Doncaster Municipal Waste Management Strategy ...... · Hazardous Waste Directive 2001/573/EC The EC revised its list of hazardous waste and incorporated it into the European Waste

1

Doncaster MWMS: Environmental Report Appendices

Doncaster Municipal Waste Management Strategy: Environmental Report Appendices Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council December 2008

APPENDICES

A.1.0 Schedule 2 to the SEA Regulations – Information for Environmental Reports 1 A.2.0 Plans and Programs Relevant to the Doncaster MWMS...................................3 A.3.0 Baseline Information and Future Trends ........................................................ 17 A.4.0 Summary of Scoping Report Consultation ...................................................... 37 A.5.0 Waste Prevention and Re-use Modelling ........................................................ 39 A.6.0 Waste Recycling & Composting Modelling Characteristics ............................ 63 A.7.0 Residual Waste Modelling Characteristics...................................................... 77 A.8.0 LATS Modelling............................................................................................... 107 A.9.0 Abbreviations.................................................................................................. 108

1


A.1.0 Schedule 2 to the SEA Regulations – Information for Environmental Reports

1. An outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme, and of its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes.

2. The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme.

3. The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected.

4. Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Habitats Directive.

5. The environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation.

6. The likely significant effects on the environment, including short, medium and long-term effects, permanent and temporary effects, positive and negative effects, and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, on issues such as –

a. biodiversity;

b. population;

c. human health;

d. fauna;

e. flora;

f. soil;

g. water;

h. air;

i. climatic factors;

j. material assets;

k. cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological heritage;

l. landscape; and

m. the inter-relationship between the issues referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (l).

7. The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme.

8. An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information.

9. A description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring in accordance with regulation 17.

10. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 9.

3


A.2.0 Plans and Programs Relevant to the Doncaster MWMS

Table 1 shows the relevant plans and programmes considered for this ER. Please note that this list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all plans and programmes which exist. Instead it is intended to highlight the key relevant issues and objectives within each of the documents.

Table 1: Relevant Plans and Programs

Document Relevance to DMWMS

International Plans

Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC

Provides overarching legislative framework for the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, and includes common terminology and a definition of waste.

Sets the ‘Relevant Objectives’ (Article 4) of protecting human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste.

Establishes the waste hierarchy as a principle for waste management (Article 3).

The directive sets the framework for waste legislation that the DMWMS must take into consideration.

Landfill Directive

1999/31/EC

Aims to prevent or reduce the negative environmental effects of landfilling waste, by introducing stringent technical requirements for waste and landfills.

Introduces targets for the reduction of Biodegradable Municipal Waste sent to landfill. These are:

75% of 1995 levels by 2010;

50% of 1995 levels by 2013; and

35% of 1995 levels by 2020.

Requires landfill gas recovery where viable. These measures are implemented in England and Wales through the Landfill Regulations 2002.

The fulfilment of these landfill targets (as specified in the domestic legislation) will form one of main aims of the DMWMS.


Incineration of Wastes Directive 2000/76/EC

Aims to prevent or limit as far as practicable the negative effects of incineration/co-incineration of waste.

Specifies that heat generated during the process is recovered as far as practicable and that residues will be minimised and recycled where appropriate (Article 4).

Introduces stringent emission limits and process requirements.

Transposed into law (England and Wales) by The Waste Incineration Regulations 2002.

Any Doncaster waste incinerated would need to conform to these regulations.

Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 2002/96/EC & 2003/108/EC

The main requirements and obligations on producers and distributors of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) came into effect from 1 July 2007. Its aims are to:

reduce waste arising from EEE;

make producers of EEE responsible for the environmental impact of their products, especially when they become waste;

encourage separate collection and subsequent treatment, reuse, recovery, recycling and sound environmental disposal of EEE;

improve the environmental performance of all those involved during the lifecycle of EEE.

Local Authorities have the opportunity to sign-up their Civic Amenity (CA) sites as Designated Collection Facilities (DCFs). If they do, they will have to comply with the code of practice for DCFs and that will require minimum levels of separate storage at sites. In return, they will receive some funding from the Distributor Takeback Scheme and their WEEE will be removed by Producer Compliance Schemes for treatment without charge.

The DMWMS should not restrict the collection of household WEEE.

5



Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC

Directive must be transposed into UK law by 26 September 2008.

Seeks to improve environmental performance of batteries and accumulators and the activities of all economic operators involved in their life cycle.

Collection target of 25% for waste portable household batteries to be met 6 years after entry into force of the Directive into UK law (45% after 10 years).

All identifiable separately collected batteries must be recycled.

The directive introduces a ban on the final disposal of automotive and industrial batteries into landfill and incineration - i.e. 100% of such batteries are to be collected and recycled.

Recycling efficiency targets are introduced and must be met by 2011 – 65% by average weight of lead-acid batteries and accumulators (75% nickel-cadmium, 50% other).

Although not requiring specific action on the part of Local Authorities, the DMWMS will need to be flexible enough to be able to allow for any new requirements that may emerge from this legislation when transposed into UK law.

Hazardous Waste Directive

2001/573/EC

The EC revised its list of hazardous waste and incorporated it into the European Waste Catalogue.

The revised list includes a number of waste streams not previously considered to be hazardous, including televisions, computer monitors, fluorescent lighting and end-of-life vehicles.

The new regime includes a requirement for most producers of hazardous waste to notify their premises to the Environment Agency. The DMWMS needs to be mindful of what waste steams are classified as hazardous to ensure appropriate treatment.

Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR) 2003

EC 1774/2002

Controls the disposal of animal by-products containing meat.

Prescribes specific treatment requirements including composting, anaerobic digestion, rendering and incineration. Many Local Authorities now collect food waste containing meat from the kerbside as this counts towards recycling and landfill allowance targets.

If Doncaster were to collect food waste, treatment conforming to the ABPR would be essential.

Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making Directive

2003/35/EC

Effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken.

Transposed into law in England and Wales in June 2005, the DMWMS would need to clearly demonstrate that the public had been adequately been consulted before the Strategy was ratified.


Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation

EC 2037/2000

Prevents recycling or disposal of refrigeration equipment without prior treatment to remove potentially harmful chemicals.

The DMWMS should be mindful of the appropriate treatment required.

7



National Plans

Waste Strategy 2007

The Government’s key objectives are to:

decouple waste growth from economic growth and put more emphasis on waste prevention and re-use;

meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020;

increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste;

secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the management of hazardous waste; and

maximise the environmental benefit obtained from that investment, through increased recycling of resources and recovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies.

Targets:

recycling and composting of household waste – at least 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020;

recovery of municipal waste – 53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020; and

A greater focus on waste prevention will be recognised through a new target to reduce the amount of household waste not re-used, recycled or composted from over 22.2 million tonnes in 2000 to 15.8 million tonnes in 2010. This translates to a target of no more than 225kg/inhabitant of residual waste by 2020.

The DMWMS will essentially be guided by this document.

Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies

DEFRA 2005

Sets out what the Government expects of Local Authorities when preparing and updating a MWMS. Waste decision-making should be based on the following principles:

Individuals, communities and organisations should take responsibility for their waste;

In taking decisions there should be consideration of alternative options in a systematic way – focussing on the waste hierarchy;

Engagement with the local community and key stakeholders should be an important and integral part of the decision making process; and

Decisions should seek to deliver the environmental outcomes that do most to meet the objectives of the waste hierarchy and protection of human health and the environment, taking account of what is feasible and what is an acceptable cost.

The DMWMS must comply with this guidance.


‘Securing The Future’

UK Government sustainable development strategy

DEFRA 2005

Aims to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of future generations.

Sustainable policies respect five principles:

Living within environmental limits;

Ensuring strong, healthy and just society;

Achieving a sustainable economy;

Using sound science responsibly;

Promoting good governance.

The Strategy outlines 68 indicators through which to review progress in four priority areas – sustainable consumption and production, climate change, natural resource protection and sustainable communities.

In 2007 Defra released a Sustainable Procurement Action Plan. The Government has set itself the goal to become an EU leader in sustainable procurement by 2009 and going carbon neutral by 2012.

The DMWMS should be considered in context with the wider sustainable development agenda.

PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

ODPM 2005

Sets out the requirement to manage waste as sustainably and safely as possible in line with the waste hierarchy, without risk to health or environment, and close to source.

Policies should enable timely and sufficient provision of sites to meet local needs. All Local Planning Authorities should consider the impact of non-waste development on existing waste infrastructure or proposals.

The DMWMS should take account of the core principles as set out in this planning guidance and ensure that, where possible, it links with the Waste Local Plan.

Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme

Sets out the basis for allocating landfill allowances to Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) in England and establishes rules for banking, borrowing and trading of allowances.

Provides for sanctions in the event that WDAs hold insufficient allowances to cover their landfilled biodegradable municipal waste.

Launched April 2005, a fixed penalty of £150/tonne will be incurred if a WDA breaches its landfill allowances target (after banking and borrowing) in the scheme year.

The DMWMS will need to account for the requirements of the scheme and develop strategies to ensure that the targets are met.

9



Household Waste Recycling Act 2003

Requires that by 31 December 2010 all local authorities should collect at least two types of recyclable waste separate from the rest of the household waste (unless the cost of doing so is unreasonably high or where comparable alternative arrangements are available).

The DMWMS must ensure that these requirements are adhered to.

‘Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy’ 2003 Energy White Paper (DTI)1

Seeks 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, with real progress by 2020. Also aims to maintain the reliability of energy supplies and promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond.

Sets targets for renewable generation of 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020.

The DMWMS needs to be aware of these targets and seek ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well as maximising renewable energy generation (within the context of the waste management hierarchy).

Renewables Obligation Order 2006 (SI 2006/1004)

Imposes an obligation on all electricity suppliers to supply customers specified amounts of electricity generated using renewable sources (and relative proportions in future years).

Sets out which forms of energy generation qualify for Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs).

The DMWMS will want to provide the greatest added value to any energy generation where this is in line with other waste specific policy and guidance.

Air Quality Strategy for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland 2007

Sets targets for local authorities for emissions of several types of air pollutants between 2003 and 2008.

Local authorities must monitor local air pollution levels and where breaches are likely to occur, establish local air quality management areas.

The DMWMS should account for air pollutants arising from waste facilities and services when appraising options.

1 This will largely be superseded by the Climate Change Bill which is due to be introduced later this year.


Regional and Sub-regional Plans

Regional Sustainable Development Framework2

Seeks to integrate sustainable development into all policy and decision-making throughout the region. It sets out 15 aims for sustainable development and provides an appraisal tool to ensure that sustainability is embedded within other strategies and action plans. The key aims that relate directly to the DMWMS (and to which it should account) include:

Minimise pollution levels;

Minimise GHG emissions and provide a managed response to climate change;

Prudent and efficient use of energy and natural resources; and

Minimal production of waste.

Government Office for Yorkshire & the Humber Sustainable Development Policy3

2005

Sets objectives focused on:

Improving regional performance against sustainable development indicators;

Demonstrating leadership of Sustainable Development Strategy delivery in the region;

Embedding the principles of sustainable development in regional, sub-regional and local strategies and plans; and

Being an exemplar of sustainable development in practice.

The DMWMS should ensure that its aims and objectives do not conflict with those set out here.

Yorkshire & Humber’s Climate Change Action Plan4

2005

Aims to provide a coordinated approach to reduce regional emissions and to develop solutions to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. All key regional strategies are working towards a 20% reduction in regional GHG emissions between 1990 and 2010.

When appraising options for waste management services and technologies, the DMWMS should account for the impacts of climate change.

2 www.yhub.org.uk/resources/YH%20Assembly/strategicpicture_yh.pdf

3 www.goyh.gov.uk/497763/docs/199734/199731/247398/317936

4 www.yourclimate.org

11



Yorkshire & Humber Regional Waste Strategy – Let’s Take it from The Tip5

2003

Outlines 4 objectives that will take forward the overall aim of building more sustainable waste management systems across the region:

Gain community support and involvement in the delivery of the strategy;

Reduce waste production and increase re-use, recycling and composting;

Manage residual waste in the most sustainable way; and

Provide technical support and advice.

The strategy also contained a number of targets:

Reduce annual household waste arisings from 3% to 2% by 2008/09;

Achieve recycling and composting targets for the region of 30% in 2010/11 (298,000 tonnes per annum) and 33.3% in 2015/16 (324,000 tonnes per annum).

Policies around residual waste treatment capacity state that plans should only promote new/expanded sites for landfill which are necessary to restore despoiled or degraded land.

All waste to energy plants must include processes to remove recyclable and compostable material to agreed performance levels where this has not been carried out elsewhere. Thermal treatment without energy recovery will only be permitted in special cases or extreme circumstances.

LPAs should promote, and seek to make provision for 1 CA site per 15,000 households (16 in South Yorkshire) and 1 non CA bring facility per 750 households.

The role of the regional waste strategy (relative to that of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy) has diminished following the introduction of PPS10. Doncaster MBC may, however, still wish to have regard to its aims and objectives.

5 www.yhassembly.gov.uk/dnlds/Waste%20Strategy%202003.pdf


Putting waste to work: Regional Market Development Strategy6

January 2007

Specifically sets out to:

Clarify and promote business opportunities;

Communicate the Recycling Action Yorkshire (RAY) strategy;

Encourage more integrated thinking and partnership working; and

Stimulate discussion and feedback to the RAY programme.

The RAY programme puts in place activities which lead to:

GHG emission reductions of 287,000 tonnes;

Increased recycling of 580,000 tonnes; and

£1m of private sector investment brought into the region.

The DMWMS should ensure that it does not conflict with the aims of the strategy and where possible, enhance and work towards its aims and objectives.

The Yorkshire and Humber Plan – The Regional Spatial Strategy

May 2008

Broad development strategy for the region to 2021, setting out regional priorities in terms of location and scale of development, including economic development, housing, transport and communications and the environment.

Develops the policies from the Regional Waste Strategy as part of an interim framework for sustainable waste management in the region and includes land use planning elements associated with waste planning.

The Yorkshire and Humber Environmental Enhancement Strategy7

February 2008

Aims to reinforce the Regional Sustainable Development Framework by considering the same cross-cutting themes. In particular the whole enhancement strategy aims to develop activities that address climate change.

Presents 5-10 year non-statutory regional objectives for environmental enhancement and a set of practical actions to achieve these.


6 www.recyclingaction-yorkshire.org.uk/site/viewDocument.php?ID=331

7 http://www.yhref.org.uk/siteassets/documents/YHREF/7/D/7D5745B4-D8BB-4E88-B82F-148043F5DF52/rees2008-fn-sm.pdf

13



The Regional Energy Infrastructure Strategy8

February 2007

Three key objectives:

Maximise low carbon energy generation;

Promote the reduction in energy demand; and

Lead the way in delivering secure regional and national energy supplies.

Targets include:

Reducing GHG emissions by 20-25% by 2016 from 1990 baseline;

South Yorkshire renewable energy targets for 2010/2021 of 47MW/160MW; and

Reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired power stations in the region by 50% by 2020 compared to current levels.


Regional Economic Strategy 2006-20159

Provides a framework of common priorities around which businesses, public agencies, voluntary groups and communities can focus their investment and effort. Sustainable development is a core objective, with specific action to deliver ‘waste to work’ projects to create jobs and growth through recycling and re-use.


8 www.yhassembly.gov.uk/dnlds/Energy%20Strategy.pdf

9 www.yorkshirefutures.com/siteassets/documents/YorkshireFutures/A/C/AC919911-1A65-49E3-8DB5-349B68334BBF/RES_complete_final_2006-15.pdf


Local Plans

Doncaster Zero Waste Strategy

Aims to actively intervene across the whole supply chain to improve production methods, increase recycling and reuse, create innovation and ensure maximum community benefit. It aspires to exceed all government targets for recycling and maximise income from resource recovery to create opportunities and wealth.

Targets:

No ward recycling less than 50% by 2008 and 85% by 2020;

Every school will educate pupils in waste minimisation by 2008;

Organic waste collected will be utilised to its highest value to benefit locally;

Support local companies to recycle 50% by 2015;

Create 500 jobs as a result of this strategy by 2010;

All public sector institutions should have waste minimisation and “buy recycled” policies by 2008; and

Partnerships and key stakeholders to set up Zero Waste Body for Doncaster by 2008.

The DMWMS should ensure that it enhances and works towards its aims and objectives.

Air Quality Action Plan

Sets out performance in relation to government targets and designated Air Quality Management Areas.

The DMWMS should account for implications upon air quality when determining which actions to take forward.

15



Rotherham MWMS10

Covers the period 2005-2020 and looks at potential options for achieving ongoing diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill to achieve LATS targets.

Aspirational recycling targets of 33% by 2009/10, 35% by 2012/13 and 45% by 2015/16.

Preferred option for residual waste based on the BPEO options appraisal and consultation process is MBT. However, availability of incineration capacity at an existing regional facility could allow 2009/10 Landfill Directive targets to be achieved without the need for a new facility to be operational until 2012/13.

Sheffield MWMS11

Proposed actions up to 2010 include diversion of garden and possibly kitchen waste to meet requirements of the Landfill Directive. The importance of the waste hierarchy is paramount, though the Sheffield incinerator will continue to play a major role in dealing with residual waste.

Barnsley MWMS

Long-term strategy (2006-2030) which aims to reduce the amount of waste produced, increase recycling and composting performance to 45% and recover energy from residual waste and landfill as little as possible. BPEO recently identified EfW as the preferred technology.

Wakefield MWMS High recycling with MBT (using AD) option approved for dealing with residual waste. Strategy runs from 2004-2024.

North Yorkshire CC & City of York MWMS

Covers the period 2006-2026 (to be completely reviewed in 2010/11).

Annual average growth per head to be reduced to zero % by 2008;

Divert 75% of municipal waste from landfill by 2013;

Recycle or compost 40% of household waste by 2010;

Recycle or compost 45% of household waste by 2013; and

Recycle or compost 50% of household waste by 2020.

The BPEO analysis concluded that MBT presents the preferred option for York, with incineration being narrowly preferable to MBT for North Yorkshire.

10 For each of the adjoining authorities, the MWMS (where available) has been discussed. It is useful for policy makers to be aware of what is happening in surrounding regions and that potential for synergies and partnership working are taken, where this will result in a more sustainable DMWMS.

11 Currently under review.


East Riding & Hull MWMS

Overall aim of strategy (2006-2020) to achieve 45% recycling/composting by 2010 and then go beyond this. Also to reduce waste growth to 0% by 2012/2013.

BPEO exercise recommended incineration of residual waste. This has been duly adopted by both Councils cabinets and planning permission obtained for a joint facility on the border.

North Lincolnshire MWMS

Document outlining how waste will be dealt with in North Lincolnshire from 2007-2-25. Sets a target to achieve 45% recycling and composting of household waste by 2010.

17


A.3.0 Baseline Information and Future Trends To focus the appraisal and to ensure that the SEA picks up on the potential significant impacts of the DMWMS, the current local environmental baseline needs to be highlighted.

The following sections correspond with the SEA criteria as set out in Annex 1 to the SEA Directive at paragraph (f). Additional baseline information, not corresponding to any of the headings suggested in Annex 1 to the SEA directive, is included towards the end of the appendix.

A.3.1 Biodiversity Given that the DMWMS does not take into account or provide guidance on the location of waste management activities, the local biodiversity impacts are outside the control of the DMWMS and will be dealt with in the SEA for the Waste Development Framework (WDF), which is location specific. Therefore baseline information relating to biodiversity, flora and fauna have not been collected in any detail. It is, however, useful for contextual purposes to provide a brief summary of key points.

Doncaster’s landscape is made up of a mosaic of habitats, which reflect the Borough’s diverse geological, environmental and cultural heritage. The region contains 20 different landscape character areas, 15 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and four Local Nature Reserves.12 The Council will promote the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and seek to maintain local variations in the landscape. Wherever possible, woodlands, grasslands, wetlands, and other habitats of landscape importance, together with valuable existing landscape features such as hedgerows and trees, copses, ponds, watercourses historical sites, estate features, enclosure landscapes, stone walls and other built heritage features will be protected and enhanced. The Doncaster Biodiversity Action Partnership is committed to protecting Doncaster's variety of wildlife for future generations and a Biodiversity Action Plan has been produced in order to achieve this.13

Development likely to have an adverse effect either directly or indirectly on the conservation value of a SSSI, Local Nature Reserve or non-statutory reserve will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation

12 Local Nature Reserves – Hatchell Wood, Northcliffe Quarry, Sandall Beat Wood and Old Denaby Wetlands. SSSIs – Ashfield Brick Pits, Bilham Sand Pit, Cadeby Quarry, Denaby Ings Marshes, Edlington Brickpit, Hatfield Moors, Owston Hay Meadows, Potteric Carr, River Idle Washlands, Sandall Beat Wood, Shirley Pool, Sprotbrough Gorge, Thorne Moors and Wenr Ings Hay Meadows.

