a strategy for the management of municiple waste in wakefield waste... · 1.4 legislative drivers...
TRANSCRIPT
A Strategy for the Management of Municipal Waste in Wakefield
A report produced for City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council - AEA Technology
April 2004
I am very pleased to introduce the Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy for the Wakefield District. The strategy has been produced in response to the Government’s requirement for sustainable waste management. The question of what we do with our rubbish concerns every one of us. We can no longer have a strategy that relies heavily on disposing of rubbish to landfill, as we must meet local, national and European targets in managing Wakefield’s municipal waste. If present trends continue, the amount of municipal waste produced per year will double in twenty years’ time. This document sets out the strategy the Council approved and adopted on 25 November 2003, and sets the foundation of how we intend to meet the challenge of reducing rubbish, recycling more and treating the remainder in a more sustainable way. These proposals will require significant changes to the way we deal with our rubbish. The Council has made progress in addressing some issues but there is much more we have to do. We need to think about waste minimisation, complex separate recycling collections, composting, and new technologies, including mechanical biological treatment, to deal with the rubbish that cannot be recycled or composted. The extensive consultation process allowed the Council to ensure that the views, comments and ideas of everyone in the district, were heard and taken into consideration. Although the Council’s role is important, the strategy will not succeed without your support. With a little effort, we can all reduce the amount of waste we produce, re-use what we can and recycle and compost more. We look forward to implementing this exciting and challenging Strategy, which will see more rubbish recycled and the remainder, managed in a more sustainable way. By working together we can ensure our local environments are clean, safe, healthy, accessible and pleasant whilst at the same time be proud of them. CLLR PETER BOX LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
Executive Summary Waste is a national problem. The cost of managing this waste is increasing, and there are demands for it to be disposed of in more sustainable ways. This means that a great proportion of waste will need to be diverted from landfill by recycling, composting or otherwise recovering value from it. The Government and the European Commission have set demanding standards for the amount of waste that needs to be recycled or recovered. The main requirements for local authority waste management are the Best Value Performance Standards, Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) recycling targets and the national targets set in Waste Strategy 2000. Those BVPIs specific to Wakefield are shown below:
Date Recycling Target National WMDC 2003/4 10% 2005/6 25% 18% 2010 30% 2015 33%
Wakefield Council has already met its 2003/4 target a year early, and we anticipate the same for our 2005/6 target. In addition to meeting the recycling targets, we need to meet the requirements of the Landfill Directive. This directive makes changes to the way landfills are operated but also places two requirements on local authorities:
1. To treat all waste to reduce its environmental impact before sending it to landfill; and,
2. To reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) sent to landfill compared to the amount sent in 1995 by:
75% by 2010 50% by 2013 35% by 2020 (these dates include the four years derogation)
In 2002/03, Wakefield recycled 12.45% of its household rubbish, and schemes introduced in 2002 to collect recyclables, and garden waste for composting, are helping to significantly improve recycling performance. There are plans to improve the network of household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) to provide a better coverage, by relocating some of the centres and improving the recycling facilities so that more waste can be recycled. The rest of the waste collected in Wakefield is sent to landfill. To progress waste management in the Wakefield district, so that it can meet the challenges of the future, new systems need to be brought into operation to increase recycling rates, and to provide the necessary waste treatment and alternatives to landfill.
1
Four scenarios for new waste management systems were modelled to identify the best system for Wakefield. These were based on the environmental, social, economic and operational performance, which is termed the best practical environmental option (BPEO), based on two aims:
1. Tackling the level of recycling, i.e. either just meeting the recycling targets, or using systems that maximise recycling; and
2. Introducing a different type of disposal technology for waste that is not recycled, either a mechanical biological treatment plant (MBT) or an energy from waste facility (EfW).
The four scenarios were:
2A Meets recycling targets with MBT of the residual waste 2B Meets recycling targets with EfW of the residual waste 3A Exceeds recycling targets with MBT of the residual waste 3B Exceeds recycling targets with EfW of the residual waste
The modelling and evaluation of these scenarios were based on a wide range of criteria covering environmental, social, economic and operational factors. The key areas for assessment are around the levels of recycling and recovery achieved, and the costs of delivering the service. The performance in terms of recycling rates, shown below (Figure A), indicate that high levels of recycling are achievable. However, these high recycling rates are dependent on a significantly revised collection service that includes collection of recyclables and organic wastes from almost all households, with the remaining waste collected on a fortnightly basis. They are also dependent upon high levels of public involvement.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20012002
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
201 52016
20172018
20192020
Yea rs
000'
Ton
nes
R ecyc ling T arg et basecase B VPI R ecycling Sce nario 2A re cycling
Scenario 3A recycling Scenario 2B recycling Sce nario 3B re cycling
Base
2B2A
3B3A
Figure A: Modelled recycling performance of scenarios.
2
The effects on the cost of implementing the service, shown in Figure B, indicate that the costs for waste management are set to increase significantly in the future. However, the high recycling rate scenarios are more cost effective than other scenarios in the medium to long term.
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
20012002
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
20152016
20172018
20192020
20212022
2023
Y ears
Cos
t (£
)
B ase case S cen ari o 2 A Scenario 2B S cen ario 3A Scen ario 3B
Base2A
2B3A3B
Figure B: Revenue cost projection. By looking at the financial, environmental, social and operational factors together, and applying weightings to reflect the relative importance of each factor, each scenario can be given a score. They can then be ranked in order of preference. From this process the highest scoring scenario is 3B (high recycling with EfW). This is considered the best practicable environmental option (BPEO). However, to assess the confidence in this choice, a sensitivity analysis was performed (Figure C). This shows that there is potential for a considerable overlap in scores between options 3A and 3B. So the preference for 3B is not absolute. The weightings for this analysis were obtained from the citizens of Wakefield through a MORI poll and are supported by the poll carried out by the Council’s Citizen newspaper, details of which can be found in Appendix 6.
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Baseline 2A 2B 3A
Ove
rall
scor
e
Mean +/- std. deviation
3B
Figure C: Sensitivity of BPEO assessment ranks. This analysis has two main conclusions:
1. Exceeding recycling rates is more preferable than just meeting them; and 2. The choice of residual treatment is marginally in favour of EfW, but the
preference is small. On 25 November 2003 the Council resolved that the clear preference for scenarios that achieved higher rates of recycling be noted, and Scenario 3A, as outlined in the report, be approved. The Council looked at a number of options on how to deliver a new waste management service and how it would be procured. There are three principle routes that could be adopted:
1. As a wholly integrated contract in conjunction with the private sector, as either a public private partnership or Private Finance Initiative contract. This would place the responsibility for the management of the waste, and the construction and operation of the facilities, on the private sector contractor;
2. As a series of subcontracted operations (e.g. collection, household waste
recycling centres, material recycling facilities, etc) that are managed by the Council to deliver the required performance as a whole; or
3. The Council, on its own behalf, raises the finances, constructs the
infrastructure, then operates the facilities and delivers the service.
4
On 25 November 2003 the Council resolved that a council-managed integrated service (CMIS)-option 2 (variation - single contract with PFI rather than multiple contracts) be determined as the procurement method for delivering the Council’s future waste management services. The Council now needs to:
• Start an extended programme of public education; • Raise awareness of waste and waste minimisation issues; • Limit waste growth; • Prepare the public for the enhanced recycling service in which they will play a
major role.
5
Contents
1 THE NEED FOR CHANGE 8
1.1 AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT 8 1.2 THE CHALLENGES FACING WAKEFIELD – WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? 9 1.3 LOCAL ISSUES – THE COUNCIL'S COMMITMENTS 9 1.4 LEGISLATIVE DRIVERS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT 10 1.4.1 the national waste strategy 10 1.4.2 the landfill directive 13 1.5 LANDFILL TAX 13 1.6 OTHER LEGISLATION INVOLVED IN THE DRIVE TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT 14
2 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN WAKEFIELD – CURRENT PRACTICE 16
2.1 GEOGRAPHY 16 2.2 WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 16 2.2.1 waste collection 16 2.2.2 waste disposal 17 2.3 RECYCLING SCHEMES 17 2.3.1 bring bank schemes 18 2.3.2 kerbside collection schemes 18 2.3.3 household waste recycling centres (hwrcs) 18 2.4 CURRENT RECYCLING RATE 19 2.5 COMPOSITION OF WASTE 20 2.6 PROJECTION OF FUTURE WASTE QUANTITIES 22 2.7 CURRENT WASTE MINIMISATION INITIATIVES 22 2.8 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NEIGHBOURING LOCAL AUTHORITIES 24 2.9 THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK 26
3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SCENARIOS 37
3.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 37 3.1.1 assessment criteria 38 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS 40 3.2.1 scenario a – base case 40 3.2.2 scenario 2a – meets targets with mbt 41 3.2.3 scenario 2b – meets targets with efw 42 3.2.4 scenario 3a – exceeds targets with mbt 42 3.2.5 scenario 3b – exceeds targets with efw 43 3.3 SCENARIO MASS FLOWS 44 3.4 SCENARIO TECHNOLOGIES 47 3.5 MODELLING OUTPUT 48 3.5.1 recycling performance 48 3.5.2 landfill directive targets 49 3.5.3 costs 49 3.6 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL 50 3.6.1 environmental objectives 51
6
3.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES 53 3.8 OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 54 3.9 TOTAL VALUED PERFORMANCE OF SCENARIOS 54 3.9.1 Sensitivity 56
4 MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC WASTE STREAMS 58
4.1 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL WASTE 58 4.1.1 special waste 59 4.1.2 disposal capacity 59 4.1.3 targets 59 4.2 ABANDONED VEHICLES 59 4.2.1 current arrangements for dealing with abandoned vehicles 60 4.2.2 considerations for future options 60 4.3 FLYTIPPING 60 4.3.1 considerations for future options 61 4.4 SCRAP TYRES 61 4.4.1 tyre arisings in wakefield 61 4.4.2 current practice for management of tyres 61 4.4.3 waste minimisation 62 4.5 CLINICAL WASTE 62 4.6 HAZARDOUS WASTE 62 4.7 EQUIPMENT WHICH CONTAINS LOW VOLUMES OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) 63 4.8 PACKAGING 63 4.8.1 legislative developments 63 4.8.2 considerations for future options 63 4.9 WASTE ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (WEEE) 64 4.9.1 current practice for weee in wakefield 65
5 IMPLEMENTATION 66
5.1 CONTRACT STRATEGY 66 5.2 TIMESCALES 67 5.3 INTEGRATION WITH NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES 70
6 CONCLUSIONS 71
Appendices Appendix 1 Assessment of environmental options Appendix 2 Assessment of socio-economic and operational objectives Appendix 3 Waste treatment and processing options Appendix 4 Management of specific waste streams Appendix 5 Waste minimisation Appendix 6 Public consultation
7
1 THE NEED FOR CHANGE
1.1 AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT
This document is the final version of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy and contains the proposals for addressing the key issues surrounding waste management for the next 20 years. The objectives of the report are:
• To set out how the Council intends to meet its statutory performance standards for recycling/composting, as well as the Waste Strategy 2000 (WS2000) and EU Landfill Directive targets for diverting waste away from landfill, in both the short and long term;
• To focus on the entire municipal waste stream, as well as considering other
lower volume but often higher profile and problematic wastes;
• To prepare policies and proposals for this strategy aimed at increasing household awareness of waste management issues, and provide practical measures to stabilise and eventually reduce growth in waste arisings;
• To provide information on how the strategy targets have been evaluated in
respect to the best practicable environmental option (BPEO);
• To detail partnership arrangements between private, business and community sectors (as the Government has recognised that local authorities cannot meet the WS2000 targets alone). Where appropriate, links with other agencies, such as neighbouring local authorities, will be detailed;
• To detail the Council’s current practice and policies with respect to green
procurement, waste management and recycling;
• To ensure the Municipal Waste Management Strategy is integrated with other relevant strategies and plans, such as the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Best Value initiatives;
• To consider implementation issues and provide a comprehensive framework
for evaluating and monitoring the progress in achieving strategy objectives.
8
1.2 THE CHALLENGES FACING WAKEFIELD – WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Most waste in Wakefield has been disposed of by landfilling; however owing to changes in legislation emanating from Europe, especially the Landfill Directive and national targets for recycling, this can no longer be seen as the most sustainable solution. As disposing of an ever-increasing amount and variety of waste is becoming progressively more difficult, sustainable waste management alternatives need to be identified. These include recycling, composting, and energy recovery that makes better use of resources and decreases the risk of pollution. The Governments ‘Waste Strategy 2000’ embodies the steps required to bring about this change and Wakefield is required to play its part in this. In 2001/02 Wakefield produced 173,455 tonnes of household waste, sending 93% of this to landfill. Accordingly, there is a need to implement new waste recycling and minimisation initiatives to help meet strict Government targets. The Government targets mean that Wakefield must reduce, by 2010, the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) going to landfill to 75% of that sent in 1995, and to 35% by 2020. The Community Strategy 2001 notes that waste production is rising by 4% a year, and is coupled with an increase in the number of households. If these levels of growth continue, there will be more than double the amount of waste that the Council has to deal with over the next 20 years. The Government has also set targets for waste recovery and recycling which must be met over the next 18 years, and are detailed later in this report. Household waste is only one element of the total amount of waste produced, and the scale of the problem means the Council alone will not be able to resolve it. If a successful municipal waste management strategy is to be implemented the Council needs to work in partnership with other organisations, businesses, industries and individuals. Only through these partnerships can attitudes to waste be changed and responsibility be taken for the waste we produce. 1.3 LOCAL ISSUES – THE COUNCIL’S COMMITMENTS
The aims of the National Waste Strategy are mirrored in the Council’s Corporate Community Strategy- Fast Forward. In 25 years time the Wakefield District will be a place:
• Moving forward motivated by pride and its heritage • Where our people look after themselves and each other so that they are safe
and healthy, having the skills and confidence to take more control over their lives
• With places that are attractive to live, learn work and invest in and where our diverse towns and villages work together to promote the well being of the whole of the District.
• Where together with the younger people of the District we will ensure that the work we do now will stand the test of time.
9
Promoting and maintaining a clean and attractive environment is a key priority- Improving our places, the Council will make the district a much cleaner place by dealing quickly with litter and flytipping, and significantly increasing recycling and composting of waste. 1.4 LEGISLATIVE DRIVERS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
1.4.1 The National Waste Strategy In response to European legislation, and international concern over the environmental impacts of waste disposal, the Government has published ‘Waste Strategy 2000’. The strategy sets out a national framework for reducing the amount of waste going to landfill by moving towards more sustainable waste management options. The overall aim is to tackle the growth in waste production and, where waste is produced, maximise the amount recovered through re-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery.
Waste Strategy 2000 An over-arching policy document that is the Government’s response to obligations on waste issues contained in European Law. Accordingly, it is both a national waste management plan (as required by Council Directives 75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC and 96/350/EC Framework Directive on Waste) and a strategy to divert waste away from landfill (Council Directive 1999/31/EC).
By managing waste and resources more efficiently Wakefield, and the UK as a whole, can make an important contribution towards sustainable development. This is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present, without preventing future generations from meeting their own needs”. The Government’s sustainable development strategy is based on four key elements:
1. Effective protection of the environment; 2. Prudent use of natural resources; 3. Social progress which meets the needs of everyone; and 4. High and stable levels of economic growth and employment;
10
Guiding principles for the National Waste Strategy To ensure that future waste decisions take into account the factors fundamental to sustainable waste management, the Government has advised the following guiding principles be taken into account:
The Precautionary Principle When dealing with issues of environmental protection the Government has stated that regard must be given to the Precautionary Principle. This means “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.
The Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) The BPEO process should be used when considering the relative merits of various waste management options. This will establish the option that provides the most benefits, or least damage, to the environment as a whole, at an acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term. This may mean there is a different BPEO for the same waste stream in a different area or at a different time. The process also ensures that local, environmental, social and economic issues will be important in any decision.
The Waste Management Hierarchy This theoretical framework ranks waste management options in order of sustainability. If waste management is to become sustainable, there needs to be an increased consideration of the options towards the top of the hierarchy.
REDUCE: The most effective environmental solution may often be to
reduce waste generation in the first place; for example, ensuring products are not over-packaged.
RE-USE: Where further reduction is not possible; some materials
and products can be used again for either the same or different purpose.
RECYCLING: Where direct re-use is not possible, materials can be used
in production processes as secondary raw materials. RECOVERY: If reduction or re-use is not possible, the next best thing is
to regain as much value from the waste as possible through energy recovery.
