by Hilary Vick
6 minute read
The news that nappy recycling specialist Knowaste is looking to open a new facility will receive rather a lukewarm welcome – at least from those of us engaged in trying to minimise the environmental impact of nappies by promoting reusables. Their plan, submitted on 14th September, is for a new absorbent hygiene product (AHP) recycling plant in West London, which would take in disposable nappies, adult incontinence and feminine hygiene products, using autoclave and shredding technology to recover plastics and fibres for recycling.
This comes two years since the first UK Knowaste plant, a 36,000 tonnes per annum facility based in West Bromwich, was shut down – after just 20 months in operation. The suggestion was that its closure was due to high operating costs and a lack of contracts for sale of the end products. Local authorities and businesses that had procured Knowaste’s services were left with nowhere to send their AHP. Knowaste previously operated a plant in Arnhem, the Netherlands, but this also closed down in 2007 after operating for 8 years, due to a lack of feedstock and competition from new incinerators. I understand that the plant was also struggling to find markets for its outputs.
Many nappy returns
Meanwhile, increasing numbers of local authorities are looking seriously at following in the footsteps of early adopters such as Bury and Falkirk by reducing the frequency of their residual waste collections to three weekly or less. Worries about vermin and odours arising from food waste can be addressed by collecting that material separately and more frequently. However, AHP waste also gives rise to concerns in the context of less frequent residual waste collections. AHP waste also causes problems as a contaminant in co-mingled household recycling, with members of the public seeming to mistakenly think that used disposable nappies are recyclable.
Providing an alternative outlet for AHP waste could therefore have several advantages:
- It could remove a key argument deployed against reducing residual waste collection frequencies;
- The risk of problematic contamination in the dry recycling stream is reduced; and
- A share of the AHP material will also be recycled.
However, recycling Knowaste’s way certainly isn’t the only option. New Zealand has pioneered the composting of AHP, a process which can be made viable at relatively small scale and low infrastructure cost, which allows plants to be sited close to the urban areas they serve. So, is recycling disposable AHP the best available option?
According to Knowaste, its process allows more material to be recovered: one AHP plant is said to generate annually enough reused fibre to save 122,400 trees, reclaim enough plastic to save 4 million litres of oil and save enough natural gas to heat 1,423 homes a year. That said, it also has environmental costs – it uses a lot of energy and water. It also needs to be done at a large scale to make it economically viable, and needs a constant supply of feedstock to keep it running. Knowaste has estimated that the UK market is only likely to support five or six of its AHP recycling plants. With so few facilities, many authorities’ waste would have to travel long distances, probably by road – not a great example of the proximity principle at work.
Of course, the environmental impacts of single-use nappies are not limited to their collection and disposal. There are also substantial manufacturing, packaging and distribution impacts associated with of the use of 6-7,000 “disposable” nappies per child. In a more circular economy, we will need to give greater focus to the conservation of resources, and despite their convenience, single use nappies could fall out of favour with policymakers – and perhaps even with more members of the public.
A wash with ideas
Surely, recycling AHP is a means of addressing a problem within the old, linear economy. Rather than invest in a Knowaste plant, a more genuinely circular approach would be to try to create the conditions in which small, local reusable nappy businesses can develop and grow.
Many local authorities have tried to incentivise real nappy use, but in the absence of instant results some have quickly concluded that the public doesn’t want washable nappies. However, behavioural change is a slow process, and in this case there are several barriers to change that need to be addressed. For example, parents are given free samples of disposables via Bounty packs, while Pampers’ sponsors the National Childbirth Trust (NCT), the most influential parenting charity in the UK. And, of course, there is the expectation of free and convenient disposal of nappy waste. These sorts of things make disposables appear to be the norm. Recycling nappies could reinforce this, with the perverse effect of reducing uptake of reusables.
Ask parents what the key barrier to choosing reusables might be, and they’re likely to highlight the laundry effort involved. It’s a particular problem for those living in flats and houses with little outdoor drying space. A nappy laundry service removes the problem, and there are interesting international examples of alternatives to normal commercial laundries that could allow a laundry service to leverage in significant social and environmental benefits. In Cleveland, Ohio, the Evergreen co-operative laundry offers employment opportunities for local people and meets the needs of local institutions while aiming to minimise environmental impacts. It is disappointing that, at the moment, even in cities the uptake of washable nappies is not sufficiently high to support a local nappy laundry with a dedicated collection and delivery service.
