Alice Massey reports: Autoclave services are being built in Gateshead and Teesside (mainly aimed at commercial customers), and aerobic MBT is operating (Premier), but there are no new incinerator providers. The North East does not appear to be an area waste operators are clamouring to get to (according to Local Authority officers, including the South of Tyne and Wear Partnership). In Stockton, Sita’s incinerator is well used by the five Teesside unitaries and some waste also gets transported down from Northumberland. There is competition for the extra capacity of SITA extra processing line, with North Tyneside trying to get access – unsuccessfully I believe.

We have three councils joining to form the Joint South of Tyne and Wear Partnership. They are at the Outline Business Case stage of PFI, with a decision due from the May meeting of the HM Treasury Project Review Group (PRG) subject to waste infrastructure development programme (WIDP) board and Ministerial approval of the PFI credit allocation requested by the partnership). The Partnership submitted a “reference case” including MBT and incineration.

FoE in Wearside are raising concerns in Sunderland. It is thought the site might be here, although all documentation containing details of sites have been redacted or are unavailable through information requests under cover of commercial interests. We also have South Tyneside FoE and Green Party up to speed on this and writing press articles. They managed to get on the Politics Show. Ban Waste members from Newcastle are supporting these activities where they can.

In Newcastle our Council is looking at the residual waste treatment part of its strategy. A recent study tour of facilities was provided for councillors, officers and a representative of BAN waste. This visited Incinerator in Southampton (Veolia), Essex Frog Island MBT (although problems on site limited access), an autoclave and anaerobic digestion at Ludlow, and finally gasification in Norway.

Councilors are aware of opposition to incineration, especially after the Byker ash history. The consultation made this clear. We have an MBT with in-vessel composting in place and a 25 year contract to boot. So any solutions will have to fit around keeping this and finding additional ways to divert biodegradable materials from landfill to meet LATS requirements. MBT soil conditioner currently has a market as landfill cover and meets the requirements to count as composting under targets/indicators, but only diverts around 20% from MSW or a third of the input from the MBT. SITA run the MBT and are reluctant to get into discussions with the Council on improving the MBT process or making changes.

BAN Waste has been holding events to consult on this issue and hopes to come up with a position statement for the Council. Alice is sure this will include anaerobic digestion and food waste collections. So far Alice is aware of some support for the waste hierarchy to recover energy over landfilling stabilised materials, although there has been a mix of reactions with several members stringently opposed to incineration including Advanced Thermal Treatments (gasification and pyrolysis).