DISPOSAL: If none of the previous options offer an appropriate
solution, only then should the waste be disposed of.
When assessing waste management proposals, the waste hierarchy should be used as a guide, rather than being applied rigidly. A certain amount of flexibility is needed to arrive at the most balanced environmental, social and economic solution.
11
The Proximity Principle Waste should generally be managed as closely as possible to where it is produced in order to limit the environmental impact of transportation, and to create a more responsible approach to waste generation.
Regional Self - Sufficiency This requires that most waste should be treated or disposed of within the region it is produced. Each region is expected to provide sufficient facilities and services to manage the amount of waste it is expected to produce over the next 10 years. It is recognised that the BPEO for some waste may be to transport it to another region where it can be dealt with more effectively. Not all regions have specialist recovery, recycling or treatment facilities, in line with the proximity principal. Recycling Targets Within the overall recovery targets the Government has specified the following statutory targets for recycling. Table 1-1: Recycling targets set in "Waste Strategy 2000"
Date Achieved Recycling Target NATIONAL WMDC
2003/04 10% 2005/06 25% 18% 2010 30% 2015 33%
Recovery Targets To encourage more efficient use of resources, and to obtain value from waste, the Government has set targets for waste recovery via recycling, composting, energy recovery and other methods, such as anaerobic digestion.
• To recover at least 40% of household waste by 2005
• To recover at least 45% of household waste by
2010 • To recover at least 67% of household waste by
2015 It is perceived that it will be difficult to achieve the recovery targets through recycling alone and that some form of energy recovery via incineration, gasification or pyrolysis may be required. The Strategy assumes that all residues will go to landfill as a worst case scenario, given concerns about sustainable market outlets. However, the Council will not exclude other options offered by the industry at tender stage. A recent survey by Ernst & Young suggested that, by 2015, 27% of municipal waste would be incinerated, or have energy recovered from it.
12
In 2001/02 Wakefield recycled only 7.4% of its household waste, therefore, initiatives have been introduced to significantly increase the amount of recycling to achieve its 2005/06 Best Value Standard recycling target. 1.4.2 The Landfill Directive The Government has set challenging targets to ensure that the necessary steps towards sustainable waste management are made. The EU Landfill Directive, which came into force on 16th July 2001, is the main driver behind this. The Government introduced the following mandatory targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill:
By 2010 reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995. By 2013 reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 50% of that produced in 1995. By 2020 reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995.
When biodegradable (organic) waste decays it produces methane and CO2, major greenhouse gases, and a liquid leachate that can pollute ground and surface water. The Landfill Directive requires that landfill sites be classified as hazardous, non-hazardous or inert, effectively ending the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. It also bans the landfilling of certain wastes such as tyres from 2003, and requires that all waste going to landfill will have to be pre-treated to reduce its environmental impact. Tradable allowances To ensure local authorities comply with the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive and Waste Strategy 2000, the Government plans to introduce a system of tradable allowances. The details of this are still being developed following a consultation period. The main thrust of the proposals are that the Government will set a limit on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that can be landfilled, based on the population and number of households in the area. This allocation of allowances will be profiled so that the UK as a whole meets its targets under the Landfill Directive. It will be possible to buy allowances from other local authorities in order to landfill beyond the existing allowance, or to bank or borrow allowances to ease the profiling of infrastructure development. The sanctions for having insufficient allowances are still undefined, but are likely to be set at twice the cost of the most expensive disposal option, and a study is under way to define this cost. 1.5 LANDFILL TAX
In October 1996 the Government introduced a landfill tax to discourage the disposal of waste and encourage more recovery and recycling. The initial rate was set at
13
£7/tonne for active waste, e.g. household waste, and the table below shows the increases since then. The rate of £2/tonne for inert, inactive waste has remained constant.
Table 1-2: Past and predicted changes to the Landfill Tax
Time period Tax per tonne (active waste) 1996 - 1999 £7 1999/0 £10 2000/1 £11 2001/2 £12 2002/3 £13 2003/4 £14 2004/5 £15 2005/6 £18 2011/12**1 £35 ** The date for achieving this tax level is dependent on future budget statements but will be by
at least 2011/12
Although landfill tax will encourage more sustainable waste management practices, it means local authorities will have real increases in the cost of waste management for the foreseeable future. The chancellor announced in his 2002 pre-budget statement that landfill tax levels would increase by at least £3/tonne each year until the tax reaches £35/tonne. 1.6 OTHER LEGISLATION INVOLVED IN THE DRIVE TOWARDS
SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT
• The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Controlled Waste
Regulations 1992 This legislation places a duty on local authorities to manage specified wastes. It regulates waste management and defines how waste should be dealt with.
• EU Directive on Waste 75/442/EEC (amended by 91/156/EEC and
91/692/EEC) Articles 3, 4 and 5 This requires the consideration of waste minimisation, recycling and energy recovery as well as the need to protect human health and the environment from potentially polluting developments.
• The Animal By - Products Regulations 2003 SI 1482 These regulations require catering wastes that are sent for processing to be treated to defined process conditions, ensuring that all pathogens are reduced to an acceptable level. The principal issue for the waste industry is that domestic kitchen waste, or waste that has been in contact with kitchen waste, is classed as catering waste. If composted or digested, these wastes will have
1 The Chancellor announced in his 2002 pre-budget speech that landfill tax would increase by £3/t in 2005/6 and by at least that
amount in subsequent years until the tax rose to £35.
14
to be processed to stringent conditions. The main conditions are the segregation of the wastes from the product, ensuring that high temperatures are achieved, the enclosure of the process and the requirement that the process has two stages of sanitisation.
• Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 and Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998 This sets targets for those involved in the packaging chain, from raw material production and retailer selling, to recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Whilst this does not apply to local authorities directly, the industry may be encouraged to form strategic partnerships to facilitate the collection and recycling or recovery of packaging waste from the household waste stream.
• Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE)
This directive is still under consultation but will place requirements on the manufacturers to collect and recycle waste electrical and electronic equipment. One consequence of this is that local authorities may be required to provide facilities at HWRCs to collect these items from householders. More detail can be found in Appendix 4.
• End of Life Vehicles (ELVs) Directive 2000/53/EC In November 2003, the End of Life Vehicles Regulations 2003 were made Law. ELVs will require treatment by authorised dismantlers and shredders. This directive will effect the disposal of ELVs and is likely to increase the level of abandoned vehicles, and the costs incurred by the Council in dealing with them.
• Batteries Directive This will require separate collection and recycling of all batteries across the EU, harmonising very different schemes across the continent. This is likely to result in the Council having to provide separate collection facilities for batteries, most likely sited at HWRCs. More detail on this directive can be found in Appendix 4.
• Hazardous Waste Directive
European Council Directive 91/689/EEC (The Hazardous Waste Directive or HWD) sets the framework within member states of the European Community, for provisions to control the movement of arisings of hazardous wastes. The aim of the HWD is to provide a precise and uniform European-wide definition of hazardous waste and to ensure the correct management and regulation of such waste.
• Household Waste Recycling Bill
The Household Waste Recycling Bill received Royal Assent in 2003. The Private Member's Bill was supported by the Government in its passage through Parliament. The Bill provides that, where English waste collection authorities have a duty to collect waste, they shall ensure, except in some circumstances, that by the end of 2010 they collect at least two recyclates separate from the remainder of the waste.
15
2 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN WAKEFIELD – CURRENT PRACTICE
This chapter provides a baseline for the study, presenting information on arrangements for waste collection and disposal, and the volumes of material collected at household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) operating in the Wakefield area. Information is provided on the composition of household waste, waste delivered to HWRCs, estimates of how the amount of household waste produced in Wakefield might increase in the next 20 years, and describes the actions that are being taken to promote waste minimisation. Information is provided on how Wakefield’s neighbouring authorities are developing their own waste management strategies, and briefly discusses whether the Council could co-operate with its neighbours in the development of its own waste strategy. 2.1 GEOGRAPHY
Wakefield is a metropolitan district of some 333 square km in West Yorkshire, adjacent to the city of Leeds, and is at the centre of the UK’s transport network. Over two thirds of the Wakefield district is rural. An estimate in mid-2000 put the population of Wakefield MDC at 320,000. The district is served well by the national road network, with major motorways running north-south (M1) and east-west (M62). The rail network is also well established with the east coast mainline running through Wakefield. As Wakefield is a metropolitan district council it has unitary responsibilities for waste management, and thus serves as the waste collection authority and waste disposal authority simultaneously. Currently all of Wakefield’s waste is transported by road. 2.2 WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
2.2.1 Waste collection Waste collection is provided under contract, awarded to the Council’s Direct Service Organisation (DSO). There were no other tenders and the contract was awarded in August 1998, expiring in December 2004. Household waste is collected from approximately 138,800 properties on a weekly basis, totalling 125,655 tonnes/year. The overall amount of waste produced per household in Wakefield in 2001-2002 was 1.25 tonnes, with most households having a 240 litre wheeled bin for this waste. Larger bins that have been supplied in the past are gradually being withdrawn and replaced with 240 litre wheeled bins, in line with the Council’s policies for promoting waste minimisation. A garden waste Kerbside Collection Scheme commenced in 2002 initially covering 35,500 households. Garden waste is collected fortnightly (April-November) and monthly (December-March). This has now been expanded in 2003 to 72,000 households and 16,120 tonnes has been sent for composting to date (November 2003).
16
A series of trial kerbside collections of dry recyclables were introduced during November 2002. These trials collected newspaper, magazines and cardboard from 57,400 properties in the Wakefield district. A public consultation about the trial was conducted in August 2003. Positive comments were received which will now feed back into the planning of the system. Bulky wastes, such as furniture and white goods, are collected from households by appointment. This service is limited to two free collections per year, with additional collections being charged for. Material is collected with the purpose of re-using and recycling wherever possible.
2.2.2 Waste disposal All waste currently collected in Wakefield, that is not recycled, is disposed of to landfill at Welbeck, Skelbrooke and Darrington. The Welbeck site is operated and managed by a private sector company, Welbeck Waste Management Ltd (WWML), a joint venture between the Council and Waste Recycling Group plc (WRG). Skelbrooke and Darrington are both operated by WRG. The long term primary contract at Welbeck terminates in 2013. An interim contract for additional landfill capacity was renewed in May 2002 and continues until November 2004. As stated in the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment2, Wakefield had approximately 14 million cubic metres of void landfill space. Given a rate of fill of less than 200,000 tonnes per year, and the anticipated reduction in the amounts to be landfilled in the future, the existing capacity should be sufficient for Wakefield’s foreseeable needs. 2.3 RECYCLING SCHEMES
Approximately 6% of the 205,000 tonnes of municipal waste (7.4% of household waste) managed yearly by the Council was recycled in 2001/02. Recyclables are collected from seven HWRCs and from the recycling banks situated throughout the district. Waste collected at the HWRCs represents nearly three-quarters of the Council’s recycled waste. Just over one quarter comes from the recycling centres located in places such as supermarket car parks, community centres and Public Houses. There are a number of local and regional destinations for recycled material, for example:
• Cash from Trash Ltd (Wakefield) • Airedale Computer Recycling (Castleford) • Glass Recycling UK (Barnsley) • UK Glass Doncaster (South Yorkshire) • Reuse UK (Glass) Knottingley (West Yorkshire) • Timber (Leeds) • Oil (Sheffield) • Fridges, Newport (Wales) • Garden Waste, Waste Recycling Group (Normanton)
2 Environment Agency Strategic Waste Management Assessment – Yorkshire and Humber, October 2000
17
2.3.1 Bring Bank schemes The Council operates schemes for the collection of paper, glass, cans, textiles and plastics. Table 2-1 indicates the number of Bring sites in the district and the tonnage of recyclables collected at those sites in 2001-2002. Table 2-1: Number of recycling banks and recyclables collected in Wakefield 2001-2002
Paper/cardboard Glass Cans Plastics Textiles Number of bins 12 28 44 15 14 Amount collected (tonnes)
1076 815 61 40 34
2.3.2 Kerbside collection schemes In 2001/02 a three-month pilot scheme to collect garden waste from 4000 households was carried out. Collections were made fortnightly and a total of 181 tonnes of organic waste was collected. This was followed up by the implementation of a garden waste collection scheme, covering 72,000 properties. Additional trial schemes for dry recyclables collecting newspaper, magazines and cardboard have also been rolled out to 57,400 households. Each property received either a recycling bin, a kerbside box or a re-useable bag. The first collection was made in November 2002, with bins being collected monthly and boxes and bags collected fortnightly. 2.3.3 Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) Several changes in the way HWRCs are run have been implemented by the Council, with the aim of improving the recycling level, and reducing the amount of waste that is not household waste from Wakefield residents. A ban on commercial vehicles using HWRCs Due to the introduction of the landfill tax there has been a sharp increase in the number of commercial vehicles using HWRCs over the past few years. Neighbouring local authorities have introduced measures to restrict their access, such as introducing height barriers and charging schemes. As a knock-on effect, Council records show that many of these vehicles were using HWRCs in Wakefield. The Council has therefore introduced the following measures:
• A ban on all commercial vehicles entering HWRCs, with the exception of residents whose commercial vehicle is their only means of transport. These residents must apply for a permit for each visit (maximum of 12 per annum);
• Undertaking waste audits with the Environment Agency; • Installation of height barriers at all centres; and • Monitoring of all waste entering the HWRCs by the waste attendants.
Permit scheme for Wakefield residents using outlying HWRCs Four of Wakefield’s HWRCs lie on the boundaries with other neighbouring local authorities, and were therefore, subject to significant use by non-Wakefield householders. Despite attempts to negotiate joint arrangements, no agreement could be reached; therefore, permits were issued to all Wakefield residents to allow them access to the centres. It was estimated that before the scheme was introduced, between 50-60% of waste being taken to Ossett HWRC was from Kirklees residents. Since the scheme was implemented, the number of skips being filled has fallen from 27 to around 12 per week at this site alone. The scheme continues to be monitored.
18
Table 2-2 shows the tonnage of recyclable material recovered from each of the seven HWRCs in 2001-2002. It shows the main category of material collected was ‘other’, which included car batteries, white goods, wood and oil. Garden waste was the most collected recyclable material in 2001-2002, representing 46% of the recovered and recycled materials. Paper and glass represented nearly 4%. Table 2-2: HWRC waste collected and recycled in Wakefield MDC 2001-2002 (tonnes)
Site
Pape
r ca
rd
Gla
ss
Can
s
Plas
tics
Gar
den
was
te
Oth
er
Tota
l R
ecov
ery
Land
fill
% re
cycl
ed
Ossett 38 26 - 2 842 483 1391 4805 29 Castleford 41 10 - 3 482 815 1351 4901 28 South Kirkby 1 2 - - 439 56 498 4302 12 Fitzwilliam 6 10 - - 329 248 593 3446 17 Ferrybridge 31 22 - - 326 588 967 5643 18 Welbeck 10 1 - 4 443 382 840 2629 32 Wakefield 140 43 - 1 1775 2472 4431 13320 33 TOTAL 267 114 - 10 4636 5044 10071 39046 26 Individual recycling centre performance varies from a low of 11.5% at South Kirkby to a high of 33.2% at Wakefield in 2001/02. The overall HWRC performance is 25.8%. The citizens of Wakefield want to retain the present number of HWRCs. We will therefore undertake a review of the HWRCs to examine issues including location, accessibility, journey times from centres of population, and the recycling facilities on offer. We will continue to monitor and review the permit scheme. This will enable us to provide the optimum service by having strategically located facilities that meet the needs of a modern HWRC network and those of citizens. 2.4 CURRENT RECYCLING RATE
This section provides information on the overall amount of waste collected for recycling in Wakefield in 2001-2002. Table 2-3 summarises the amount of recyclable/compostable material collected by each method in 2001-2002. Table 2-3: Amounts of recyclable materials collected in Wakefield MDC in 2001-2002 (tonnes)
Material type 2001-2002 HWRC Bring Voluntary (1999/00 data) Garden waste 4636 - nil Paper and cardboard 267 1076 78 Cans - 61 * Glass 114 815 nil Textiles - 34 189 Plastics 10 40 11* Other 5044 - 45 Total 10071 2036 323
* Additional materials were processed by Cash from Trash, which are not recorded.
19
Kerbside Collected Residual - 125,655
Kerbside Organics -
None Bulky
(incl. in HWRC figs.)
