London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5.1: Average total waste arisings by volume across 9 construction sites audited from1999 to 2001 using SMARTWaste data (from BRE). Source: BRE 13% 4% 5% 14% 5% 3% 0% 14% 7% 34% 1% Packaging Ceramics Insulation Plaster & cement Inert Metal Plastic Concrete Timber Miscellaneous Furniture Figure 5.2: Average volume of waste produced by a limited number of construction sites between 1999-2001 (from BRE). % of UK construction waste Source : BRE 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Timber 12.3 Concrete 10.2 Inert 7.1 Ceramic 8.6 Insulation 7.5 Plastic 3.2 Packaging 25.9 Metal 4.0 Plaster & Cement 11.5 Miscellaneous 5.19. With regard to demolition waste, both the Hurley and BRE studies cite ‘concrete’ as the largest waste stream by mass and by volume (40% and 53% respectively). After that, Hurley cites ‘inert’ as the second largest (24% by mass); this includes bricks, masonry, rubble, hardcore, sand and stone, followed by plastic, packaging and metal (17%) and asphalt (15%). In comparison, after concrete, BRE identified ceramics (23% 80 9.6
y volume) and furniture (17%) as the most significant arisings. This is due to the fact that BRE carried out pre-demolition audits and therefore internal elements of the buildings such as furniture were also included. The results of the BRE audit results are presented in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: % Composition of demolition waste by volume – SMARTWaste case studies (from BRE). Metal Plastic Concrete Timber Miscellaneous Ceramics Furniture Electrical Goods 1.4 1.3 52.6 3.4 1.8 22.5 16.6 0.3 Source: BRE 5.20. With regard to construction wastes, the Hurley and BRE studies again report separately by mass and volume. Both reports identify the largest waste stream as packaging (26% and 34% respectively). There was then some similarity with Hurley having timber at 19% (by mass) and BRE at 13% (by volume). Both have a miscellaneous category of 14%, whilst Hurley has plastic at 13% and BRE at 5%, and Hurley has plaster and cement at 3% whilst BRE has 14%. Hurley identifies inert at 11% (by mass) whilst BRE has it at 3% (by volume). 5.21. The results from these surveys suggest that there is a significant difference in the composition between (a) demolition and construction wastes, particularly with regard to the proportion of inert and non-inert wastes and (b) construction wastes depending on the stage of the project development. The main difference between the construction and demolition waste profiles is illustrated in Table 5.5 and suggests that a significant difference exists between these two waste streams that are usually aggregated for data recording and reporting purposes. Table 5.5: Difference in the composition between demolition and construction wastes with regard to inert and non-inert wastes Demolition Construction Mass Study Volume Study 21% Non-Inert 24% Non-Inert 79% Inert 76% Inert 77% Non-Inert 78% Non-Inert 23% Inert 22% Inert 5.22. Generally the limited data available on construction and demolition waste composition in the UK illustrates that whilst there is some level of commonality between the studies, there are also some quite significant differences in the composition of arisings. This is not surprising since the composition of materials arising from demolition and construction activities varies according to the nature of the activity, building fabric, the type of construction and the stage of the development programme. Furthermore, some sites will require significant amounts of earthworks and may hence give rise to excavation wastes which may be relatively small or non-existent on other sites. Finally, of course, the above studies do not necessarily apply to London and hence it should not be assumed that this composition can be simply applied to the total arisings to give a breakdown into individual waste streams. 81
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 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?