A bum deal?
There could yet be some middle ground to the disposable vs reusable nappy debate. For example, since the 1960s most “disposable” nappies have contained superabsorbent polymers (SAPs), which increase their environmental impact. However there is now a single-use nappy on the market that goes back to the original conception of the disposable nappy, where a single-use pad (which doesn’t contain SAPs) sits inside a reusable cover. These nappies are potentially compostable if the collection and treatment infrastructure were available.
There are also low waste alternatives that are attracting attention from the public including baby-led potty training (BLPT) where nappy waste goes straight to the sewage system and much less nappy waste is generated. The latter delivers public health and environmental benefits and is spreading through word of mouth and social media.
In the end, the big question is whether councils, or others, will be willing to pay for Knowaste’s treatment. Recycling AHP can be more expensive than residual waste treatment, once collection and haulage are taken into account. Knowaste expects that initially its feedstock will come from carehomes, hospitals and nurseries, and that private services will spring up to offer household AHP collections. The company’s experience in West Bromwich indicates that there are people willing to pay extra for nappy recycling – and that was before less than fortnightly residual waste collections were on the cards.
Indeed, councils may find such collections offer good value for money if they are the key to unlocking public acceptance of monthly residual waste collections, with all the benefits in terms of cost savings and recycling performance they could bring. If Knowaste could provide a reliable solution at a reasonable price, then despite it being preferable to encourage take-up of reusables, there might be no shortage of local authority takers for its services.
A child disposal 6-7,000 nappies. So circular economy, we will need to give greater focus to environment.The policymakers are given a rule for nappies waste and save our environment.
Knowaste is happy to deal with the consumers choice and be proud that the time and investment we have committed to will help recover valuable resources that would otherwise be wasted.We have used our own funds to research and develop our process but who would you expect to pay for the research that you suggest should happen ?
There are intelligent alternatives to SAP filled nappies and other AHP. Normalising incontinence products from cradle to grave may be good for the nappy recycling business but it’s not good for us. For starters, it’s just too wasteful and expensive.
Tempus Omnia Revelat!
Hilary
Our views may be different but ultimately we both want a better solution to the use of valuable resources.Knowaste has invested heavily in recycling and we are very comfortable that this is only part of the solution.We have within our company a wealth of knowledge and information but we are always willing to learn so thank you for the recommendations.The first Knowaste facility will be operational in 2017 and a further 5 sites will follow within 5 years but that will only attend to 15-20% of the AHP waste in the UK so plenty of scope for your suggested projects.
Hilary,
People have a choice and you then deal with their choices.If a disposable can be recycled it makes their choice as reasonable as a cloth item.You are forgetting again that 40% of the AHP waste market is incontinence material and that equates to over 400,000 tonnes per annum.Knowaste is happy to deal with the consumers choice and be proud that the time and investment we have committed to will help recover valuable resources that would otherwise be wasted.We have used our own funds to research and develop our process but who would you expect to pay for the research that you suggest should happen ??
Sorry for the late reply Paul. Are we going round in circles now? I don’t have answers but having witnessed the ’nappy wars’ I have adopted the role of the skeptic. It’s true we appear to be at a point of acceptance that nappy waste will be with us forever, rather like toilet paper.
I understand investing in AHP recycling may seem attractive, but if you have cash to risk do look at Ben Jonson’s comedy “The Alchemist’ (first performed 1610) before getting too excited about turning nappy waste into gold.
Also be aware that we may have already passed peak nappy waste. One of the impacts of the Frances Report should be a reduction in the number of elderly and infirm left in nappies without the opportunity to be helped to the toilet/commode. This could lead to a significant reduction in incontinence waste from UK hospitals and care homes. Isn’t this what we all want for our loved ones?
At the ICCS conference, London, 2012, I saw evidence from paediatric continence professionals of a rise in physical and emotional problems possibly exacerbated by an extended use of ‘convenience’ nappies. This evidence could eventually lead to various public health interventions that will reduce nappy waste.
Perhaps investors, drawn to this area should be looking at opportunities to invest in prevention of nappy waste e.g. Rubicon Healthcare and the more generous, not looking for a return, think about donating to the wonderful charity PromoCon.