Clinical - 256
Kerbside Collected
Dry - None Dry - 5,445
Garden waste - 4,636
Residual - 39,046
Construction & Demolition
Composting Pad
Landfill - 199,033
Household Waste Recycling Centre - 49,117
Residues
Market
Co-collected commercial -
28,338
Street Sweepings -
5,738 Bring - 2,388
Household Collected Waste - 125,911
Treatment
Figure 2-1: Flows of waste in Wakefield 2001/02
The flow of waste from the producers to the disposal and recycling facilities is shown schematically in Figure 2-1. The overall recycling rate in Wakefield in 2001-2002 was 7.4% of household waste and 6% of the whole municipal waste stream. The amount of material collected from HWRCs is relatively low when compared to the performance of other local authorities. However, the new extended kerbside recycling collection scheme shows that the Council is committed to finding new methods of working, and is examining the options available to improve the recycling rate. 2.5 COMPOSITION OF WASTE
Table 2-4, Table 2-5, Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the estimated composition of household waste, collected at the kerbside and at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs).
Material Composition (%)Paper 33.0 Plastic film 5.4 Dense plastics 5.8 Textiles 2.4 Misc. combustibles 8.3 Misc.non-combustibles 1.8 Glass 8.5 Putrescibles 21.7 Ferrous 5.9 Non ferrous 1.9 Fines (<10mm) 6.0
Table 2-4: Percentage composition of waste collected at kerbside (based on Leeds data from National Household waste analysis project) 3
3 Source: National household waste analysis project data for Leeds –Department of the Environment
report CWM 082/94, August 1994.
20
Paper33%
Plastic Film5%
Dense Plastics6%
Textiles2%
Mis. Combustibles8%
Mis. n-Combustibles2%
Glass8%
Putrescibles22%
Fe6%
nFe2%
Fines (<10mm)6%
Figure 2-2: Composition of collected household waste3.
Paper7%
Plastic1%
Textile5%
Wood10%
Bulky8%
Misc Comb & DIY8%
Misc. nComb.5%
Aggregates11%
Glass1%
Green W20%
Fe10%
nFe2%
Domestic12%
Oil0%
Figure 2-3: Composition of HWRC waste4.
Table 2-5: Percentage composition of waste collected HWRCs5
Materials Composition (%) Paper 6.7 Plastic 0.7 Textiles 4.8 Wood 10.4 Bulky 7.6 Misc. DIY 7.9 Misc. non-combustible 4.6 Aggregates 10.7 Glass 1.3 Garden wastes 21.0 Ferrous 10.3 Non-ferrous 1.6 General household 11.9 Oil 0.4
3 Source: National household waste analysis project data for Leeds –Department of the Environment
report CWM 082/94, August 1994. 4 Source: AEA Technology, average of Civic Amenity waste analyses from various UK sites. 5 Source: AEA Technology, average of Civic Amenity waste analyses from various UK sites.
21
PROJECTION OF FUTURE WASTE QUANTITIES
The amount of municipal waste generated in Wakefield has been increasing for many years. The rate of this increase has averaged 4% over the past few years, which is higher than the national average of approximately 3% per year. If this growth rate continues, the amount of waste that the Council has to manage will double in 18 years. This is not sustainable on either a financial or environmental basis, and action to curb this increase is required immediately. Figure 2-4 shows the impact of various growth rates on the potential waste arisings. The Council is committed to promoting waste minimisation and has assumed, for the scenario analysis later in the report, that growth of waste per household is contained by 2015, i.e. the growth of waste is systematically reduced year by year until 2015, when growth in waste will be zero. This will be achieved through a range of measures that are collectively called waste minimisation. Essentially, this relies on householders considering the waste issues in their everyday lives, and taking actions that prevent or reduce the generation of waste. The Council sees that Government has a part to play with producers in formulating policies around waste minimisation.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
1995
/6
1996
/7
1997
/8
1998
/9
1999
/00
2000
/1
2001
/2
2002
/3
2003
/4
2005
/6
2006
/7
2007
/8
2008
/9
2009
/10
2010
/11
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
2019
/20
2020
/21
Mun
icip
oal w
aste
(ton
nes
)
A ctu al 4% 3% 1% Best est im ate
4%
3%
1%
Bestest im ate
Figure 2-4: Effects of waste growth in Wakefield MDC
2.6 CURRENT WASTE MINIMISATION INITIATIVES
The trend of rising waste production cannot continue if we are to aim for a sustainable future, which is why the Council is helping citizens by encouraging recycling and waste minimisation initiatives. Waste minimisation will form an important part of any future waste strategy given the projected future waste growth in the UK. This section considers the current initiatives organised by the Council to minimise its waste streams. Further details of the waste minimisation activities in Wakefield are given in Appendix 5. Raising community awareness Initiatives include the appointment of a Waste Minimisation and Recycling Officer, whose role includes being a point of contact for citizens concerned about, or
22
interested in, waste and recycling issues. The Officer can also offer to the public mechanisms and facilities to help them reduce their personal impact on the environment, and raise awareness of the benefits of efficient waste management. Home composting Home composting is an excellent example of waste minimisation, which prevents waste leaving the household and provides compost for use in the garden. The Council has supported sales of home composting bins at a subsidised price since 2000. Over 13,000 bins have been sold by this scheme to date. Banning commercial vehicles from HWRCs To reduce the amount of commercial, construction and demolition waste arising at HWRCs, height barriers were introduced at some centres in 1998. From September 2002, this was extended to six of the seven centres, and a commercial vehicle ban was introduced at all centres. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the waste arisings at these centres. HWRC permit scheme This scheme issued permits to Wakefield residents using HWRCs in Wakefield where there was significant use by non-Wakefield residents. The trial at three centres was fully implemented in September 2002, and reduced arisings at these centres resulted by encouraging non-Wakefield residents to use alternative facilities. The scheme was expanded in April 2003 to all centres across the district. Joint educational initiative with Groundwork Wakefield Schools participate in an initiative with Groundwork Wakefield to learn about waste recycling at HWRCs. Children take part in interactive games and visit a waste treatment/disposal site. Waste minimisation and the 4Rs (Reduce, Re-use, Repair, Recycle) are discussed in a fun and interactive way.
Recycling information leaflets Information leaflets are distributed to every household in the district regularly, providing information on recycling and what is happening in the district.
Schools Logo Competition Launched in 2001, the competition encouraged children to develop a logo that has subsequently been adopted by the Council as its corporate recycling logo. Real Nappy Week Launched in 1989 by the Women’s Environmental Network and the Real Nappy Association, this campaign promotes the use of re-usable nappies by educating the public, through advertising and other activities, on the benefits they offer. The Council has actively promoted the benefits of real nappies since 2002. Website The Council website provides information about its waste collection and recycling services, the location of HWRCs and Bring recycling centres, composting methods, and guidance concerning the waste hierarchy. The Council wants to improve the range of activities to promote waste minimisation; this will be a vital part of the way Wakefield manages its waste in the future.
23
2.7 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NEIGHBOURING LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
The Council is attempting to apply the general principles of efficient municipal waste management. Nevertheless, a regional approach to waste management may be considered. At border regions, working with neighbouring authorities, rather than sticking to county boundaries, may best achieve these principles. However, difficulties can be encountered when integrating waste management systems from differing local authorities, owing to the political, commercial and legal issues involved, and should not be underestimated. This section briefly reports the municipal waste management in the Yorkshire and Humber and neighbouring local authorities. Regional Assembly – Yorkshire and Humber Lets take it from the tip is the first waste strategy for the Yorkshire and Humber region. Its aims are to make it easier, quicker and more cost-effective to deliver sustainable waste management across the region. The main purpose of the strategy is to reverse the trend of Yorkshire and Humber being the poorest performing region in England, in terms of recycling and composting. It has set challenging targets and identifies how the region can deliver Government targets and deliver more sustainable waste management. The Yorkshire & Humber Regional Waste Strategy, Lets take it from the tip, sets down four objectives to take forward the principles of sustainable waste management, i.e. the waste hierarchy, proximity principle and self-sufficiency. Regional Waste Strategy Objective/ targets Objective 1 Gain community support and involvement in the delivery of the strategy Objective 2 Reduce waste production and increase re-use, recycling and composting Objective 3 Manage residual waste in the most sustainable way Objective 4 Provide technical advice and support Priorities have been identified for reducing waste, and the target is to cut the average annual increase in waste from 3% to 2% by 2008/9. This is a stretching target and will need prolonged efforts to achieve it. It has been taken into account in the forecasts of future waste production. The figures for recycling/composting and residual waste, and the facilities that will be required to manage the waste, are based on the assumption that it will be possible to reduce the 3% annual increase in waste to 2% by 2008/9. In-line with the waste hierarchy the priorities, after reduction, should be to re-use, recycle and compost waste. The targets for these are the statutory targets set by Government (which are likely to be revised upwards during 2004) to meet legislative requirements. These are very demanding targets. The residual waste, i.e. the waste that remains after re-use, recycling and composting, can be managed in a number of ways, including energy from waste, landfill and emerging technologies, such as mechanical biological treatment.
24
There are a number of issues, such as retaining flexibility, that need to be considered when deciding the most appropriate options for the future of the region, as the emerging technologies are likely to offer more sustainable residual waste management options. Selby (North Yorkshire) Selby is one of a number of local authorities involved in the draft North Yorkshire Waste Strategy. The national parks and the city of York are responsible for the preparation of waste policies for their own areas. The remaining seven councils of North Yorkshire are working together to develop a region-wide strategy for the management of municipal waste. The strategy is non-prescriptive and objective-led. Objective and guiding principles have been agreed by the councils, which will be used to guide the decision-making process for future municipal waste collection and treatment. The strategy outlines options for dealing with residual waste, a mixture of EfW plants, landfill and tradable landfill permits. The strategy outlines the short, medium and long-term aims towards improved municipal waste management practice in the region:
• Phase 1 (Now until 2005) Focus on increasing recycling and composting; • Phase 2 (2006 – 2010/11) Focus on diverting putrescible waste from landfill; • Phase 3 (2011-2020) Focus on treatment of residual waste.
Kirklees MBC The Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Kirklees is currently in the final phases of public consultation. Approximately half of the waste is disposed of at an EfW plant, and some inert waste, asbestos and tyres are taken to a small landfill site within the district. Dry recyclables are collected from the kerbside or can be taken to one of the 140 Bring sites. The district operates five HWRCs and composts garden wastes. Residual putrescible waste is sent outside the district for treatment, recycling or disposal. Leeds City Council The majority of Leeds’ municipal waste is landfilled, with 13% being recycled or composted. The existing kerbside collection scheme for dry recyclables is being expanded and HWRC facilities improved to enable a greater level of recycling in the future. Over half of the landfilled waste is disposed of within the authority’s boundary, with the rest going to sites in north and south Yorkshire. Leeds is committed to local waste management practice as its Unitary Development Plan (UDP) dictates, but is keen to contribute towards a regional strategy as part of The Regional Assembly for Yorkshire and The Humber. It has established a Regional Integrated Waste Management Strategy steering group to develop its strategy. A key feature of this strategy is the adherence to the proximity principle and regional self-sufficiency. Leeds Council recognises the need to consider a variety of options including composting of putrescibles, EfW plants, and landfill. It recognises the impact that a waste strategy will have in a local context, as well as the impact at sub-regional and regional level. The strategy will be implemented in phases to allow sufficient time for the appropriate infrastructure to be developed.
25
Rotherham MBC Currently there is a borough-wide paper collection scheme which, over the next three years, will be extended to include other dry recyclables and garden wastes. The waste management strategy which will implement this is currently under development, and will include plans to double the number of Bring sites for recyclables from 30 to 60. Most residual waste goes to landfill, but this will decrease as recycling increases. A plan to develop a joint waste management strategy for Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster is still in its infancy, and it is still to be decided if such a scheme would work as different boroughs have different ideas about the future of waste management. Doncaster MBC Together with Barnsley and Rotherham, Doncaster agreed a set of principles for a common waste strategy. Currently, waste collection and disposal in Doncaster is contracted out to the private sector. Their contract was reviewed in 2003, and the partner authorities are not required to re-let their contracts until 2008. Doncaster understands that it needs to consider how residual waste will be managed until that time, upon which there is the possibility of an integrated waste contract for the three local authorities. At the moment waste is landfilled, with a small percentage recycled. Long-term objectives centre on increasing the percentage of recyclable materials collected, including the development of kerbside collections. As part of its strategy it recognises the need to consider EfW plants; however, Doncaster also recognises the difficulty in comparing the costs and benefits of a local and a regional plant, which could compromise the proximity principle. The long-term role of landfill is highlighted, but only if it remains the BPEO. Barnsley MBC Barnsley is currently developing its waste management strategy, and is working closely with Rotherham and Doncaster (see above). Since 1996 all of Barnsley’s MSW was transferred and bulked up locally, then exported predominantly to Doncaster and Wakefield. Barnsley is considering all options in its new strategy including material recycling facilities and EfW plants. The Council also recognises the need to improve HWRCs and provide communities with local recycling sites. The Council has immediate plans to increase the number of Bring sites in the area and expand the kerbside collection of paper and glass to 90,000 households in the borough. At the moment Barnsley makes a considerable regional contribution to the recycling of end-of-life vehicles and glass. 2.8 THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK
The European and national guidelines, as set out in the EC Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC), the Government’s ‘Waste Strategy 2000’ and best practical environmental option, form the broad policy framework for significant changes to the waste management policies in the Development Plan, the Wakefield Metropolitan District’s UDP First Alteration, adopted in January 2003. In addition, planning policy guidance notes (PPGs) set out the Government’s policies on different aspects of planning. They are taken into account in the preparation of development plans and may be material to decisions on individual planning applications. PPG 10 (Planning and Waste Management) and PPG23 (Planning and Pollution Control) are the most relevant in consideration of waste planning issues.
26
This section considers a planning framework for implementing the chosen waste management strategy, and the planning policies that might affect the development of the waste strategy are identified. PPG 10: Planning and Waste Management (Issued February 1997) This planning guidance note provides advice about how the land-use planning system should contribute to sustainable waste management, through the provision of the required waste management facilities, in England. It explains how this provision is regulated under the statutory planning and waste management systems. The guidance sets out the general policy context and the criteria for siting facilities. It deals with the relationship between the planning system and the waste management licensing regime. It emphasises the increasing importance of planning for waste management at the regional level, and makes recommendations about how that process should be strengthened. It will assist waste planning authorities (WPAs) in the preparation of waste development plans and the determination of planning applications for waste management facilities. It should also be of benefit to all other interested parties, including local authorities, the Environment Agency, the waste industry and the general public. The guidance relates primarily to the management of 'controlled wastes', i.e. household, commercial and industrial wastes. It does not favour particular waste management solutions; this will be a matter for individual WPAs, informed by the national waste strategy and consideration of the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) for each waste stream. PPG 23: Planning and Pollution Control (Issued July 1994) PPG 23 gives advice on the relationship between controls over development under planning law, on the one hand, and under pollution control legislation on the other. It is particularly relevant to industrial development and waste treatment and disposal sites which pose a potential for pollution, and the redevelopment of contaminated land. It also provides guidance on development proposals near such sites or land. The planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary, in that both are designed to protect the environment from the potential harm caused by development and operations. In recent years, increasing awareness of environmental priorities has led local planning authorities to take a greater interest in controlling potentially polluting activities. Yet at the same time the effectiveness and scope of environmental protection legislation has expanded rapidly. Regional Planning Guidance 12 - Yorkshire and The Humber (October 2001) A selective review of RPG 12 is being undertaken and this includes a number of proposed new policies. They will take account of the Regional Integrated Waste Management Strategy adopted in July 2003. Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for Yorkshire and The Humber sets out the broad strategic policies at the regional level for matters that apply across the whole or parts of the region. These matters need to be considered on a scale wider than that of a single planning authority. As part of this regional process a regional waste management strategy has been developed, Lets take it from the tip. The following sets out the draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for waste management in the Yorkshire and Humber.