13 Doncaster Local Biodiversity Action Plan, January 2007

value of the site. The amenity value of such sites to the local community will be taken into account when considering development proposals affecting them.

Whilst the local impacts of the DMWMS cannot be determined, waste management and recycling resulting from the strategy do have implications for global biodiversity through impacts on resource use and mining. This does not mean though that it is realistic to expect to evaluate the direct impact of strategy options upon global biodiversity as measured by, for instance, species extinction rates. However, the tonnage of material that is recycled through the strategy will be used as a proxy indicator of the biodiversity impacts of each option.

A.3.2 Population and Households The number of residents living within an area and the average household size are key factors influencing waste generation. The Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster is the largest metropolitan borough in England, covering an area of around 57,000 hectares.

A.3.2.1 Population

The 2001 census revealed that the total population of Doncaster was 286,866. Contrary to Regional and National trends, Doncaster experienced a fall in population of 1.6% (1991-2001). Recent projections suggest that the population of Doncaster is expected to grow by 3.7% by 2030, reaching approximately 300,437.14 This is less than the rate expected for the Yorkshire and The Humber region as a whole (8.9%) and the lowest in the sub-region of South Yorkshire.15

The population density (people per hectare) was 5.05 according to the 2001 Census. As would be expected, the majority of the population (84%) lives in urban areas.

A.3.2.2 Households

The number of households in Great Britain was estimated to be 24.1 million in 2001, up from 22.4 million in 1991, and is projected to rise to 26.2 million by 2011.

In 2001 there were around 118,699 households in Doncaster with an average occupancy of 2.42 persons per household. By 2005 this average occupancy had fallen to 2.19, mainly due to family breakdown and children leaving home.16 It is anticipated that occupancy per household will continue to fall in Doncaster, reflecting the national trend. Housing density is slightly above the national average for urban

14 Yorkshire Futures/University of Leeds (2006) Yorkshire and Humber Population Projections: Age and Ethnicity, 2006.

15 The Yorkshire and The Humber region includes North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Humber, whilst the South Yorkshire sub-region comprises the districts of Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield and Doncaster

16 DMBC (2005). Doncaster – A Great Place to Live, Draft Housing Strategy 2005.

19


areas, at 33 properties per hectare, but well below the government limit of 50-60 properties per hectare.

While the DMWMS will not impact on population, household numbers or size, such factors will impact upon the strategy, with waste arisings being related to population, household numbers and household size. Smaller households produce more waste per occupant than larger households, therefore representing a further pressure on waste management infrastructure.

Future housing projections for Doncaster are for 1,230 (net) new households per year through to 2021; these form an important basis for the projections of the amount of waste that will need to be managed in the future. The totals for recent and selected future years are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Number of Households in Doncaster 2004/5 to 2020/21

Source: DMBC Planning Department

A.3.3 Human Health Although emissions to air from waste management facilities are known to have an impact on human health, there is a lack of consensus with regard to the significance of these impacts. A lengthy study commissioned by Defra suggested that the health effects from waste management facilities were relatively trivial.17 However all facilities emit some pollution, although emissions are being controlled to an increasing extent through improved abatement techniques.

While national data on health exists in abundance, it is difficult to pick out the pieces of information that are directly relevant to the waste industry. Furthermore, the indicators relating to health tend to be headline figures (e.g. death rate due to heart disease) and the marginal impact of waste management activities on this is difficult to determine.

17 Enviros, University of Birmingham, RPA Ltd, Open University, Thurgood M (2004) Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes, Final Report to Defra, March 2004

Year Total households (current and projected)

2004/5 127,706

2005/6 128,381

2006/7 129,142

2007/8 130,372

2010/11 134,062

2015/16 140,212

2020/21 146,362

These facts notwithstanding, the following data on health in Doncaster has been collated:

In 2001, 22.93% of the population of Doncaster had a limiting long-term illness (Yorkshire and The Humber average 19.48%, which is slightly above the national average of 17.93%).

11.96% of the Doncaster population in 2001 described their health as ‘not good’. This compares with the regional and national average of 10.29% and 9.03% respectively.18 By extension, Doncaster residents experience shorter life expectancy than the regional and national average;

7% of the Doncaster population are reported to suffer from asthma.19

Poor air quality is known to exacerbate respiratory problems such as asthma and waste collection vehicles represent a potential source of local pollution through vehicle exhaust emissions. It is considered unlikely that emissions will vary significantly between any of the different collection systems likely to be implemented in Doncaster.20

Human health is not likely to be impacted by the implementation of the Strategy.

A.3.4 Flora and Fauna These criteria, and therefore baseline information relating to them, are not relevant to the DMWMS which, as previously mentioned, is not location specific. Impacts upon Fauna and Flora in the context of biodiversity will be considered at a global scale as described above.

A.3.5 Soil No national soil indicators have been developed and the impact of the DMWMS on soils will be very minor. At the local level, drainage improvements dating from Roman times and large scale deposition of alluvium on the soils has produced some of the best arable land in Britain.

Thorne and Hatfield Peat Moorlands are located on the eastern boundary of the borough. These extensive areas of lowland peat represent the largest reserves in Britain and have been subject to industrial extraction in recent years, largely to supply the horticultural trade. This activity has now largely ceased and remaining extraction of peat has been subject to an agreement between the producers and Natural England, who aim to manage the remaining reserves in order to conserve the valuable habitat which has developed on the peat. Increased production of compost from household waste, either at a commercial level or household level (through the

18 2001 Census.

19 Doncaster Public Health Intelligence Unit (2007) Quality Management and Analysis System, 2007

20 Air quality is discussed in more detail in Section A.3.7

21


promotion of home composting), may have an impact on remaining peat extraction levels.

A.3.6 Water Since the DMWMS does not define the location of waste treatment and disposal options, quantitative assessment of the impacts upon water quality in specific water channels is impossible, being almost entirely dependent on the location and design of facilities chosen. The baseline data available for water quality within Doncaster is, therefore, not relevant to the DMWMS and have not been considered herein.

Water use is, however, an important factor when considering waste treatment technologies and as such it is important to look at water resources in the area. In Doncaster the main rivers are the Don, Went, Thorne and Idle.

In terms of future evolution of water use without the DMWMS, the implications of climate change (together with increases in population and household numbers) are likely to increase demand for water across the region. Regional forecasts show that total water demand is projected to rise by about 1 percent from 2005 to 2030 (from 1,335 to 1,350 megalitres per day), with the decline in non-household demand offset by growth in household water use. Water available for use over this period will be 1,430 megalitres per day, meaning that water supply in the region is relatively secure.21 Daily domestic water use in Doncaster for 2004 was 147 litres per capita.22

As water use is increasingly on the agenda, the extent to which this increase in demand materialises will depend upon policies implemented to manage demand both within and between regions.

A.3.7 Air Quality Figure 2 shows the national picture for air quality, showing the number of days when pollution was ‘moderate’ or ‘higher’ since 1990. While the picture shows high pollution levels in 2003, this does not reflect the underlying data trend, since the unusually hot summer is likely to have skewed the results. As reported in the Quality of Life Counts report, urban air quality has generally improved since 1993, while rural air pollution has shown no overall trend.

21 Yorkshire Water Resource plan http://www.yorkshirewater.com/resources/files/199_water%20resource%20plan%2005.pdf

22 Audit Commission area profiles http://www.areaprofiles.auditcommission.gov.uk/(wqzntt3yqdqb3xmvfg4bhu45)/DataProfile.aspx?entity=0

Figure 2: Number of Days When Air Pollution was Moderate or Higher, 1990-2005

National emissions of air pollutants are shown in Figure 3. They show that between 1990 and 2004 emissions of air pollutants were reduced: ammonia (NH3) by 12%, nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 45%, particulates (PM10) by 48% and sulphur dioxide (SO2) by 77%.

The transport of waste (mostly by road) will have an impact on local air quality. Figure 4 shows that nationally, CO2 emissions from all road transport rose roughly in line with economic growth (GDP) until 1993, but then grew more slowly, and between 1990 and 2004 increased by 10 per cent, compared with GDP growth of 41 per cent. Emissions in 2004 were virtually unchanged from those in 1999. (Supporting indicators overleaf show the emissions from private cars and heavy goods vehicles included in the total above). By 2004 emissions of both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM10) were respectively 54 per cent and 41 per cent lower than in 1990.23

23 ibid.

23


Figure 3: National Air Emissions and GDP, 1990-2004

Figure 4: Road Transport Emissions and GDP, 1990-2004

200424.

Between 1990 and 2004 CO2 emissions from private cars increased by 8.5%. Over the same period road traffic volume (measured as total car-kilometres travelled) increased by 18.5%. Road traffic volume increased in line with household spending (household final consumption expenditure) until the mid-1990s but this relationship has since weakened. These figures are shown in Figure 5.

24 ibid.

Figure 5: Car CO2 Emissions, Car Kilometres and Household Spending, 1990-2004

The concept of Local Air Quality Management was introduced in Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. Under section 82 of this Act, local authorities are required to review air quality and assess whether the air quality standards and objectives are being achieved.

As a result an Air Quality Review and Assessment was completed for Doncaster in 2001. The assessment considered that the local air quality was good in most of the Borough. It concluded that levels of six out of the seven pollutants specified by the Government were well below the levels specified within the air quality objectives and would continue to be so by their respective target dates (ranging from 2003 to 2010).25

Levels of the remaining pollutant – NO2 – may continue to exceed the limits specified in the air quality objectives specified by the Government. The main source of NO2 emissions is from road traffic exhausts. The annual objective is likely to be exceeded in areas with heavy traffic - broadly, the area of Doncaster around the Frenchgate Centre to Holmes Market, Carr House Road between the Racecourse roundabout and the Trafford Way roundabout, along the length of the A630 from Balby Bridge to the A630/A1 interchange and the Hatchell Wood area of Cantley, adjacent to the M18. These four areas have been declared to be Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

As a result of declaring these AQMAs, the council has a statutory duty to develop an action plan of measures aimed at reducing pollution in order to meet the

25 Seven pollutants are: Carbon Monoxide, Benzene, 1, 3 Butadiene, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide and Particulate Matter.

25


Government’s air quality objectives.26 A 2006 Updating and Screening Assessment concluded that there is no need to progress to a detailed assessment for all seven pollutants. There are, however, still reasons to maintain the four AQMAs for further monitoring.

Figure 6 shows the Objectives included in the Air Quality Regulations 2000 and (Amendment) Regulations 2002, with corresponding Doncaster concentrations and year data measured.

Figure 6: Air Quality Objectives and Doncaster Targets

Pollutant Concentration Limit

Averaging Period Date to be achieved

Doncaster Concentration

Benzene 16.25µg/m3

5µg/m3

Running annual mean

Annual

31/12/2003

31/12/2010

0.04-1.07µg/m3 (2010 projection)

1,3 Butadiene

2.25µg/m3 Running annual mean

31/12/2003 0.09µg/m3 (2004)

Carbon Monoxide

10mg/m3 Maximum daily running 8 hour mean

31/12/2003 2mg/m3 (2005)

Lead 0.5µg/m3

0.25µg/m3

Annual mean

Annual mean

31/12/2004

31/12/2008

No AQMAs declared for lead

Nitrogen Dioxide

200µg/m3

40µg/m3

1 hour mean

Annual mean

31/12/2005

31/12/2005

28-54µg/m3 (2005)27

25.2-47µg/m3 (2010 projection)

PM10 (Particles)

50µg/m3 (max. 35 exceedances per year)

40µg/m3

24 hour mean -

Annual mean

31/12/2004 -

31/12/2004

24.6-31.7µg/m3 (2005)

Sulphur 350µg/m3 1 hour mean 31/12/2004 30-53µg/m3

26 Doncaster MBC Air Quality Action Plan http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/aqactionfin1_tcm2-31441.pdf

27 Whilst the monitoring of Quality Bus Corridors produced some results over the 40µg/m3 concentration threshold, no relevant exposure locations in the above monitoring exceeded the annual objective.

Pollutant Concentration Limit

Averaging Period Date to be achieved

Doncaster Concentration

Dioxide (max. 24 exceedances /yr)

125µg/m3 (max. 3 exceedances /yr)

266µg/m3 (max. 35 exceedances /yr)

24 hour mean

15 minute mean

31/12/2004

31/12/2005

(2005)

19-27µg/m3 (2005)

40-106µg/m3 (2005)

Source: Doncaster MBC (2005) Air Quality Review & Assessment, Updating and Screening Assessment, 2005.

It is important to note the potential impact of the age of the vehicle stock on Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions. Table 2 shows how these have been reduced through successive improvements in vehicle engines and abatement techniques. The move from EURO1 to EURO5 standards has led to emissions for trucks (including waste collection vehicles) reducing to around a quarter of what they once were.

Table 2: Effect of Improved Vehicle Standards on NOx Emissions for a Truck

Standard NOx emissions (g per 1000 t per km)

EURO1 1,205

EURO2 1,048

EURO3 721

EURO4 577

EURO5 341

A.3.8 Climate Change At the global level, successive reports from the IPCC indicate increasing levels of certainty regarding the link between changing climate and emissions of Green House Gases. Past emissions effectively commit the globe to further change in climate because some GHGs reside in the atmosphere (and thus have an effect) for many years. Consequently, reductions in GHG emissions are considered necessary to prevent further climate change in future years beyond what the globe is, effectively, already committed to.

27


At a national scale the emissions of the ‘basket’ of 6 GHGs are estimated to have fallen by 14.5% between the base year and 2005.28 These figures are shown graphically in Figure 7.29 Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, were provisionally estimated at some 153 million tonnes (carbon equivalent), about 5.5% lower than in 1990. Emissions increased slightly by about 0.3% between 2004 and 2005, due to an increase in energy consumption combined with increased use of coal in electricity generation.

End user emissions include emissions from electricity generation and fuel processing reassigned to consumers. By 2004 industrial sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were 18 per cent below 1990 levels (49 per cent less than in 1970). Domestic sector emissions were 2 per cent lower than in 1990 (22 per cent less than in 1970), and rose by 8 per cent between 1999 and 2004. In 2004 transport emissions were 13 per cent higher than in 1990 (more than doubling since 1970). However in recent years the growth in emissions has slowed.30

Figure 7: National Kyoto Target & CO2 Emissions - 1990–2012

Source: National Sustainable Development Indicators, 2006 update. http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/progress/national/index.htm

28 The base year is 1990 for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and 1995 for fluorinated compounds.

29 Defra and National Statistics (2004) Quality of Life Counts, 2004 Update

30 National Sustainable Development Indicators, 2006 update. http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/progress/national/index.htm

The Regional Economic Strategy has a headline target that challenges the region to, “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) by 20–25% over the 1990 baseline.”31

In 1990, the Yorkshire and The Humber region produced 87.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions. This was 11.9% of all UK GHG emissions. By 2004, the region’s GHG emissions had gone up to 88.9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, after a reduction of 1.9% between 1990 and 2000. As a net exporter of electricity, in 2004, power generation accounted for 62% of emissions in the region compared to a UK average of 40%.

Road transport has also increased emissions in the region from 8.83 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 10.34 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2004 – an increase of 17.1%

If the region is to achieve its target of a 20–25% reduction in GHG emissions on the 1990 baseline, it will need to cut emissions down to between 65.87-70.26 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2015.32 Current regional strategies are a long way off both stabilising consumption related emissions and achieving a 20% reduction in consumption related emissions by 2015. In fact consumption related emissions are projected to almost double between 2003 and 2021.33

In Doncaster the total CO2 emissions per capita in 2003 were 10.1 tonnes (just below the national average), while domestic CO2 emissions per capita were 3 tonnes (in the national upper quartile).34

A.3.9 Material Assets Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC) provides kerbside collections of dry recyclables, garden and residual wastes, six Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and a network of bring sites for recyclable materials. The council also collects commercial waste from local businesses by arrangement, provides a street sweeping and litter service, collects bulky wastes from domestic residents for a set charge, provides a street gully cleaning service and offers ad-hoc use of skips in residential areas. An additional free bulky collection service is provided for any items which can be reused.

31 Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, Regional Economic Strategy, 2006-2015.

32 Yorkshire Forward / Cambridge Econometrics (2006) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Monitoring Study, March 2006.

33 Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (2007) Evaluating the Contribution that Key Regional Strategies Make Towards Addressing Climate Change, 2007.

34 Audit Commission area profiles http://www.areaprofiles.auditcommission.gov.uk/(wqzntt3yqdqb3xmvfg4bhu45)/DataProfile.aspx?entity=0

29


A.3.9.1 Kerbside Collection Services

A system for collecting dry recyclables on a weekly basis in a green box was introduced between April 2002 and 2005 by three community waste partnerships: Doncaster Community Recycling Partnership (DCRP), North Doncaster Kerbside Recycling (NDKR) and Community West Recycling Partnership (CWRP). In 2007/8 NDKR and CWRP were replaced by Dawn Environmental; a joint venture between CWRP and ECT Recycling and additional containers were provided to households (a blue bag for paper and clear bag for plastic bottles).

Overall, kerbside collection services have undergone significant change over recent years with the trial and subsequent roll-out of services as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Nature and Coverage of Collection Services (2000/1-2006/7)

Scheme 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8

DCRP 12,000 25,000 60,000 60,000

NDKR 28,000

CWRP 38,000 68,000*

All Dry recyclables 12,000 25,000 91,000 126,000 128,000

Garden Allowed in residual bin. sacks available to buy (landfilled)

12,000

Fortnightly 100,700 100,700

Residual Weekly wheeled bin all households 127,000**

3,000***

HWRC Height restrictions in place Additional 'no walk-in' policy

Pedestrian access permit system

Notes:

All figures represent rounded up number of households served at the end of the year

* Now joint venture between CWRP and ECT recycling; Dawn Environmental ** Fortnightly collections alternating with garden waste *** Flats on communal bins remain on weekly collections

All of the dry recycling systems collect metal cans and tins, paper, pamphlets, newspapers and magazines, glass bottles and jars, inkjet cartridges, mobile phones and all textiles including shoes. Plastic bottles were not initially included in the collections but this was progressively introduced and now covers all households served.

A trial green waste collection service collecting garden waste and thin card using wheeled bins was introduced in April 2004 for 12,000 households on a fortnightly basis. This was provided in addition to existing weekly residual waste collections. Further roll-out of green collections was started in 2006/7 combined with a move to fortnightly collections of residual waste – provided on an Alternating Weekly

Collections (AWC) basis. This combined roll-out was completed at the end on April 2007.

A.3.10 Cultural Heritage Doncaster has a diverse cultural heritage with 790 listed buildings (of which around 10% are believed to be at risk), 50 scheduled monuments, 3 registered parks and gardens and 46 conservation areas. In addition there are 2356 archaeological sites recorded.35

The ER will seek to identify the relative impacts upon the built environment of acidifying air borne pollutants emitted by the various waste treatment plants that are considered as options. The assessment of impacts will not present impacts upon specific buildings, but will present a general indication of the level of impact upon buildings in Doncaster.

A.3.11 Landscape The selection of treatment technologies could have significant impacts upon the Doncaster landscape. The nature of these will depend on the location, scale, type and design of the facility. In all cases, care will need to be taken to ensure that development respects and, where possible, enhances the landscape character. Specification of facility design is outside the scope of the DMWMS and this will need to be considered at the time of procurement. Consideration of the location specific impacts of waste treatment and disposal facilities is a matter for the Waste Development Framework.

A.3.12 Geology Doncaster has an interesting geology, providing the majority of aggregates for South Yorkshire. As a result of this extraction there is significant landfill capacity which also means Doncaster receives waste from other authorities for this purpose. The geological map shown in Figure 9 shows the prevalence of sand and gravel within the administrative boundary.

