London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The authorities were asked about their views regarding which approach (i.e. DSO, private waste companies, externalized or other) to managing waste treatment and disposal gave the most beneficial service in terms of most cost effective service, clean local environment, changes in demand and changes in legislation. Four respondents (two UAs and two WDAs) chose ‘don’t know/can’t say’ or did not answer this question. Only one of the respondents then answered in accordance with how the authority operates (i.e. a WDA using private waste companies who considered that using private waste companies was the most likely to provide the most beneficial service). The other answers, which are all from UAs are follows: • Respondent uses private companies and whilst saying that private companies were the most likely to provide the most beneficial service for all issues, answered don’t know/can’t say for changes in legislation and increased recycling. • Respondent that uses private company and, whilst saying that private companies were the most likely to provide a cost effective service and increase use of innovative treatments, thought that a joint venture would be the most beneficial for all other issues. • Respondent that uses private company and whilst saying that private companies were the most likely to provide a cost effective service, clean local environment, meet changes in demand and increase recycling, thought that other options would be more likely to meet changes in legislation (but no option specified) and that a joint venture would be most likely to increase the use of innovative treatments and decrease landfill. This respondent also added that the question was difficult to answer with certainty until the full impact of the WETS legislation is understood. • A respondent that uses a private company and who considered that both a private company and a joint venture would be the most likely options to provide a beneficial service for all issues. • A respondent that uses a private company and, whilst saying that a private company is the most likely to provide a cost effective service, clean local environment, increase the use of innovative treatments and decrease landfilling, that a joint venture would be most likely to meet changes in demand, changes in legislation and to increase recycling. This question generated several additional comments. One UA indicated that all these factors are determined by the service specification and another that it would “depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time and the willingness of the various parties involved to work together constructively and pragmatically”. Another WDA commented that “these questions are for the specific authorities to answer” and two WDAs that it depends upon many factors. Trends There next came a series of questions about the future trends of waste arisings. The first question asked WCAs and UAs for their view on what will happen to total waste arisings in the future. Five authorities believed that waste arisings will increase by more than 5% and six believed that they would stay approximately the same. One authority had no view held on any of the statements relating to future arisings and six did not answer. The WCAs and UAs were asked for their view on the future arisings of biodegradeable matter (excluding paper and card). Four responded that it would increase by more than 5% and seven that it would stay approximately the same. One did not know and six did not answer. 172
All authorities were asked how they expected the amount recycled to change in the future. Four of the respondents had no view on this issue. Twelve believed that the amount of recyclables will increase by more than 5% in the next five years compared to four who thought it would not change. One did not know and five did not answer this question. The WDAs and UAs were also asked for their views on how the amounts composted and incinerated would change in the future. Six believed that the amounts composted would increase by more than 5%. Two believed that the levels of composting would stay approximately the same. Two did not know or could not say how composting levels would change. One authority did not answer. WDAs and UAs were asked about their views on the future of incineration with energy recovery. Five thought that it would increase by more than 5% and three that it would stay approximately the same. One did not know and three did not answer this question. WDAs and UAs were asked about their views on the future of incineration without energy recovery. Two thought that it would stay approximately the same and one that it would decrease by more than 5%. Three said this question was not applicable to them and two did not know. Three did not answer this question. WDAs and UAs were asked about their views on the future of landfilling with methane recovery. Two thought that it would increase by more than 5%, one that it would stay approximately the same and four that it would decrease by more than 5%. Two did not know. Two did not answer this question. WDAs and UAs were asked about their views on the future of landfilling without methane recovery. One thought that it would increase by more than 5% and three that it would decrease by more than 5%. Two said that this question was not applicable to them and two did not know. Three did not answer this question. The UAs and WDAs were asked about whether they expected to use alternative forms of treatment and disposal in the foreseeable future. Their answers are summarised below. Table E10: Do you expect to use alternative forms of treatment and disposal in the foreseeable future? Yes Possibly No Don’t know 1 a) Treatment by gasification or pyrolysis 2 2 4 5 b) Mechanical biological treatment 3 2 3 5 c) Anaerobic digestion 2 3 3 3 d) Auto claving 1 3 2 8 e) Other (please specify) Notes: 1. Includes did not answer. 2. One respondent stated that gasification/pyrolysis and/or mechanical biological treatment may be used; hence this answer has been included in both categories. 3. Respondent stated that auto claving is already being used for clinical waste. 173
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 128 and 129: waste management obligations and be
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: The authorities were asked how the
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?