27
A significant change will be required to move towards the vision of sustainable waste management as set out in the Regional waste management strategy and the National waste strategy 2000. RPG advice is formulated around this objective. It is not based upon a simple predict-and-provide approach, but on plan-monitor-manage. The importance of general principles and the need to apply them is presented in the following policy. Policy R5A Waste management strategic principles a) Priority should be given to initiatives and facilities that will encourage and promote
waste reduction and the re-use of materials and products. b) Local authorities should work with regional partners including commerce, the
Environment Agency, the waste industry and community groups to ensure the integration of strategies and proposals for waste management with the regional waste strategy’s aims. Authorities should seek to identify the combination of facilities and other waste management options which best meet environmental, social and economic needs for their areas, based on the following general principles:
♦ the waste hierarchy; ♦ regional and sub-regional self-sufficiency; ♦ the proximity principle; ♦ the objectives and targets of the Regional waste management strategy; and,
where appropriate, ♦ consideration of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO); and ♦ targets for municipal waste management in the region. The recycling targets for the region set out in the National waste strategy 2000 are very challenging, and progress towards achieving the targets will need to be monitored. Policy R5B (below) sets out, in terms of annual target tonnage, the waste required to be recycled and composted to reach the recycling targets set out in the Regional waste management strategy. This will require new infrastructure, such as materials recycling facilities (MRFs) and composting plants (either windrow or in-vessel), in each sub-region to deal with the increased quantities of waste being recycled and composted. Sub-regional working arrangements will need to be set up in order to facilitate agreement over issues associated with these, and other sub-regional apportionment. It should be noted that the Government intends to review current targets in 2004, with revised guidance being provided in the forthcoming development of a regional spatial strategy. Policy R5B Sub-regional targets for municipal waste In terms of municipal waste, facilities will be required to recycle or compost a minimum of 639,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2005/6; 1,190,000 tpa by 2010/11 and 1,310,000 tpa by 2015/16. These figures are illustrated in Table R1- Lets take it from the tip, 2003.
28
Where appropriate, and in accordance with the principles of BPEO and proximity, local authorities should seek agreement with neighbouring authorities to make provision in their plans to meet these needs.
Table R2 gives an indication of the number of new facilities that will be needed in the region. The data is based on achieving targets by maximising either dry recycling or composting. In practice, it is likely to be a mixture of both, but the table makes the point that there will need to be a considerable increase in the number of treatment plants. The scale of such facilities will be a balance between capital and operating costs on the one hand, and proximity principle and size of catchment areas on the other. For the purposes of Table 2, material recycling facilities (MRFs) are assumed to have a capacity of 40,000 tonnes, windrow composting 20,000 tonnes and in-vessel composting facilities 4,000 tonnes.
29
Waste management facilities - location principles RPG is not intended to be prescriptive; local circumstances will provide local solutions. Need is expressed in waste tonnage and this guidance identifies the increase in capacity that will be needed in recycling, reprocessing and/or composting. It does not prescribe the type/mix of waste facility; these are issues that should be determined locally, or at the sub-regional level, to meet BPEO. The capacities and numbers of sites presented in Table R2 must not be taken out of this context. Policy R5C Criteria for the location of waste management facilities Development plans should include policies and proposals to set specific criteria for the location of waste treatment and recycling facilities. Wherever possible, site-specific proposals for new waste management facilities should be included in development plans. Robust market for recyclates A priority of the waste strategy is to assist the development of robust markets for recycled materials. It is vital to establish and retain new businesses (with facilities) to process waste suitable for recycling. Separation and collection of waste alone does not constitute recycling. It will be pointless to achieve the recycling targets without a viable market for that material. Markets will establish and grow if cost-effective, and they receive the right quantity and quality of separated waste. Sites for new waste-related businesses will be required to accommodate integrated facilities, where appropriate. Policy R5D Waste-related businesses Development plans should identify sites for new waste-related businesses (either on a grouped or individual basis) to encourage their establishment. There will be a range of facilities needed in terms of both the nature of the process and capacity. Detailed advice on the numbers and types of facilities will be offered via the RTAB, following the completion of work currently underway on regional recyclate market development. However, typical material recycling facilities require sites of 2-5 ha (depending on supplementary activities such as waste electronics or civic amenity site provision). Sites of 8-16 ha are typically required for recycling or “sustainable growth” parks.
30
Residual waste Landfill has been the dominant method of dealing with residual waste in the region. While options to move towards a “zero waste” scenario have been considered, the need for residual waste disposal will not disappear during the period covered by RPG. It will continue to be needed, if only for residues from other processes, or when it is no longer practicable to recover value from waste. Following feedback from the waste strategy consultation, no expansion in currently permitted levels of energy from waste capacity has been considered for modelling purposes. Treatment facilities and final disposal will be required to deal with residual waste. While the region may have adequate landfill capacity in the short term there will be local or sub-regional landfill capacity shortages. There may be, therefore, the potential need for some additional landfill capacity at the local level. The application of the following policy should be the subject of a plan-monitor-manage-based approach supported by the RTAB. While this will be a dynamic process, it is possible to set out some indicative landfill requirements for illustrative purposes. It is also possible to reflect the possible use of mechanical biological treatment for residual waste. MBT is a technology that can: a) reduce the quantity and degradability of waste going to landfill; or b) produce refuse derived fuel (RDF) pellets for use as a substitute fuel. A typical MBT plant would have a capacity of 60,000 tonnes per year. Based upon the region meeting the strategy targets for recycling, and assuming no further expansion of waste to energy, it is likely that the following tonnage of waste per annum, as set out in Table R3, will need to be landfilled.
Policy R5E Residual waste treatment capacity 1. Landfill Unitary development plans should ensure that each of the sub-regions have the capacity to meet the need for landfill of residual waste arising. Plans should only promote new/expanded sites for landfill that are necessary to restore despoiled or degraded land, including mineral workings.
31
2. Waste to Energy All waste to energy plants must include processes to remove recyclable material and compostable material to agreed performance levels, where this has not been carried out elsewhere. Where unitary development plans, local waste strategies or sub-regional waste strategies include energy recovery, they should specify performance levels for recycling to avoid energy recovery acting as a disincentive to local recycling efforts, particularly in the long term. Thermal treatment without energy recovery will only be permitted in special cases or exceptional circumstances. Design issues in general development New building design and layout can contribute to effective waste management. Sustainable waste management initiatives may require on-site infrastructure as part of new development. Businesses may require an additional plant, or a larger site area, in order to put waste minimisation plans into practice. Specific provision should be made for space allowing for the separation and collection of waste, consistent with the type of development in question, whether a housing development, employment, retail, leisure or mixed use. While special care will need to be given to development in sensitive areas, good design aspects of waste management should be promoted. On this basis, guidance is provided by Policy S6, Sustainable use of physical resources. There is often a perception that waste facilities can often be of low quality design, poorly maintained and (in the example of civic amenity sites) be off-putting by virtue of their environment. With the exception of major capital investments, waste management facilities are generally low-cost uses of land. In general sustainability terms, the re-use of existing buildings should be encouraged where practical. In the case of new buildings, it has been demonstrated by the waste industry that innovative and high quality design is possible. Local planning authorities should seek to assure that proposals for new, refurbished or extended waste facilities represent current good design practices. The RTAB, in conjunction with the waste industry, will offer advice on this matter. Policy S6C Sustainable use of physical resources Local and regional authorities and agencies, and others, should:- Facilitate sustainable waste management by including policies in their development plans, which require that all developers make appropriate provision in their proposed developments to facilitate effective management of waste. This should include: facilities to separate and store different types of waste at source; kerb-side collection; and accessible centralised facilities for the public to deposit waste for recycling or recovery (Bring systems). Provision of an effective network of Bring recycling facilities Targets for recycling and composting will only be achieved by the introduction of improved infrastructure. This should include both kerbside recycling collection services and recycling centres to which people can take their waste (Bring sites). It has been demonstrated in the UK, Europe and overseas that high-density, accessible and well-managed networks of Bring sites result in improved recycling rates. There
32
are opportunities in this region to improve the provision of these sorts of sites to standards of established good practice. A range of problems affects many Bring sites, especially those located at civic amenity (CA) sites or HWRCs. They are often poorly located (typically at the entrance to completed council landfill sites) and have facilities for only a limited range of materials. Many sites are being refurbished, but this process needs to be extended. In Yorkshire and the Humber there is currently 1 CA site or HWRC per 20,000 households. However, there are large variations. An initial target could be to raise regional performance as a whole to that of the best performing sub-region. On this basis, there is a need for more than 40 new CA sites/ HWRCs. Facilities should be in locations which are accessible. In may be likely that some exceptions to normal planning policies may need to be made in certain rural areas to achieve this goal. The current provision of non-CA / HWRC Bring sites (e.g. paper and bottle banks) in England is 1 per 1170 households. In Yorkshire and the Humber this figure is 1 per 1408 households. The Audit Commission recommends that good practice should involve the provision of one Bring bank for every 750 households. This means that, in real terms, there should be an approximate doubling of the current regional provision. Notwithstanding this approach, in the more sparsely populated areas it will be appropriate to make provision in accordance with accessibility or travel distance criteria. In the North Yorkshire sub-region there is already adequate provision of CA or HWRCs on the basis of population, but the issue of additional provision in accordance with accessibility criteria still needs to be considered. Circumstances across the region vary. No single approach to the range of materials recycled, or the size of facilities, is therefore considered to be universally appropriate to achieve these targets. Policy R5F Density of public recycling Bring facility provision Local planning authorities should promote, and seek to make provision for, the following densities of facility provision: Facility Density CA or HWRC: 1 per 15,000 households Non-CA / HWRC Bring facility: 1 per 750 households As an indicative guide, local planning authorities should urgently take into account the needs outlined below for new civic amenity sites required by the sub-region. Indicative additional CA Site / HWRC need by the sub-region
West Yorkshire 21 South Yorkshire 16 Humber 4
In North Yorkshire and other predominantly rural areas, CA or HWRCs and Bring sites should be provided in accordance with sub-regionally defined access criteria.
33
Construction and demolition waste 8.1 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste were treated or disposed of within the region in 1999: 39% was re-used or recycled, 33% was landfilled as waste and 35% was sent to sites exempt from waste management licensing for re-use or recycling. The proportion disposed of to landfill was the highest of all regions, and significantly higher than the national average of 24%. There is an acute regional need therefore to promote the recycling and reuse of recycled aggregates. Developments can be designed and constructed in ways that minimise waste and maximise the use of recycled or (secondary) materials. This should be encouraged. The generation of construction and demolition wastes is closely tied to activity in the development industry. However, if financial incentives (landfill tax and the primary aggregates tax) and the principles set out below are applied aggressively, these wastes will fall significantly in volume as the recycling /re-use of these wastes in situ increases. On this basis, guidance is provided in an amendment to Policy S6 Sustainable use of physical resources of the revised RPG. Policy S6D Sustainable use of physical resources Local and regional authorities and agencies and others should promote sustainable construction and demolition by: i) requiring that all new development should be designed and planned so as to
minimise the production of waste. Development plans should require development proposals to minimise the use of raw materials, minimise, re-use and recycle waste generated during construction and demolition;
ii) ensuring that there is adequate provision of sites and facilities for the recovery
of construction and demolition waste. Before granting planning permission for major development involving demolition or the production of waste materials, authorities should require information on the proposed method of dealing with waste so as to minimise its production and maximise re-use and recycling;
Special and hazardous waste Changes to licensing regulations will increasingly mean that special and hazardous wastes will be required to be processed separately at specialist facilities. It is therefore important that, where appropriate, adequate regional provision is available. The Environment Agency can provide data on the types of wastes arising and the problems of disposal. There is a need for the provision of facilities for safe treatment and disposal of specialised and hazardous waste streams. Additional facilities will be needed as the relevant EU directives are introduced and implemented, as these may well reduce the number of current facilities able to manage these wastes. There may need to be a sharing of facilities with adjoining regions for certain waste types. The RTAB will need to give ongoing consideration to special and difficult waste issues and advise the regional planning body accordingly. Wakefield Metropolitan District Unitary Development Plan First Alteration
34
The UDP First Alteration is the statutory development plan for the district, which identifies land suitable for housing, industry, retail or other uses. It sets out the policies that the Council applies when assessing development proposals. It was adopted in January 2003 and reflects new policies and guidelines on sustainable development, housing, transport, waste management and conservation. The following policies are most likely to affect waste management decisions in the area.
Policy OL11: In accordance with national and draft regional guidance the council will promote and encourage a waste management hierarchy favouring the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste above disposal.
This policy reflects the Council’s aim to move away from landfill, which is currently the main form of waste disposal, and towards more sustainable methods of waste management.
Policy OL12: Proposals for waste management facilities will be permitted where the
effects of the proposal on:
i) the environment; ii) on other existing and proposed land uses; and iii) the local inhabitants/communities. are acceptable.
In considering the acceptability of proposals for waste management
facilities the Council will have regard to the following:
i) the effects of waste management facilities on other land; ii) the proximity to other development (proposed or existing); iii) the impacts on amenity; iv) transport mode, access, traffic volumes, highway safety; v) land instability; vi) the proposed hours of operation; vii) local environmental effects including noise, dust, odour, attraction of
vermin or birds, litter, pollution or contamination; and viii) the impact of the development on the historic environment, the green
belt, agricultural land, and/or local countryside designations wherever relevant
This policy provides the basic development control policy for considering waste management proposals. Any proposals will be dependent on the acceptability of the social and environmental impacts on the locality. Developments such as these are also subject to the policies regarding the green belt.
35
Policy OL13 Proposals acceptable under policy OL12 will be subject to
conditions and, where appropriate, legal agreements and/or planning obligations may be entered into which make provision for:
i) safeguarding significant natural features; ii) adequate advance screening; iii) satisfactory transport and access proposals; iv) a fully detailed and phased scheme of land restoration,
including a scheme for aftercare, landscaping, maintenance and after-use linked to a permitted period of operation;
v) the design, maintenance and arrangements for the control of leachate, and for landfill gas arising from waste disposal sites during tipping operations and after completion of tipping; and
vi) the minimising of other environmental risks and problems.
Where proposals for waste management facilities are considered acceptable under Policy OL12 they will also be subject to Policy OL13 which will allow the operational details of the proposals to be controlled.
Policy OL23: Proposals for the development of major new waste facilities will be considered
on the basis of: i) regional requirements; ii) the best practical environmental option; iii) the proximity principle; iv) regional self-sufficiency; and v) the protection of the environment and the community
This policy reflects the Council’s awareness of the guidelines laid out in the Government’s National waste strategy 2000.6
36
6 Waste strategy 2000: England and Wales. Part 1 page 40.
3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SCENARIOS
This chapter describes the methodology applied to inform the decision on the most sustainable future scenario(s) for waste management. The future scenarios considered for the assessment are detailed and were developed in consultation with Council officers. 3.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The assessment methodology incorporates performance (against WS2000 targets); environmental, economic and planning criteria; and follows the step-wise approach suggested in Waste Strategy 2000 which states that: “Decisions on waste management, including decisions on suitable sites and installations for treatment and disposal, should be based on a local assessment of the Best Practicable Environmental Option.” The BPEO concept was defined in the 12th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as: “the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term”. The BPEO concept incorporates two further principles that need to be taken into account when making waste management decisions, and also to guide the development of future waste management scenarios:
1. The waste hierarchy; 2. The proximity principle.
The baseline year for BPEO assessment is 2010, by which time it is assumed that the full infrastructure of each scenario is in place. Thus, the BPEO has been determined based on the amount of waste forecast to arise in 2010. The Step-wise Approach to BPEO The step-wise approach to determining the BPEO, as set out in WS2000, and in subsequent guidance,7 is noted below:
1. Define and agree appraisal criteria; 2. Develop strategic waste planning options; 3. Appraise strategic waste planning options ; 4. Rank and value performance; 5. Weight indicators; 6. Conduct sensitivity analysis and option refinement.
Section 3.1.1 below details the criteria against which the future scenarios are assessed (Step 1). The development of the scenarios (Step 2) is reported in Section
7 DTLR – LUC/ERM Report
37
3.2. Section 3.5 then presents the outcome of the assessment (or sustainability appraisal), i.e. Steps 3 to 6. 3.1.1 Assessment Criteria The assessment criteria are grouped into three principal assessment categories:
1. Environmental objectives; 2. Socio-economic objectives; 3. Operational objectives.
Each of these is further defined by a range of indicators, which provide a quantitative or qualitative measure of the performance of the scenario against that objective. The appraisal of scenarios combines a number of methods for deriving indicator values including modelling, using specific software tools, and using professional judgement. For the environmental assessment we have made use of the industry standard life cycle assessment tool WISARD, as developed and recommended by the Environment Agency. Additionally, for determining performance against targets and costs, we have used AEA Technology’s in-house model WASTEFLOW. Table 3-1 summarises the various appraisal methods. Table 3-1: Summary of Appraisal Methods
WISARD Generic data & WASTEFLOW
Professional judgement
• Resource depletion • Greenhouse gas
emissions • Emissions that are
injurious to public health • Emissions contributing to
air acidification • Emissions contributing to
depletion of the ozone layer
• Emissions contributing to eutrophication
• Landtake • Transport distances • Number of jobs likely to be
created • Potential for public
involvement and education • Percentage of waste
recovered • Percentage of waste
recycled • Costs
• Noise, litter and vermin problems
• Water pollution • Landscape and
visual impacts • Likelihood of
implementation within required timescale
Environmental Objectives The environmental objectives and their respective indicators are noted in the Table 3-2. Indicator values are either determined from modelling outputs, (i.e. WISARD & WASTEFLOW) or a ‘performance score’ based on professional judgement. Details of the WISARD methodology and output are contained in Appendix 1.