35 South Yorkshire Archaeology Service

31


Figure 9: Geological Map of Doncaster

A.3.13 Energy Energy consumption billed to the end-user in Yorkshire has risen from 98,000 GWh in 2003 to 100,900 GWh in 2004 (2.9%).36 Of this, renewable energy currently contributes only 0.3% to the region’s energy generation capacity, with the vast majority coming from gas and coal.

In Doncaster the average domestic consumption of gas in 2005 was 19,481 kWh, down from 19,779 kWh in 2004. Meanwhile industrial and commercial consumption of gas in 2005 was 832,704 kWh, up from 798,333 kWh in 2004.

The average domestic consumption of electricity in 2005 was 4,048 kWh (very similar to 4,023 kWh in 2004), while average industrial and commercial consumption was 112,767 kWh (up from 105,813 kWh in 2004).37

It is anticipated that energy consumption in the region will continue to rise in the medium term.

A.3.14 Access to Services In a 2001-02 survey, reported in the quality of life counts report, more households without a car reported access difficulties to amenities than those who had a car. Within Doncaster in 2001, 30.7% of households were without access to a car or van.38

A.3.15 Employment and Economy The number of businesses in Doncaster has grown by nearly 12% between 1995 and 2005, which exceeds regional rates (8%), but is lower than the England increase of just over 14%. In Doncaster business density is 25.0 businesses per 1,000 of the adult population, significantly below levels for both the surrounding region and England (of 33.2 and 39.5 per 1,000, respectively).39

South Yorkshire is making the transition to a more competitive economy and the industrial structure is shifting from manufacturing to the service sector. In 2004, there were nearly 111,000 jobs in Doncaster, an increase of 10% since 2000. This strong growth was in contrast to the more modest growth of 4% between 1996 and 2000, and is indicative of an increasing momentum. That said there is a higher proportion of people who are economically inactive in Doncaster (38%) compared to the average for the region (35%) and England (33%). Employment trends are difficult to gauge as they are dependant to a large extent on national and international economic trends and policies. However, economic forecasts indicate that Doncaster

36 Progress in the Region 2006, Yorkshire Futures

37 Regional Energy Consumption Statistics, dti. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statistics/regional/index.html

38 Office of National Statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7239

39 Strategic Economic Assessment, South Yorkshire Summary, Doncaster: Emerging Policy Priority Areas, 2006.


will experience a 3.9% increase in employment to 2016, representing 5,200 new jobs, although only 1,500 of these are expected to provide full-time work.40

Doncaster’s employment base is characterised by a high proportion of employment in the distribution and retail, transport and public sectors. As such it is a service sector economy, although it has a small proportion of service employment in higher skilled and higher paid employment. This trend is not expected to be significantly influenced by the presence or otherwise of the DMWMS. Figure 10 shows the employment split in Doncaster from October 2006 - September 2007.

Figure 10: Employment by Occupation October 2006 - September 2007

Doncaster

(%)

Yorkshire and The Humber

(%)

GB

(%)

1 Managers and senior officials 10.1 13.3 15.3

2 Professional occupations 8.4 11.2 13.1

3 Associate professional & technical 11.9 12.6 14.3

4 Administrative & secretarial 8.9 11.6 11.8

5 Skilled trades occupations 11.6 11.7 10.9

6 Personal service occupations 9.7 8.3 8

7 Sales and customer service occupations 11 8.8 7.6

8 Process plant & machine operatives 14.2 9 7.2

9 Elementary occupations 14.1 13.1 11.5

Source: ONS Annual Population Survey

A.3.16 Consumption Nationally, the GDP grew by 43% in real terms between 1990 and 2005. In contrast Domestic Material Consumption was 10 per cent lower in 2004 than in 1990 having remained relatively stable since 1993.41 Whilst this shows that the economy has grown without an associated increase in resources, the UK is still consuming the

40 Ibid.

41 Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) is the total mass of materials directly consumed by the economy (it excludes waste from manufacture of imported goods).

same amount of the world’s resources every year as it did in 1993. This is shown in Figure 11.42

Although consumption seems to have been de-coupled from economic growth, analysis of the ecological footprint at the national, regional and local level indicates that the land area is not enough to sustain local consumption patterns. The world average Ecological Footprint is 2.2 global hectares per person. In contrast, dividing the total biologically productive surface area of the planet by the current population gives us our budget for sustainable living: 1.8 hectares per person.

Doncaster has a footprint of 5.19 global hectares per person, compared to the regional average of 5.3 and national average of 5.5. With a global average of 2.2 hectares and the available capacity of 1.8 hectares, Doncaster is clearly still consuming more than its fair share of the world’s resources.43

Figure 11: Domestic Material Consumption & GDP, 1990 to 2005

A.3.17 Deprivation Deprivation is still a major issue within Doncaster and across the sub region. In 2004, over a quarter of Doncaster’s population (26%), equating to 73,300 people, were living in the most deprived 10% of wards as measured on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). This was not only higher than regional and national averages of 17% and 10% respectively, but the highest within South Yorkshire.44 The IMD measures deprivation against a range of indicators and Doncaster performs particularly poorly in relation to education, employment and crime.

42 Sustainable development indicators in your pocket 2006. Defra. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/progress/documents/sdiyp2006_a6.pdf

43 Stockholm Environmental Institute (2006) The Ecological Footprint of Doncaster, January 2006

44 ODPM, Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2004.


Issues of deprivation are relevant to waste management since there is evidence that the more deprived sector of the population can be more difficult to engage in recycling/reuse schemes.45

A.3.18 Education Educational attainment in Doncaster is below national and regional averages. In 2004/05 44.8% of 15 year old Doncaster pupils achieved five or more grades of A* to C at GCSE and equivalents (compared to 51.5% regionally and 56% nationally).46 This is further supported by the fact that 38.14% of Doncaster residents aged 16-74 have no formal qualifications (compared to 33.15% regionally and 28.85% nationally).47

Educational attainment is strongly linked to social status, and therefore deprivation. In 2002, 77% of children in year 11 in England and Wales with parents in higher professional occupations gained five or more A* to C grade GCSEs. This was more than double the proportion for children with parents in routine occupations (32%). Like attainment at school, participation in further or higher education is strongly influenced by people’s social and economic background.48

A.3.19 Transport Although some consideration is given to air pollution emissions from road transport above, the impacts of road transport are also economic and social (through impacts from congestion) and it is appropriate to also consider road transport separately from air pollution.

The national picture shows that the total road traffic volume has risen almost continuously since 1970. The traffic intensity (measured as the traffic volume per unit GDP) has, however, been decreasing since 1990, showing some decoupling of the link between road traffic and economic growth.

In terms of heavy goods vehicles, Figure 12 shows that whilst road freight has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, the number of kilometres travelled per unit of GDP has declined.49 This is due in part to a shift towards using bigger vehicles with larger payloads.

It is estimated that road traffic in the region grew by 20.7% between 1993 and 2002, the highest in the North and above the England average. Between 2001 and 2002 the growth was 2.8%.

45 GLA (2006) Household Waste Behaviour in London 2005, March 2006.

46 ONS http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=276792&c=doncaster&d=13&e=5&g=363688&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1

47 2001 Census

48 ONS http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1003

49 Defra and National Statistics (2004) Quality of Life Counts, 2004 Update

Yorkshire and The Humber saw a motor vehicle traffic increase from 39.2 billion vehicle km in 2001 to 40.6 billion vehicle km in 2003 – a 3.4% increase.50

Figure 12: Road Freight Trends and GDP

Source: Defra and National Statistics (2004) Quality of Life Counts, 2004 Update

50 Regional Transport Statistics, 2003.


A.4.0 Summary of Scoping Report Consultation Table 3 details how the sustainability objectives as provided in the Scoping Report have been amended in light of the consultation process undertaken from 23rd July to 3rd September 2008. It is considered that these changes will make the process more relevant and robust.

Table 3: Scoping Report Consultation Response

Consultee Summary of Response Outcome

Colin Holm

Advisor – Government and Planning

Natural England

Natural England welcomes this well written and succinct SEA Scoping report. In particular, we welcome the approach taken to reviewing relevant plan and programmes, which focuses on those plans and programmes which are relevant to the SEA.

We agree with the key sustainability issues facing Doncaster identified in section 4 of the report as well as the SEA Criteria presented.

We would, however suggest that, if the criteria questions include the question ‘will there be any impact on property (including historic buildings) arising from the emissions?’, the question ‘will there be any impact on ecosystems?’ should also be posed. Clearly a number of ecosystems are sensitive to acidification and eutrophication, as can be discerned from the APIS (www.apis.ac.uk) website, and while we accept that the non-spatial nature of this strategy cannot attribute impacts to individual sites, there will be scope to examine technologies for waste treatment in light of their capacity to generate the sort of pollutants that are likely to exhibit effects in a range of situations.

There may also be inherent differences in the capacity of a given technology to generate traffic impacts (e.g. a single large facility

In the Environmental Report, ‘Impact on local ecosystems’ will be added to the Local Emissions section. This additional criterion, however, cannot be weighted due to the fact that it was not mentioned as an important consideration in the Community Panel meetings.

Traffic impacts have been assessed in the Collections modelling under ‘Nuisance’, as this is a quantifiable criterion (i.e. number of vehicles required for each option). This, however, is not deemed relevant to residual treatment as it is an issue relating to location and so will be covered in the Planning Documents.

‘Litter’ is not a problem which is particularly related to waste reduction, reuse, collection or residual treatment and so it is difficult to apply to this assessment. There may be some issues in relation to landfill in terms of material being blown off on windy days. There are, however, often prevention or mitigation measures in place. This criterion has been included in the discussion but not quantified.

Light Pollution is not deemed relevant to reduction, reuse

Consultee Summary of Response Outcome

may generate more road movements than several smaller facilities that could be located in urban areas), which could in turn increase impacts on certain ecosystems (e.g. road verges).

We would also advise that the sub criteria for nuisance should include litter, which can be a nuisance and can also have impacts on wildlife, and light pollution, which may or may not be a problem with some technologies and could affect the tranquillity of an area.

or collection. There are possible issues relating to residual treatment facilities, these are, however, relevant to location and so will be covered in the Planning Documents.


A.5.0 Waste Prevention and Re-use Modelling This appendix describes in detail the modelling work undertaken by Eunomia on the waste prevention initiatives described in Section 6.0 of the main Environmental Report. The model used is described and assumptions used in all sections are identified. Each of the initiatives modelled is covered in a sub-section which describes:

the existing activity in this area (if any);

examples from elsewhere;

the exact nature of the initiative modelled;

assumptions used in considering the business case; and

key results from the modelling.

A.5.1 Description of the Model A spreadsheet based cost model was developed to examine the ‘business case’ for each initiative by calculating the expected impacts in terms of tonnage prevented and the likely costs and savings from each waste prevention initiative. The outputs were derived using the details outlined below.

Tonnes Prevented

This is derived by applying an estimate of the average kilograms per household/participant/event per year that are prevented from entering the municipal waste stream and multiplying this by the number of households expected to participate in the initiative. It is also possible to allow for the attraction of additional waste into the municipal waste stream by using negative values for the tonnes prevented.

The ‘source’ of the material prevented is specified in terms of the amount of:

kerbside refuse;

kerbside recycling;

kerbside composting;

HWRC residual;

HWRC recycling; and

HWRC composting.

An estimate of the proportions is made and this material subtracted from the applicable stream.

Waste prevention and re-use initiatives can also result in increased recycling/composting. The model allows for this through the use of negative values for the tonnes prevented via each of the above routes.

Avoided Costs

The method for calculating the avoided costs associated with the waste prevention methods is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Calculation of Avoided Costs Associated With Waste Prevention Options

Calculation Costs used

avoided tonnes from residual collection x marginal cost per tonne for residual

collection51 £10.50, based on a typical Doncaster cost of £42 per tonne

Plus

avoided tonnes from disposal x

cost per tonne for residual disposal (Landfill Tax deflated) weighted between that for collected waste (86%) and HWRC waste (14%) to which has been added £5 haulage

£51.87 in 2008/9 rising to £64.88 in 2010/11, and then £63.66 thereafter, due to landfill tax escalator

Plus

avoided tonnes from recycling collection x marginal cost per tonne for recycling

collection £29.50, based on typical Doncaster cost of £118 per tonne

Plus

avoided tonnes from composting collection x marginal cost per tonne for

composting collection £10.50, based on typical Doncaster cost of £42.00 per tonne

Plus

avoided tonnes from HWRC recycling x cost/income per tonne for

recyclables £50.00

Plus

avoided tonnes from composting treatment x

cost for composting treatment weighted between that for collected waste (83.6%) and HWRC waste (16.4%) to which has been added £5 haulage

£34.30 based on typical Doncaster cost of £33.46 plus multiplier for the HWRC haulage cost

Plus

LATS impacts (tonnes prevented & tonnes diverted to recycling)

x

estimated value of landfill allowances for each year. It is assumed that 68% of MSW and 26% of recyclates are biodegradeable in Doncaster

See Table 41

LATS was taken into account using the modelling process outlined in Appendix A.8.0.

51 Marginal costs per tonne represent the additional cost incurred of collecting each additional tonne of refuse or recycling. In reality costs will change in steps as points are reached where new vehicles and/or crew need to be added to collection rounds. The marginal costs are based on a conservative estimate of 25% of the average cost per tonne. Actual marginal costs are likely to be greater than this.


Total Costs

Total costs are calculated using the requirement for staff time (in days) and the materials required for each initiative. The model distinguishes between two different types of officer paid at different rates:

Officer Rate 1 £19,500; and

Officer Rate 2 £26,500.

Costs Net of Benefits

Costs were calculated for each year of the Strategy (2008/09 to 2025/26) by deducting the avoided costs of an initiative from the total costs of implementing it. A negative figure represents a cost saving and is shown in red. The total costs net of benefits for an initiative over the course of the Strategy are a sum of these figures. For the business case a net present value (NPV) for each initiative across this period was also calculated, based on a 3.5% rate of return.

A.5.2 Home Composting

A.5.2.1 Background

Biowaste (kitchen and garden wastes) currently account for approximately 43% of the residual waste collected from households in Doncaster. Some 35,500 tonnes of biowaste is estimated to be disposed of in the residual waste collected from households each year, in addition to around 3,800 tonnes of garden waste collected at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and approximately 19,600 tonnes of garden waste collected at the kerbside. This is equal to over 450 kg of organic waste per household per year, and accounts for the largest fraction of household waste generated in Doncaster. Effective action on this waste stream therefore has the potential to have the largest impact of any of the waste prevention initiatives.

Composting in Doncaster

Previous initiatives have distributed ‘Bokashi’ bins and low cost home composting bins to households in Doncaster. It is unclear how successful either of these has been as insufficient resources were available for follow-up or monitoring. The prevention initiative we have modelled here has two full time waste prevention officers allocated to it to ensure sustained attention to implementation and monitoring.

WRAP’s home composting scheme

Information from the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) on the costs and likely impacts of promoting home composting schemes has been incorporated into our modelling.52

Grass cycling

52 WRAP has undertaken an extensive programme working with local authorities with regards to home composting schemes

In addition to home composting, grass cycling should be encouraged. Grass cycling refers to grass cuttings being left in situ after mowing, allowing them to rot away naturally and return nutrients to the soil. For this to be successful the mowing needs to either be frequent (so that the cuttings are very short) or a ‘mulching’ mower needs to be used (so that the cuttings are cut up very finely). Mulching mowers are now more easily available in the UK.

A.5.2.2 Description

The approach to promoting home composting of kitchen and garden waste will encompass education and support, including the following:

education and promotion about:

• available options for responsible disposal of food and garden waste;

• use of garden waste collections for garden waste not suitable for non-home-composting;

• making home composting a part of householders’ daily routine and as a source of compost; and

• education about the benefits of grass cycling.

detailed advice and support for individual households on home composting.

Promotional materials will be provided to support the initiative and householders will have to commit to the initiative by purchasing compost bins (which will be available at a discount).

A.5.2.3 Key Data for Business Case

Participation

We assume that 35% of detached and semi-detached households will join the scheme over the first 15 years.

Prevention

Each bin is anticipated to prevent 140kg per household per year.53

Costs

Costs from WRAP are as follows:

Marketing, literature and support (inc telephone and 1 to 1 advice service): £5/bin;

Net cost of bin (after sales revenue): £2.50;

Delivery/distribution and storage: £11/bin;

Overall costs: £18.50/bin;

53 Householders who have never composted before are anticipated to divert 200kg/HH/year and existing composters will divert an extra 60kg/HH/year. Using anticipated ratio 50:50 of new to existing home composters the overall average diversion is 140kg/HH/year.


Assumed life of bin: 10 years;

Drop off rate of 5% per annum.

Two full time compost co-ordinators will be used until 2018, with a gradual (30 days per year) drop off thereafter.

A.5.2.4 Business Case Modelling Results

The results of the business case modelling are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Results of Business Case Modelling - Composting

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21

Waste Prevented (tonnes) 1,280 2,410 2,340

Additional Recycling & Composting (tonnes) -830 -1,570 -1,520

Total Costs (£) 116,600 65,000 42,400

Avoided costs (£) 70,800 132,000 127,400

Costs net of benefits (£) 45,800 -67,100 -85,000

NPV (£) -548,000

Officer days 444 444 384

A.5.3 No Side Waste Policy

A.5.3.1 Background

Side waste refers to material (often, but not exclusively in bags) placed next to the collection container when it is set out for collection. In Doncaster wheeled bin collections were provided to all households in 2006/07 in association with the introduction of alternating weekly collections for garden waste and residual waste. A ban on the placing of side waste, and a requirement that the lid of the bin be closed when presented for collection were introduced alongside the alternate weekly collection service. However neither has been enforced and side-waste bans and closed-lid policies are therefore not observed by households or collection crews. The problem is more prevalent in some neighbourhoods than others and causes a problem in that the incentive to use the weekly recycling collections and fortnightly garden waste collections is reduced if households are able to dispose of unlimited quantities of residual waste.

In 2008 DMBC undertook a three month project to monitor and enforce the ban in Hexthorpe, a neighbourhood where side waste was identified as a particular issue. The results from this project were used to extrapolate the possible results of a Doncaster-wide effort at enforcing both the side-waste ban and closed-lid policy.

A.5.3.2 Description

The initiative focuses on publicising and enforcing the existing side-waste bans and closed-lid policies currently in effect in Doncaster. Promotional materials and stickers

will be bought and one full-time waste prevention officer allocated to the project. Some senior officer time will be used in the first three years.

DMBC has recently established a small team of enforcement officers to undertake enforcement on a number of issues, including residents’ parking and dog fouling. Enforcement action on side waste will, in reality, be taken by this team. The staff time identified in the modelling provides an indication of the level of input that may be required to achieve the behavioural change desired and resulting reductions in waste and increases in recycling.


Participation

It is assumed that 100% of the Doncaster population is impacted by the project over the first three years (probably concentrating on individual neighbourhoods in a sequential way). The aim is to effect a change in the behaviour of households and collection crews, after which it is assumed that the new regime will continue successfully with a relatively low level of input from the authority.

Prevention

The number of bags of side waste at the beginning and end of the Hexthorpe project was estimated and an average weight of 6.3 kg per bag used to determine an impact of 63 kg per household per year. All neighbourhoods were given an index value representing the level (relative to Hexthorpe) of their side waste problems. This translated to a Doncaster-wide average of 34 kg per household per year.

Costs

For the first three years, the annual spending on promotional materials and stickers was assumed to be £4,000 per year. The largest cost in this project is personnel, as it is a labour intensive activity to monitor and enforce the ban. After the first three years, the costs decrease dramatically as very little officer time is used to maintain the enforcement and promotion activities.



Table 6: Results of Business Case Modelling – No Side Waste Policy

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21

Waste Prevented (tonnes) 900 1400 1480

Additional Recycling & Composting (tonnes) 1,800 2,820 2,970

Total Costs (£) Not annualised 24,000 1,900 1,900

Avoided costs (£) 97,500 147,900 127,700

Costs net of benefits (£) -73,400 -146,000 -125,800

NPV (£) -1,618,000



A.5.4 Zero Waste Challenge

A.5.4.1 Background

The Zero Waste Challenge is a week long event during which households are challenged to generate as little residual waste as possible. Residents are encouraged to only use items that can be re-used, recycled or composted. The aim is to demonstrate the potential to dramatically reduce household waste, and ultimately produce zero waste (although this is seen as an aspiration rather than a target). The challenge is a good way of raising the profile of waste prevention throughout the community and encouraging creative and resourceful thinking. Registered participants receive advice and support before and during the event, and are asked to briefly report on results at the end.

