By John F Crawford, Waste management specialist
THE recent outcry following reports that an NHS contractor had stockpiled sensitive waste rather than incinerate it (as the contract specified) highlights an ongoing problem we’ve failed to address for decades.
Thirty years ago most NHS hospitals had in-house incineration plants for this waste, but towards the end of the 20th century new EEC legislation meant compliance would be very expensive. Rather than fund the upgrades, a decision was taken to “contract-out” the treatment and disposal services for this waste to the private sector, based on the premise that “market forces” would deliver the most cost-effective solution. This approach works for routine services but not so well where these are specialised
But contracting-out shouldn’t have meant the NHS apparently assuming that once their contractors had collected this waste, it was no longer their responsibility. Professional waste managers would normally advise that when dealing with this type of contract, it’s wise to make occasional spot-checks to ensure the specification is being met.
Part of the problem is due to a lack of calibration of the installed capacity for the thermal treatment of waste in the UK and the potential demand (it fluctuates). Anybody old enough to remember the ReChem incinerator at Larbert will recall the unfriendly (most of it unjustified) publicity it attracted and its demise, due to poor profitability rather than anything else. Nobody has ever researched the adverse impact on Scotland’s economy of new industries that need access to suitable waste disposal services. How many new factories have been built south of the Border simply because there were no suitable facilities up here?
As a nation, we have a reasonably good record of long-term strategic planning for infrastructure such as roads, bridges, public utility services and so on but we’re not so good at planning for waste treatment and disposal. While there’s a vociferous lobby campaigning for more “green” projects such as deposit return schemes, improved litter behaviour and the like (“the continentals seem to be far better at it than we are” is their usual cry) the same bunch are significantly silent when the continental attitude to waste to energy (efw) plants is cited. It’s not helped by a media that continues to call these plants “incinerators” and invariably associates these with “air, ground and water pollution”,’ “vermin” and “increased traffic and disruption”. Yet efw plants work well, are perfectly acceptable on the continent and if we had a properly-designed network of treatment plants (that included efw) installed here, it could accommodate all the NHS sensitive waste as well as coping with our projected demands.
But there’s more to it: the Scottish Government has decreed that after January 2021, landfills will be banned for accepting untreated municipal waste. There isn’t enough treatment capacity in Scotland to handle the tonnages involved so a lot of it will have to be hauled either to England or the continent for treatment. As well as significantly increasing the cost of waste disposal for all our councils (and businesses), many existing Scottish landfills will probably close as the income from the remaining (non-municipal) waste stream won’t be sufficient to make them economically viable. If these landfills close, it will have further ramifications for Scottish businesses.
We really need to be doing some urgent waste planning now to come up with practical solutions for the 2021 landfill ban, as well as NHS Scotland’s current problems.
The author worked for nearly five decades in the Scottish environmental and waste management industry.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here