38
Table 3-2: Environmental Objectives
Objectives Indicators 1. To ensure prudent use of
land and other resources Resource depletion (avoided burden in million years) – WISARD output
Landtake (hectares) 2. To reduce greenhouse gas
emissions Emissions of greenhouse gases (000 tonnes equivalent of CO2) – WISARD output
3. To minimise air quality impacts
Emissions which are injurious to public health (Human Toxicity Index) – WISARD output
Air acidification (tonnes equivalents of H+) – WISARD output
Ozone depletion (tonnes equivalents of CFC-11 ) – WISARD output
Extent of odour problems (performance score) Extent of dust problems (performance score) 4. To conserve landscapes
and townscapes Visual and landscape impacts (performance score)
5. To protect local amenity Extent of noise problems (performance score) Extent of litter and vermin problems (performance
score) 6. To minimise adverse effects
on water quality Eutrophication (million grams equivalents of PO4) – WISARD output
Extent of water pollution (performance score) 7. To minimise local transport
impacts Collection transport distance (thousand kilometres) – WASTEFLOW output
Socio-economic Objectives The principal objectives and indicators are noted in Table 3-3. An estimate of the number of jobs created to operate the required waste management infrastructure have been made, based on the amount of waste likely to be handled and/or processed by the treatment and disposal facilities. The cost of the waste management service can be measured in many ways, depending on the time and which elements are considered. In this assessment the aggregate cost of the service until 2010 has been used. Costs have been determined using the WASTEFLOW model and further details are contained in Appendix 2. Table 3-3: Socio-economic objectives
Objectives Indicators 8.To provide local employment
opportunities Number of direct jobs created
9.To provide opportunities for public involvement / education
Potential for participation in recycling and composting (% households with kerbside collection of recyclables)
10.To minimise costs of waste management
Overall costs (£million - to 2010) - WASTEFLOW
39
Operational Objectives The two principal criteria of the operational objectives (Table 3-4) are the reliability of delivery and performance against waste policy. The former aims to provide a measure of the degree to which each scenario is proven and deliverable. This takes into account various uncertainties and risks such as gaining permission to develop sites, and the technical difficulty of financing, building and operating the waste management process. The waste management system must also comply with the various targets for recycling, recovery and landfill diversion. Objective 11 provides a measure of the performance of the various scenarios against these targets. Table 3-4: Operational objectives
Objectives Indicators 11. To ensure reliability of delivery
Likelihood of implementation within required timescale (performance score)
12. To conform with waste policy Percentage of material recovered (%) - WASTEFLOW
Percentage of material recycled/composted (%) - WASTEFLOW
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS
The principles of proximity and regional self-sufficiency have been important considerations in developing the scenarios described below. The proximity principle requires that waste be managed as near as possible to its origin. This principal recognises the desire to avoid passing financial and environmental costs onto communities not responsible for the waste generated, whilst reducing the impact of transportation. However, it is clear that it is impractical for all waste to be managed at the actual point of arising, and due consideration needs to be taken of costs, the site and processing capacity availability. There is a desire on the part of the Council, as the administrative authority responsible for waste management, that Wakefield has sufficient treatment capacity in place to manage its waste, and that where practicable this be located within the administrative boundary of WMDC. In order to adhere to the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, the scenarios have been developed to consider only the MSW arising for which WMDC is responsible. Any consideration of synergy with plans or policies in neighbouring authorities is undertaken only after determining the BPEO for Wakefield. 3.2.1 Scenario A – Base Case This scenario represents a continuation of existing practices, representing a ‘do nothing more’ approach, highlighting the consequences in terms of costs and failure to meet targets. The scenario does include the new collection schemes for newspaper, magazines and cardboard, and garden waste, introduced in 2002. Even this approach requires investment and changes to current operations in order to maintain the existing level of service provision, as well as accessing new landfill sites once the local sites are filled.
1. The existing Bring network continues to operate without any significant changes. New banks are introduced only to keep pace with the forecast growth in waste stream.
2. The kerbside-collected waste system remains, with weekly collection via 240 litre wheeled bins. The current schemes for waste paper and garden waste (2002) remain unchanged but keep pace with the forecast waste growth rate.
40
3. The seven household waste recycling centres are reorganised and
refurbished so that higher recycling levels can be achieved. 4. The major waste processing systems comprise:
• Transfer/bulking facilities to process dry recyclables from kerbside collection, HWRCs and Bring sites, and then waste transfer to the reprocessors and any residues to landfill;
• Composting sites operated by third parties processing the garden waste from HWRCs and kerbside collection;
• Landfill at Welbeck, Skelbrooke and Darrington until the existing contracts expire (2004 and 2013). Replaced by local landfill after this.
3.2.2 Scenario 2A – meets targets with MBT This scenario represents the case where a system designed to meet WS2000 targets is put in place. It envisages a dramatic change to the existing kerbside collection regime, moving from the existing wheeled bin system to an additional 140 litre bin for collection of garden waste, and a box for collection of dry recyclables.
1. The Bring network is expanded to achieve an improved coverage of 1 bank per 2500 households. The materials targeted for collection are glass, cans, paper and textiles.
2. The kerbside-collected waste system operates as follows:
• 90% of the households are served by a 240 litre wheeled bin for residual
wastes and a 50 litre box (or 2 boxes) collected weekly for dry recyclables. Materials collected would be newspapers, magazine, cardboard, mixed papers, cans, plastics, textiles and glass. In addition, 83% of households would have a fortnightly collection of garden wastes in a 140 litre wheeled bin.
• The remaining households, assumed to be in areas where it is difficult to implement such collection schemes (high-density areas or in multi-occupancy properties) continue with the general weekly collection of residual waste. These households will be targeted for the location of the enhanced Bring network or specific Bring schemes (e.g. high rise properties).
1. Six of the seven household waste recycling centres are replaced with three
well-located, modern, large-capacity centres with enhanced recycling capacity. The centre at Welbeck will continue but be refurbished to improve its performance.
2. The major waste processing systems comprise:
• An MRF to process kerbside collected dry recyclables. The MRF is expected to perform to a high level with reject fractions of no more than 10 %;
• A biowaste (in-vessel composting) facility is operational in 2007 to process organic waste collected at the kerbside;
• Bulking facilities for recyclables from HWRCs and Bring sites; • Composting sites operated by third parties processing the garden waste
from HWRCs;
41
• Landfill at Welbeck, Skelbrooke and Darrington until existing contracts expire in 2004 and 2013. Replaced by local landfill after this, i.e. Welbeck or elsewhere; and
• A mechanical biological treatment recovery process (MBT– anaerobic digestion) dealing with residual wastes from kerbside collection rounds and HWRCs with the processed residue being landfilled. Figure 3-1 outlines the essential components of the MBT system.
Anaerobic digestio n
Organic Fraction42%
Landfill
Res id ual F raction5 6%
Recycled2%
So rting Fac ility
Res idual W aste1 00%
Anaerobic digestio n
Organic Fraction42%
Landfill
Res id ual F raction5 6%
Recycled2%
So rting Fac ility
Res idual W aste1 00%
Figure 3-1: Schematic of mechanical biological treatment process
The rationale behind the move to this collection scheme is that disruption to existing residual waste collection is kept to a minimum by retaining the 240 litre wheeled bins. The choice of a 140 litre wheeled bin is to encourage the householders to continue to use the HWRCs for large arisings of garden waste and thereby optimise the cost of the collection. In addition, the use of a 140 litre bin minimises space taken up within the household, helping the householders accommodate the system. The choice of a box collection scheme allows for the kerbside sorting of waste by the collectors. This means that increased tonnage of glass can be collected, improving the capture rate. This type of collection will only require a simple MRF facility that will bulk up recyclables and provide limited upgrading where necessary. 3.2.3 Scenario 2B – meets targets with EFW This scenario is identical to Scenario 2A, except that the residual waste stream is treated via an energy from waste facility rather than a mechanical biological treatment process. 3.2.4 Scenario 3A – exceeds targets with MBT This scenario aims to provide a high level of recycling, minimising the waste requiring disposal. This is in-line with the move towards a zero waste strategy, with recycling dealing with more than half of the waste generated. 1. The Bring network is expanded to achieve an improved coverage of 1 bank per
1000 households for glass, and 1 per 2500 for other materials. Materials targeted for collection are glass, cans, paper and textiles.
2. The kerbside-collected waste system is operational as follows:
• Residual waste will be collected in a 140 litre wheeled bin on a fortnightly basis to encourage householders to participate in recycling schemes.
42
95% of the households are served by a 140 litre wheeled bin for dry recyclables collected fortnightly on the alternate week to residual waste collection. Materials collected in the recycling bin would be newspapers, magazine, cardboard, mixed papers, cans, plastics and textiles. In addition, an organic waste collection in a 140 litre wheeled bin will be made weekly from 90% of households.
• The remaining households, assumed to be in areas where it is difficult to implement such collection schemes (high-density areas or in multi-occupancy properties), continue with the general weekly collection of residual waste. These households will be targeted for the locating of the enhanced Bring network or specific Bring schemes (e.g. high rise properties).
1. Six of the seven household waste recycling centres are replaced with three
well-located, modern, large-capacity centres with enhanced recycling capacity. The centre at Welbeck will continue but be refurbished to improve its performance.
2. The major waste processing systems comprise:
• A materials recycling facility to process kerbside-collected dry recyclables. The MRF is expected to perform to a high level with reject fractions of no more than 10 %;
• A biowaste (in-vessel composting) facility is operational in 2007 to process organic waste collected at the kerbside;
• Bulking facilities for recyclables from HWRCs and bring sites; • Composting sites operated by third parties processing the garden waste
from HWRCs; • Landfill at Welbeck, Skelbrooke and Darrington until existing contracts
expire in 2004 and 2013. Replaced by local landfill after this; • A mechanical biological treatment recovery process (MBT– anaerobic
digestion) dealing with residual wastes from kerbside collection rounds and HWRCs, with the processed residue being landfilled. Figure 3-1 above outlines the essential components of the MBT system.
The rationale behind this set of collection arrangements is to encourage householders to participate in the recycling collections, by reducing the bin volume supplied. The fortnightly collection of residual waste will require significant education to ensure smooth introduction, but it is inevitable there will be some problems. The weekly collection of organic wastes will make sure that odours are not a problem. The choice of three 140 litre wheeled bins is a compromise between providing sufficient recycling capacity to achieve the very high recycling rates whilst minimising the space taken up in the household. The collection of dry recyclables via a wheeled bin will result in a co-mingled collection, requiring a more complex MRF facility. Glass will be collected via bottle banks and these will be increased to improve capture. 3.2.5 Scenario 3B – exceeds targets with EfW This scenario is identical to Scenario 2A except that the residual waste stream is treated via an energy from waste facility rather than a mechanical biological treatment process.
43
3.3 SCENARIO MASS FLOWS
Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-6 show the mass flows for each scenario based on the projected tonnage for 2010. The estimated tonnage of recyclables collected from the Bring network, kerbside collections and operations at HWRCs has been derived from AEA Technology’s WASTEFLOW model (Appendix 2). The tonnage of recyclables collected, and residual waste remaining for further treatment, allow for the determination of processing or treatment facility capacities and, therefore, the determination of capital and operational costs. Table 3-5 shows, for each scenario, the capacity required for each type of processing facility.
Table 3-5: Processing and treatment capacities (2010)
Facility Scenario (Capacity tonnes/year) Base line 2A 2B 3A 3B MRF/Bulking (dry waste)
15,903 34,455 34,455 61,180 61,180
Garden waste composting (windrow)
5,837 7,537 7,537 7,954 7,954
Biowaste composting (in-vessel)
8,396 37,358 37,358 46,003 46,003
MBT - 156,842 - 126,166 - EfW (Grate fired – mixed waste)
- - 164,401 - 131,682
Landfill 239,952 95,334 74,358 80,990 64,551
Kerbside Collected Residual - 145,039
Kerbside Organics -
8,396 Bulky
(incl. in HWRC figs.)
Clinical - 324
Kerbside Collected
Dry - 6,110 Dry - 6,949
Garden waste - 5,837
Residual - 47,660
Construction & Demolition
Composting Pad
Treatment
Landfill
Household Waste Recycling Centres
Residues
Market
Co-collected commercial -
35,960
Street Sweepings -
7,281 Bring - 2,940
Household Collected Waste
Figure 3-2: Baseline scenario 2010 mass flows
44
Kerbside Collected Residual - 97,477
Kerbside Organics -
37,358
Bulky - (inc. in HWRC
figs.)
Clinical - 324
Kerbside Collected Dry -
25,083
Dry - 7,695
Garden waste - 7,537
Residual - 40,951
Construction & Demolition - 6,715
Composting Facility (In-
vessel)
Composting Facility
(Windrow)Market
Co-collected commercial -
35,960
Household Collected Waste
Bring - 2,567
Street Sweepings -
7,281
Household Waste Recycling Centres
MRF/bulking facility
MBT
Landfill
Market
ResiduesTreatment
Figure 3-3 Scenario 2A (meets recycling targets with MBT) 2010 mass flows
Kerbside Collected Residual - 97,477
Kerbside Organics -
37,358
Bulky - (inc. in HWRC
figs.)
Clinical - 324
Kerbside Collected Dry -
25,083
Dry - 7,695
Garden waste - 7,537
Residual - 40,951
Construction & Demolition -
6,715
Composting Facility (In-
vessel)
Composting Facility
(Windrow)Market
MRF/ bulking facility
Residues
EFW
Landfill
Co-collected commercial -
35,960
Market
Household Collected Waste
Bring - 2,567
Household Waste Recycling CentresStreet
Sweepings - 7,281
Figure 3-4 Scenario 2B (meets recycling targets with EfW) 2010 mass flows
45
Kerbside Collected Residual - 55,551
Kerbside Organics -
46,003
Bulky - (inc. in HWRC
figs.)
Clinical - 324
Kerbside Collected Dry -
52,981
Dry - 9,415
Garden waste - 7,954
Residual - 35,281
Construction & Demolition -
8,206
Composting Facility (In-
vessel)
Composting Facility
(Windrow)Market
Residues
MBT
Landfill
Treatment
Co-collected commercial -
35,960
Processing MRF Bulking Station
Market
Household Collected Waste
Bring - 7,949
Household Waste Recycling CentreStreet
Sweepings - 7,281
Figure 3-5: Scenario 3A (exceeds recycling targets with MBT) Mass flows 2010
KerbsideC ll t dResidual -55 551
KerbsideOrganics -
46,003
Bulky -(iin HWRC
figs.)
Clinical -324
KerbsideCollected Dry
52,981
Dry -9,415
Garden waste7,954
Residual -35,281
Construction&Demolition -
8,206
CompostingFacility(I vessel)
CompostingFacility
(Windrow)
Market
Co-collectedcommercial -
35,960
ProcessingMRF
BulkingSt ti
Household CollectedW t
Bring -7,949
StreetSweepings -
7,281
Household Waste RecyclingC t
EfW
Landfill
Market
Residues
Figure 3-6: Scenario 3B (exceeds recycling targets with EfW) Mass flows 2010
A key aspect of the high recycling scenarios (3A and 3B) is the encouragement of high participation rates in the recycling schemes. This is in part provided by the reduction of residual waste capacity, but this will also have to be linked to waste minimisation and awareness campaigns that will provide the householders with the information necessary to reduce their waste and maximise their recycling. This is a challenge that the Council, officers and members, in conjunction with the householders of Wakefield, will have to work towards to make the high recycling rates possible. The specific types of processing plant considered within these scenarios are fixed; however, within the generic technology types there are many options. Appendix 3 discusses the various technologies in more detail.