The scheme was run by Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) in 2006 and has been more widely adopted throughout the West of England, with BANES, North Somerset, Bristol and South Gloucestershire running a joint campaign in September 2008. Camden Council has Zero Waste Week planned for October 2008.

An outline of Bath and North East Somerset’s campaign strategy, the feedback from which informed the modelling for Doncaster, is outlined below:

Week 1: Produce information pack (including guidance, top tips and a recording sheet);

Week 2: Internal council brief / Produce poster;

Week 3: Publicity via internet, newsletters, stakeholders;

Week 5: Registration period;

Week 6: Press release ;

Week 7: Zero Waste Challenge;

Week 8: Follow up PR and return questionnaires;

Week 10: Collate questionnaires;

Week 12: Publicise results.

A.5.4.2 Description

The challenge is assumed to run for one week every year for five years. A reduced amount of officer support is due to continue for two years after the main campaign. This is aimed at sustaining participation rates but a drop off rate has modelled to account for the inevitable decrease.


Participation

It is assumed that one new household per 1,000 signs up to the scheme over the first five years of the scheme (giving a total of five households per 1,000). Throughout the initiative the model includes a compound reduction of cumulative participants by 5% per annum.

Prevention

Each household reduces their residual bin waste by 75% which equates to a saving of 465 kg/participant in Doncaster. The majority of this is recycled or composted.

Costs

£5 per participant has been modelled for marketing and literature which will include posters and the information pack.

Officer time is expected to be greatest in the first year where 12 weeks of a combination of senior and junior time has been modelled. This reduces to 8 weeks throughout the following 4 campaign years, and 3 weeks in the subsequent 2 years.



Table 7: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Zero Waste Challenge

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21


Additional Recycling & Composting (tonnes) 60 130 100

Total Costs (£) 5,100 3,800 0

Avoided Costs (£) 5,600 11,500 7,500

Costs net of benefits (£) -500 -7,700 -7,500

NPV (£) -72,000


A.5.5 Reuse Areas at HWRCs

A.5.5.1 Background

Reuse

A wide variety of items taken to HWRCs may be suitable for reuse rather than recycling or disposal. These can include furniture, electrical items, wood, household items and bicycles.

The key to effective reuse at HWRCs (as in most other situations) is to ensure that reusable items are identified quickly and stored safely so that they are not damaged by weather, contact with other wastes or movement of waste materials. To facilitate this, adequate levels of staffing, staff training, instructions for site users and adequate secure storage space on site are required.

Once identified and stored items may be:

given away (some sites operate an open reuse area);

sold on site;


sold off site (if the site operator has ownership of the goods they may operate a shop or car boot sales); or

exported.

Reuse at HWRCs in Doncaster

The HWRCs in Doncaster do not have any targets for the amount they are expected to reuse.

Amounts of reuse are likely to vary significantly between the different sites as a result of varying facilities for reuse, motivation and training of operators and the size of the sites.

The current DMBC management contracts include performance targets for recycling which are based on BVPI figures. Whilst recycling and composting activities count towards these performance targets reuse does not.

Examples from other areas:

Warwickshire County Council has donated a purpose built shop, rent-free on the new civic amenity site in Stratford upon Avon to the Shakespeare Hospice. The premises are integral to the site and provide all the facilities necessary for the shop, allowing for donations to be brought in by car and for any waste from the shop to be effectively disposed of. This innovative initiative is raising thousands of pounds in new income for the hospice for its work in the local community as well as maximising reuse and reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of in landfill.

A.5.5.2 Description

Space at the HWRCs in Doncaster is at a premium and use as a ‘sales area’ is not necessarily the most efficient use of the area. In addition the sales areas vary greatly in their level of organisation and attractiveness, in some cases detracting from the desire to maintain a clean and tidy site. New facilities to support the collection and storage of items for reuse (including secure shipping containers for storage of reusable items) will therefore be provided at the Balby and Armthorpe sites. Reuseable items will then be available for collection by ReFurnish, which already has the necessary infrastructure (such as vehicles, depot, workshop and sales outlets) in place to organise reuse.

This initiative and the targets connected with it would need to be incorporated into a variation of the HWRC contract.


Participation

Two of the six HWRCs will take part in the initiative, and so the model assumes that one third of the Doncaster households will have access to the reuse areas.

Prevention

Based on figures from elsewhere in the UK a reuse level of 3kg per household has been estimated. This is a conservative estimate and the model is very sensitive to the number of kilograms saved.

The reuse is assumed to displace disposal (90%) and recycling (10%).

Costs

Shipping containers cost £2,200 each (including signage). The cost of these will be met by the authority, not the contractor.

The arrangements will be negotiated with the HWRC contractor (a new contract has recently been put in place). An initial allowance of 20 days staff time has been allowed for this in year one, and four days per year for the remaining years are estimated to be required for monitoring and co-ordination.

It is assumed that ReFurnish is happy to collect the material and that it will be able to covering the cost of collection from the resale income.



Table 8: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Reuse Areas at HWRCs

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21


Additional Recycling & Composting (tonnes) -10 -10 -10

Total Costs (£) Not annualised 350 350 350

Avoided costs (£) 10,700 11,000 10,300


NPV (£) -129,000

Officer days 4 4 4

A.5.6 Bulky Collections for Reuse

A.5.6.1 Background

Waste Collection Authorities have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act to arrange for the collection of household items that will not fit into the normal collection container. A charge can be made for this waste collection service (but not for the cost of disposal).

Doncaster MBC has a well established approach to the reuse of furniture and other items collected through the Bulky Household Waste Service:

the list of items eligible for collection is limited to household items (DIY and garden waste, for instance, are not collected);

callers wishing to arrange a bulky collection are asked whether the items are reuseable;

non-reuseable items are charged at £23.50 (or £5.88 for households on benefit) which covers a collection of up to 8 items;


DMBC’s waste collection contractor (SITA) makes the non-reuseable collections and the material is taken to landfill;

reuseable items are collected free of charge;

collections of reuseable items are made by local furniture reuse organisation ReFurnish. ReFurnish take all the items to their depot where they assess them for their suitability for reuse, repair or recycling collections (recycling consists of principally the metal items and electrical equipment). Any items not considered reuseable are taken to landfill.

Detailed records are kept of the collections and in particular of the items reused so that the amounts involved can be reported. Reuse has not previously been part of the BVPI recycling calculation. However, under the National Indicators with which Authorities will be reporting their performance from 2008/09, reuse is included in the calculation.

Data from DMBC and ReFurnish indicate that in 2007/08 a total of 850 tonnes were collected through the bulky collections service; 70% (by weight) by ReFurnish and 30% by SITA. Of the items collected by ReFurnish, 67% (by weight) were reused or recycled. This resulted in an overall reuse/recycling rate of 47% which is considered to be very good performance.

It is likely that there are additional reuseable/recyclable items in the ‘non-reuseable’ collections made by SITA as a result of a combination of barriers to reuse:

for households with a mixture of reuseable and non-reuseable items requiring collection there is little incentive to identify items as reuseable:

• the collection fee is a flat rate and covers up to 8 items; and

• arranging for two separate collections may be more troublesome than only one.

some households are known to be reluctant to allow their items to be reused; and

identifying whether items are reuseable or not over the phone is not always easy.

Experience from other areas (see below) indicates that the most effective way to overcome these barriers is to adopt a ‘reuse first’ approach in which the collection is made by the reuse organisation – the people best able to judge whether the item is suitable for reuse in terms of condition, safety (fire safety certificates must be in place) and demand from their customers. This assessment can be made initially at the point of collection and then at their depot.


In Liverpool Bulky Bob’s was the name chosen for Liverpool City Council’s bulky household collection service when its operation was contracted to Merseyside charity FRC Group. The contract requires re-use/recycling rates of 30% or more to be achieved by the service and these are being achieved with re-use approximately 13% and recycling about 22% by weight of the total 3,000 tonnes collected. Similar services are now operated by FRC Group in other areas.

The Furniture Recycling Network (FRN) reports reuse rates of up to 45% where the furniture recycling organisation has a well equipped workshop and is able to carry out repairs to electrical items, wooden items and clean carpets. In addition recycling of non re-useable metal and wood from the collections can add a further 10% to give a total diversion rate of 55%.

A.5.6.2 Description

Given the high rates of reuse already being achieved it is likely that the most effective approach to further increasing the reuse and recycling of items from the bulky collections would be to engage ReFurnish to make all the collections – effectively allowing them (as the experts in what can be reused/recycled) to make the assessment at their depot.


Bulky collections in Doncaster total 850 tonnes per annum.

It is assumed that 70% of collections are made by ReFurnish and that a 67% reuse and recycling rate is achieved. It is anticipated that the remaining collections are made by SITA with no reuse or recycling achieved.

A conservative estimate by ReFurnish (made without access to the nature and condition of what is currently collected) is that they could achieve a 15% reuse and recycling rate from these collections. This represents an additional 29 kg per household per annum and would give an overall reuse and recycling rate of 51%.



Table 9: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Bulky Collections for Reuse

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21



Total Costs (£) Not annualised 500 500 500

Avoided costs (£) 2900 3,000 2,800


NPV (£) -31,000

Officer days 10 4 4


A.5.7 Reuse of Paint

A.5.7.1 Background

400 million litres of paint are sold in the UK each year to both trade and households. In addition, it is estimated that 56 million litres of paint are left unused in the UK each year.54 Much of this is stored and then thrown away – ending up in landfill. Where collected separately it is classed as hazardous material and so is costly to dispose of (whether to hazardous waste landfill, specialist incineration or by reprocessing).

Re-use of Paint in Doncaster

Paint is not separately collected in the HWRCs, and so it is likely that any paint discarded in Doncaster currently goes into landfill. The savings in this initiative are therefore those associated with avoided landfill costs, rather than avoided hazardous landfill costs.

The hidden environmental costs of having paint in non-hazardous landfills (not quantified in this approach to modelling) should be borne in mind when looking at the viability of this initiative. Any paint that is donated but found to be unusable will be disposed of in an appropriate way, so that it does not pollute the non-hazardous waste stream.

Examples from elsewhere

At a national scale, Resource Futures co-ordinate the Community Re>Paint schemes which operate in many parts of the country. These schemes collect unused paint, sort it, re-mix it and then redistribute it locally to social projects (e.g. youth clubs and community halls) and individuals who need paint but cannot afford it.

In 2006, the schemes collected 235,000 litres and redistributed 208,000 litres.55

The paint collections take a variety of forms depending upon the location and resource availability, but typically include one or more of the following:

dedicated drop-off points at DIY retail stores;

custom made, walk-in skips at civic amenity sites;

drop-off facilities at council or parish offices;

kerbside collection; and

direct delivery to the scheme's base.

The paint is then bulked, sorted and stored at one or a number of sites, where it is mixed and then redistributed.

54 http://www.communityrepaint.org.uk/

55 http://www.communityrepaint.org.uk/images/upload/File/Where%20are%20we%20at%20%20%20261007.ppt

In Leicestershire the repaint scheme in Blaby achieves an average of 0.09 litres of paint per household per year. A similar scheme in diverts an average of 0.1 litres per household per year.

Interest in Paint Reuse Amongst Furniture Reuse Organisations

Doncaster ReFurnish take paint which is often donated to them from manufacturers. However, they do not advertise the service amongst the general population as they do not have the space to keep the volume of paint required to satisfy demand. A “critical mass” of paints in a variety of colours is required to do this, which in turn requires dedicated space and manpower (even paint mixing equipment and skills).

A.5.7.2 Description

Paint containers are assumed to be set up at two HWRCs along with appropriate signage and promotion.


Participation

Since two of the six HWRCs will be set up for paint reuse it is assumed that one third of the Doncaster population will have easy access to a repaint scheme. Containers will be placed at these HWRCs for the storage and display of re-useable paint.

Prevention

The level of prevention achieved by other schemes (such as in Blaby) has been around 0.09 kg per household per year, so this is assumed to be the amount that will be prevented in Doncaster.

Costs

Promotion costs of £2,000 per year throughout the scheme will aim to raise awareness amongst the public.

50 days waste prevention oficer time will be required to implement the new arrangements in the first year, with 20 days per year assumed to be required therafter.

The HWRC staff will sort the paint and some staff will be required to market the collected product for reuse (or disposal for the unusable paint). The cost of this process has not been included in the model.

The containers will cost £6,500 for the two, including signage.




Table 10: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Reuse of Paint

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21



Total Costs (£) 3,800 3,800 3,800

Avoided costs (£) 300 300 320

Costs net of benefits (£) 3,400 3,400 3,400

NPV (£) 49,000


A.5.8 SMART Shopping

A.5.8.1 Background

SMART stands for Save Money And Reduce Trash. It is a suite of initiatives that individuals can undertake to prevent waste through their purchasing decisions.

Typical SMART shopping actions include:

avoiding excessively packaged goods where there is a choice;

using ‘bag for life’ or reusable cotton shopping bags;

making use of container refills and bulk buying where available;

repairing items instead of disposal and purchase of new items;

avoiding purchase of disposable items (e.g. cups, napkins, razors, etc);

purchasing long life products (e.g. light bulbs, quality appliances etc);

accessing information and music electronically;

giving experiences as presents rather than goods; and

renting or leasing rather than purchasing.

A.5.8.2 Description

SMART shopping as an initiative involves promoting these actions to householders through a variety of media. It often takes the form of a SMART shopping guide which provides advice of how and where to shop in the local area. This is usually available electronically via the council website and in hard copy from a variety of places including the library and council offices.

The scheme has been run by several authorities including London Borough of Barnet, Southwark Council, Suffolk County Council and Lewes District Council.


Participation

Low participation rates are expected for this initiative. The model assumes four in every 1,000 households undertakes the SMART shopping initiative. Throughout the initiative the model includes a compound reduction of cumulative participants by 5% per annum.

The initiative is assumed to run for 7 years.

Prevention

It is estimated that consumer items account for approximately 60% of household waste.56 Households in Doncaster produce an average of approximately 0.93 tonnes per annum (including recycling). This initiative would therefore target around 560 kg material. There have been no studies directly quantifying the potential reductions achievable through shopping based initiatives. The quantities of material that can be reduced will vary by household and will depend upon the nature of their current consumption habits, however an average 10% reduction in waste is considered achievable amongst households that engage in the scheme.57 Participating households could therefore be expected to reduce their waste by approximately 56 kg per year.

Costs

The modelling assumes that in the first year a total of £5,000 per annum will be spent on promoting green purchasing to residents over and above the £5,000 per annum budget which has been allocated throughout the rest of the initiative. In the first year the extra capital is expected to be spent on development of branding and resources including web-site set-up costs and promotional material. The £5,000 for the further years of the scheme will be spent on maintaining and updating these promotional resources.

Previous schemes have included a budget for provision of re-useable bags but it is felt that there are many re-usable bags available now and that this is an unnecessary extra cost.

In the first year 2 weeks senior officer time and 3 weeks of junior officer time have been budgeted for setting up the scheme. In the following years the senior officer time reduces to just one week whilst the junior officer time remains constant throughout.



56 Other waste streams making up the remaining 40% include garden waste, construction and demolition waste, & junk mail. See National Resource & Waste Forum (2004), Waste Prevention Toolkit. 57 National Resource & Waste Forum, ibid.


Table 11: Results of the Business Case Modelling – SMART Shopping

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21



Total Costs (£) 6,900 6,900 0

Avoided Costs (£) 4,500 14,000 9,900


NPV (£) -71,000


A.5.9 No Junk Mail

A.5.9.1 Background

Junk mail accounts for around 3-4% of household waste arisings, and is a visible waste stream that householders often consider a nuisance.58 Junk mail prevention schemes involve encouraging householders to

register for the Mailing Preference Service (MPS);

use the Post Office ‘Door to Door Opt Out’ Service;

avoid registering for mailing lists;

ask to be removed from mailing lists; and

display ‘no junk mail’ stickers.

Many local authorities have an advice page on their website which provides contact details for the MPS and offers advice on how to stop unwanted mail. Examples include Kerrier District Council, North Lincolnshire Council and Horsham District Council.

The total quantity of unwanted mail generated within households was estimated at 3.5% of household waste, which equates to 28 kg per household in Doncaster.

A.5.9.2 Description

The initiative being modelled for Doncaster involves a junior officer working in the community for at least three weeks every year in order to sign people up to the MPS and advise them on other ways to reduce junk mail. Although junk mail clearly annoys some people it is not necessarily a problem for which individuals will seek advice in order to solve. However it is felt that people would be keen to sign up if the MPS

58 Resource and Waste Forum (2006) Household Waste Prevention Toolkit: Part C Marketing Behaviour Change

service was offered directly, and for free, As such the initiative is considered to be an effective waste prevention method. The budget for the initiative will also cover creation of a page on Doncaster’s website in order to provide advice for people on how to reduce junk mail.

The initiative has been modelled until 2025/26.


Participation

The level of participation begins at 2% and decreases towards the end of the scheme to 1%. Feedback from DMBC shows that on average it is possible to get at least 50 completed MPS forms per day at events. An officer dedicated to completing these forms would be expected to complete more per day.

Prevention

The MPS is expected to reduce one third of unwanted mail through the post (which for Doncaster is estimated to be 8 kg per household (1% of household waste)). This equates to a reduction of 3 kg per household.

Using stickers to reduce unwanted junk mail / free newspapers is estimated to reduce the total amount of unwanted mail by 40%, which equates to a reduction of 12kg per household.

If adopting both measures the expected reduction in junk mail would be 15 kg / household.

Costs

20 days a week of junior officer time is allocated to this initiative, together with an annual promotional budget of £8,000.


Results of the business case modelling are shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Results of the Business Case Modelling – No Junk Mail

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21



Total Costs (£) 9,800 9,800 9,800

Avoided Costs (£) 6,800 17,200 23,900


NPV (£) -109,000



A.5.10 Council In-House Good Practice

A.5.10.1 Background

The status of waste from municipal buildings is always a difficult area. For the purpose of the LATS (and thus reporting through Waste Data Flow) MSW is defined as “all waste under the control of the local authorities be they waste disposal, waste collection or unitary authorities”.59 This implies that all waste from municipal buildings should be considered to be MSW, potentially including municipal run care homes, leisure centres as well as the more obvious council offices. In Eunomia’s experience the application of this tends to vary between authorities.

If residual waste is reported as MSW then it will be included in the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) landfilled for the calculation of the authority’s balance of landfill allowances. If recycled waste is reported as MSW then it will be included in the calculations of the total MSW, the diversion from landfill and, if biodegradable, credited as diversion of BMW.

At present the reporting system for waste from DMBC is not highly developed. We do however know that the council reports 460 tonnes of MSW per annum across all council offices and facilities. There is very little recycling taking place, and what is recycled is not being recorded (or reported as MSW).

In-house good practice focuses on promoting the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ message and setting up systems and equipment to enable this. This may include, for instance, an in-house recycling scheme alongside an intranet-based awareness campaign encouraging staff to reduce waste by, for example, using paper on both sides.


Northamptonshire County Council’s Slim Your Bin at Work provides an excellent example of what can be achieved by a concerted approach to recycling collections in an office environment.

Slim Your Bin at Work is an in-house recycling scheme originally set up by the waste management team approximately 6 years ago. It operates in the two main office buildings - County Hall and John Dryden House. It is now facilitated by Property Services. Each office has paper recycling boxes whilst recycling areas for plastic, cardboard, glass, ink cartridges, etc., are located in corridors. All other waste is collected by caretakers. In addition to the recycling initiatives staff are encouraged to reduce waste by using paper on both sides (including ensuring that all office printers are capable of doing this). All information required by staff is shown on the intranet.

In 2006 the recycling rate at John Dryden House and County Hall was 55.7% (51% in 2005). No data is available on the extent of waste prevention.

59 Defra (June 2006) Guidance on the Landfill Allowance Schemes: Municipal Waste

A.5.10.2 Description

The implementation of waste prevention within the council will be in three main stages:

Stage 1: Implementation in main council offices;

Stage 2: Implementation in all schools;

Stage 3: Implementation in all other municipal buildings.