Hilary,the fact remains that 95% of the consumers use a disposable product that equates to over 1.1 mill tonnes of AHP waste every year with the majority going to landfill.Even if a big effort was made to influence the choices of these consumers it would not result in a major shift due to lifestyle choices.Therefore it is definitely the right choice to recycle as much as possible to save valuable resources going to waste.It requires joined up thinking as one solution is not the answer to this issue and it is naïve to otherwise.
I’m sorry Paul. You don’t know if that is true. No one kmows because the research has not been done. It wouldn’t be difficult to do and should be done before any decisions are made on what to do about nappy waste.
Dear Hillary,
I just would like to react on your paragraph related to: ‘However there is now a single-use nappy on the market that goes back to the original conception of the disposable nappy, where a single-use pad (which doesn’t contain SAPs) sits inside a reusable cover.’ It aroused my interest and I klicked to the site. If you link to the Faqs on that site http://www.gnappies.com/environmentally-friendly-nappies/faqs
you get the following: Where are the gNappies made out of?:
Our disposable inserts are 100% biodegradable* and are the only nappy to be certified Cradle to Cradle, which means that everything that goes into them will go back to the earth in a neutral or positive way. They are made of cellulose rayon, fluffed wood pulp, and super absorber. The cellulose rayon and fluffed wood pulp comes from sustainably grown and harvested softwood. Super absorber is sodium polyacrylate (SAP) and is a green and non-toxic water absorbing polymer. Our disposable inserts are made in the USA.
gPants are 92% cotton and 8% spandex. The gPants pouch is a breathable nylon.
gCloth inserts are made of 2 layers of polyester microfleece and 2 layers of hemp/cotton.
So I am afraid that the single use pad still contains SAP, and hence the disadvantage still remains, unfortunately.
Kind regards,
Ronald
That’s depressing Donald. They used to be SAP-free. I guess public expectations of absorbency and infrequency of changing compelled them to add SAPs – plus the fact that baby clothes are designed for SAP filled nappies. I wish someone from Defra could come on this discussion and explain why it’s okay for SAP-filled nappies to be be composted at home (according to Gnappies) and industrially in NZ and SF (although not sure if nappies composted in San Francisco contain SAPs) but not in UK. I’m not convinced that we need to resort to recyling nappy waste yet. I need more information.
Just thinking that if there had been ads about reducing nappy waste on the sides of recycling/refuse trucks and messaging about reusable nappies given out with prescription exemption cards for the last 10 years we could say the public just don’t want them. But there’s been very little done. Perhaps these are actions we should try before saying people don’t want them. Surely it’s just a case that they don’t know about them or if they have heard of them, they think they’re just for people who want to go back to living in caves.
Penny, perhaps the tax should just be on the single-use nappies that contain SAPs (superabsorbent polymers) or micro beads. This is what enables parents to put off potty training which potentially doubles the nappy waste generated (and the cost to families.) It’s also the part of the nappy that causes the disposal problems as those without SAPs can be composted easily and locally
Hilary,i am keen to understand your expertise in the composting of AHP waste material because there have been many unsuccessful attempts by very competent companies.The main issue is that human waste has very little nutritional value as a compost and one of the main elements of AHP is plastic which is very difficult to separate!If you took out the SAP then you would not have a very absorbent product.It still comes down to the consumers choice based upon their circumstances as not all parents can remain at home as most need to work so that they can afford the lifestyle they also choose?
Hi Paul, Thanks again for keeping the conversation going and asking good questions. Re composting AHP: I understand Envirocomp is carrying it out successfully in New Zealand. It is also happening in San Francisco. I’m not an expert on the subject but stimulating thorough investigation of all the options so public money is not wasted and we come up with the best solutions for different locations. We also need to question the way things are now, whether we could make single-use nappies less resource intensive. I suggest many single-use nappies have more SAPs than are necessary ie stay dry for 12 hours when they are often only on baby for 3-4 hours or sometimes just a couple of minutes if baby does a poo straight after a nappy change! Parents will recognise this happens frequently.
I’m certainly not advocating a parent gives up paid employment to stay home with a child. Reusable or single-use nappies without SAPs can be used in a nursery setting.