46
3.4 SCENARIO TECHNOLOGIES
Composting The composting technology will most likely involve open windrow composting for the HWRC collected garden wastes, as this is the most cost-effective option. However, the organic materials collected at the kerbside are likely to require more stringent sanitisation conditions using in-vessel composting. Here the term composting also encompasses anaerobic digestion technologies that recover energy in addition to high quality compost. These are cost-competitive with in-vessel composting systems8,9. Recycling - MRFs The recycling of dry materials will be carried out mainly through kerbside collection with smaller amounts collected via the HWRCs and the Bring bank sites. The kerbside-collected materials will require a facility to process and bulk up the materials for sale. The nature of the MRF is dependent on the type of collection system used, the scenarios are based on:
• Scenarios 2A & 2B: A box collection, with kerbside sorting, requiring a simple MRF with limited sorting (e.g. ferrous from non-ferrous cans) and preparation capabilities (bulking up loads prior to despatch to market).
• Scenarios 3A & 3B: A co-mingled bin collection where the recyclate is sorted
at the MRF and where a more complex sorting system is required. The sorting system will involve a mixture of sorting equipment most likely involving manual and mechanical systems.
There are in reality a number of variations on this, balancing the level of sorting at the kerbside and MRF. The examples above have been used as illustrative examples for the modelling. However, glass collection is significantly affected by the type of system used as glass breakage in co-mingled systems (i.e. no sorting at the kerbside) significantly reduces the value of the paper collected. Therefore, in these systems, glass banks are expanded to capture this material through a Bring system that the public are fully aware of. Energy from waste (EfW) Energy from Waste is often perceived as a controversial technology, with many public concerns about emissions. Modern plants are generally low emitters of pollutants; the public perception and concern is largely based on the historical view of old, poorly operated plants that have now been closed. However, there is a range of new technologies that have been introduced for wastes, such as fluidised bed combustion, gasification and pyrolysis that may offer operational or environmental benefits. The modelling is based on generic technology that could encompass any of these systems. Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) MBT systems are a combination of composting and anaerobic digestion processes used to treat mixed waste, reducing its pollution potential prior to landfill. The biology 8 Hogg D, “Costs for municipal waste management in the EU”, European Commission, DG Environment, 2002. 9 Anon, Biogas and more, systems and markets overview of anaerobic digestion, International Energy Agency
Bioenergy Agreement task 24, July 2001.
47
of the processes is the same as that for source-separated composting and digestion but, owing to the scale and content of non-biodegradable materials in the feedstock, the engineering is larger and more robust. The processes on the market currently involve some pre-sorting of the waste, to exclude the non-biodegradable materials, so that they can be sent directly to landfill or for combustion. In the modelling for this strategy it was assumed that these residues had been sent to landfill. 3.5 MODELLING OUTPUT
The modelling of these waste management scenarios has been carried out using AEA Technology’s WASTEFLOW model which has predicted the performance and costs. The details of this modelling are discussed in Appendix 2 but are summarised here in the main text for clarity. 3.5.1 Recycling performance The scenarios, other than the base case, are set around increasing the recycling rate via:
• Improvements at the HWRCs; • Improvements to the Bring bank network; • Introduction of kerbside collections of dry recyclables and organics for
composting; • Additional recycling through the disposal / treatment technology.
Figure 3-7 shows the amount of waste production predicted and counted as recycled under the current Best Value Performance Indicator guidance. This shows that scenario 2B meets the recycling targets whilst 2A, 3A and 3B all exceed the targets. The current planned improvements to the waste management system shown in the base case have allowed the Council to meet its short-term target for 2003/04. It is anticipated that the Council will also achieve the 2005/06 target early due to the extension of the kerbside collection schemes.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20012002
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
201 52016
20172018
20192020
Yea rs
000'
Ton
nes
R ecyc ling T arg et basecase B VPI R ecycling Sce nario 2A re cycling
Scenario 3A recycling Scenario 2B recycling Sce nario 3B re cycling
Base
2B2A
3B3A
Figure 3-7: Achievement of recycling targets
48
3.5.2 Landfill Directive targets The Landfill Directive will impose demanding requirements to limit the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) being landfilled in the UK. The Government will implement this directive by issuing permits to landfill BMW, which can be traded between local authorities. The meeting of the targets is shown in Figure 3-8, demonstrating that all of the scenarios, apart from the base case, exceed the required levels of BMW diversion. This should provide a potential income stream from the sale of the landfill permits. However, if waste growth is higher than the levels modelled here, the long-term 2020 target may well be missed, as the targets are set relative to a 1995 base line. Thus, providing for the exceeding of the Landfill Directive targets will ensure a level of insurance against not achieving the waste minimisation goals of zero waste growth by 2015.
B MW T arg ets
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
20012002
200320 04
20052006
20072008
20092010
2 0112012
20132014
20152016
20172018
20192020
20212022
2023
Y ears
000'
ton
nes
BMW allowed to landfi ll Scenario 3B Scenario 2AScenario 2B Scenario 3A Basecase
2A
Base
3A
2B 3B
Figure 3-8: Progress to meeting Landfill Directive BMW diversion targets BMW
3.5.3 Costs The revenue cost implications of the scenarios are given in Figure 3-9. This shows that scenario 3B is the cheapest option. The reduced costs for this option arise from the rearrangement of the waste collection service, such that organic waste for composting will be collected weekly whilst recyclables and residual waste are collected on alternate weeks. This maximises the collection of materials for recycling and minimises materials for disposal. More importantly, it should be noted that whatever option is adopted, the costs of the waste management service are going to rise substantially in the future, and additional recycling and treatment of the waste will minimise these increases.
49
-
5,000, 000
10,000, 000
15,000, 000
20,000, 000
25,000, 000
30,000, 000
35,000, 000
200120 02
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
20152016
20172018
20192020
20212022
2023
Y ears
Cos
t (£
)
B ase c ase S c en ari o 2 A Sc e nario 2B S ce n ario 3 A Sc en ario 3 B
Base2A
2B3A3B
Figure 3-9: Revenue cost projection
3.6 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
This section presents the outputs of the WISARD (environmental) and WASTEFLOW (costs and performance against targets) modelling assessments, showing the actual numerical values from the modelling assessment. In order to ‘value’ the performance of the evaluated criteria, the criteria scores can be converted to a value score by allocating a score between 0 (worst performing) and 1 (best performing). Figure 3-10 illustrates the process of converting the criterion score to a value score10.
-25
0
25
50
Cri
teri
on S
core
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Cri
teri
on V
alue
Figure 3-10: Illustration of normalising criterion scores
10 For a set of ‘n’ scores x1 to xn, the normalised value yi of xi is given by:
y = x - Min[x ,x ,...x ]
Max[x ,x ,...x ] - Min[x ,x ,...x ]ii 1 2 n
1 2 n 1 2 n
This formula sets the highest value at one, the lowest at zero, and the rest in a relative position between one and zero. If the highest value actually represents the worst option, the numbers must be inverted, as follows:
y = 1 - x - Min[x ,x ,...x ]
Max[x ,x ,...x ] - Min[x ,x ,...x ]ii 1 2 n
1 2 n 1 2 n
50
The conversion of the criterion score to a normalised value allows the various scenarios to be compared. The various scenarios can be ranked according to performance by calculating the normalised scores to give a total value score. A valued performance score and a ranking of scenarios has been determined for each of the three principal objectives:
• Environmental objectives; • Socio-economic objectives; • Operational objectives.
3.6.1 Environmental objectives Appendix 1 provides a detailed analysis of the environmental criteria and a discussion of the reasons for the observed trends. It also outlines how the environmental assessment has been carried out using the Environment Agency’s WISARD life cycle assessment tool, and assesses the parameters not covered by WISARD. Table 3-6 collates the outputs from the modelling assessment for environmental objectives. Direct use of the results contained in Table 3-6 to determine overall performance is difficult because of the complexity of the matrix and different units. By normalising the values to a score the matrix is simplified, and the performance against criteria is placed on a common scale, whilst still retaining the cardinal nature of the original data. In Table 3-7 the original outputs of Table 3-6 have been normalised to give the valued performance scores for each scenario and hence a rank. Table 3-6: Environmental objectives – Performance of scenarios
Objectives Indicators Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B 1. To ensure
prudent use of land and other resources
Resource depletion (avoided burden in million years)
-0.04 -2.14 -1.46 -2.01 -1.46
Landtake (hectares) 21.67 12.34 11.34 12.74 11.74 2. To reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
Emissions of greenhouse gases (000 tonnes equivalents of CO2)
49.10 -15.58
-15.11 -13.12 -4.21
3. To minimise air quality impacts
Emissions which are injurious to public health (Human Toxicity Index)
-244.9 -532.5
-825.0 -570.5 -820.1
Air acidification (tonnes equivalents of H+)
-6.32 -13.46
-19.34 -14.20 -19.27
Ozone depletion (tonnes equivalents of CFC-11)
10.33 -80.31
-72.49 -92.70 -87.42
Extent of odour problems (performance score)
25.00 20.00 19.00 20.00 19.00
Extent of dust problems (performance score)
16.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
4. To conserve landscapes and townscapes
Visual and landscape impacts (performance score)
24.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 20.00
5. To protect local amenity
Extent of noise problems (performance score)
16.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Extent of litter and vermin problems (performance score)
24.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00
6. To minimise Eutrophication (million grams 647.0 504.1 82.63 419.3 80.47
51
adverse effects on water quality
equivalents of PO4)
Extent of water pollution (performance score)
16.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
7. To minimise local transport impacts
Collection transport distance (thousand kilometres)
3305 1982 1982 1581 1581
Table 3-7: Environmental Objectives – Valued Performance
Objectives Indicators Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B 1. To ensure
prudent use of land and other resources
Resource depletion (avoided burden in million years)
0.00 1.00 0.68 0.94 0.68
Landtake (hectares) 0.00 0.90 1.00 0.86 0.96 2. To reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
Emissions of greenhouse gases (000 tonnes equivalents of CO2)
0.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.82
3. To minimise air quality impacts
Emissions which are injurious to public health (Human Toxicity Index)
0.00 0.50 1.00 0.56 0.99
Air acidification (tonnes equivalents of H+)
0.00 0.55 1.00 0.60 0.99
Ozone depletion (tonnes equivalents of CFC-11)
0.00 0.88 0.80 1.00 0.95
Extent of odour problems (performance score)
0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 1.00
Extent of dust problems (performance score)
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4. To conserve landscapes and townscapes
Visual and landscape impacts (performance score)
0.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.80
5. To protect local amenity
Extent of noise problems (performance score)
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Extent of litter and vermin problems (performance score)
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
6. To minimise adverse effects on water quality
Eutrophication (million grams equivalents of PO4)
0.00 0.25 1.00 0.40 1.00
Extent of water pollution (performance score)
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7. To minimise local transport impacts
Collection transport distance (thousand kilometres)
0.00 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00
Total 0.0 11.68 13.04 12.15 13.19 Rank 5 4 2 3 1
The final row of Table 3-7 sums the valued performance scores for each scenario. This provides a simple overall measure of the performance of the scenarios and
52
allows them to be ranked so the best performing scenario can be identified11. From a consideration of environmental objectives alone, and equal weighting of the parameters, it is seen that scenarios 2B and 3B perform best, i.e. the EfW disposal has benefits to the environment. In addition, the higher recycling rate also scores more highly than the lower recycling rate scenarios.
3.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES
The detail in the socio-economic criteria and assessments is provided in Appendix 2. The overall outputs of the assessment of socio-economic objectives are listed in Table 3-8, and the normalised performance scores in Table 3-9. These data show that the increased recycling scenarios all have improved employment and public involvement potential. Perhaps the most important factor, the cost, is shown as the cumulative cost to 2010, see Figure 3-9. This shows that the high recycling rate scenarios (3A and 3B) are the cheapest, and the meeting-targets scenarios (2A and 2B) are the most expensive. The cumulative normalised scores (i.e. equal weighting) show that high recycling rate scenarios score the highest. Table 3-8: Socio-economic objectives – Performance of scenarios
Objectives Indicators Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B 8.To provide local employment opportunities
Number of direct jobs created (jobs)
123 245 241 250 247
9.To provide opportunities for public involvement /education
Potential for participation in recycling and composting (% households with kerbside collection of recyclables)
70.65 173.33 173.33 185 185
10.To minimise costs of waste management
Overall costs (£million – to 2010)
167.70 173.30 167.00 159.90 154.90
Table 3-9: Socio-economic objectives – Valued performance
Objectives Indicators Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B 8. To provide local employment opportunities
Number of direct jobs created (jobs)
0.00 0.96 0.93 1.00 0.98
9. To provide opportunities for public involvement /education
Potential for participation in recycling and composting (% households with kerbside collection of recyclables)
0.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00
10. To minimise costs of waste management
Overall costs (£million – to 2010)
0.30 0.00 0.34 0.73 1.00
Total 0.30 1.86
2.17 2.73 2.73
Rank 5 4 3 2 1
11 The scenario, which scores the highest, is best performing. The results should not be regarded as a precise
overall measure of performance. The two decimal places are retained only for consistency.
53
3.8 OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The detailed analysis of the operational aspect is presented in Appendix 2. The summarised outputs of the assessment of operational objectives are listed in Table 3-10, and the normalised performance scores in Table 3-11. These show that the recycling and recovery targets are met under the four future scenarios, but there are greater risks in delivering these compared with continuing the current practice. Using the cumulative normalised scores both of the high recycling scenarios (3A and 3B) score the highest. Under the meeting-targets scenarios, the MBT options score more highly due to the greater recycling achieved. Table 3-10: Operational objectives – Performance of scenarios
Objectives Indicators Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B 11.To ensure reliability of delivery
Likelihood of implementation within required timescale (performance score)
45 39 38 40 39
12. To conform with waste policy
Percentage of material recovered (%)
11% 91% 91% 91% 91%
Percentage of material recycled/composted (%)
12% 39% 32% 52% 46%
Table 3-11: Operational objectives – Valued performance
Objectives Indicators Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B 11. To ensure reliability of delivery
Likelihood of implementation within required timescale (performance score)
0.00 0.86 1.00 0.71 0.86
12. To conform with waste policy
Percentage of material recovered (%)
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted (%)
0.00 0.67 0.50 1.00 0.86
Total 0.00 2.53 2.5 2.71 2.72 Rank 5 3 4 2 1
3.9 TOTAL VALUED PERFORMANCE OF SCENARIOS
The total valued performance scores of the scenarios for each of the main objectives are summarised in Table 3-12, to give an overall measure of performance. This shows that all the scenarios perform better than the base case, and high recycling scenarios score higher than the meeting-recycling target scenarios. In addition, the scenarios that use EfW technology score better than the MBT technology.
Table 3-12: Total valued performance
Objectives Scenario Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B Environmental 0.00 11.68 13.04 12.14 13.19 Socio-economic 0.30 1.86 2.17 2.73 2.98 Operational 0.00 2.53 2.50 2.71 2.72 Total Score 0.30 16.07 17.71 17.58 18.89 Rank 5 4 2 3 1
The assessment so far has been undertaken on the basis that the appraisal indicators are of equal importance. Because there are 21 indicators (Table 3-13),
54
each contributes only about 5% to the outcome of the appraisal. Decision-makers and/or stakeholders are likely to attach more importance to some indicators or criteria than to others. Some indicators may be of critical importance and could ‘swing’ the outcome of the appraisal whilst others may be of interest, but be of much less consequence. Applying ‘weights’ to the valued performance information can assist in assessing the relative importance of indicators. The Council commissioned MORI to carry out a survey of local citizens to assess their preferences and relative importance of the various criteria. This survey was based on a statistically valid sample of 1200 Wakefield residents. The results of this survey are given in Table 3-13. This weighting was applied to the scores generated through the technical evaluation. In addition to the MORI poll a write-in questionnaire was also placed as part of the Citizen paper and the result of the 1250 responses to this are also given in Table 3-3. It should be noted that this latter set of weightings is not derived from a statistical representative group but represents the views of those citizens who were active enough to complete the questionnaire and may over-represent certain sectors of the Wakefield community. However, the results show remarkable similarity to the MORI results and can be considered a good reflection of the views of Wakefield public. Using these Citizen results makes little difference to the overall analysis and does not alter the scores to any significant amount. Table 3-13 Weighting factors from MORI and Citizen consultation process
Criterion Weighting Mori Citizen Resource depletion 5.1% 5.7% Landtake 5.1% 5.7% Greenhouse gases emitted 11.3% 11.3% Emissions injurious to public health 1.8% 1.9% Air acidification 1.8% 1.9% Ozone depletion 1.8% 1.9% Extent of odour problems 1.8% 1.9% Extent of dust problems 1.8% 1.9% Visual and landscape impacts 10.0% 10.2% Extent of noise problems 5.2% 5.2% Litter and vermin problems 5.2% 5.2% Eutrophication 1.8% 1.9% Extent of water pollution 1.8% 1.9% Total transport distance 4.1% 4.1% Proportion of non-motorway transport 4.1% 4.1% Number of jobs created 7.6% 6.6% Participation in recycling/composting 7.9% 8.2% Overall costs 8.0% 7.3% Implementation within timescale 8.3% 8.3% % Recovery of waste 2.6% 2.4% % Material recycled/composted 2.6% 2.4% Applying these weightings to the scores given above provides the following overall scores shown in Table 3-14.