Participation

The model assumes that the impact of the scheme is 33% from each of the above stages.

Prevention

The total waste from municipal buildings in Doncaster is 460 tonnes per annum and the current recycling is assumed to be 0%.

It is assumed that a recycling rate of 50% will be achieved for waste from council offices and that total waste production from council offices will be reduced by 5%.

The increases in recycling and prevention resulting from this initiative are assumed to displace disposal.

Costs

The model allows for capital costs £4,000, covering the cost of the bins, sacks, promotional material, etc.

A full time junior waste prevention officer has been modelled for three years. In the fourth year 40 days of officer time will allow for the hand-over of responsibility of the scheme from the waste prevention officer to the Property Services department at DMBC. In subsequent years four officer days have been modelled to allow for meetings, problem solving and collection of data.


Results of the business case modelling are shown Table 11.

Table 13: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Council In House Good Practice

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21



Total Costs (£) 19,400 400 400

Avoided Costs (£) 600 600 -200

Costs net of benefits (£) 18,800 -300 600

NPV (£) 59,000



A.5.11 Zero Waste at HWRCs

A.5.11.1 Background

A zero waste Household Waste Recycling Centre is one that does not have a container for residual waste, instead providing facilities for the separation of a wide range of different materials which will be reused, recycled or composted.

Examples from Other Areas

This type of arrangement is not uncommon in Europe - examples exist in Germany, Austria and Italy.

Both South Northamptonshire and East Northamptonshire district councils operate ‘recycling centres’ which collect materials for recycling and composting in larger containers and greater variety than at their conventional recycling points. These are some way from the extent of provision anticipated for zero waste HWRCs but provide an indication that this approach could work in the UK.


New signage and extra bins will be provided.

Contracts will be set up to recycle a number of materials not currently catered for, such as:

Mattresses - recycling is offered by Feat Enterprises in Scotland and the bed retailer Dreams in the West Midlands;

Polystyrene - this can be melted into small blocks or sent away for recycling;

Tetrapak cartons - this is an area of recycling that is becoming increasingly common.

It is assumed that ten days per year of prevention officer time will be required during the first two years of the initiative to help set up the new facilities and contracts, reducing to two days a year thereafter (for monitoring purposes).


Participation

Two of the six HWRCs in Doncaster will be set up for zero waste. Although the sites in Doncaster have different throughputs it has been assumed that one third of the total residual waste will be impacted, apart from in the first year, when the figure will be one sixth.

Doncaster has recently (during Summer 2008) let a new contract for the operation of HWRCs. It is therefore considered unlikely that a change this significant would be made until after the end of this contract (2015/16).

Prevention

The initiative will divert 85% of the residual waste at the two participating HWRCs – 80% to recycling and 5% to composting. It is assumed that the remaining material will be taken to other HWRCs where there will still be containers for residual waste.

No net prevention impact has been assumed.

Costs

The model allows for £40,000 start-up costs in 2015/16, for the provision of new containers, changes to site layouts and signage. It is assumed there will be ten days per year of prevention officer time in years one and two and thereafter two days a year.


Results of the business case are shown in Table 14.

Table 14: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Zero Waste at HWRCs

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21


Additional Recycling & Composting (tonnes) 0 1,900 3,700

Total Costs (£) not annualised 0 40,900 200

Avoided costs (£) 0 35,400 56,000

Costs net of benefits (£) 0 5,500 -55,800

NPV (£) -373,000

Officer days 0 50 2

A.5.12 Real Nappies

A.5.12.1 Background

The UK disposes of around three billion disposable nappies each year weighing approximately 600,000 tonnes in total.60 This represents between 2% and 3% of all household waste in the UK. The waste composition data for Doncaster, given by the MEL study, gives a 3.74% composition of disposable nappies in the residual waste, equating to 0.34 tonnes per nappy user. A baby is predicted to use 3,796 disposable nappies (an average of 4.5 per day) in the two and a half years in which it is wearing them.61 In comparison, a baby only needs around 20 to 30 modern washable nappies. In a one baby household, as much as 50% of the waste can be from disposable nappies.62


Parents may feel that using real nappies is too time consuming - particularly with regard to the amount of washing required – and that it requires too much effort. The

60 This equates to 8 million nappies per day

61 Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Re-useable Nappies in the UK. Environment Agency, 2005. Mixed scenario data.

62 Source: National Resource and Waste Forum (2004), Waste Prevention Toolkit


success of a real nappy initiative therefore often relies on provision of a local nappy laundry service. This makes using real nappies much more convenient and negates much of the additional effort. These services provide regular collections of soiled nappies from a special bin and provide clean nappies at the same time. The increased convenience is likely to attract additional families to choose real nappies and may also assist nurseries and hospitals in offering the service thereby greatly increasing participation rates.


Participation

Data shows that in 2007 the birth rate recorded by Doncaster Health Authority was 3,600. If each child is expected to spend 2.5 years in nappies, then this equates to approximately 9,000 children in nappies at any one time in Doncaster. Authority-wide there are therefore approximately 7% of households having a nappy user, or 0.069 nappy users per household.

Information from a Real Nappy Scheme run in Northants shows participation rates of 0.4% - this has been used in the Doncaster model. The model also shows participants staying in the scheme for 2.5 years only.

Prevention

Each real nappy is expected to save 280 kg waste per annum. This is based both on the Environment Agency life cycle assessment and primary research from Eunomia.

Costs

A key element of this initiative would be the establishment of the Authority-wide real nappy laundry service. This would involve the provision of capital support (i.e. through a grant) to enable a private organisation to set-up the laundry service. An initial £35,000 capital is invested at the beginning of the project in 2010/11 and a further £5,000 every five years until the initiative finishes in 2025/26.

The initiative has been designed to give either £25 cash back if £75 or more is spent on nappies, wraps, and liners (the spend threshold of £75 can be changed to reflect current prices of real nappy purchases), or £25 towards the fee for joining the nappy laundry service. Fees for joining nappy laundry services are usually in the order of £50 -£75, which includes a deposit on a bin, an initial supply of disposable nappy liners, and four reusable wraps.63

25 days of officer time have been allocated to 2009/10 which is the year before the initiative begins, following this 15 days officer time have been allocated per year for every year in which the initiative is run.


Results of the business case modeling are shown in Table 15.

63 For example, Nappy Ever After charge £53 and Natural Nappies charge £72.

Table 15: Results of the Business Case Modelling – Real Nappies

2010/11 2015/16 2020/21



Total Costs (£) 50,200 36,600 38,100

Avoided Costs (£) 12,800 32,800 30,700

Costs net of benefits (£) 37,400 3,800 7,500

NPV (£) 95,000



A.6.0 Waste Recycling & Composting Modelling Characteristics

A.6.1 Overview of the Model Eunomia’s proprietary waste collection cost model, Hermes, has been used to investigate the collection scenarios described in the Environmental Report. It is a sophisticated spreadsheet based tool that allows a wide range of variables to be accounted for, and which enables the optimisation of scenarios to accurately reflect local circumstances.

The recycling performance of each scenario is built up by specifying a range of performance parameters for each component of the system. Performance parameters include:

weight and volume of waste material generated;

waste composition;

the materials targeted by each collection service;

the number of households of each type (e.g. detached, semi-detached, terrace etc) that the service is available to;

the participation rate of those households; and

the recognition rate achieved from those households for the materials targeted.

Costs are built up automatically by the model using standard unit cost data extracted from a database. The model calculates the numbers of vehicles, containers, and crew required and multiplies these by their unit costs. Disposal costs and net cost/income from material sales are also included. Finally, the model adds overheads for management and administration, depot costs, and insurances and financing. Although capital cost requirements are listed in the model, to allow effective comparison between scenarios (which may have capital with different lifetimes) these are broken down into annual costs based on the amortised cost of capital using depreciation periods and interest rates entered by the user.

A.6.2 Model Detail Figure 13 presents a simplified schematic of how the Eunomia kerbside collection cost model operates. This representation of the model divides the modelling into 3 key phases:

1. Determining what material is to be collected through what systems;

2. Determining the types of physical systems that will be used to undertake the collection; and

3. Calculations and outputs.

A brief description of each of the modules in these three phases follows. Where the values used in the modelling are ubiquitous across all scenarios these are presented below.

Figure 13: Eunomia Collection Cost Model Schematic

A.6.3 Phase 1: Defining What to Collect

A.6.3.1 Base Data

In this module key data relating to the characteristics of the collection area to be modelled is entered. This includes:

the number of households to be collected from;

the types of households (e.g. terraced, semi detached etc) and number of households of each type; and

the total tonnages of material that will be handled by the collection system being modelled including:

• all collected residual material;

• the tonnages of material recycled and composted in the baseline system.

Base DataHouseholdsTonnages

Housing Types

CompositionRecycling & Residual

By household type

CoverageBy household type

System Scope5 Systems

Materials collectedby each system

System SpecsFrequency

ParticipationSetout

Recognition

DatabaseVehicles

Personnel CostsContainers

Commodity/Treatment/Disposal prices

Depot Costs calculated

Vehicle OptimisationSelect Vehicle

# vehicles calculated

Container Optimisation

Select container typeContainer fill rates

calculated

Overheads Insurance

ProfitAdmin etc

PayloadsCrew size

Pickup timeCapital cost

Fuel /Emissions

OutputsWhole scheme costs

Collection costsDisposal/treatment costsRecycling tonnages/ratesScenario comparisons

Cost/tonne, cost/hhVehicle #sCrew #s

Capex & OpexSavings from avoided disposal

Rejection RatesCompositionPass rates

MileageEmissions

Data by system/hh typeEtc

Calculations

What to collect How to collect it Results


A.6.3.2 Households and Total Waste Arisings

In order to differentiate between varied socio-economic groups and differences in waste generation behaviour, the households in the model are split into a number of distinct property types. The standard housing types from the Neighbourhood Statistics website have been utilised (detached/semi-detached/terraced/flats/caravans). Table 16 shows the proportions of each housing type that are assumed within our model. Each property type is assigned individual characteristics of waste generation and recycling performance.

Table 16: Housing Stock in Doncaster

Housing Type Proportion of Housing Stock

Detached 21.9%

Semi-detached 42.9%

Terraced 23.8%

Converted house flats 6.2%

Flats - purpose built blocks 1.2% (High Rise) 3.4% (Low Rise)

Caravans / mobile 0.6%

Source: Neighbourhood Statistics

Total number of households was set at 130,372 and total kerbside municipal waste arisings 120,992 tonnes per annum.

A.6.3.3 Waste Composition

The proportion of each type of material that is in the waste stream and that can potentially be separately collected for recycling or composting is crucial data, as it determines the ultimate potential performance of systems being modelled. This module allows tailored composition information for up to 20 different material streams to be entered. In addition adjustment can be made for variations in composition by household type – for example flats will produce negligible quantities of garden waste while detached households will produce above average quantities. Composition data is then used in this module to determine quantities of each material available from each type of household.

The waste composition was obtained through various data sources. A MEL compositional study provided the basis of the composition and this was then adjusted using actual tonnages obtained from Doncaster and data from other studies to give a realistic waste composition. The compositional assays are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Waste Composition Data used in Modelling

Modelled Composition

Doncaster

MEL Data Cambridge1 Lancashire Parfitt

Paper 26.1% 15.8% 27.1% 15.1% 17.4%

Card 5.3% 7.9% 6.3% 6.3% 5.3%

Glass 8.2% 9.3% 6.2% 6.3% 8.4%

Metals 6.4% 3.3% 3.0% 3.4% 6.3%

Plastics 8.8% 7.6% 10.8% 9.3% 8.8%

Garden waste 19.1% 24.2% 12.0% 26.5% 16.4%

Food waste 20.9% 19.2% 23.9% 23.0% 22.2%

Textiles/clothing 6.6%2 2.2% 2.4% 3.0% 3.2%

Combustible - 5.1% 3.2% - 0.6%

Non combustible - 3.3% 0.0% - 2.1%

Other - 0.9% 3.1% 7.3% 5.4%

Fines - 1.1% 1.2% - 3.7%

Notes:

1. Cambridgeshire data represents a single season sample. Parfitt relates to work for done for WRAP by Julian Parfitt during the Strategy Unit’s review of Waste Strategy 2000.

2. In our modelling, ‘textiles’ contains some combustible materials, such as nappies, thus this figure is likely to be higher than in other studies which separate out this material.

A.6.3.4 Coverage

The proportion of each type of household covered by each element of the collection system (e.g. dry recycling, garden waste, residual waste) is then specified. This module then calculates the number of households that need to be serviced by each element of the collection system. Within the baseline scenarios modelled for Doncaster flats were omitted from the recycling collection, although these were included in the Options appraised.

A.6.3.5 System Scope

Up to five different types of collection system (e.g. dry recycling, food waste, garden waste, residual waste etc) can be modelled simultaneously as an integrated system, with variations possible for each housing type (for example the dry recycling system for flats may collect different materials than for detached households), giving a total of 30 possible system combinations. In this module the type of material collected by each system combination is specified. This module then calculates the potential of each type of material that can be separately collected for recycling or composting.


A.6.3.6 System Specification

The proportion of material which is collected and made available for recycling (i.e. the rate of capture) is a factor of the rate of participation of households in a system, and the probability that participants recognise a particular recyclable material and place it into the recycling container.64

In this module the user specifies:

the frequency of each collection system;

the participation rate of households;

the set-out rate (the proportion of households putting out material for collection each collection day), and

the recognition rate for each type of material.

This defines how much material is required to be collected by each of the separate systems (and hence the performance in terms of recycling rates etc, of each of the systems).

Both the rate of participation and recognition will be influenced by a very large range of factors including people’s understanding and commitment to the environmental objectives behind the system, practicalities and space constraints within households as well as the relative convenience offered by the system. An example of the latter of these is the influence that one system has on the other systems offered along side it. To illustrate this, if there is a move from weekly to alternate weekly residual collections, the rates of participation and recognition within a weekly kitchen waste collections system are likely to increase as residents will act to avoid leaving food waste for more than a week. The assumed rates of participation, recognition and set-out have been developed by analysing how participants will respond when presented with each scenario. These are key calculations and the assumptions behind them are based on a set of rules based on the performance of known system configurations.

A baseline was modelled, as well as an intermediate baseline which encompassed the results of an extensive communications campaign. This was assumed to boost participation and capture.

The participation rates used are shown in Table 18 whilst the overall captures are presented in Table 19.

64 Defined as the proportion of households which set out material for collection in a particular system at least once in a 4 week period.

Table 18: Participation Rates per Household Covered by the Scheme Used in Modelling

Recycling Green waste (% households covered) Food waste

Baseline 2007/08 76% 61% -

Business As Usual 2010/11 76% 61% -

Intermediate Baseline 2010/11 80% 64% -

Option 1: 2010/11 78% 64% 71%

Option 2: 2010/11 78% 64% 71%

Option 3: 2010/11 78% 64% 71%

Option 4: 2010/11 78% 64% 71%

Option 5: 2010/11 78% 64% 71%

Option 6: 2010/12 78% 64% 71%

Table 19: Material Capture Rates Used in Modelling

Newspaper

& pamphlets

Plastic bottles

Glass bottles &

jars

Ferrous cans

Aluminium cans Card Kitchen

waste

Baseline 2007/08 40% 23% 74% 26% 23% 3% 0%

Business As Usual 2010/11 40% 23% 74% 26% 23% 3% 0%

Intermediate Baseline 2010/11 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 4% 0%

Option 1: 2010/11 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 21% 50%

Option 2: 2010/11 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 21% 50%

Option 3: 2010/11 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 21% 50%

Option 4: 2010/11 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 21% 50%

Option 5: 2010/11 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 21% 50%

Option 6: 2010/12 62% 43% 81% 29% 28% 21% 50%

The participation rates decrease from the intermediate baseline to the other Options due to the introduction of a recycling service to flats. It was assumed that flats would exhibit lower participation (due to logistical difficulties in providing convenient recycling services) and so the overall participation is ‘pulled down’ slightly.

Again, the intermediate baseline and the Options illustrate the increased capture rates modelled after a communications campaign. This increase in capture was


based on figures from a WRAP report65 , taking average figures for an urban Local Authority with a similar kerbside sort system. The capture rates were broadly similar to those found in the MEL study.

The capture rates were based on kg/household/annum, rather than a percentage figure, as there may be variations in the composition of the waste stream. The figures used and those from the WRAP report are outlined in Table 20.

Table 20: Capture Rates Assumed in Modelling and those from WRAP

Material Capture Rate from Baseline

(kg/hhld/annum)

Capture Rate used in Modelling after comms campaign (kg/hhld/annum)

Capture Rate from WRAP

(kg/hhld/annum)

Capture Rate from MEL

(kg/hhld/annum66)

Paper 70 106 106 96

Plastic bottles 7 12 12 10

Glass bottles/jars 57 57 50 64

Ferrous cans 10 11 10

Aluminium cans 2 3 2

11

A higher capture rate for glass was utilised as this was already high in the baseline. The capture for this stream was not increased further as it was assumed that communications campaigns would focus on other streams where capture is low.

A.6.4 Phase 2: Determining Collection Systems

A.6.4.1 Database

The database contains equipment specifications and cost and performance information, which is used in the model to calculate costs. Four key areas of information are contained in the model. These are discussed in the sub-sections that follow.

Vehicles

The database contains information on actual vehicles, their typical staffing configurations and their performance parameters including:

payloads,

capital costs,

65 http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Kerbside_collection_report_160608.af376138.5504.pdf

66 MEL capture figures were given in kg/hhld/week and so annual figures were obtained from this

fuel use,

emissions,

running costs (e.g. maintenance, Road User Charges, insurance etc) and

pickup times for each household.

This information is used in the ‘Vehicle Optimisation’ module to calculate the numbers of vehicles required and the cost of those vehicles. The capital cost of vehicles is converted to annualised costs based on a vehicle replacement period, and finance costs.

In the local authority modelling exercise the following values were used:

Interest on capital: 6.5%

Operational Vehicle life: 7 years

Maintenance: 10%

Insurance costs: 5%

Road Fund License (varies by vehicle size)

Personnel Costs

Personnel costs for each grade of operative including supervisors and management are based on standard salaries observed across the UK.

Containers

A database of container types is maintained with key performance data including capacity, lifespan/replacement rate, and capital cost. This data is based on manufacturer’s specifications and market prices for bulk purchasing. A summary of the containers used in the options modelled is given in Error! Reference source not found.. Figures in red indicate revenues obtained, rather than costs.

Table 21: Container Details

Bag/Bin specs Volume (Litres)

Cost /unit

Lifespan (years)

Annual cost/hhld

Replace-ment rate

240L wheelie 240 £16.00 10 £1.60 0.025%

10l caddy + 35l bin 20 £4.50 5.00 £0.90 2%

Initial supply of biobags (x50) 325 £0.05 1 £0.21 0%

55L kerbside box 55 £2.40 5 £0.48 2%

2 HDPE Bags (one for paper and another for plastic bottles) 95 £0.24 1 £0.24 25%

5 wheelie bins for flats with locked unit (one per 50 properties) 1,200 £350 10 £35.00 2.5%

Commodity/Treatment/Disposal prices


The costs or income from collection of each material type is contained in the database. Once the total quantity of each type of material separately collected is known this can be multiplied by the cost of processing that material (e.g. in the case of organic waste) or income from sale of that material (e.g. for dry recyclable commodities). The material revenues and charges used, with consideration given to transport to markets and projected trends in demand, are shown in Table 22.

Table 22: Material Revenues and Disposal Charges

Revenue / Charge

Paper £ 60.00

Card £ 50.00

Mixed Paper and Card £ 50.00

Plastic bottles £ 150.00

Textiles £ 200.00

Glass bottles/jars £ 20.00

Ferrous cans £ 200.00

Aluminium cans £ 800.00

Garden waste -£ 20.00

Kitchen waste -£ 50.00

Residual inc landfill tax 2006/07 -£ 66.47

A.6.4.2 Container Optimisation

The container optimisation module calculates the number of containers required and their costs based on coverage of the systems and lifespan or replacement rates (where households request lost or broken bins leading to additional cost). All bins are assumed purchased upfront by the authority and not financed over a number of years, but the cost is merely split across the lifespan of the container. This module also provides a check on container volumes and fill ratios to ensure that sufficient containment capacity is being provided to householders.

