London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

waste management obligations and best practice and are uncertain about where to seek advice. 7.30. The Government’s Envirowise programme is designed to specifically assist business with environmental performance (including waste management). While it is recognised that the Envirowise programme in its current format may not provide the required level of detailed, sector-specific, waste management information that is necessary to inform waste producers on waste management best practice, it nevertheless provides an existing infrastructure by which advice and support may be provided to waste producers across many commercial and industrial sectors. The future of the Envirowise programme is currently in doubt but it would present a missed opportunity to inform producer behaviour if it was to close. 7.31. A total of 123 companies (or sites) are certified to ISO 14001 within London. In some cases, EMS can also be usefully applied to SMEs to improve environmental performance, although in many instances EMS (and ISO 14001 in particular) is inappropriate for smaller sized companies. Alternatively, SME performance can be influenced through supply-chain management under an EMS system. Main Findings from Local Authority Consultations 7.32. Questionnaires were sent out to each of London’s 37 waste collection, unitary and disposal authorities to obtain data about their collection and disposal arrangements for commercial and industrial wastes; responses were received from a total of 22 authorities (a response rate of 60%). The key findings from this survey were: • The majority of the collection authorities collect commercial and industrial wastes mixed with the household waste collections, with just a few collecting separately. This raises questions on the validity of domestic waste reporting. Around half of the respondents do not offer a collection service for industrial waste • Only a few collection authorities offer a collection service for commercial recyclables (e.g. glass from pubs and clubs) • Collection services are provided by both DSOs (direct service organisations) and commercial companies. • The majority of collection authorities do not have separate data about the C&I waste that they collect. Only one authority currently analyses C&I waste arisings by customer type and composition and while several authorities could undertake this analyses, they do not currently do so. Summary of Key Findings for C&D Wastes 7.33. The data on construction and demolition wastes from the Symonds Group national surveys (2000, 2002) are estimates only of the total arisings of ‘hard’ and ‘excavated’ construction and demolition wastes. The survey results specifically exclude ‘soft’ construction and demolition waste such as timber, plastics, metals and other packaging materials. The results from the 2002 survey indicate the quantity of ‘hard and excavated’ construction waste arisings in London to be in the range 3.70 – 8.40 million tonnes, with a reported confidence level of 90%. It is not prudent to assume that the real figure will necessarily lie close to the centre of this range (i.e. 6.05 million tonnes), or indeed that it will definitely lie within this band at all. 7.34. Given the exclusion of the ‘soft’ construction and demolition wastes from the Symonds surveys, and that these wastes are not accounted for in any other surveys, the Symonds 124
surveys most likely represent an underestimate of the total arisings of construction and demolition wastes, as defined in the EWC 2002. 7.35. There is a lack of comprehensive and reliable data on the composition of construction and demolition waste in the UK generally, including London. Some composition survey data does exist, but the sample sizes are small, poorly defined and not necessarily relevant to the construction and demolition wastes generated in London. Nevertheless the available data suggests that it may be misleading to assign an average composition to construction and demolition waste generally. This is because (a) the separate construction and demolition waste streams are quite different (with demolition wastes being predominantly inert, and construction wastes being high in packaging waste) and (b) the composition of the waste streams also appears to vary depending on the stage of development of the project to which they relate. 7.36. The Symonds survey data indicates that the level of recycling of ‘hard and excavated’ construction and demolition waste in London (72%), for example for use as bulk fill, is significantly higher than the average for England (41%). Transportation data from the Symonds survey also indicates that materials for recycling are typically not hauled more than 25kms (15 miles) from the point of arising, suggesting that much of this recycling activity is carried out in or around London. Our consultations with industry indicates that currently the bulk of this recycling activity is simply comprised of crushing for reuse as low grade bulk fill, with little evidence of ‘higher value’ recycling being carried out. However some consultees reported that the economic conditions are becoming more favourable for higher value recycling and that this is increasingly being considered by some contractors, not just for the ‘hard’ wastes but also for the ‘soft’ wastes. 7.37. Our survey indicated that in London there are currently a total of 237 facilities for dealing with construction and demolition wastes. This includes 32 mobile crushing and screening plants, 32 fixed crushing and screening plants, and 28 materials recovery facilities. Also included in this figure are 10 landfills and 116 exempt sites. There was a general view amongst consultees that the availability of recycling facilities in London was satisfactory for general wastes (concrete, bricks etc) but less so for specialist wastes (plastics, timber, glass etc). It was also suggested that the existing facilities for recycling concrete and bricks are fully utilised. 7.38. There is considerable concern among Contractors about the impacts on the construction industry of the Landfill Directive which will put a stop to the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste in July 2004. The view was also expressed that the traditional UK approach to contaminated land remediation, i.e. excavation and disposal of contaminated soils and asbestos to landfill, is likely to continue with the extra transport costs being passed onto the developer. 7.39. A best practice Demolition Protocol has been developed, using funding from WRAP. This has the key aim of encouraging the planning system to require more efficient use of resources in demolition contracts and new building work. It is reported that at least three London boroughs are in the process of adopting some or all of the Demolition Protocol requirements in the form of relevant planning policies or Supplementary Planning Guidance. 7.40. A range of ‘waste exchange’ type tools have been developed by various organisations to assist in the efficient use of materials from the construction and demolition industries. These include the Aggregates Information Service set up by WRAP. However our consultations have indicated that the rate of use of these tools by the major 125
Page 1 and 2:
Policy & Partnerships London Wider
Page 3:
CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Waste
Page 6 and 7:
Chapter 2 summarises the principal
Page 8 and 9:
Key policy proposals in ‘Waste St
Page 10 and 11:
2.8. The national Planning Policy G
Page 12 and 13:
• where waste cannot be dealt wit
Page 14 and 15:
Policies of neighbouring regions 2.
