, RPEQ CEO M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. ABN 66 050 710 015 Themes of Submission (1) • Zero Waste is not a reality: it is a goal • Waste minimisation however makes good sense in both social and economic (Resource Efficiency) contexts, • The promise of Zero Waste can create false expectations in developed and developing communities, and • Zero Waste proponents can adversely effect sound waste management decisions. Themes of Submission (2) • Incineration with Energy Recovery is a valid way to manage many wastes, including municipal wastes, and • It can be undertaken with strong environmental safeguards that protect the community more efficiently and securely than any other waste disposal option. The Waste Management Hierarchy Unrealistic Zero Waste Most Reuse Recycle Treatment with Energy Recovery Landfill Least The Application of the Hierarchy • Assists with emphasising opportunities in waste management, but • Does not take into account the cost of resources and energy in moving a waste up the Hierarchy, nor • Takes into account health and other risks in such a movement. Incineration with Energy Recovery(1) • Is being carried out successfully with no harmful environmental consequences, and • By following the EU Guidelines on Incineration of Wastes emissions are not harmful to human beings. Incineration with Energy Recovery(2) • Produce a biologically inert ash, • Significantly reduce the amount of material going to landfill, and • Produce a significant amount of energy for community use. Who is Incinerating Municipal Wastes - Safely (some examples) • The Europeans, including the Irish, • The Singaporeans, • The Japanese, and • The British.
    [Show full text]