A.6.4.3 Vehicle Optimisation

This module is the heart of the collection cost model as it is here that the numbers of vehicles and crew required are calculated - typically the most significant elements of the total system cost. For the purposes of illustration Figure 14 below shows the basis of the how vehicle numbers are calculated.

Figure 14: Vehicle Optimisation Schematic

Time Available

# HH to collect from each day

Vehicle/CrewPerformance

Time Constraint

(pickup & travel time)

WeightConstraint

VolumeConstraint

1 Return to Base

2 Returns to Base

3 Returns to Base

Lowest of these values selected= Optimised # Vehicles

4 Returns to Base

Highest Value

Highest Value

Highest Value

Highest Value

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

# vehicles required

There are three basic parameters that are used to determine the numbers of vehicles required:

the time that is available to undertake collections;

the number of households that need to be collected from; and

the performance characteristics of the vehicles and crew.

The time available for actual collection is influenced by the number of times a vehicle must return to base to empty its load – the greater the number of return to base trips, the less time is available to the vehicle to pick up from households.

Similarly the vehicle/crew performance is a function of

how quickly they can pick up from each household (and the travel time between households on a round);

how quickly the vehicle reaches its weight limit; and

how quickly it fills up in terms of volume.

These factors will be influenced by the types of materials that are being collected.

For each vehicle configuration the model calculates the number of vehicles required if they were to return to base only once. It does this for the time constraint factor, the weight constraint factor and the volume constraint factor. The highest of these values (i.e. the most trucks) represents the constraining factor for the “one return to base”


scenario. This is repeated for two, three and four returns to base yielding four values (i.e. numbers of trucks required in each case). The lowest of these four values is the optimum number of vehicles needed to collect the specified amount of material from the number of households in the time available.

The Vehicle Optimisation module calculates fractions of vehicles, as this captures the incremental changes between different types of systems. In practice fractions of vehicles would obviously not be used but this would be accounted for by using smaller vehicles and/or building in spare capacity. In addition it should be noted that the modelling is based on average loads rather than peak loads. A slight redundancy factor is built into the model therefore to account for the effect of peak loads.

Details of the vehicles included within the model in this case are given in Table 23.

Table 23: Vehicle Details

Vehicle Capacity (kg) Capacity (m3) GVW (laden)

Capital cost

Demountable stillage small 4,500 12 7,500 £35,000

Demountable stillage vehicle larger 5,000 16 12,000 £46,000

Demountable stillage with Food Pod 9,000 23 21,000 £63,000

Standard RCV +binlifts 11,000 18 26,000 £113,000

Double-operative food waste vehicle 3,000 5 5,000 £35,000

Residual RCV with food pod 8,000 +6,000(pod) 14+5(pod) 26,000 £137,435

5 compartment toploader (for flats) 8,000 18 17,000 £65,000

Collection Operation and Performance - General Themes

Parameters that significantly influence option costs are crew sizing, daily set-out rates (the presentation of containers at the kerbside), collection frequency, vehicle capacity limitations and the number of properties one vehicle can serve in a day. These factors need to be considered together for the following reasons:

Lower pass rates mean higher numbers of vehicles are needed to collect from all properties in the district, therefore increasing costs;

Pass rates are directly affected by the complexity of the collection operation. Typically the kerbside sorting of recyclables entails longer pick up times per household, whilst at the other end of the spectrum gathering sacks into an RCV is relatively quick;

An additional crew member on a vehicle may allow more properties to be serviced simultaneously thereby speeding average collection times;

A higher set-out rate will mean more properties have to be serviced on the route leading to a reduction in the daily pass rates. This is especially important for food waste collections which will be expected to have a somewhat higher

proportionate set-out rate than recycling (since containers only need to be put out when full, rather than on a regular basis for odour reasons);

Wheeled bins may have a higher set-out rate than kerbside boxes (depending on the range of materials collected), especially where they sit permanently at the kerbside;

When a vehicle fills up on the route it will have to leave the round and proceed to a transfer facility or processing/disposal point to unload before continuing on the round. Doing so loses time in the day, adversely affecting the number of properties that can be serviced;

Other things being equal, a fortnightly service will have to collect more material than a weekly service. In this situation vehicles will fill up faster and have to return to unload more often, and will therefore experience the effect described in the previous bullet.

Vehicle Parameters

The following four tables list the critical details concerning vehicle operation. The key figure is the daily pass rates, since this directly affects the number of rounds required and is the primary cost driver. This however is directly influenced by the number of pickups required (or the effective set-out rate) and how many times in the day the vehicles have to leave the round to unload.

Table 24: Primary Recycling Collection System Parameters

Vehicle type Crew

Pass rate

(hhlds / day)

Pickups per day

Set-out rate

Average tips per

day

Option 1 Demountable stillage vehicle larger Driver + 2 771 515 67% 1.7







Table 25: Food Waste Collection System Parameters

Vehicle type Crew

Pass rate

(hhlds / day)

Pickups per day

Setout rate

Average tips per

day

Option 1 Double-operative food waste vehicle Driver + 1 1,414 939 66% 1.0

Option 2 Double-operative food waste vehicle Driver + 1 1,414 939 66% 1.0

Option 3 Residual RCV with Food Pod Driver + 2 839 797 95% 2.1

Option 4 Residual RCV with Food Pod Driver + 2 843 801 95% 2.1

Option 5 Demountable Stillage with Food Pod Driver + 2 736 492 67% 2.0

Option 6 Demountable Stillage with Food Pod Driver + 2 768 513 67% 2.0

Table 26: Mixed Card and Paper Collection System Parameters

Vehicle type Crew

Pass rate

(hhlds / day)

Pickups per day

Setout rate

Average tips per

day

Option 1 - - - - - -

Option 2 Standard RCV +binlifts Driver + 1 1,436 954 67% 2.0

Option 3 - - - - - -


Option 5 - - - - - -


Table 27: Green Waste Collection System Parameters

Vehicle type Crew

Pass rate

(hhlds / day)

Pickups per day

Setout rate

Average tips per

day







Table 28: Residual Waste Collection System Parameters

Vehicle type Crew

Pass rate

(hhlds / day)

Pickups per day

Setout rate

Average tips per

day



Option 3 Standard RCV +binlifts Driver + 2 839 797 95% 2.1

Option 4 Standard RCV +binlifts Driver + 2 843 801 95% 2.1




A.7.0 Residual Waste Modelling Characteristics This Appendix provides a more detailed description of the technology options being modelled for this Environmental Report, summarised in Table 29 at the end of this section. It also includes detail on the assumptions used to model the technology processes considered as part of the appraisal.

These technology options are discussed in more detail in Sections A.7.3 to A.7.9. An outline of the assessment methodology is provided in Section A.7.1, whilst assumptions common to all technology options are provided in Section A.7.2.

Each technology section starts with a sub-section giving a general description of the technology. Variations in approach causing performance to vary between types of technology are then discussed, along with assumptions regarding performance parameters where appropriate. The final sub-section provides a description of the facility modelled within the current report, and provides a summary of the important assumptions used within the modelling for each of the technologies.

The quality of data varies across the processes, and within a given process the quality of data regarding a specific emission is likely to vary also. There is a substantial body of empirical data for more ‘traditional’ processes such as landfill and incineration, though even here, gaps in knowledge remain. Mass balances for AD-based MBT, Autoclave and Gasification processes are based on data supplied by technology suppliers and reflect anticipated rather than actual performance.

As will be seen in the discussion that follows, considerable variation in performance may exist between specific facilities of the same type. It is therefore as important to choose a well designed facility that gives a high level of performance, as it is to choose the type of technology.

Table 29: Summary of Technology Processes Modelled

Short description Process details

Landfill

1. Assumes the landfill is clay lined and clay capped;

2. Capture of landfill gas with energy generation (generating electricity).

Incineration

1. All waste sent to a mass burn, moving grate incinerator with energy recovery (generating electricity and heat);

2. Recycling of bottom ash and recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals;

3. Air pollution control technology is assumed to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive;

4. Air pollution control (APC) residues are sent to a clay lined clay capped landfill.

Short description Process details

Autoclave

1. Technology modelling based on Sterecycle Autoclave process;

2. Recycling of non-ferrous and ferrous metals, glass, mixed dense plastics, and plastic film;

3. Biomass fibre either sent to Fluidised Bed Incinerator (generating electricity and heat) or to a Power Station generating electricity only;

4. Rejects from the process are stabilised before being sent to a clay lined, clay capped landfill.

MBT Aerobic Stabilisation

1. Generic mechanical pre-treatment technology;

2. Recycling of non-ferrous and ferrous metals;

3. Generic stabilisation (composting) process for production of stabilised waste;

4. MBT reject material and MBT stabilised waste to a clay lined, clay capped landfill.

MBT AD

1. Technology modelling based on Global Renewables UR-3R Mechanical Biological Treatment with ISKA Percolation and SCT Composting;

2. Recycling of non-ferrous and ferrous metals, glass, mixed dense plastics, and plastic film;

3. Biogas combusted in a gas engine to generate electricity and heat;

4. MBT stabilised residue is sent to a clay lined, clay capped landfill.

MBT Biodrying

1. Technology modelling based on Ecodeco MBT bio-drying process;

2. Recycling of non-ferrous and ferrous metals, and glass (as construction aggregate);

3. Fuel product either sent to Fluidised Bed Incinerator (generating electricity and heat) or to a Power Station generating electricity only;

4. Recycling of bottom ash and metal recovery at the incinerator;

5. MBT reject material is stabilised prior to being landfilled;

6. MBT reject material and APC residues to a clay lined, clay capped landfill.

Gasification

1. Technology modelling based on Energos process;

2. Pre-treatment process removes non-ferrous and ferrous metals for recycling and shreds material prior to gasification;

3. The syngas product from the gasification process is combusted in a steam turbine generating electricity and heat;

4. APC residues to a clay lined, clay capped landfill.


A.7.1 Assessment Methodology Residual treatment options are compared using Eunomia’s proprietary software tool, Atropos. This model allows the treatment options to be compared using both life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA) approaches. In both cases, resource use (including energy expenditure) and emissions are inventoried across the life cycle of the residual treatment option. The LCA approach calculates the environmental impact of this inventory by assigning different weightings the inventoried items, according to the chosen LCA method. The CBA approach assesses the environmental impact by assigning an external monetary cost, aiming to measure in financial terms the extent of the damage to health associated with the inventoried items.

We have used both the LCA and the CBA elements of our model within the following appraisal of residual waste treatment options, depending upon which approach was deemed to be the most relevant to each of the criterion being assessed.

A.7.2 General Assumptions Used to Model Technology Options In the analysis that follows, we have assumed that:

Where electricity is used, or where it is generated, the source being used or avoided is combined cycle gas turbines. This is the assumption used in recent Defra studies concerning climate change and waste management, it was the assumption used in comparative modelling on behalf of Friends of the Earth, and it is what Defra suggests should be the central assumption in policy related modelling;

Where heat is generated, we have assumed that the heat source being displaced is a gas-fired boiler operating at 90% efficiency. We have assumed, in this analysis, that not all the heat generated can be used owing to the fluctuating nature of the demand for heat. We have assumed that 60% of heat generated is put to a useful purpose (and so, displaces heating from gas boilers);

Where energy other than electricity is used in the process, we have sought to understand the primary fuels used, and modelled the impacts of these;

We have not modelled impacts associated with the construction of the facilities. Where these have been analysed in life-cycle studies, they are universally, or so it would seem, deemed to contribute a relatively minor proportion of the overall environmental impact;

The emissions associated with movement of the waste to the facility are ignored on the basis that, in principle, all facilities could be constructed at an equal scale, and the technology appraisal is not concerned with the spatial configuration of a whole ‘system’ for managing residual waste. It would be possible to estimate differential transport emissions associated with the movement of a tonne of waste in line with the movement of different residues and useful by-products. However, in practice, these are minor in comparison with the emissions associated with the process, as demonstrated by ERM and in recent work by ourselves for the GLA.

The analysis in the whole of this Section takes place on the basis of one tonne treated being treated by each technology option under appraisal.

The baseline composition data used to model residual technology options is taken from survey data supplied by MEL to Doncaster. The composition used within the residual options modelling also considers the impact of the recycling options modelled in Section 7.0, assuming the best performing option is implemented as a result of the Strategy. We have not included the un-recycled portion of waste originating from Household Waste Recycling Centres as this is likely to be less suitable for residual treatment due to its larger size. The residual waste composition is shown in Table 30.

Table 30: Composition of Residual Waste Used for Residual Options Modelling

Compositional element %

Paper Newspapers 5.03% Magazines 3.12% Other recyclable paper 5.84% Non recyclable paper 3.95% Card Cardboard 1.90% Card and paper packaging 5.55% Card non packaging 0.32% Liquid cartons 0.40% Plastic Film Refuse sacks and carrier bags 2.29% Packaging film 2.29% Other plastic film 0.46% Unclassified 0.30%

PET clear 0.80% PET coloured 0.40% HDPE natural 0.80% HDPE coloured 0.40% PVC natural 0.48% PVC coloured 0.48% Food packaging 2.64% Non-food packaging 1.32%

Dense Plastic

Other 1.98% Natural man-made fibres 2.84%

Textiles Unclassified 2.84% Disposable nappies 5.38% Shoes 0.25% Misc Combustibles Wood and furniture 2.21%

Misc Non Combustibles Unclassified 1.72% Clear bottles and jars 1.08% Green bottles and jars 1.08% Brown bottles and jars 0.68%

Glass

Other glass 1.20% Food cans 1.86% Beverage cans 3.54% Batteries 0.19%

Ferrous Metals

Other ferrous 0.36% Aluminium foil 1.67% Aluminium beverage cans 0.30% Non-ferrous Aluminium food cans 1.43% Garden waste 0.24% Kitchen waste 7.61%

Putrescibles

Non-home compostable kitchen waste 10.77%


Unclassified 8.99% Fines Fines 3.02% TOTALS 100.00%

A.7.3 Landfill

A.7.3.1 General Description

A significant proportion of the UK’s residual waste is still sent, untreated, to a landfill. Landfills operating in the UK today are, however, very different from their predecessors, with such facilities likely to include:

Liners which create a barrier between the landfilled material and the external environment;

Some kind of covering material to reduce the production of leachate. During the operating phase (when the landfill is actively accepting waste) the landfill may be temporarily covered whilst in the latter phases the landfill is usually permanently covered with an impervious layer;

Infrastructure used to collect leachate;67

Either on site infrastructure, or access to off-site infrastructure, to treat leachate (to reduce its potential to cause harm when released back into the environment);

Infrastructure to collect (a proportion of) the gases generated in the landfill;

Engines used to generate energy from the collected methane, or to flare the gas where its concentration does not justify the operation of an engine and a generator.

It is recognised in most circles that landfill liners are inevitably temporary in their effect. Hence, any noxious substances contained in the landfill, and not captured in the leachate collection system or the gas collection system, are likely to be released into the environment at some time in the future. Exactly what the implications of this may be are not well understood at present (there is no ‘historic data’ to use in this respect). Suffice to say that the more hazardous are the substances in the wastes we throw away, the more likely it becomes that these will cause problems in the longer-term.

A.7.3.2 Performance Variation and Technology Assumptions

Important assumptions for modelling the performance of landfill are associated with:

The technology associated with managing the landfill gas; and

The oxidation of methane within the landfill cover.

The approach taken within the current analysis with regard to each of these assumptions is discussed in the following sub-sections.

67 Leachate is the liquid that drains or ‘leaches’ from the landfill. Its composition depends on the age of the landfill and the type of material contained within it.

Technology Associated with Landfill Gas Management

Key assumptions within this type of analysis are those relating to the management of landfill gas. A previous assessment undertaken by Eunomia used a gas capture rate of 50%, an approach based upon two studies conducted on behalf of Defra by LQM and Enviros.68 A subsequent study conducted by ERM on behalf of Defra, however, assumed a 75% capture rate over the 100 year timeframe assessed, but acknowledged (in a later iteration of the report) that if one moved the analysis beyond this somewhat arbitrary timeframe, lifetime capture rates might be around 59%.69

The wider literature suggests a range of estimates for the efficiency of gas collection with a distinction being made between instantaneous collection efficiencies and the proportion of gas that can be captured over the lifetime of the landfill.70 Whilst instantaneous collection rates for permanently capped landfilled waste can be as high as 90%, capture rates may be much lower during the operating phase of the landfill (35%) or when the waste is capped with a temporary cover (65%).71 In addition, gas collection is technologically impractical towards the end of the site’s life.

We have assumed a lifetime gas capture rate of 50% within the current analysis.

Energy is generated from a variable proportion of the recovered gas. At times of high flux, emissions can be greater than the capacity of the engines and thus a proportion of the gas must be flared. At times of low flux, i.e. towards the end of the site lifetime, there may be insufficient gas for the engines to function effectively. In such a situation, the usual practice of the landfill operator is to flare the gas.

LQM carried out a survey of landfill operators to estimate the total flare capacity as part of work taken to estimate the methane emissions of landfill within the UK.72 LQM noted within their analysis that:

There are difficulties in ascertaining the actual volumes of LFG burnt as detailed records, if they exist at all, will be held by individual site operators. It

68 Eunomia (2006) A Changing Climate for Energy from Waste? Final report to Friends of the Earth, May 2006; LQM (2003) Methane Emissions from Landfill Sites in the UK, Report for Defra, January 2003; Enviros, University of Birmingham, RPA Ltd., Open University and M. Thurgood (2004) Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes, Final Report to Defra, March 2004 69 ERM (2006) Carbon Balances and Energy Impacts of the Management of UK Wastes, Defra R&D project WRT 237. December 2006

70 P Anderson (2005) The Landfill Gas Recovery Hoax, Abstract for 2005 National Green Power Marketing Conference; USEPA (2004) Direct Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfilling, Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol – Core Module Guidance, October 2004; K A Brown, A Smith, S J Burnley, D J V Campbell, K King and M J T Milton (1999) Methane Emissions from UK Landfills, Report for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

71 K Spokas, J Bogner, J P Chanton, M Morcet, C Aran, C Graff, Y Moreau-Le Golvan and I Hebe (2006) Methane Mass Balance at 3 Landfill Sites: What is the Efficiency of Capture by Gas Collection Systems? Waste Management, 5, pp515-525

72 Land Quality Management (2003) Methane Emissions from Landfill sites in the UK, Final Report for Defra, January 2003


is rare to find a flow stack with a flow measurement device installed, even though the capital cost of such a device is relatively small.

LQM did not consider the amount of energy generated from LFG within their analysis, although they estimated the total flaring back-up capacity to be around 60% of generation capacity. It is usual for landfill operators to maximise energy generation as this represents a revenue stream. We assume within the current analysis that 40% of the recovered gas will be flared. Although it is acknowledged that there is some uncertainty here, the impact of this uncertainty (in terms of CO2 equivalent offsets associated with energy generation from landfill) is relatively small.

Oxidation of Methane within the Landfill Cover

Some of the uncaptured landfill gas will be oxidised as it passes through the covering material of the landfill to the surface, the proportion being dependent upon the nature of the cover. The USEPA suggests a range of 10% to 25%, with clay soils at the lower end of the range and top-soils being at the higher end. This reflects a figure proposed by Brown et al in 1999 in a study on behalf of what was then the DETR.73 A similar value was proposed by the IPCC and was also used within the revised version of the LQM landfill model (although LQM originally proposed a much higher value). We therefore assume the same value of 10% with regard to the oxidation of uncaptured methane through the landfill cap.

The same assumptions are used within our model for all treatments with a landfill component. Autoclave and MBT facilities send some material rejected from their process to landfill after it has undergone a stabilisation phase. The latest literature in the UK suggests that the biological phase of MBT facilities can reduce the landfill gas generation potential of wastes by up to 95% in comparison with that of untreated wastes.74 Such bio-stabilised wastes will therefore behave very differently in landfill in comparison to untreated wastes.

Where landfill gas generation occurs at such low levels, it is anticipated that the covering material could oxidise much if not all of the methane emitted by the waste. As a consequence, no landfill gas management is required for landfills in Germany where only bio-stabilised waste is accepted, thus improving the performance of the landfill with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. Within the UK, however, bio-stabilised waste is likely to be landfilled alongside untreated wastes for the foreseeable future. We therefore assume the same landfill gas management occurs for bio-stabilised wastes, whilst acknowledging that this will tend to understate the performance of stabilisation techniques with regard to their global warming potential as the volume of landfilled stabilised material increases.