Page 16 and 17:
• A Thematic Strategy on waste re
Page 18 and 19:
2.34. Legislation applying to speci
Page 20 and 21:
addresses eight main environmental
Page 22 and 23:
3.19. The London Regional Technical
Page 24 and 25:
4.3. There then follows a section o
Page 26 and 27:
Table 4.1: Arisings and basic compo
Page 28 and 29:
Table 4.3: Total commercial and ind
Page 30 and 31:
around London but not on the quanti
Page 32 and 33:
Table 4.6: Number and weight of sam
Page 34 and 35:
through a 20mm sieve Total 73 27.4
Page 36 and 37:
handling and transport in London, r
Page 38 and 39:
4.66. Not surprisingly, all of the
Page 40 and 41:
some construction companies had the
Page 42 and 43:
necessary that the waste producers
Page 44 and 45:
4.101. One other potential major in
Page 46 and 47:
SMEs comprise a slightly lower prop
Page 48 and 49:
Drivers for Sustainable Waste Manag
Page 50 and 51:
4.123. Whilst sustainable waste man
Page 52 and 53:
Encouragement of waste minimisation
Page 54 and 55:
companies. There is no service offe
Page 56 and 57:
their companies than the larger com
Page 58 and 59:
such as road construction, it close
Page 60 and 61:
LREs wishing to model the viability
Page 62 and 63:
Table 4.10: Eco-sites established w
Page 64 and 65:
• Support for the development and
Page 66 and 67:
two internationally recognised stan
Page 68 and 69:
London. A phased approach is recomm
Page 70 and 71:
encouraged, and that guidance and/o
Page 72 and 73:
number of employees of perhaps some
Page 74 and 75:
4.230. The NHS provided a detailed
Page 76 and 77:
4.241. For over half of the WCAs th
Page 78 and 79: 5. Construction and Demolition Wast
Page 80 and 81: 5.7. The findings for England and W
Page 82 and 83: City Limits 5.14. An alternative re
Page 84 and 85: Figure 5.1: Average total waste ari
Page 86 and 87: 5.23. The hazardous waste component
Page 88 and 89: 5.29. Nevertheless, the data estima
Page 90 and 91: Consultations 5.38. Consultations w
Page 92 and 93: to be so in to the future. However
Page 94 and 95: visit and review specific pages. A
Page 96 and 97: European Literature Review and Cons
Page 99 and 100: 6. Special/Hazardous Waste Introduc
Page 101 and 102: ‘Technical Assessment for Waste M
Page 103 and 104: accurate record of hazardous waste
Page 105 and 106: Figure 6.2: Breakdown of recorded h
Page 107 and 108: wastes to London are the closest, i
Page 109: Figure 6.4: Breakdown of hazardous
Page 112 and 113: 6.47. There are a range of views fr
Page 114 and 115: Table 6.5: In-house landfills which
Page 116 and 117: equirements for the ‘new’ hazar
Page 118 and 119: options to improve treatment, such
Page 120 and 121: 6.80. However, the new hazardous wa
Page 122 and 123: 6.90. The future treatment of asbes
Page 124 and 125: 7.7. London’s total hazardous was
Page 126 and 127: 7.19. There is only limited composi
Page 130 and 131: construction and demolition compani
Page 132 and 133: the precise amount of landfill capa
Page 134 and 135: R.14 In order to more effectively t
Page 136 and 137: R32 It is recommended that a reduct
Page 138 and 139: measurement of wastes from construc
Page 140 and 141: Future Actions Table 7.1: Summary o
Page 142 and 143: Theme 3: Support for Existing Initi
Page 144 and 145: for contaminated soils within Londo
Page 147 and 148: Appendix A: Waste policy and legisl
Page 149 and 150: • whole used tyres (from 2003);
Page 151 and 152: UK Policy The majority of UK waste
Page 153 and 154: • Requires consents to discharge
Page 155 and 156: • Prohibits certain types of wast
Page 157 and 158: Green Paper on PVC Key Features •
Page 159 and 160: Chris Searles, Searles Associates D
Page 161 and 162: Table C1. Data by Number (from Smal
Page 163 and 164: Appendix D: Results of Further Anal
Page 165 and 166: Total 100 598.8 70.7 423.4 29.8 178
Page 167 and 168: Appendix E: Local Authority C&I Col
Page 169 and 170: All of the respondents said that th
Page 171 and 172: proportion of waste collected from
Page 173 and 174: Finally, the authorities were asked
Page 175 and 176: The authorities were asked how the
Page 177 and 178: All authorities were asked how they
Page 179 and 180:
Table E11: Do you expect to meet th
Page 181 and 182:
Table E15: What is the situation re
Page 183 and 184:
Appendix F: Consultees for Construc
Page 185 and 186:
Appendix G: Policy, legislative and
Page 187 and 188:
Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The
Page 189 and 190:
Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The
show all

London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?