London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Measure Restrictions or bans on disposal to landfill Germany Denmark Belgium The Netherlands • Ban on disposal of mineral demolition waste & unsorted C&D waste. • Closed-Cycle & <strong>Waste</strong> Act gives waste recycling priority over waste disposal. Taxes • No federal taxes applied to disposal of C&D waste. • There are different prices for landfilling according to the nature and composition (and degree of hazard) of the waste, which encourages sorting of C&D waste. Subsidies • No direct subsidies on C&D waste recycling or re-use. Voluntary agreements (VAs) • A national VA between industrial organisations and the government containing • National waste management policy requires minimisation of landfilling and incineration of C&D waste. • Only waste which cannot be recovered in an environmentally safe way is supposed to be landfilled. • National tax on landfilling and incineration since 1987. (45ECU/t for landfilling) • Taxation in combination with other leglislation and planning measures is cited as being highly successful in reducing landfilling of C&D waste to a minimum. • No direct subsidies on C&D waste recycling or re-use. • In 1996, a national VA on selective demolition was signed between the 182 • No legal restrictions or bans in any of the three regions. • Flanders has VLAREA legislation (1998) banning disposal of unsorted industrial waste (includes most C&D waste), thus C&D waste must be sorted first. • Brussels has indirect ban on disposal through the order of 16 March 1995 regarding obligatory recycling of certain types of non-contaminated C&D waste. • Landfill charges and environmental tax for C&D waste to Class III landfill (16ECU/t) • Flemish government levies a lower rate of tax on disposal of final waste fraction of processed C&D waste (encourages sorting and recycling). • Companies which install prevention of waste systems under PRESTI (see education and training below) can get subsidies from the government • Wherever possible Belgian regions prefer voluntary agreements and consensus • Total national ban on disposal of re-usable C&D waste since 1997. • A levy system is applied to landfills, which differs from region to region, ranging from 23-90 ECU/t. • The government offers contractors for public works the opportunity to earn bonuses if they use secondary aggregates (C&D wastederived) instead of natural gravel. • In 1995, the government and 20 industry organisations agreed on measures to prevent
Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The Netherlands Pilot & demonstration projects targets for reducing disposal of C&D waste, measures for the government to make information and advisory services available to C&D companies, and to undertake research and development. • Demonstration schemes have been carried out on selective demolition and the general logistics of C&D waste site management. Education & training • Education and training is included as a requirement within voluntary agreements. government and the Association of Demolition Contractors. • Many pilot and demonstration projects on C&D waste recycling have been carried out since the mid 1980s, including projects on selective demolition, using crushed masonry in carparks, construction of ‘recycled’ houses. • Theoretical and practical training on C&D waste management issues are available through Technical Universities and Civil Engineering Colleges. 183 objectives to regulation. • Flemish government developed the Implementation Plan for C&D waste together with the construction industry, the main aim was to achieve 75% recycling of C&D waste by 2000. This target was exceeded, and modifications to the Plan have begun with an even higher recovery target. • Many demonstration projects carried out since the 1980s, including large projects using of recycled crushed concrete aggregates in new concrete, demonstrating use of recycled materials in public works, and establishing technical specifications for higher grade applications. • PRESTI and MARCO programmes raise awareness in the C&D industry of environmental issues (e.g. noise, energy, waste). • Flemish government produced a brochure aimed at architects about recent developments in C&D waste prevention and recycling, including demountable construction and and re-use C&D waste, this was later incorporated into a policy declaration. • There have also been VAs between waste contractors and recycling companies, (e.g. agreeing on separate collections of glass). • Pilot and demonstration schemes have been undertaken to demonstrate the application of secondary materials (e.g. soil and dredging spoil, concrete, masonry, mixed aggregates, sieve sand, asphalt granulates) in landraising, as sub-base material, and coarse aggregates in concrete. • There is also a program comprising at least 100 demonstration projects promoting waste minimisation by prolonging the life span of materials. • The Dutch government does not operate any C&D waste related education and training programmes.
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 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: Appendix G: Policy, legislative and
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?