73 K A Brown, A Smith, S J Burnley, D J V Campbell, K King and M J T Milton (1999) Methane Emissions from UK Landfills, A Report for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

74 W Muller and H Bulson (2005) Stabilisation and Acceptance Criteria of Residual Wastes – Technologies and their Achievements in Europe, Conference “The Future of Residual Waste Management Treatment in Europe”; E Binner (2002) The Impact of Mechanical-Biological Pre-treatment on the Landfill Behaviour of Solid Wastes, Biological treatment of Biodegradable Waste: Technical aspects, Workshop 8-10 April 2002, Brussels, pp355-372; A Godley et al, (2007) Measuring BMW Stabilisation: Biodegradability Testing, WRc Conference Presentation, 2007

A.7.3.3 Technology Modelled Within the Environmental Report

Technology modelling has been carried based on the performance of UK landfill facilities with regards to the collection of landfill gas. Table 31 outlines the assumptions used to model landfill within the current analysis.

Table 31: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Landfill

Parameter Assumption

Proportion of methane captured 50%

Proportion of captured gas used for energy generation 60%

Rate of oxidation of methane within the landfill cover 10%

Total time period for modelling landfill gas emissions 150 years

Diesel use by process 0.6 litre / tonne

Leachate collection efficiency 80%

Notes:

The remainder of the gas is assumed to be flared.

A.7.4 Incineration


This technology is widely used across Europe and elsewhere (for example, Japan has more than 1,500 incineration facilities).

The Incineration Directive now dictates that new incinerators should recover heat as well as electricity whenever practically possible. Often, however, no suitable outlet for the heat exists.75

Whilst incinerators come in various forms, the majority of facilities operating in Europe are one of two types:

Grate incinerators;

Fluidised bed incinerators.

Differences between these two types of facilities are discussed in the following sections.

75 This was the case for the Belvedere incinerator planned for London


Grate Incinerators

These generally consist of a reception hall, the combustion chamber and energy recovery unit, and the flue gas cleaning system. Waste is first fed into a feed chute where a ram pushes the waste on to the first section of the incinerator grate. The grate aims to move the waste through the combustion chamber (furnace) with maximum exposure to oxygen at a high temperature.

As the waste is moved through the furnace, the waste is dried and combusted (or oxidised) using oxygen in the air supplied through the grate. The reaction leaves ash, and generates flue gases to be quenched prior to cleaning, and subsequent emission to the atmosphere.76 Energy recovery is obtained by the combustion gases transferring their heat to refractory-lined water tube sections as well as convective heat exchangers – both of which feed the boiler. Steam from the boiler can be used for district heating or in a turbine for power production to an electricity grid.

An issue of particular significance for the operation of grate incineration plants is the calorific value of the input waste. These incinerators tend to be designed for operation using material of a reasonably well-known energy content, or calorific value. If the calorific value increases or decreases significantly, the input of waste to the plant may be reduced or increased to reflect the change (so that the overall level of heat generation in the boiler is kept broadly constant in line with the design optimum). With fluctuations in the composition of wastes, the efficiency of the combustion process may change, altering the associated emissions. In extreme cases, the process itself may find the composition of the waste difficult to cope with.

Fluidised Bed Incinerators

Fluidised bed incinerators (FBIs) are most often used to treat a waste stream which has been through some form of pre-preparation. Here, a bed of hot sand is used to suspend the waste in the combustion chamber. The feedstock is prepared so that it is all of a roughly equal size. The particles of sand and the feedstock are maintained under constant motion (or fluidised) by a gaseous agent (air), which ensures good mixing of oxygen and the feedstock. The feedstock is maintained in the furnace until the carbonaceous and hydrogenous matter within the waste is combusted. The process results in the production of ash and flue gases for cleaning and subsequent emission to the atmosphere. Variations on the basic design exist, but with all systems, either the sand never leaves the bed, or else it is extracted from the incinerator residues and re-circulated.

FBIs are not appropriate for the treatment of untreated MSW as the suspension of the waste material requires that the larger particles be reduced in size. Consequently, some kind of pre-treatment step is always required – as was the case with the recently built Allington facility in Kent.77

76 The bottom ash is relatively inert and is usually recycled, generally being used to replace road construction aggregates

77 Waste is shredded in order to reduce particle size

In Europe, FBIs are being applied with increasing regularity in conjunction with MBT plants, since refuse derived fuel from MBT processes is unsuitable for use in conventional grate incinerators as a consequence of its high calorific value. The MBT element of the process additionally ensures the homogenization of the waste feedstock prior to thermal treatment by the FBI facility.


Key assumptions with regard to the performance of incineration facilities are principally:

The efficiency of energy generation;

The energy used within the process;

The nature of the gas cleaning system.

These are discussed in more detail within the sections that follow.

Efficiency of Energy Generation

Our assumptions regarding the efficiency of energy generation are based on results from a survey of European incineration facilities carried out by the Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP).78

The CEWEP survey supplies maximum values for heat and electricity generation for facilities operating in CHP mode. However their data does not directly provide any information regarding the ratio of heat to electricity produced at each of the facilities concerned. Where thermal facilities are concerned, and where steam turbines are used to generate energy, there is a trade-off between the generation of electricity and the generation of heat.

In its submission to the DTI as part of a review of the Renewables Obligation, ILEX assumed electrical output would be reduced at an approximate rate of 1 MW of electrical energy for every 4 MW of heat off-take.79 Data from CEWEP gives the maximum heat output from surveyed facilities surveyed producing only heat as 92.7%, suggesting a theoretical ratio of 3.3 MW heat for every MW of electricity.80 The maximum heat output for any of the surveyed facilities operating in CHP mode was 83.9%, whilst the maximum electricity output for the CHP facilities was 26.9%. This suggests a theoretical (maximum) ratio of 3.1 MW heat for every MW of electricity. However, the German Waste Incineration Association suggests that the ratio should

78 I Riemann (2006) CEWEP Energy Report (Status 2001-2004): Results of Specific Data for Energy, Efficiency Rates and Coefficients, Plant Efficiency Factors and NCV of 97 European W-t-E Plants and Determination of the Main Energy Results, updated July 2006

79 ILEX Energy Consulting (2005) Extending ROC Eligibility to Energy from Waste with CHP, Supplementary Report to the Department of Trade and Industry, September 2005

80 This is simply calculated as the ratio of the maximum gross efficiency of heat generation relative to the maximum gross electrical generation efficiency of 29.7%.


be 2.3 MW heat for each MW of electricity, based on the data from German facilities (the majority of which operate in CHP mode).81

Our energy generation efficiencies for incineration facilities operating in CHP mode are based on the average electricity production of those surveyed by CEWEP, using a ratio of 3.1 MW heat per MW electricity to calculate the heat production. This gives gross generation efficiencies of 12% for electricity and 50% for heat.82

Energy Used within the Process

The energy usage of the plant depends on the scale of the plant and the nature of the flue gas cleaning system. Our figures for the energy used by incineration processes are based on the results obtained from the CEWEP survey, taking into account the pollution control mechanisms used within UK incinerators (which typically use less energy than those used elsewhere in Europe).83

Pollution Control Mechanisms

Since the various gaseous emissions from incinerators are known to have impacts upon human health much emphasis has been placed on flue gas cleaning. All incineration facilities operating in Europe are now required to operate within specific limit values which are set under the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). Nonetheless, the environmental performance of incinerators in terms of their emissions to air still varies, this being dependent on the nature of the input material and the quality of the flue gas cleaning system.

The gas cleaning equipment accounts for a significant and growing proportion of the capital costs of new incinerators, and contributes in large part to their process energy use as was previously indicated.

Typical air pollution control (APC) technology installed in incinerators located in the UK comprises of:

Bag filters, used to trap polluted dust (particulate matter) entrained with the exhaust gases;

Semi dry flue gas scrubbing involving the use of lime neutralizes acidic pollutants (such as SOx) within the flue gas;

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) processes, used to thermally reduce NOx by injecting ammonia or urea;

Activated carbon to deal with dioxin (and furan) formation.

The incineration facility modelled within the current analysis is assumed meet the requirements of WID. These emissions limits are detailed within Table 32.

81 Available from www.itad.de

82 The higher generation efficiencies are likely to be deliverable only at large operating scales.

83 I Riemann (2006) CEWEP Energy Report (Status 2001-2004): Results of Specific Data for Energy, Efficiency Rates and Coefficients, Plant Efficiency Factors and NCV of 97 European W-t-E Plants and Determination of the Main Energy Results, updated July 2006

Table 32: Emissions Limits Provided by the Waste Incineration Directive

Value Units

PM10 / dust 10.00 mg/Nm3

Dioxin 0.10 ng ITEQ/Nm3

NOx 200.00 mg/Nm3

SO2 50.00 mg/Nm3

HF 10.00 mg/Nm3

HCl 1.00 mg/Nm3

CO 50.00 mg/Nm3

NMVOC 10.00 mg/Nm3

Total heavy metal 0.50 mg/Nm3

Performance considerably in excess of the limits defined by the WID has been achieved by many facilities operating elsewhere in Europe. The use of wet flue gas scrubbing can further reduce emissions levels of the acidic gas pollutants, but this increases the investment costs. Additionally, the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) further reduces NOx pollution in comparison to SNCR processes, but this typically requires additional energy expenditure.84

Air pollution control residues from waste incineration facilities consist of a mix of unspent reagents and chemicals extracted from the flue gas. They are typically treated as hazardous waste and are usually required to be sent to hazardous waste landfills.

The lower temperatures within FBI facilities may lead to lower NOx and CO emissions. Emissions such as SOx and NOx may be abated within the fluidized bed system by injecting the neutralizing reactants into the bed or into the chamber. Data supplied by the Allington facility suggests however that emissions to air from this facility are similar to the majority of the grate incinerators operating within the UK.

A.7.4.3 Technology Modelled within the Environmental Report

Technology modelling is based on the performance of UK incineration facilities with regards to efficiencies of energy generation, process energy use and APC technology, as described in Section A.7.4.2. The incinerator is assumed to operate in CHP mode, generating both electricity and heat. The assumptions used to model incineration are provided in Table 33.

84 To ensure the catalyst is not contaminated by other elements within the flue gas the SCR system is typically located just prior to the emissions stack. This requires the flue gas to be reheated using additional electrical energy.


Table 33: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Incineration


Efficiency of electricity generation 12%

Efficiency of heat generation 50%

Proportion of materials extracted from bottom ash

Steel Aluminium

70% 30%

Electricity used by incinerator 78 kWh / tonne

Diesel used by incinerator 4.7 litre / tonne

Notes:

Gross generation efficiencies are quoted - these do not take into account energy use by the process. We assume a proportion of this heat to be useful energy. Energy use is quoted per tonne of input to the incinerator.

A.7.5 Autoclave


In the autoclaving process, materials are essentially changed in form by virtue of steam blown into a vessel under high pressure at elevated temperatures (140-160°C or so). The material is changed in its physical nature by the steam, which reduces the volume of the input waste. Materials are recovered for recycling after the heat treatment, using similar mechanical technology to that employed within the MBT systems.85 Most configurations aim to produce some kind of biomass-rich fibre or generally intended for use as a solid recovered fuel (SRF) in addition the recycled materials. There is also some non-recyclable residue material rejected from the process both before and after the heat treatment phase, and this must be sent to landfill.

The autoclave process is in its early stages of development where municipal waste is concerned, though autoclaving has been used for some time to deal with clinical wastes. However, the Sterecycle autoclave facility was recently opened in Rotherham, and has now begun to accept MSW.

Autoclaves, by themselves, are not likely to provide a suitable solution to local authorities’ waste management needs. As such, they may be coupled to thermal

85 Autoclave technology manufacturers claim that the initial heat treatment phase makes it easier to separate the waste into recyclable streams.

treatment plants, or to biological treatments. This is described in more detail in Section A.7.5.2.


Both energy use and water consumption can vary considerably between the different types of Autoclave technology. The mechanical separation technology used within the facilities also varies, but generally includes:

Conveyors and trommels (sieves) for removing the fibre;

Eddy current separators to remove the non-ferrous metal;

Magnetic separators for removing the ferrous metal;

Ballistic separators to separate out the glass / grit;

Density separators for recovering the plastics.

Our model is based on anticipated data provided by technology suppliers rather than that from actual operating facilities. As such, the performance seen here may reflect optimal operation, particularly with respect to the recovery of recyclable materials.

There are a number of potential outlets for the fibre or SRF. Principle destinations include:

Power stations, where it is co-fired with coal to generate electricity;

Cement kilns, where is used to generate heat (also replacing coal);

Fluidised bed incinerators;

Gasification facilities.

Use of the fibre requires the facility to be compliant with the respective incineration and co-incineration values associated with the WID.

The performance with respect to greenhouse gas balance and energy balance is usually good for the power station and cement kiln options. In this case the SRF is assumed to displace an amount of coal, which emits a relatively large quantity of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy produced. Opportunities for using the fuel within these first two options may however be limited.

The potential for use of the fibre within a power station depends upon various regulatory and technical issues, amongst which are the degree to which those power plants that have made the decision to comply with the Large Combustion Plant Directive decide to ‘go the extra mile’ and equip themselves with abatement equipment that allows them to comply with limit values in the WID. This is unclear at present.86

Equally, there are a limited number of cement kilns in the UK and those interested in dealing with SRF are already treating considerable quantities of such. In addition

86 Several operators appear to have taken the view that they would not risk co-incineration of waste-derived fuels in existing plants, for example, because of potential issues related to corrosion following use of such materials.


because there are likely to be limits on the degree to which SRF can substitute for conventional fuels (and this may depend upon the kiln configuration), the potential for additional tonnages of SRF to be treated through cement kilns appears limited.

The fly ash produced within the coal fired power station is considered less hazardous than that produced by an incinerator and is either landfilled or in some cases recycled. The ash produced at the cement kiln is usually mixed back into cement manufacture process. Both options therefore perform favourably in this respect when compared to incineration options where the fly ash must be disposed of via a hazardous landfill facility.


The recently built Sterecycle facility located in Rotherham provides the basis for our modeling of this type of technology. The material treated by this process:

1. Is delivered to a reception hall and inspected (some oversize items are removed);

2. Is passed into the autoclave chamber, which typically rotates, and has internal mechanisms to help break down the waste (heat / temperature);

3. Is mechanically separated on exiting the chamber, with the aim of producing a range of recyclables and a biomass rich fibre.

We assume that the material rejected from the process (during the first and third stages) is stabilised before being sent to landfill.87 Assumptions used to model the Autoclave process are summarised in Table 34.

Table 34: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Autoclave Technologies


Removal of materials for recycling during process

Plastic film Dense plastic bottles Glass Steel Aluminium

65% 30% 80% 90% 90%

Electricity use by autoclave process 30 kWh / t

Heat (steam) use by autoclave process 125 kWh / t

We consider two separate uses for the fibrous fuel produced by the autoclave process within the current analysis:

87 Stabilisation processes are discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found..

The fibre is sent to a fluidised bed incinerator, generating both electricity and heat;

The fibre is sent to a power station where it displaces the use of coal (on a calorie for calorie basis).88

Assumptions used to model these options are shown in Table 35.

Table 35: Assumptions for Fuel Use from Autoclave Facilities


Efficiency of electricity generation – fluidised bed incinerator 12%

Efficiency of heat generation – fluidised bed incinerator 50%

Calorific values

Coal RDF from Autoclave process

27 MJ / kg 13 MJ / kg

Emissions associated with burning coal 0.1 kg CO2 eq. / MJ

A.7.6 MBT Aerobic Stabilisation


This is a method in which waste is ‘composted’ either before or after it has been subjected to some mechanical sorting to remove recyclable materials. Similar sorting technology is used here as for the autoclave facilities (as discussed in Section A.7.5.2).

During the degradation process air is sucked into the waste, giving rise to emissions of:

Carbon dioxide;

Ammonia,

Dust (particulate matter);

Volatile organic compounds; and

A small amount of nitrous oxide (in some cases).

The sucking action draws air into a system for cleaning the raw gas. The mass of the material is reduced since the degradation process, which takes the material to temperatures in excess of 60°C, drives off moisture, and effectively converts some of the solid carbon in the waste into carbon dioxide gas.

88 Emissions associated with burning coal are taken from BUWUL database. These assume some pre-combustion emissions (from extracting the coal).


The primary focus is assumed to be that of making the material less likely to generate landfill gas when it is landfilled. The ultimate aim is to reduce this to such low levels that the residual problem of gas generation in landfills can ultimately be dealt with through natural (and enhanced natural) processes. This is the case in Germany where only bio-stabilised waste is accepted at landfill, and as a consequence, no landfill gas management is required. As was discussed in Section A.7.3.2 this appraisal assumes the same landfill gas management occurs for bio-stabilised wastes as untreated wastes, reflecting the current situation for landfills located within the UK.

Whilst there are many facilities of this nature across Europe, experience of this type of process for residual wastes in the UK is very limited with only one plant currently operating in Leicestershire. Several others, however, are currently under construction or in planning, in Lancashire, Manchester and Norfolk.


Key variables affecting performance of these types of facility include:

The type of mechanical separation technology used;

Residence time within the facility;

The type of pollution control mechanisms used:

The output for the stabilised material.

These are discussed in the sub-sections that follow.

Mechanical Separation Techniques

MBT process use similar techniques to mechanically separate materials as is employed within the Autoclave facility outlined in Section A.7.5.2. The performance modelled for the Aerobic stabilisation process is however based on that achieved by facilities currently operating. As the cost of landfilling rises in the future, the sophistication of the sorting processes is likely to increase within these types of facilities in order to reduce the quantities being sent to landfill.

Residence Time

The longer the material is resident within the process, the greater is the reduction in the gas generation of the material. The most significant reduction in gas generation is seen during the initial stages - typically a 50% reduction in gas generation occurs during the first 4 weeks of the process. After 12 weeks the gas generation is approximately 90% of that seen prior to commencement of the stabilisation process.89

Residence times vary between 8 and 12 weeks. The longer the process length, the greater the land-take required by the facility.

89 Binner (2002) The Impact of Mechanical-Biological Pre-Treatment on Landfill Behaviour, Paper presented to the European Biowaste Workshop, May 2002

Pollution Control Mechanisms

Pollution control technology installed within aerobic stabilisation facilities limits the emissions to air of ammonia and volatile organic compounds that occur during the degradation stage. The extent to which this occurs is dependent upon the type of technology installed.

At a minimum, biofilters are installed and the action of these typically results in a reduction in the volatile organic compounds concentration of approximately 80%. However, where scrubbing equipment is used alongside a biofilter within enclosed aerobic degradation systems, the potential for additional clean up of exhaust emissions exists. For example, ORA report 100% removal through the combined use of biofilter and scrubbing.90 The use of air circulation and a controlled air supply system are recommended as additional measures to further reduce stabilisation emissions.

Outlets for Stabilised Material

It may be possible to use the stabilised biodegradable material for one-off landscaping applications, and this would imply considerable cost savings as well as result in an improved greenhouse gas balance. However, the potential for future contamination is likely to restrict its use as a soil improver on non-contaminated sites. As such, the opportunities for use of this material are likely to be limited. We have therefore assumed that the organic material from the process is landfilled. We have therefore considered only the landfilling option within the current analysis.

A.7.6.3 Technology Modelled in this Report

Material treated by this type of process:

1. Is delivered to a reception hall and inspected (some large items are removed);

2. Is then subjected to a process of screening (essentially, a series of sieving processes combined with other mechanical operations to sort out materials). The aim is to sort out some recyclable fractions of metals, plastics, glass and inert materials;

3. Is shredded to reduce the particle size of the larger fractions;

4. Is subjected to a process of aerobic degradation, assisted by the sucking of air through the waste.

All but the recycled material is assumed to be sent to landfill at the end of the process. The system is assumed to use a biofilter and scrubber to control the emissions into the air occurring during the degradation stage. Assumptions used to model the Aerobic Stabilisation process are outlined in Table 36.

