In a written answer Mr Wilson told Parliament that his decision not to extend capacity of the plant by 270,000 tonnes took account of the government's Waste Strategy 2000.
Mr Wilson said: “Our policy is that waste should be minimised and recycling and composting undertaken before energy from waste is considered.”
Despite the project being given the go-ahead by Enfield Council and the Environment Agency, Mr Wilson felt that the existing facility is large enough to deal with the North London Waste Authority's residual waste after recycling.
He explained: “To grant consent for the extension would result in a station with a capacity capable of handling all of NWLA's municipal waste and could mean that the NWLA had little incentive to do more recycling over and above the minimum required by the statute.”
The minister went on to suggest that if the extension was to go ahead, and the NWLA met its recycling targets, there might be a shortfall of material for the incinerator. This would mean importing waste from other areas and would go against the 'Proximity Principal', which calls for waste to be treated as near to its origins as possible.
Dismay
A statement from LondonWaste, the company that runs the Edmonton facility, said that they were “dismayed” at the minister's decision, and refutes government claims that the scheme would have conflicted with recycling.
They said: “LondonWaste's energy-from-waste plant is not a replacement for recycling but a replacement for landfill. Only residual waste left after recycling has taken place is used to make electricity.”
The company, one of the capital's largest waste management companies, warned that the government's decision “simply said yes to landfill”, placing increased burden on over-stretched waste facilities in the south-east.
“Recently, decision-makers in the East of England stated that they were no longer prepared to deal with waste from London,” LondonWaste said. “This then begs the question as to where London's rubbish, left after recycling, will go.”
LondonWaste also accused the government of ignoring the amount of commercial and industrial waste needing to be treated in the figures they used to make their decision.
Recycling before incineration
Despite the decision, which came two days after the Environment Minister Michael Meacher urged the industry to think up alternatives to incineration technology, (see letsrecycle.com 21 May 2002). Mr Wilson denied that the government was wholly against the incineration of waste.
He told Parliament that if incineration is “clearly required” and carried out in “properly sized” energy-from-waste stations, they would be given the go ahead. But he said: “The requirement of our policy is that statutory recycling targets must be met and that no incineration proposal shall be permitted which will pre-empt recycling or reduce the option for recycling for the future.”
Register for free to comment