London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

City Limits 5.14. An alternative report on the waste arisings for London was undertaken by Best Foot Forward Ltd. This was part of a wider study for developing an ‘ecological footprint’ for London presented in a report entitled ‘City Limits’ in 2002. This study estimated that waste arisings per annum from construction and demolition were 14.56 million tonnes, which is considerably greater than the corresponding figure of 3.7 – 8.4 million tonnes from the Symonds study. However the ecological footprint approach used by Best Foot Forward is designed to quantify total resource flows for a given location, activity, event or person using a life-cycle accounting methodology, rather than those which are directly attributable to that activity. For example, an ecological footprint of a construction site using this approach would be expected to include the waste generated in the manufacturing of construction materials as well as that generated from the site itself. Thus this approach would likely result in a higher estimate of the waste arisings attributable to any given activity. 5.15. Discussions with the authors of the City Limits report about the basis for the higher estimate of construction and demolition wastes, indicated some uncertainty about the source and basis for the figure of 14.56 million tonnes quoted. The data source was reported as an Enviros RIS Report titled ‘Managing London’s Waste’, commissioned by London Waste Action and dating from February 2000. This in turn refers to another, unreferenced source, dating from 1997. Hence the basis for the estimated 14.56 million tonnes of C&D waste arisings is not clear and the figure is not considered to be reliable. Literature Review - Waste Composition 5.16. Our literature search and consultations with relevant stakeholders indicated that only a small number of C&D waste composition studies have been carried out in the UK to date. The main ones are identified below: • Hurley et al, 2001; comparison of construction and demolition wastes arisings (by mass) from a number of individual projects • APT Environmental, 2001; an assessment of construction waste composition, by mass, of materials arriving at a waste transfer station in Nottingham. • BRE have also undertaken compositional analysis of demolition and construction wastes, this time by volume. This study is based on arisings from nine sites from 1999 to 2001and is based on a visual audit of skip wastes. 5.17. The Hurley and BRE studies report demolition and construction wastes separately, although Hurley presents data by mass and BRE by volume. The APT study measured construction and demolition waste combined. The results from the Hurley and APT surveys are summarised in Table 5.3. 78
Table 5.3: Comparison of construction waste from individual projects (Hurley et al., 2001), demolition waste (Hurley et al., 2001) and material arriving at waste transfer station in Nottingham (APT Environmental, 2002) Waste group Range (6 projects) Construction waste Demolition waste Waste transfer station Avg. Avg. Avg. % by mass % by mass % by mass % by mass Timber 11 - 33 19.3 3.3 12.44 Concrete 0.5 - 18 5.9 40 13.72 Inert 1 Asphalt 0 3 0.5 - 27 11.1 24 40.85 Ceramic 3 - 11 3.0 0 2 Insulation 1 - 11 2.5 0 2 0 3 15 1.35 Plastic 4 - 37 13.0 1.90 Packaging 8 - 49 25.7 17 1.51 Metal 0.5 - 8 2.6 Plaster & cement 0.5 - 12 3.1 0 2 Miscellaneous 7 - 19 13.8 0.7 18.02 Total 100.00 100.00 99.50 Source: WRAP Note: 1 Inert material includes bricks, masonry, rubble, hardcore, sand and stone 2 Included in figure for miscellaneous 3 Included in figure for inert 5.18. The BRE study was carried out by BRE staff at construction sites across England, using the SMARTWaste tools to collect all relevant data. The results of the audits are shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The differences between the data presented were attributed by BRE to the fact that all of the sites that were audited were at different stages of building progress. The wastes change as the building work progresses, with wastes such as packaging increasing as the build programme moves nearer to completion. Hence Figures 5.1 and 5.2 represent construction waste data from different sites and at different stages of project development. It should be noted that in both surveys, the sample size of construction projects is very small (
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 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 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?