90 ORA (2005) Development of a Dynamic Housed Windrow Composting System: Performance Testing and Review of Potential Use of End Products, Report for Canford Environmental, Dorset


Table 36: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Aerobic Stabilisation


Residence time within stabilisation process 10 weeks

Proportion of materials removed for recycling during process

Dense plastics Steel Aluminium

70% 90% 90%

Electricity used by stabilisation process 50 kWh / tonne

Diesel used by process 1 litre / tonne

A.7.7 MBT AD


There are a number of MBT configurations in which the process of anaerobic digestion is employed. Anaerobic digestion is a process of biologically degrading materials in the absence of oxygen. This produces a ‘biogas’ which is rich in methane as well as carbon dioxide and traces of other gases including hydrogen sulphide.

Where AD is used as one of the biological treatment steps in an MBT plant, then some form of separation of materials to produce a fraction which is almost wholly suitable for digestion is usually necessary.

There are two reasons why this is desirable:

1. The costs of constructing and operating a digester tend to be related to the throughput of volatile solids and the rate of their destruction. If the feedstock material is less concentrated in the biological volatile solids, then the size of digester required to achieve a given rate of volatile solids destruction is necessarily larger, thereby increasing costs;

2. Whether the digester is a ‘high’ or ‘low’ solids unit, the unit still needs to move the feedstock through the facility (and preferably cause some mixing thereof). The more contraries there are in the material in the digester, the more wear and tear there will be on the equipment. This will lead to higher maintenance costs and more down-time at the facility (and hence, higher costs).

For these reasons, AD will almost always be deployed as part of MBT systems based around a ‘splitting’ concept.

The complexity of this splitting could (and does) vary across facilities. Less complex splitting processes might, for example, compensate for the less complex separation through deploying complex pulping machinery (which often accounts for a significant part of capital expenditure associated with the AD system).

In addition to the biogas and recyclables, AD processes produce a solid output which will usually undergo additional biological treatment and in some cases additional

mechanical treatment (depending on the final destination of the stabilised output). The aim is either to produce a fuel or stabilised material similar to that produced by the aerobic stabilisation processes.

Operational performance associated with these types of facilities has been quite variable but system reliability is now improving.


As was the case for the aerobic stabilisation systems, the residence time within the biological processes and the final destination of the stabilised output determine performance of the system.

The efficiency with which the mechanical separation treatment recovers materials for recycling is also important, with similar technology being employed as for the autoclave and other MBT systems. Some AD technology suppliers such as GRL remove paper within their process. We have not modelled the environmental benefits associated with this within the current analysis as there is unlikely to be a market for this type of material.

The technology used as the basis for modelling the performance of AD facilities is the GRL process. This process is designed to produce a refined “compost” like material from the organic material contained within the treated waste stream. The product differs from compost produced from green waste in that it is likely to contain much more contamination, both in the form of visible contaminants such as small pieces of plastic as well as chemical contamination including heavy metals and organic compounds.

This compost-like material may be of value - either in restoring contaminated land sites, or used in one-off landscaping applications (as previously discussed for with respect to the output from the stabilisation process). Where it can be used in such a way, the environmental performance of the technology is likely to be improved, particularly with respect to greenhouse gas production. However, the potential for future contamination is likely to restrict its use as a soil improver on other, currently non-contaminated sites. As such, the opportunities for use of this material are likely to be limited. We have therefore assumed that the organic material from the process is landfilled.

The biogas output from AD systems is most frequently used on-site to generate energy using a gas engine. Where gas engines are concerned, the generation of heat incurs little penalty in terms of electricity generation, and the majority of facilities operate CHP engines, partly to ensure the provision of free heat which is needed to keep the feedstock at the required temperature, as well as providing heat for hygienisation of the feedstock in the wake of the EU Animal-by Products Regulations.

As an alternative to on-site energy generation, the biogas can be cleaned and compressed, in which form it can be used as a vehicle fuel. The use of compressed biogas in this way is not considered within the current analysis as on-site generation is more likely to occur within the plan period.

As was discussed in Section A.7.3.2, this appraisal assumes the same landfill gas management occurs for bio-stabilised wastes as untreated wastes, reflecting the current situation for landfills located within the UK.


A.7.7.3 Technology Modelled Within the Environmental Report

Our technology modelling for this type of facility is based on the GRL technology.91 This technology process operates as follows:

1. The material is initially sorted;

2. It then undergoes a materials recovery process which collects metals, dense plastics, glass and paper fractions; and also separates out an organic stream for the AD process;

3. The organic stream enters the wet AD process leading to the generation of biogas which is assumed to be used on-site for the generation of heat and electricity using a gas engine;

4. The following fractions are treated within an intensive composting in a fully enclosed building:

a. a >80 mm fraction taken from the initial separation phase, which is then shredded;

b. a >1 mm non dissolvable fraction from the digestion process;

c. the core output from the AD system.

5. The intensive composting phase is followed by a maturation phase to break down the remaining organic material;

6. The stabilised material is assumed to be sent to landfill within the current analysis.

Figure 15 shows the GRL facility operating at Eastern Creek.

91 In March 2007, GRL reached contract closure with Lancashire County Council for a major PFI contract to manage 600 k tpa of MSW using their process

Figure 15: The GRL Facility at Eastern Creek, Australia

A summary of the assumptions used to model the Anaerobic Digestion process is provided in Table 37.

Table 37: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Anaerobic Digestion


Residence in digester 14 days

Residence time of rejects in maturation (stabilisation) phase 5 weeks

Efficiency of gas engine for electricity generation1 38%

Efficiency of gas engine for heat generation1 40%


Dense plastics Glass Steel Aluminium

70% 20% 90% 90%

Electricity requirement 70 kWh / tonne

Diesel use by process 1 litre / tonne

Notes:

Gas engine operating in CHP mode. Energy use figures per tonne input to facility


A.7.8 MBT Biodrying


In this process, once again, an aerobic ‘composting’ process is used. However, there is a key difference. Instead of the material being stabilised (through trying to maintain the biological degradation process over a reasonable period of time), in this case, the intention is to dry the material. Essentially, the airflow through the waste is increased, and whilst in the stabilisation process, the mass of material is kept moist to assist degradation; in this case, the intention is to dry the material out and use it as a refuse derived fuel (RDF).

The key difference relative to the stabilisation approach is that because the aim is to increase the calorific value of the material, the principle objective is a drying of the material using both the heat generated by the degradation process and the airflow from the sucking action of the fans drawing air into the biofilter. Essentially, the airflow is increased (relative to the basic stabilisation case), and the total treatment time is much reduced.

There are two principle approaches. In the first – the “whole waste” approach – the separation of materials for recycling occurs prior to the biological treatment. In the second – the “splitting approach” – the separation occurs subsequent to the biological phase.

The first approach is exemplified by what is probably the best known MBT system in the UK, the BioCubi system provided by EcoDeco. This system shreds the incoming waste and then lays it out on an aerated floor in an enclosed windrow-type formation. The dried material is then subject to some separation of materials for recycling before the RDF is prepared for use either on or off-site.

The second “splitting” approach is far less familiar to the UK waste management industry but is very common on the continent. Essentially, the material is subjected to various processes of screening, sometimes combined with some size reduction, to split the material into what one may characterise as being a ‘large-size, low-density, high calorific value’ fraction and a ‘small size, high density, principally organic, low calorific fraction’. The former is reserved for use as a fuel, the latter is typically stabilised prior to landfilling through an intensive treatment, followed by a maturation period. An example of such a facility is that of Kufstein in Austria.

It possible to ‘convert’ a process whose principle objective is stabilisation into one which seeks to generate an RDF. This, therefore, makes an MBT quite adaptable in respect to the potential of a plant to evolve over time form having one principle purpose to another.


In addition to the types of approach discussed above, the performance of these systems will depend on:

Recovery rates for recycling;

Outlets for the fuel.

As was the case with the autoclave and other MBT systems, there are varying levels of complexity of separation technique which can be used to recover the recyclable streams.

Since the calorific value of the output material is generally much higher than in the case of waste which has not been subjected to any pre-treatment, the suitability of the material for combustion in standard grate incinerators is likely to be limited. Outlets for the fuel are therefore similar to that of autoclave facilities, discussed in Section A.7.5.2.

A.7.8.3 Technology Modelled in this Report

Our technology modelling for this type of facility is based on the Ecodeco process, similar to that operating at the Frog Island plant in East London. The technology process is as follows:

1. The waste is first delivered to a reception hall and then shredded;

2. The shredded material is spread on a floor (within a building) which is underlain with pipes (an ‘aerated floor’) in heaps with a broadly triangular cross section;

3. Material is then subjected to a process of ‘biological drying’, partly from the heating effect of the shortened composting process, and partly from the sucking of air through the waste. During this time, as with the stabilization process, the degradation process gives rise to emissions of carbon dioxide, possibly a small amount of nitrous oxide, ammonia, dust, and volatile organic compounds. The sucking action draws air into a system for cleaning the raw gas. The system is assumed to use a biofilter. The aim is to reduce emissions into the air of ammonia and volatile organic compounds. The mass of the material is reduced since the degradation process, which takes the material to temperatures in excess of 60°C, drives off moisture. In this process, less of the solid carbon in the waste is turned into carbon dioxide gas than in the stabilization process;

4. The dried material is then sorted with the aim of producing the RDF (consisting of plastics, organic materials and paper and card). The sorting process removes the low calorific fractions, with the following materials targeted for recovery:

a. Metals (ferrous and non-ferrous);

b. Inert materials (glass and stones); and

c. Organic ‘fines’ (small organic particles) (these being destined for landfill, following further maturation to stabilise the material).

As was the case with the fibre produced by the autoclave facility, two options for RDF use have been modelled:

Fluidised bed incinerator;

Power station (assuming it is co-fired with coal).

Figure 16 shows the Ecodeco facility at Frog Island.


Figure 16: The Frog Island MBT Plant

A summary of the assumptions used to model the biodrying process is provided in Table 38.

Table 38: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Biodrying Facilities


Residence time in biodrying phase 12 days

Residence time of rejects in maturation (stabilisation) phase 7 weeks

Electricity requirement1 40 kWh / t input

Diesel use by process1 0.5 litre / t input

Recovery rate for ferrous metals 80%

Recovery rate for non-ferrous metals 70%

Recovery rates for glass (sent for aggregates production) 70%

Notes:

1. Per tonne input to the MBT facility.

As was the case when considering the fibre produced by Autoclave facilities, we consider two separate uses for the fuel produced from the biodrying process:

The fuel is sent to a Fluidised Bed Incinerator, generating both electricity and heat;

The fuel is sent to a power station where it is assumed to generate electricity, displacing the use of coal at the facility.

Our assumptions for the fuel use are provided in Table 39.

Table 39: Assumptions for Fuel Use from Biodrying Facilities


Efficiency of electricity generation – fluidised bed incinerator 12%

Efficiency of heat generation – fluidised bed incinerator 50%

Calorific values

Coal RDF from biodrying process

27 MJ / kg 14 MJ / kg

Emissions associated with burning coal 0.1 kg CO2 eq. / MJ

A.7.9 Gasification


Gasification is a process in which materials, when heated, are exposed to some oxygen, but not a sufficient amount to lead to combustion. The oxygen necessary for gasification can be supplied into a system in different ways. The source can be:

Air (because oxygen is one component);

Steam (which contains oxygen); or

Pure oxygen.

The source of oxygen determines the extent of contamination of the syngas (and therefore the clean up). The ‘concentration’ of energy in the gases liberated from waste will also be reduced, but the total energy content of the gases released (per unit of waste material) will be increased.

The output of the gasification process is a syngas which is combusted to generate energy, with the calorific value of this syngas being dependent upon the composition of the input waste to the gasifier. The other main product produced by gasification is a solid, non-combustible ‘char’.

A number of reports have been written concerning pyrolysis and gasification technologies in recent years. One of the companies which provided analysis of these technologies earlier in the decade appears to view the technology – still – as somewhat risky in the UK context at present:

With only a few operating plants in Europe and no commercial plants in the UK for MSW gasification there are obvious risks associated with implementing this type of technology in the UK. The technology is significantly less proven than moving grate incineration and there are still some technical issues (for example, issues related to feed preparation and handling) that have yet to be


overcome by some of the high profile gasification processes in the UK and Continental Europe.92

Support for the development of these technologies exists through the New Technologies Demonstrator Programme which includes among its funded facilities the Energos gasification plant located on the Isle of Wight. In addition to operating the Isle of Wight facility, Energos plan to build additional small scale gasification facilities elsewhere in the UK.93


Key performance variables for gasification facilities are:

The energy balance;

Emissions to air.

These are discussed in more detail within the sub-sections below.

Energy balance

If the syngas is sufficiently clean it can be used in a gas engine where the efficiency of generation is improved.94 However, the majority of commercially operating facilities use a steam turbine or boiler for the generation of energy as this requires less clean up of the syngas. Efficiencies of generation in this case are likely to be similar to those seen for conventional incinerators as was discussed in Section A.7.4.2, with the smaller gasification facilities (such as the 50,000 tonne per annum Energos plant) generating less energy than the larger plant.

As was the case with the incineration facilities, the use of energy within the facility varies considerably. For gasification facilities energy use depends not only on the gas clean up techniques, but also on how much energy is used to heat the waste within the gasification process. The assumptions used within the current analysis are those used Hellweg, who compiled life-cycle assessment data for various thermal technologies.95

Emissions to air

In the past, some gasification processes such as the Thermoselect plant operating in Germany were marketed as “zero emissions” facilities. However, their improved performance in comparison to the traditional combustion-based incineration facilities has not been universally accepted.

92 Juniper (2003) A Review of the Need for Energy from Waste as Part of the Cheshire Household Waste Management Strategy, Technical Report for Cheshire Waste Partnership

93 Energos currently operates six facilities in Europe in addition to the plant on the Isle of Wight. Details are provided on their website http://www.energ.co.uk which includes some operational data for their Norwegian facility located at Averoy

94 The efficiency of generation in this case will be similar to that seen using biogas in a gas engine, as is discussed in the section on Anaerobic Digestion (see Section Error! Reference source not found.).

95 Stefanie Hellweg (2000) Time- and Site-dependent Life-cycle Assessment of Thermal Waste Treatment Processes, Diss. ETH No.13999, Zurich;

An overview of BAT produced by AEA in 2001 presented plant performance profiles for generic gasification and pyrolysis processes, with the intention of representing the best practice currently being achieved for these technologies.96 The resulting analysis concluded that waste gasification plants had similar pollution potential to waste combustion plants, and suggested that claims that gasification (and pyrolysis) processes were inherently less polluting than other thermal technologies had not been substantiated. In particular, they considered that operational difficulties resulting from the management of a novel technology process might result in increased emissions.

There remains a lack of continuous emissions data from commercial waste gasification facilities, although data is gradually becoming available via demonstration and semi-commercial plants and facilities.

In the UK waste gasification facilities come under the remit of the WID with regards to the control of emissions to air. Such facilities may require a substantial amount of abatement equipment, not only to ensure compliance with the WID, but also to clean up the syngas prior to recovering energy from it.97 Further abatement equipment is usually required to deal with the emissions associated with the combustion of the syngas to generate energy (as is the case for AD facilities when recovering energy from biogas).

When comparisons are made in terms of concentration of pollutants in the exhaust gas, emissions from many gasification facilities are not significantly lower than those reported by the better performing incinerators operating in Europe (some of which significantly exceed the requirements set by the WID).98 However, if the comparison is made upon the basis of emissions to air per tonne of waste treated, some gasification processes perform significantly better than many of the best performing incinerators with regard to key pollutants such as NOx. This is because less exhaust gas is produced per tonne of waste treated using gasification.


Our modelling process is based on the Energos process. The technology process is as follows:

1. Waste is shredded and the metals removed using magnetic separation;

2. The pre-treated material is delivered to the gasification unit using an overhead crane;

3. Drying, pyrolysis and gasification of the fuel is carried out in the gasification unit, facilitated by multiple injections of air and recycled flue-gas;

4. Bottom ash is discharged from the gasification unit at the end of the grate;

96 AEA (2001) Review of Best Available Techniques for New Waste Incineration Issues: R & D Technical Summary, report for the Environment Agency

97 Gas engines are particularly sensitive to poisoning by trace pollutants within the syngas.

98 InfoMil (2002) Dutch Notes on BAT for the Incineration of Waste, report for the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, February 2002


5. Energy (in the form of both electricity and heat) is recovered from the resulting gas using a steam boiler.

The Energos process controls emissions to air using a dry flue gas cleaning system consisting of:

1. A bag-house filter to remove particulates;

2. Lime to absorb acidic components within the flue gas;

3. Activated carbon to adsorb dioxins, TOC and heavy metals.

Data provided by Energos based on continuous measurements taken from one of their facilities located in Norway indicates that use of their technology results in low levels of emissions to air in comparison to the WID. We have therefore modelled the performance of their facility based on their emissions data to reflect this improvement.

A schematic diagram of Energos process is provided in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Schematic Diagram of Energos Process

A summary of the assumptions used to model the gasification process is provided in Table 40.

Table 40: Summary of Assumptions Used to Model Gasification


Efficiency of electricity generation 12%

Efficiency of heat generation 45%


Steel Aluminium

90% 90%

Electricity used by process 102 kWh / tonne

Diesel used by process 4.7 litre / tonne

Notes:

Gross generation efficiencies are quoted - these do not take into account energy use by the process. Energy used by the process is calculated per tonne input to the facility (including that used for the front end treatment).


A.8.0 LATS Modelling The current market for Landfill Allowances is extremely unpredictable and so it is difficult to make judgments on the prices of allowances in the future.

A set of value was derived through discussions with waste officers and based on work that Eunomia has previously undertaken. These projections make certain assumptions, as outlined below:

The price of allowances will rise due to the current delays in residual treatment facilities becoming operational;

In 2012/13, the price of LATS will drastically increase, as this is a target year (where no banking or borrowing is allowed for this year or the previous one). If current delays in residual waste treatment facilities continues, a lack of capacity has been predicted for this year, so it is likely that allowances will be traded at a high price;99

As residual treatment facilities come on line and landfill allowances are met, the value of LATS will drop to such an extent that there will be no incentive to bank or borrow.

Table 41 shows the figures projected throughout the period of the Strategy. The red shading indicates target years.

Table 41: LATS Values used for each Year £ per tonne)

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

2014

/15

2015

/16

2016

/17

2017

/18

2018

/19

2019

/20

2020

/21

2021

/22

2022

/23

2023

/24

2024

/25

2025

/26

0 15 15 15 50 35 25 15 10 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

99 http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=C0CDCBFE-24E0-494d-824D-F053A576661E

A.9.0 Abbreviations AD Anaerobic Digestion

APC Air pollution control

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AWC Alternate Weekly Collection

BAT Best Available Techniques

BMW Biodegradable Municipal Waste

BPEO Best Practicable Environmental Option

BVPI Best Value Performance Indicator

CA Civic Amenity

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CEWEP Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CO Carbon

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CWRP Community West Recycling Partnership

DCF Designated Collection Facility

DCRP Doncaster Community Recycling Partnership

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DMBC Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

DMWMS Doncaster Municipal Waste Management Strategy

DTI Department of Trade and Industry (Now Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform – DBERR)

EC European Community

EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment

EfW Energy from Waste

ER Environmental Report

FBI Fluidised Bed Incinerator

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GLA Greater London Authority

GWh Giga Watt per hour

HCl Hydrogen Chloride


HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HF Hydrogen Flouride

HH Household

HWRC Household Waste Recycling Centre

IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KWh Kilo Watt per hour

LATS Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

LCA Life Cycle Analysis

LPA Local Planning Authority

MBC Metropolitan Borough Council

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

MPS Mailing Preference Service

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MWMS Municipal Waste Management Strategy

NDKR North Doncaster Kerbside Recycling

NH3 Ammonia

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NMVOC Non Methane Volatile Organic Compounds

NPV Net Present Value

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

ONS Office for National Statistics

PFI Private Finance Initiative

PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns diameter

PPS Planning Policy Statement

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

ROC Renewables Obligation Certificate

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SRF Solid Recovered Fuel

SMART Save Money And Reduce Trash

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

SO2 Sulpher Dioxide

SOx Sulpher Oxides

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

TOC Total Organic Carbon

tpa tonnes per annum

WDA Waste Disposal Authority

WDF Waste Development Framework

WEEE Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment

WET Waste and Emissions Trading Act

WID Waste Incineration Directive

WRAP Waste and Resources Action Program