Hilary,for many reasons I do not believe that composting is not a commercial answer to the AHP waste issue.It has not been successful in the UK and as mentioned human waste has little nutritional value and plastic does not compost.You would need to question the technical experts at the manufacturers to understand why they construct a product the way they do.I am sure they will give you very sensible reasons.However we still come back to the parents making a choice and therefore we have to deal with that choice in the best way possible and that is to recycle wherever possible
That should have read “i do not believe that composting is a commercial answer”
The food industry didn’t want to reduce salt and suger in processed food and we are now suffering costs.
I welcome the recycling of disposable but agree that reusable and compostable should be the priorities.
A simple disposal tax on the main disposable products would be a good start. This money could then be used to fund nappy libraries and composting schemes.
Hilary,i totally agree with you that a variety of solutions are what will be required to move this forward.I am certain that the Knowaste process is a good one and will be one of those solutions and best of luck with your ideas.
The problem we face is that alternatives to single-use SAP filled nappies have not been fully developed yet. This is due to the flawed 2005 LCA report that confused Government (EU, central & local) by appearing to say the environmental impacts of reusables and disposables are the same. The 2008 update did not change that perception. So prevention & reduction have still not been fully exploited to the point where we can say, okay it’s not going to work, let’s resort to recycling nappy waste.
I agree we need to explore all opportunities to reduce nappy waste, but I’m still skeptical about the Knowaste process. There will be no single solution and different things will work better in different areas. What’s essential is that we spend public money responsibly. Prevention of nappy waste is very cheap and cost effective investment and therefore the priority. It may simply be giving a grant to a local nappy library and letting residents know it exists by giving them a link from your recycling page. Yes, legislation is needed to send a clear message to the public that single-use nappies are an environmental problem but legislation follows cultural change. We need to be tenacious and patient. Just look at the plastic bag tax. It happened in the end.
Hilary,you have some very valid points but even if you eliminated a percentage of inco products that we not really needed you would still be left with say 350,000tpa which is better recycled than wasted as a future resource.It will take a cohesive effort to change the behaviour of the masses and would be impossible without regulation which is a whole new debate
It seems that we very seldom take not of the reality of the situation in using disposable nappies. I for one cannot see why these are used at all, but then when we had children cotton nappy towelling was common-place and always accepted. In the current idiom that has been passed by particularly when it is noted that parents do not have the time to manage their children’s affairs at all well and with so many children being ferried around by their parents to school {presumably because children do not know how to walk, or they have not been born with legs and therefore have to e taken to school] and with so many children attached to their mobile telephone it makes you think “What next?”
Ypu make the comment Mr P Jones about the issue of charging for a disposal cost in the purchase price: it sounds plausible but like un-hypothecated taxation is not that realistic. A better choice would be to make all the materials from organic materials which is a discussion we are following through from here with the European Union. It can be done and the obvious natural decomposition products can be tailored through a self-decomposing system or to convert these amongst the other organic materials to the manufacture of LBG Methanol and Butanol as a fuel to replace Diesel and Shipping Fuels.
Peter, This is why I embrace the circular economy. We’ve got a few things wrong and we need to sort them out. We thought ready-cooked meals would give us more time and what we got was a rise in obesity, stroke and Type 2 Diabetes. Disposable nappies helped give us more time. To do what? Do we play with our kids more? It doesn’t seem so, according to Public Health England’s recent report on school readiness. But I feel hopeful. It’s actually getting harder to reach new parents via social media. I think they’re turning away from their screens and tuning in to their children. In the end, people realise what’s best for them and their families.
Whilst I think there are some valid points in the article I can assure you that the development plant in the West Midlands did not close due to operating costs but because the development of the sterilisation process and the development of the offtake markets was complete.We have many options for our high quality plastic and fibre products.In fact the fibre for our first 2 plants has been sold for the next 10 years!!We could discuss the relevant environmental credentials of the recyclable nappy and the cloth nappy for hours and still not reach a conlusion.It remains a consumer choice and that will be difficult to change when the cloth nappy is still only in the region of 5% of the total market.What you are all forgetting is that the Adult incontinence products account for at least 40% or 440,000 tonnes of the total 1.1 million tonnes of AHP landfilled/incinerated every year in the UK alone.These consumers have no other choice but to use this product.We at Knowaste want to provide the consumer with a choice and do not expect to be the only choice but if they use a product that we can recycle they can feel better about their choice.