55
Table 3-14: Overall weighted performance
Objectives Scenarios Baseline 2A 2B 3A 3B Environmental 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53Socio-economic
0.02 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.15
Operational 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12Total Score 2.4% 72.5% 75.7% 79.0% 80.2%Rank 5 4 3 2 1
Table 3-14 shows that the high recycling scenario utilising EfW scores highest and should be considered as the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) in this case. However, both scenarios 2B and 3A also score highly. Overall, the analysis shows that high recycling and EfW are preferred and, where these are combined, is the optimum. It is clear that all of the modelled scenarios outperform the base case “do nothing more” scenario; thus, the key factor is that changes are necessary and desirable. It should also be noted that the differential for extra recycling is greater than that for the MBT/EfW choice; the main conclusion is that higher recycling is preferred and the choice of end treatment is marginally in favour of EfW, but the preference is small. 3.9.1 Sensitivity The above results show that the weights have some effect on the overall scores compared to an equal weighting basis. The weightings are measures of how important the factors are to the stakeholders and there can be large differences between different groups such as environmental groups, operational staff and the members with responsibility for financial control. It is therefore important to assess how robust this conclusion is, by looking at the impacts of variations in the weighting on the overall result.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Bas eline 2A 2B 3A 3B
Ove
rall
sco
re
M ean +/- s td . deviation 95% confidence interval
Figure 3-11 Sensitivity of overall scores
56
We have run a model that varies the weightings of each of the criteria by 100% (i.e. between zero and double the values in Table 3-3), such that the robustness of the decision can be determined. Figure 3-11 shows the range of weighted scores for each scenario under the varied weighting values and this clearly shows that the high recycling-based scenarios 3A and 3B score highest, although the lower recycling options 2A and 2B overlap these scores considerably. This means that whilst 3B (high recycling with EfW) scores the highest under the weightings in Table 3-3, this is not always the case, and choice between these scenarios is finely balanced. The 2A scenario is consistently better than the baseline scenario, but is significantly lower scoring than scenarios 2B, 3A and 3B. The baseline scenario scores consistently low due to the low recycling and high landfill rates. Looking at these results in another way, the rank of each scenario relative to the other for any set of the weighting variations in the sensitivity analysis, can be plotted and is shown in Figure 3-12. This graph shows that scenario 3B is predominantly highest scoring, while scenario 3A is predominantly second highest but does overlap with 3B to a degree. Scenarios baseline, 2A and 2B are consistently last, fourth and third respectively, with limited overlap in these positions. The analysis shows that higher recycling levels score highest, along with energy from waste. The main conclusion is that higher recycling is preferred, and the choice of residual treatment is marginally in favour of EfW but the preference is small.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Baseline 2A 2B 3A
Ove
rall
scor
e
Mean +/- std. deviation
3B
Figure 3-12 Sensitivity in rank of the scenarios
57
4 MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC WASTE STREAMS
A Municipal Waste Management Strategy needs to address all the wastes collected by local authorities that come under the heading of municipal waste. This not only comprises household waste but waste from parks and gardens, commercial, industrial and flytipped waste. Therefore, a municipal waste strategy needs to set out the local authority’s policies on this ‘non-household municipal waste’. This large subject is discussed in more detail in Appendix 4, but is summarised here for clarity; it covers: 1. Flytipping; 2. Abandoned vehicles; 3. Scrap tyres; 4. Clinical waste; 5. Hazardous waste; 6. Equipment which contains low volumes of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); 7. Packaging; 8. Waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE). 4.1 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL WASTE
The Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment (SWMA) for Yorkshire & the Humber in 1999 states that the following amounts of waste are produced in West Yorkshire (Table 4-1): Table 4-1: Types of waste generated in West Yorkshire (000’s tonnes/year)
Industrial wastes West Yorkshire
Commercial wastes West Yorkshire
Inert/C&D 87 Inert/C&D 7 Paper & card 161 Paper & card 106 Food 69 Food 17 Other general & biodegradable 1006 Other general & biodegradable 778 Metals & scrap equipment 163 Metals & scrap equipment 24 Contaminated general 134 Contaminated general 29 Minerals wastes & residues 331 Minerals wastes & residues 1 Chemicals & other 316 Chemicals & other 21 Industry Total 2267 Commercial Total 983 SWMA 2000 Grand Total 3250
The profile of West Yorkshire’s industrial and commercial waste production is more typical of the national pattern than the other regions of Yorkshire & the Humber, with approximately 45% (1 million tonnes) and 80% (0.8 million tonnes) of its waste respectively, in the ‘other general and biodegradable’ category. The proportion of commercial and industrial waste in West Yorkshire was the highest of the Yorkshire & the Humber sub-regions, reflecting its status as the region’s main business centre. Table 4-2 gives data on disposal and recovery of these wastes in West Yorkshire. Of all the waste management methods used, only two were of any real significance: landfill and recycling. For industrial waste, 40% was landfilled and 33% was recycled; for commercial waste 47% was landfilled and 24% was recycled.
58
Analysis of industrial and commercial waste movements in the Yorkshire and the Humber region showed that, generally, the region had a high level of self-containment in waste management. However, West Yorkshire exhibited the most complex pattern of waste movements, accepting waste from its surrounding sub-regions as well as exporting significant quantities of waste to other regions for treatment and disposal. About 84% of the waste produced in West Yorkshire was disposed of within the sub-region. Table 4-2: Waste management methods used in West Yorkshire (000’s tonnes/year)
Waste Management Method West Yorkshire Industrial wastes: Commercial wastes Land disposal 907 459 Land recovery 10 1 Re-used 48 7 Recycled 755 232 Thermal 53 6 Transfer 55 48 Treatment 434 59 Unrecorded 7 169 Sector total 2269 981 TOTAL 3250
SWMA 2000 4.1.1 Special waste Yorkshire & the Humber produced more than 600,000 tonnes of special waste (about 13% of the total for England & Wales). Production of this waste is very closely linked to the industrial areas, with about 85% produced in West and South Yorkshire. Around 40% of special waste came from organic chemical processes and oil & gas refining. Oil and oil/water mixtures made up 15% and just over 13% consisted of contaminated construction/demolition waste and asbestos. 4.1.2 Disposal capacity Based on 1999 figures, the Environment Agency has calculated that Yorkshire and the Humber has about nine years remaining landfill capacity. 4.1.3 Targets The Government’s Waste Strategy 2000 aims to reduce the amounts of waste going to landfill and to increase the amounts of waste going to re-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery. For industrial and commercial wastes the target is that, by 2005, the amount of industrial and commercial waste going to landfill should be reduced to 85% of that sent to landfill in 1998. For Yorkshire & the Humber this means that over 500,000 tonnes of industrial and commercial waste will have to be diverted from landfill to other waste management options. This will be a major challenge. 4.2 ABANDONED VEHICLES
Abandoned vehicles have become an increasing problem for local authorities across the UK. A recent survey carried out by AEA Technology on behalf of the Environment Agency (2002) showed that, in the last two years, many authorities had
59
experienced more than a doubling in the numbers of abandoned vehicles they had to deal with. In Wakefield the data in Table 4-3 echo this. Table 4-3: Recent trend in abandoned vehicles reported in Wakefield
Year Number of abandoned vehicles 1998 38 1999 188 2000 290
The main reason for these increased levels is the increased cost of disposal. A few years ago, scrap merchants paid for scrapped vehicles on the basis of spares and material values. Currently, the price of steel scrap is very low, tyres are becoming more costly to deal with, and there appears to be an appreciation (amongst dismantlers) that charges will be necessary in order to comply with the de-polluting requirements of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive. Dismantlers have now moved away from paying for scrap cars towards charging to collect and dispose of them. Generally, unless the vehicle is a rare or specialist make, no one is now paying for scrap cars. Indirectly, this has provided the incentive for more unscrupulous members of the public to abandon their worthless vehicles, when previously they would have been able to sell them to an authorised disposal outlet. 4.2.1 Current arrangements for dealing with abandoned vehicles The Council has set up a computer-based recording procedure for abandoned vehicles. This procedure is in-line with the tough new measures, introduced by the Government on 9th April 2002, to clamp down on abandoned vehicles. This gives local authorities the power to remove vehicles abandoned on the street after 24 hours, and to dispose of unlicensed vehicles removed after seven days. 4.2.2 Considerations for future options The End-of-Life Vehicles Directive (2000/53/EC) requires producers (vehicle manufacturers and importers) to pay all or a significant part of the costs of take-back and treatment from January 2007. In the meantime, it is very likely that local authorities will be expected to pay and that costs of disposal will rise in future, possibly making the abandoned vehicles problem worse. 4.3 FLYTIPPING
The incidence of flytipping appears to be on the increase. There are no statistics currently available in Wakefield, and no records before 2001 as there was no budget allocated specifically for flytipping. A flytipping team has subsequently been introduced to remove such waste, and two enforcement officers investigate and prosecute where appropriate. The Council has also introduced height restrictions to stop commercial vehicles using HWRCs, and the staff check vans to make sure they are not disposing of commercial waste. There appears to be an increasing amount of construction and demolition waste, and white goods, arising. However, the flytipping of hazardous waste, once a problem, has declined following a number of prosecutions. The Council has increased its recycling provisions and now recycles around 24% of all materials collected at HWRCs. Citizens are encouraged to use private skip hire companies for the disposal of large amounts of waste including household fixtures and fittings;
60
however, the Council will provide two free bulky collections of 3 single items, free of charge, for example a fridge, wardrobe and bed etc. 4.3.1 Considerations for future options On the principle if you can measure it: you can deal with it, the Council will review its data recording for flytipped wastes so that an estimate of the problem can be made. In addition, the Council will be working more closely with the Environment Agency (possibly through the Flytipping Stakeholders’ Forum) to:
1. Agree a common workable definition of what constitutes flytipped waste;
2. Agree and produce guidelines on how flytipped waste incidents should be recorded, i.e. in a common format for covering amounts tipped, waste types and costs of handling.
The Council will include within the waste awareness programme promotional measures to raise awareness about the problems caused by flytipping of waste. 4.4 SCRAP TYRES
Although scrap tyres are generally dealt with by the industry, the Council has to dispose of a growing number of tyres as flytipped waste. These scrap tyres can turn up at household waste recycling centres, exist as unauthorised stockpiles or be flytipped. Tyres are currently restricted for landfill and will be banned totally from 2006. This problem has, therefore to be controlled and alternative disposal methods identified. 4.4.1 Tyre arisings in Wakefield The Environment Agency estimates12 that about 42,000 tonnes per year of waste tyres are generated in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Based on the population of each district in the region, the arisings of tyres in Wakefield can be estimated to be about 2,650 tonnes per year (equivalent to more than 400,000 used car tyres). 4.4.2 Current practice for management of tyres All tyres collected from incidents of flytipping are taken to the Transfer Loading Station on Denby Dale Road. They are then disposed via the tyre contractor. Tyres taken to HWRCs are also collected; however, some tyres may well end up being landfilled if they are placed in the general waste. The Council currently does not provide tyres for landfill engineering, and there have been no tyre awareness campaigns run in the area. However, the Environment Agency has been operating a national/regional programme that has had local exposure due to the presence of tyre dumps in the area. The Council will identify appropriate disposal routes that minimise the environmental impact of the disposal of tyres that come through flytipping or the HWRCs. From 2007 it is likely the tyre industry will be responsible for the costs of collection and disposal, and the Council will work with them to recover the cost incurred and establish efficient tyre collection services to reduce the flytipping problem.
12 Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000: Yorkshire & The Humber. Environment Agency, October
2000.
61
4.4.3 Waste minimisation Local authorities can lead by example, by specifying the tyres with the best environmental credentials, when purchasing them for their vehicle fleet. For example, the use of re-treaded tyres may not necessarily represent the best option across all environmental impacts, but from a waste minimisation point of view, it delays final disposal. Truck tyres are commonly re-treaded (or re-grooved) several times prior to disposal, and the Council already is in-line with common practice, frequently making use of re-treads for its lorries and waste collection vehicles. For smaller vehicles such as small vans and cars, the use of re-treads appears to be much less prevalent. Value for money is often the most important purchasing criterion cited and, currently, it is possible to buy new ‘budget’ tyres more cheaply than re-treads. The Council does use some re-tread tyres and will look at maximising their use wherever possible, demonstrating the Council’s commitment towards waste minimisation and reducing the tyre disposal problem. 4.5 CLINICAL WASTE
In the year 2001/02 the Council spent more than £63,900 on the disposal of clinical waste generated in the district. These arisings amounted to around 255 tonnes (all HSAC13 Clinical Waste Group A). There is a one-year contract for collection with White Rose Environmental. Three rounds are used for collection of this waste in Luton Vans using 880 litre Eurobins. This waste is disposed of at two incinerators, at Pontefract General Infirmary and Knostrop, Leeds. 4.6 HAZARDOUS WASTE
Deposits of special wastes in West Yorkshire were around 260,000 tonnes in 1998/99. Facilities in West Yorkshire deal with more than 43% of the Yorkshire & Humberside region’s special wastes (601,000 tonnes in 1998/99); 62% of this waste received some sort of licensed treatment, such as oil/water separation, chemical neutralisation, dewatering and solidification, with only 23% going to landfill. The Council accepts chemical waste from the public at HWRCs. Typically, these chemicals, such as weed killer, are used around the home and garden. These hazardous household wastes are removed under an arrangement with Bradford Council whose chemical advisor inspects all material and deals with its disposal on Wakefield’s behalf. There are no contractual arrangements with Bradford Council, and there are no other available options without paying very high rates for the removal of such material. Bradford collects from all seven of Wakefield’s HWRCs. All collected material is segregated at Bradford Transfer Loading Station (TLS) and is mainly landfilled or incinerated. Any material that can be recycled, is recycled. There have been no known cases of flytipping of these materials. For asbestos wastes, only cement resin-bonded asbestos from households is accepted at Wakefield HWRC. A specialist container is located at the centre and all collected asbestos waste is landfilled at Welbeck. On occasions, when asbestos has been flytipped, these incidents are dealt with through private specialist contractors. 13 Health Services Advisory Committee
62
4.7 EQUIPMENT WHICH CONTAINS LOW VOLUMES OF
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
Holders of equipment containing more than 5 litres of PCBs were required to dispose of them by the end of December 2000. However, it is still possible for equipment sold before the 1986 PCB ban, containing volumes less than 5 litres, to turn up in the waste stream; for example, in old domestic appliances with small electrical capacitors. It can be anticipated that increasing amounts of these will turn up in Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE), at HWRCs after the introduction of the WEEE Directive. Consideration needs to be given to:
• How these pieces of equipment can be identified at HWRCs; • Arrangements for their segregation from other WEEE items ; • Subsequent disposal of segregated items ensuring that disposal facilities are
suitably equipped for destroying the contained PCBs. 4.8 PACKAGING
With regard to industrial and commercial packaging waste, the Council currently has no arrangements set up for its collection or recycling; for example, glass from pubs and restaurants. There may be opportunities to work with packaging compliance schemes to increase levels of recycling. However, considerations are being made for the promotion of waste minimisation such as waste minimisation clubs. 4.8.1 Legislative developments Revisions to the Packaging Directive In mid-October 2002 European Union environment ministers drew up a directive to force countries to recycle at least half of all product packaging by 2008. Under the directive, EU member states must recycle between 55-80% of all packaging waste by December 2008. Different targets will apply to each type of packaging:
• 60% for paper and card; • 60% for glass; • 50% for metal; • 22.5% for plastics; • 15% for wood.
4.8.2 Considerations for future options The Task Force report of the Advisory Committee on Packaging14 noted that, moving beyond the 50% level for packaging waste recovery, will mean recovering significantly more from the household waste stream. More emphasis will be placed on the household stream by compliance schemes as the limits to recovering/recycling of commercial and industrial packaging waste are reached. Consequently, local authorities could reasonably expect financial support to collect household packaging waste, possibly through negotiated contractual arrangements. Clearly, compliance schemes will seek out the local authorities offering the best deals.
