Asbestos’s Deadly Legacy
Each year asbestos related diseases claim over 5,000 lives in the UK and more than 200,000 lives worldwide, far exceeding the toll of many natural disasters. In the UK alone asbestos-related diseases cause 300% more deaths than road traffic accidents. Yet, despite asbestos’s deadly impact, landfill remains the only disposal option for this human carcinogen. The question is: can we do better?
The Problem with Landfill
Landfill is, at best, a temporary solution. Once asbestos is buried the land can never be safely reused and the risk of airborne fibre release increases over time. Landfill does not destroy asbestos it simply stores the problem for future generations. This is not a sustainable or responsible approach. It only exists because no better alternative has been developed.
Thermal Recycling: A Viable Alternative?
Asbestos was widely used because of its tensile strength, insulating properties and resistance to change by heat, fire, chemical and mechanical means. While these properties made it popular, they also make it extremely difficult to destroy. However, destruction is not only possible, it is essential.
Thermal Recycling strongly believes that thermal degradation offers the most promising route for destroying asbestos. This process uses high temperatures to break down asbestos fibres, rendering them harmless. Crucially, it creates no secondary waste streams. 100% of the treated material can be reused. This positions Thermal Recycling as an important part of the future circular economy.
Regulatory and Market Challenges
Developing an industrial process to treat asbestos is no small feat. In the UK and EU, securing a permit is complex, expensive, and time-consuming. It took over three years for Thermal Recycling to obtain a permit from the Environment Agency for its plant, and another three years to achieve “end of waste” status for the treated material.
The permit allowed the company to accept up to 29,500 tonnes of cement-bound chrysotile per year. However, to reduce risk and investment, a small-scale plant was built first, with a capacity of up to 12 tonnes per firing. This cautious approach delayed market entry but was undoubtedly the right decision.
[1] Graham Gould is Chair of Thermal Recycling a company based in the UK which has developed a circular economy process for denaturing cement bound chrysotile asbestos. www.thermalrecycling.co.uk
The Road Ahead: Innovation and Scale
Turning scientific innovation into a viable industrial process involves many steps especially when dealing with a human carcinogen. There can be no compromises on safety or effectiveness.
The only current competitor is landfill and the cost of landfill is, inevitably, the benchmark price for any alternative. An asbestos treatment process can be effective but if it cannot be delivered at a price that enough customers are prepared to pay, it does not represent a viable alternative to landfill.
All effective innovations improve and develop as they increase their market penetration. Comparing the first versions of mobile phones, colour televisions or electric vehicles compared with current phones, TVs and EVs show how much innovations can develop.
Learning from market reaction, changes in technology and benefits from scale production inevitably lead to improvements in the original designs. Asbestos treatment is no different. The first plants must be effective but inefficiencies will be present. Initial prices will be higher than landfill because of the investment needed to bring the innovation to market. Over time the price gap between landfill and treatment will narrow and possibly disappear. Like any innovative approach in its early days, it will require sufficient early adopters to be prepared to use it.
Thermal Recycling is now working on plans to build the world’s first large scale, commercially viable asbestos treatment plant.
The Need for Government Support
The government and regulators play a crucial role in the development of an alternative to landfill in many ways including setting landfill tax rates, setting criteria for permitting and criteria for “end of waste” status.
The public sector also has, by far, the greatest number of employees in the UK, and possibly the world, working in buildings such as schools, hospitals and old offices where asbestos is present. They not only have a duty of care to these employees but they have the potential to lead by example in how this asbestos is managed, removed and disposed of. It is not only a huge responsibility and liability for the country it is also a huge opportunity.
A major disappointment has been the lack of support from the UK government in scaling up asbestos treatment technology. Government backing is essential to accelerate the adoption of a more sustainable and responsible alternative to landfill and to protect its employees and future generations from avoidable disease.
In Summary
While it is unlikely that 100% of asbestos waste will ever be diverted from landfill, the volume of asbestos waste sent to landfill can be substantially reduced.
Thermal Recycling is now working on plans to build the world’s first full-scale plant, putting the UK at the forefront of asbestos treatment. With the right support, this will contribute to future generations being spared from the devastating impact of a preventable disease.