Paul, thanks for your comments. Sadly many people are being presumed incontinent in the UK’s care homes. If there were more staff and better training with more humanity and less priority of ‘efficiency’ over caring, the individuals could be actually taken to the toilet rather than left in nappies. A washable cotton pad inside the underwear would serve to retain dignity of accidents on the way to the toilet. This is a public health problem that needs to be addressed and when it is I predict there will be less nappy waste arising in care homes.
Many thanks. Hilary, for your interesting article about the question of nappy recycling referring to the intention of Knowaste to build a new AHP recycling facility in West London. The first UK Knowaste plant had to be closed in 2013 by high operational costs. The same was true for the Knowaste plant in Arnhem (the Netherlands), which terminated the operations in 2007. From 2004 till 2007 I was a member of the Supervisory Board of Knowaste Arnhem. Therefore, I know more aspects of the need to shut down the facility. Certainly, the operating costs played a major role, especially the energy costs. Indeed, the plant was too large due to a lack of feed stock. However, competition from new incinerators was not a big problem. I will emphasize, that finding markets for recycled fibers and plastics was the main problem because of the stigmatization of their outputs. Producers of AHP strengthen the negative image of recycled fibers. They fear critics from society thanks to the risk of contamination, even after washing the fibers. I agree that reusable nappies contribute to a more circular economy concept. Reusing products remains important. But recycling or composting of disposable nappies is still necessary, especially in the case of incontinence materials.
Thank you Ad for your insights and experience. It’s great to have a debate about this. I agree that the problem of incontinence waste needs be addressed urgently. In terms of health, comfort, well-being AND waste, single-use continence products should be seen as the option of last resort. In some instances these products are being used, like some pharmaceuticals, in a routine and irresponsible way. This is a huge public health issue and once addressed could lead to a significant reduction in use and therefore waste.
Hilary,in my experience the users of incontinence products already operate in the realm of “last resort”as the use of the products is the only way they can enjoy some quality of life.
We have to deal with what is in front of us and in the region of 95%of parents choose single use nappies and I think to assume that we can change the views of 95% of the users is naïve.The government has spent many millions trying over the last few years but not really gained much momentum.By applying a charge for disposal to the manufacturers then all that would happen is that the price per nappy would increase
Paul, I agree with you that the idea of persuading 95% of people to switch from disposable to reusable nappies would be naive. Having said that, are there only 5% of parents using reusable nappies in the UK? Actually no one has done the research, so actually no one knows. It’s a great time for local authorities to promote them though while very cheap chinese reusable nappies seem to be selling fast.
Re the “many millions” the government has spent over the last few years: I wonder where you get that idea from. I know WRAP was given £2 million by the Labour Government in 2004 to help local authorities reduce nappy waste. I don’t know of anything since. I do know that London spends approx £20 million on the the collection and disposal of nappy waste per year!
Re dealing with reality: I never thought I’d see no smoking in pubs in my lifetime. I never thought I’d see dog owners picking up their dog’s poo. I never thought I’d see a popular bike hire scheme in London. I never thought I’d see a sink at the entrance of a hospital ward to wash my hands, rather than an alcohol gel dispenser – I did last week. (Alcohol gel gives me eczema.) I never thought I’d see a popular campaign for a sugar tax spearheaded by an Essex boy (I’m so proud, I’m an Essex girl.)
But what haunts me at 4am in the morning is the thought of being in a care home and left in a nappy. The thought of telling my carer I need to be taken to the toilet but s/he says, we don’t do that just when you want. We will change you according to our routine. I’m sorry, this is happening. Efficiency and routine is king. We are treating people worse than we would treat animals. Because we can. Because we have disposable nappies and they’re easy, we just throw them away.
It’s a real quandary, Hilary, and one that needs careful reflection. My own view is that – absent government action to make single use nappies bear more of the costs of their disposal – we’ll be stuck with managing a significant AHP waste stream for some time to come. In that context, moves towards making it easier to recover some of the valuable materials they contain are to be cautiously welcomed – but we should still be trying to stick to the message that, in environmental terms, reusables are best.