14 Report of the Task Force of the Advisory Committee on Packaging, November 2001, DEFRA.
63
4.9 WASTE ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (WEEE)
The amount of WEEE being generated in England and Wales is estimated to be about 1 million tonnes per year15. The Environment Agency estimates that about 87,800 tonnes per year of this is generated in the Yorkshire & Humberside region16. Based on the population of each district in the region, the arisings of WEEE in Wakefield can be estimated to be about 5,500 tonnes per year. These arisings include office IT equipment, so the WEEE arisings from households will be lower than this figure. An estimate of the composition17 of WEEE from households at the time of the study is as follows:
• Fridges and freezers - 15% by weight; • Other white goods - 50% by weight; • TVs and computers - 15% by weight; • Other items - 20% by weight.
The main reason for the high overall percentage arisings of other white goods is due to the high weight and relatively short lifetime (less than 10 years) of washing machines. The main options which householders can use to dispose of WEEE are:
• Arranging collection of the old item by the retailer when a new replacement item is delivered;
• Arranging collection of the old item by the Council’s bulky household collection service;
• Taking items to a HWRC.
The Council does not operate dedicated separate collection facilities, kerbside collections or Bring schemes for WEEE, but larger items are collected by the bulky household waste service. Smaller items (such as toasters, kettles, etc.) will tend to be disposed of via the normal waste collection service. In addition, some items may be flytipped. A small proportion of items are refurbished, particularly white goods; the organisations involved tend to obtain a significant proportion of these items for refurbishment from retail collection schemes. Although it is not possible to estimate the proportion of WEEE that is disposed of at household waste recycling centres, this proportion is currently likely to be relatively low because retail collection schemes are well-established. However, when the legislation on ozone-depleting substances was introduced, retailers stopped their collection of fridges and freezers; this significantly increased the numbers of these appliances which were either taken to HWRCs, or collected through either the bulky household collection service or as flytipped waste. Consequently, it is necessary to consider whether other proposed legislation could affect retailer collection schemes, and this is discussed later in the document. 15 Waste Strategy 2000. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, May 2000. 16 Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000, Yorkshire & The Humber. 17 Recovery of WEEE: Economic and environmental impacts, final report. Report produced for the European
Commission by AEA Technology, June 1997.
64
4.9.1 Current practice for WEEE in Wakefield The Council does not currently operate a kerbside collection scheme for WEEE alone, and there are no current plans to do so. However, discussions are being held with potential contractors about such systems. All WEEE items are collected at HWRCs, including those collected through the bulky household waste collections. A three-year contract (reviewed annually) with Sims Metals is in place for fridges and freezers to be degassed and recycled. Any collected WEEE that is recycled is dealt with through Waste Services. Unfortunately, no data exists on amounts of WEEE collected but there are plans under consideration for the provision of better information.
65
5 IMPLEMENTATION
The analysis carried out in Chapter 3 and Appendices 1 and 2 points towards a municipal waste management system based on increasing recycling, and providing either an EfW or MBT plant for treating the residual waste fraction prior to landfill. The sensitivity analysis shows that higher recycling levels score highest along with energy from waste, in scenario 3B. The main conclusion is that higher recycling is preferred, and the choice of residual treatment is marginally in favour of EfW, but the preference is small and shows overlap with other scenarios. This assessment is based on the weighting factors gained from the MORI consultation with Wakefield citizens (2003). The analysis indicates that exceeding the WS2000 recycling targets as a first stage is the way to proceed. The choice of recovery technology is then dependent on the cost and contractual issues. The main facilities and actions, which are required to take this process forward, are:
• Development of an educational programme to promote waste minimisation and awareness;
• A review of the HWRC network to examine issues including location; accessibility; journey times from centres of population and recycling facilities on offer; and a review of the permit scheme. This will enable the Council to provide the optimum service by having strategically located facilities that meet the needs of both a modern HWRC network and the citizens, as expressed through the consultation exercise;
• Upgrading of the Welbeck HWRC so that improved recycling can be achieved; • Upgrading of the Bring bank network by introducing more sites, and ensuring
that all sites collect as many types of material as possible; • Introduction of a revised kerbside collection system that includes organic
waste, for composting or digestion, on a weekly basis, and dry recyclables and residual waste on alternate weeks;
• Development of an organic waste treatment facility to process the organic waste collected at the kerbside and produce compost ;
• Development of a material recycling facility to process the material from the kerbside collection system;
• Development of a waste treatment facility to process the residual waste prior to landfill.
In delivering this waste management system a number of factors have to be considered and decided upon. These are:
• The contract strategy; • Timescale for delivery of facilities; • Potential for collaboration with neighbouring authorities.
5.1 CONTRACT STRATEGY
A decision has to be made as to how the improved waste management service will be delivered. The Council has three primary routes to procuring the new waste management service:
66
• PFI Integrated Contract: A single contract provided by a contractor (or consortium) who would collect waste; design, build, finance and operate treatment facilities; organise the processing and marketing of recycled materials, and deliver the whole service.
• Council Managed Integrated Service (CMIS): These can take various forms;
three options have been considered:
CMIS Option 1: An integrated Public Private Partnership (PPP), managed by the Council, letting several PPP contracts for service elements, e.g. waste collection, facility finance, provision and operation. The service will be funded and operated by the private sector, possibly using PFI. The majority of risks are transferred to the contractors but the Council will be responsible for overall management and co-ordination.
CMIS Option 2: Similar to CMIS Option 1, with the Council letting several contracts for service elements and the private sector funding and operating facilities with the Council retaining responsibility for the collection service. The Council will also be responsible for overall management and co-ordination.
CMIS Option 3: The Council lets contracts for the design, construction and financing of facilities but retains operational responsibility for the entire waste management service.
• Public Sector Comparator (PSC): A baseline against which to compare
other options. The Council is assumed to let a design and build contract for the provision of facilities, with the responsibility for financing remaining with the Council.
On 25 November 2003 the Council resolved that CMIS option 2 (variation - single contract with PFI rather than multiple contracts) be determined as the procurement method for delivering the Council’s future waste management services. The existing contract for the Council’s waste collection direct services organisation (DSO) operates until 2004, and should not cause any serious impediment to the improvement of the waste collection service envisaged. The main waste disposal contract at Welbeck runs until 2013 and, whilst this does have guaranteed volumes, these are on a reducing profile. Thus, it is unlikely to cause significant limitations or problems to any future contract. However, decisions will need to be taken before the final disposal treatment system is installed, as the Landfill Directive and WS2000 targets do not come into force until 2010 (if the Landfill Directive derogation is taken up). There are benefits to delay, as this will reduce absolute costs (landfill is currently cheaper than MBT or EfW), but landfill tax may be increased significantly and this would alter the balance of costs. In addition, if a single integrated contract were let, there would be additional costs in securing the finance if the implementation of the treatment technology were to be delayed. 5.2 TIMESCALES
The delivery of these facilities is largely tied to the target dates set. The BVPI target for 2003/04 has been met by the systems currently in place. The 2005/6 target of 18% recycling will also be met by the systems currently in place. The recycling
67
targets for 30% in 2010 and 33% in 2015 will require further increases. The Landfill Directive targets start in 2010, so treatment of waste is not required until then. The waste management system will pass through a number of stages in its development before operational facilities can be put in place. The timescale for this is shown in Figure 5-1. This shows the earliest dates by which each element can be implemented and, whilst some actions are relatively easy and quick to implement, others require significant time due to the construction and planning requirements. This obviously places constraints on the implementation of some systems. For example, the kerbside collection scheme can be implemented more quickly than the MRF or composting facilities required to process the collected materials. The time of the introduction has to be linked so that collected materials can be processed. It should be noted that these are estimated timescales, and time allowed for site identification and planning can be significantly shorter, but it is prudent to err on the side of caution.
68
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Waste minimisation p lanD eveloping planImplem entationN ew HWR CsIdentif ication of new sitesConsultationPurchase of s itesPlanning applicationsD esign and constructionFull operationU pgrading of Welbeck HW RCPlanning and authorisationD esign and constructionFull operationBring ban k n etw orkIdentif ication of new sitesPlanning applicationsInstallationFull operation gradually im proving netw orkK erb side collection schemeProcurement processPhased roll outFull operationM RFProcurement processSite identification & purchasePlanning and authorisationD esign and constructionFull operationC om posting facilityProcurement processSite identification & purchasePlanning and authorisationD esign and constructionFull operationTreament facilityProcurement processSite identification & purchasePlanning and authorisationD esign and constructionFull operation Figure 5-1: Stages required in the implementation of elements of waste management system
This shows that the earliest improvements to the recycling rate to meet the 2005/06 BVPI recycling target will be derived from the upgrading of Welbeck and the improved Bring bank network. After 2005, the phased introduction of the improved facilities can be introduced over the following five years to meet the recycling and recovery targets as they are implemented in 2010.
69
5.3 INTEGRATION WITH NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES
The envisaged waste management system involves a number of complex facilities. In general, plants with larger throughputs provide significant savings in costs. All the neighbouring authorities are currently reviewing their waste management plans and will be considering additional recycling, composting and recovery processes. This provides an ideal opportunity to explore the potential in joint working to provide regional facilities at mutually agreeable locations. Whilst this appears a logical and convenient arrangement, the details of site locations and public attitudes to such plants can make implementation difficult. There is also a compromise between applying the proximity principle and building efficient and cost-effective waste management facilities. The current industry view on the efficient scale of in-vessel composting plants and MRFs is in the range 30,000 to 60,000 tonnes per year, although larger plants would be possible. Waste disposal technologies are generally operated from 100,000 tonnes per year, but most facilities tend to be larger than this. The envisaged composting and MRF plants for Wakefield will each process in excess of 50,000 tonnes per year, and are likely to be at cost-effective scales for this type of system, thus reducing the rationale for building combined plants. However, there are other benefits from larger facilities in terms of the marketability of the products produced. Linking the marketing from different plants may offer the benefit of securing markets, without the difficulties of finding mutually agreeable sites and addressing proximity principle issues. The treatment technology (EfW or MBT) will process a maximum of 150,000 tonnes per year and, whilst this is within the normal scale of operation for this type of facility, economies of scale can be gained. Thus, there may be potential in sharing a treatment facility with one of the neighbouring areas, thereby increasing the scale and reducing the costs. Given the relatively dense population and good road network of the region, the impacts of regional facilities on transport costs are unlikely to be significant. However, there are also many difficulties that make integrated working problematic. The Council was for many years part of an integrated waste management authority for West Yorkshire. This highlighted the differences in approach and direction each authority wanted to take. The experience in West Yorkshire emphasised issues that can cause difficulties for delivering waste management facilities, such as:
• Differences in timescales of development; • Contractual issues over private sector companies bidding for several waste
management contacts within the same infrastructure; • Planning decisions affecting the waste management service being outside the
authority boundary and control; • Differences between aspirations over technological choices.
70
6 CONCLUSIONS
The Council needs to improve the performance of the waste management service so that it can deliver the recycling and recovery targets set by the Government. Improving the recycling rate, and diverting materials away from landfill, will reduce environmental impacts and prove to be more sustainable. The targets set for the Council are demanding; the recycling targets are shown in Table 6-1. Whilst the improvements and schemes already in place will achieve the first of these, further actions will be required to meet the later targets. Table 6-1: Recycling targets set in "Waste 2000"
Date Recycling Target National WMDC 2003/4 10% 2005/6 25% 18% 2010 30% 2015 33%
Four scenarios for meeting these recycling targets, as well as the recovery targets derived from the Landfill Directive, have been assessed. Essentially these are: 2A Meets recycling targets, with mechanical biological treatment of the residual
waste; 2B Meets recycling targets, with energy from waste treatment of the residual
waste; 3A Exceeds recycling targets, with mechanical biological treatment of the
residual waste; 3B Exceeds recycling targets, with energy from waste treatment of the residual
waste. A base case scenario that reflected the current planned systems was modelled to allow comparisons. The infrastructure to deliver these scenarios was evaluated and assessed using a range of criteria based on environmental, socio-economic and operational issues. Combining these assessments, and applying weighting factors to reflect the relative importance of each criterion, enabled overall scores for each scenario to be determined. The result of this process was that all of the modelled scenarios were significantly better than the current position. Scenario 3A and 3B scored the highest, as the evaluation found that the high recycling scenarios were better than those scenarios that simply met the targets. Comparison of the disposal technologies showed that the energy from waste technology was marginally preferred under the weightings used in this study. An analysis of the robustness of this scoring of the scenarios is shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2, and it is clear that, whilst scenario 3B scores highest, the average scores are not significantly statistically higher than for scenarios 2A, 2B or 3A. However, the analysis of the rank positions of the scores shows that
71
scenarios 3A and 3B are consistently the highest scoring, but there is a good degree of overlap between these two.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Bas eline 2A 2B 3A 3B
Ove
rall
sco
re
M ean +/- s td . deviation 95% confidence interval
Figure 6-1: Sensitivity of overall scores
0
1
2
3
4
5
Baseline 2A 2B 3A
Ove
rall
scor
e
Mean +/- std. deviation
3B
Figure 6-2 Sensitivity in rank of the scenarios
On 25 November 2003 the Council resolved that the clear preference for scenarios that achieved higher rates of recycling be noted and Scenario 3A, as outlined in the report, be approved. The facilities and actions required to deliver the high recycling rate envisaged in the preferred scenario will include:
72
• Development of an educational programme to promote waste minimisation
and awareness; • A review of the HWRC to examine issues including location; accessibility;
journey times from centres of population and recycling facilities on offer; and a review of the permit scheme. This will enable us to provide the optimum service by having strategically located facilities that meet the needs of a modern HWRC network and those of citizens as expressed through the consultation exercise;
• Upgrading of the Welbeck HWRC so that improved recycling can be achieved; • Upgrading of the Bring bank network by introducing more sites, and making
sure that all sites collect as many types of material as possible; • Introduction of a revised kerbside collection system that includes organic
waste, for composting or digestion, on a weekly basis, and dry recyclables and residual waste on alternate weeks;
• Development of an organic waste treatment facility to process the organic waste collected at the kerbside and to produce compost for recycling;
• Development of a materials recycling facility to process the material from the kerbside collection system;
• Development of a waste treatment facility to process the residual waste prior to landfill.
In order to collect the recyclables and organic waste to achieve the high recycling rates a new waste collection service will be provided. This will provide two collections from the household each week. There will be a weekly collection of organic waste for composting, in addition to alternate weekly collections of the residual waste and dry recyclables (paper, plastics, cans, etc). This will limit the volume of residual waste collected, thereby encouraging participation in the recycling scheme. It is recognised this will be challenging and its introduction needs to be linked with a continuing programme of waste awareness and education, with support from Council officers and councillors. The development of the waste management service is a major undertaking and will involve significant capital expenditure. Given this, the Council investigated three methods of contracting for this work:
• PFI Integrated Contract: A single contract provided by a contractor (or consortium) who would collect waste; design, build, finance and operate treatment facilities; organise the processing and marketing of recycled materials, and deliver the whole service;
• Council Managed Integrated Service (CMIS): These can take various forms;
three options have been considered: CMIS Option 1: An integrated Public Private Partnership (PPP) managed by the Council letting several PPP contracts for service elements, e.g. waste collection, facility finance, provision and operation. The service will be funded and operated by the private sector, possibly using PFI. The majority of risks are transferred to the contractors but the Council will be responsible for overall management and co-ordination.
CMIS Option 2: Similar to CMIS Option 1, with the Council letting several contracts for service elements and the private sector funding and operating
73
facilities, with the Council retaining responsibility for the collection service. The Council will also be responsible for overall management and co-ordination.
CMIS Option 3: The Council lets contracts for the design, construction and financing of facilities but retains operational responsibility for the entire waste management service.
• Public Sector Comparator (PSC): A baseline against which to compare other
options. The Council is assumed to let a design-and-build contract for the provision of facilities, with the responsibility for financing remaining with the Council.
On 25 November 2003 the Council resolved that CMIS option 2 (variation - single contract with PFI rather than multiple contracts) be determined as the procurement method for delivering the Council’s future waste management services.
74
Appendices
CONTENTS
Appendix 1 Assessment of Environmental Options Appendix 2 Assessment of Socio-economic and Operational
Objectives Appendix 3 Waste Treatment and Processing Options Appendix 4 Management of Specific Waste Streams Appendix 5 Waste Minimisation Appendix 6 Public Consultation
75