The recent release of research by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA) on the public acceptability of incineration has provoked a mixed response. Environmental groups are outraged over the reports conclusion that the health impacts from modern incineration plant are so low as to be considered negligible. But Tim Brown argues that incineration should be viewed as part of the bigger picture.

When some of the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection's (NSCA) member authorities encouraged us to explore the issues around the public acceptability of incineration, we knew it was a poisoned chalice. Incineration plant are not popular and are often met with stiff local opposition. Some wild claims are being made about the likely health impacts of incineration, and we wanted to commission an independent study to see what environmental health advisers could reasonably say about this. We also wanted to look at the way in which the public were involved in the decision-making process when proposals come forward.

Our research on the public acceptability of incineration was launched at a conference in London on 20 June, with a keynote address by Environment Minister Michael Meacher. Environmental groups went bananas, criticising the NSCA for being pro-incineration and being funded by the waste industry. Friends of the Earth (FoE) went as far as to write to NSCA member authorities asking them to pressurise us to withdraw the report. Many of our members, to their credit, completely rejected FoE's demands, but it is interesting that our findings should have provoked such a controversy.

Some of the reasons people do not like incinerators are obvious - visual intrusion, increased traffic, and other impacts on the local ambience. Incinerators, or Energy from Waste (EfW) plant, as the industry prefers to call them, are also opposed due to concerns about health. Local opposition groups often fear that emissions will pose a threat to nearby residents. Recently, organisations like Greenpeace have produced reports which allege serious health concerns. But in this case, Greenpeace is campaigning against the idea of a national expansion of incineration and is using the health argument tactically as part of a wider campaign. "Building incinerators might reduce the impetus to minimise waste and encourage recycling", it says. It also believes EfW will drain financial support away from renewable energy. FoE also wants more emphasis on reducing waste and encouraging recycling.

Clearly, both groups fear that anything which appears to give comfort to incineration will damage these objectives. NSCA agrees. We want to see much higher levels of recycling and resource recovery. We do not want high numbers of incinerators if there is a better way of dealing with waste. But we do not like scare tactics which cause unnecessary fear at local level when EfW plant are proposed.

Our research suggests that for EfW plant built and operated to new standards, health impacts will be undetectable. We spent the 1980s and 1990s campaigning against old-fashioned, dirty incinerators. And that is what the health data relates to. The new plant are different - and any emissions will be dwarfed by local traffic pollution. Special concern focuses on that nasty family of chemicals - dioxins. Nasty indeed, but the main sources of dioxins are other industrial processes: burning of commercial, agricultural and domestic waste; smoking; bonfires and barbecues; fireworks; and this year, a massive contribution from foot and mouth pyres.

The need for incineration must be seen in the wider context. We need national and regional waste strategies which tackle excessive resource use and adopt a "best practicable environmental option" approach to manage the waste stream. NSCA's view is that, when you have reused and recycled the waste that is environmentally worthwhile, it can make sense to recover energy from the residue. It is impossible to recycle everything.

This is the bit that FoE and Greenpeace do not like. So they have been seeking to rubbish NSCA's reputation by claiming that the reports are biased and funded by industry. In fact, the research was funded through the landfill tax credit scheme, which was created by the Government to support exactly this sort of research. The funding came largely through waste companies and environmental trusts, with smaller amounts contributed as matching funding from a range of local authorities and other bodies.

However, the reports were written by independent consultants, overseen by an independent advisory board of high-level academics. The report on the health effects of incineration was also reviewed by the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health at Leicester University. Knowing that this was a controversial area, we designed the project to be proof from accusations of bias. But it has not prevented a campaign of mudslinging.

In our discussions with FoE, prior to the report's publication, it fully accepted the report's conclusions and recommendations. So we were genuinely surprised that the group's public position was so hypocritical, basically using bullying tactics to suppress a useful piece of research. Fortunately, this rebounded on FoE, securing a much higher level of media coverage and subsequent interest in the issue. In truth, this research lends support to many of their objectives.

In our discussions with Greenpeace, we shared the objective of a framework for more sustainable waste management, but accepted that they remain concerned about the potential for incineration plant to malfunction, with implications for health impacts. Our research suggests that new-generation EfW plant should pose only a tiny risk. EfW plant are not "safe", but neither is recycling or landfilling - each has an environmental impact. In England and Wales it is down to the Environment Agency, and in Scotland, SEPA, to explain to local communities just how tight those standards are, how small the relative risk is, and - crucially - how they intend to monitor emissions and enforce effective control.

That is one of the important policy conclusions. We also concluded that local waste plans should identify optimum levels of recycling, composting and disposal options. Where there is an accepted need for incineration plant, such plant should be sized to deal with local waste arisings in order to reduce transport and reduce public resistance to waste "imports". Public consultation processes should be conducted first at strategic level to encourage ownership of waste policies and improve the public's understanding of the issues. Hardly a ringing endorsement of incineration, but common sense conclusions which we hope will help local authorities cope with a difficult issue. The main project outputs are:

• Report: Public acceptability of incineration.
• Report: Municipal solid waste incineration: Health effects, regulation and public communication.
• Guide for local authorities and developers.
• Public information booklet: Incineration - an acceptable way to deal with waste?

Tim Brown, Deputy Secretary (Policy and Development), NSCA, 44 Grand Parade, Brighton BN2 2QA, UK. Tel: 01273 878770. Fax: 01273 606626. E-mail: admin@nsca.org.uk Web: www.nsca.org.uk

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) has produced, as part of NSCA's wider ranging report on waste incineration, a document which reviews the health impacts for municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators operating to "modern" standards. Limited in scope, the study should be read in conjunction with the NSCA's report on the public acceptability of incineration.

There are four sources of pollution which can be distinguished for MSW incinerators: gaseous emissions; discharges to water; contamination in bottom ash; and contamination in residues, including fly ash. The report states that: "Many of the pollutants that are of concern in the health debate, eg heavy metals, PAHs or dioxins, may occur in all four of these sources. However, some pollutants may be limited to one medium, eg sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are an air pollution problem". The study stresses that there is a problem when it comes to determining the health effects of MSW incinerators operating to current and future standards; much of the existing information available concerns older plant, often with higher emissions. The key messages to arise from the comprehensive review into the health impacts of MSW incineration, regulation and public communication include:

• Emissions of toxic and carcinogenic pollutants, eg dioxins and heavy metals, from MSW incineration have fallen to a fraction of what they were a decade ago.
• Emissions of all pollutants from MSW incineration plant are small compared with other sources.
• While the effects resulting from the small quantities of some pollutants emitted cannot be discounted, where impacts may occur at background levels (eg dioxins) or where current standards may be exceeded (eg nitrogen dioxide), the large number of other sources of such pollutants suggest that these deserve greater emphasis on regulatory control.
• Most epidemiological work in relation to incineration concerns either the incineration on non-municipal waste or has been undertaken around plant with higher emissions than currently permitted. However, examination of relevant studies leads to the conclusion that the relative health impacts from modern incineration plant emissions are "exceedingly low".
• If ash disposal is properly managed, likely health impacts are also very low.
• While some uncertainties remain, new stringent emission limits mean that the potential for impacts on the health of the local community is "extremely small".
• In order to build public confidence, regulators should consider controls beyond what might be considered necessary to ensure compliance.
• Wider environmental issues other than health are more important in the debate over which option is appropriate for a long-term sustainable waste management programme in the UK.

Full copies of all the reports can be obtained from the NSCA. Tel: 01273 878770, e-mail admin@nsca.org.uk or visit the web: www.nsca.org.uk where summaries are also available.