Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 18: Summary Review of Available and Developing Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management (continued) Waste Description & Economics Design to Biodegradable Municipal Environmental Management development commissioning Waste (BMW) diversion role and health issues Technology status timescales and environmental benefits THERMAL Mass-burn Incineration (MBI) controlled combustion process – most developed waste treatment technology significant economies with larger plant sizes unpopularity resulting in long lead-times. Plants at design stage today are unlikely to meet 2006-10 target date full bio-stabilisation, potentially significant role for residual BMW. Maximises overall recycling rates from residual MSW. Energy recovery (heat &/or power) concerns: dioxins & local air quality deterioration (driven by poor perception), visual intrusion & vehicle movements Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) partial conversion of waste into intermediaries. Relatively unproven worldwide on non-uniform waste. UK pilots in progress difficult to extrapolate from pilot plants. Currently expensive without wider (economic) incentives probable more limited contribution to residual BMW streams this side of 2006-10 full bio-stabilisation, potentially significant role for residual BMW. Maximises overall recycling rates from residual MSW. Energy recovery (heat &/or power) initial public concerns likely to mirror those for mass-burn incineration HYBRID Mechanical-Bio Treatment (MBT) ranging from bio-stabilised followed by landfill, through to more complex options. Proven: UK testbed in progress considerable economies envisaged on larger plants use of residue for energy recovery – or landfilled – could have an impact on overall timescales provides bio-stabilisation & bulk reduction. Assists in maximizing overall recycling rates from residual MSW. Use of residue for energy recovery concerns: bio-aerosols and odours, vehicle movements MECHANICAL Clean Material Recovery Facility (MRF) processing option: separates clean co-mingled recyclates. Commercially proven in UK considerable economies can result from increased plant size probably easiest waste management facilities to secure planning permission no direct BMW diversion role – but offers an important material processing/bulking role concerns: perception of dirty MRFs equating to poor standards, vehicle movements Source: McLanaghan Dr S. Delivering the Landfill Directive: The role of new and emerging technologies STRATEGIC INVESTMENT MEASURES 99
8. Funding and Delivery Summary Spending Review 2002 announced additional resources for waste. There is also potential for getting better value for money from existing sources of funding and to contain or reduce costs through investment and better management. New funding and investment needs to be accompanied by reform of delivery structures. Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities need to be clear and ensure maximum coherence between central policy-making and delivery at local level. It is recommended that: ● ● ● ● co-ordination of waste policy at national level should be improved by strengthening the policymaking, technical, legal and other resources available to DEFRA; WRAP’s role should be expanded so it can take on delivery of key elements of the investment package to reduce waste volumes and increase recycling and the education packages that go with this; delivery at local level should be strengthened by the creation of a taskforce to help local authorities gain access to best practice methods e.g. in contracting with the waste industry; and local authorities should be encouraged to work more effectively with each other and with waste companies and community groups. WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 100
Page 1 and 2:
Waste not, Want not A strategy for
Page 3 and 4:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 2
Page 5 and 6:
The report shows clearly that a dif
Page 7 and 8:
Key points (continued) The aim of p
Page 9 and 10:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 8 There are sev
Page 11 and 12:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 10 The second p
Page 13 and 14:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 12 that cause e
Page 15 and 16:
● 50% of households carrying out
Page 17 and 18:
Box 1: Tackling waste in the devolv
Page 19 and 20:
● Chapter 3 describes why tacklin
Page 21 and 22:
Box 2: Types of waste: (continued)
Page 23 and 24:
authority makes arrangements to rec
Page 25 and 26:
Box 3: Instruments used in other co
Page 27 and 28:
There are sound economic and enviro
Page 29 and 30:
Current policies are failing to tac
Page 31 and 32:
● setting up the Waste and Resour
Page 33 and 34:
4. BARRIERS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE WAS
Page 35 and 36:
4.7 As well as DTI and DEFRA, the E
Page 37 and 38:
that only 7% of the public identify
Page 39 and 40:
Box 6: Common waste ‘myths’…
Page 41 and 42:
● time series data on the costs o
Page 43 and 44:
Summary (continued) ● funding for
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 7: A more detailed version o
Page 47 and 48:
Box 8: Roles and Responsibilities (
Page 49 and 50: Having set out the principles and t
Page 51 and 52: ● ● ● options open and reduce
Page 53 and 54: ● ● ● ● reducing the rate o
Page 55 and 56: Box 11: Scenario 1 - Do nothing - h
Page 57 and 58: Box 13: Scenario 3 - Doing even bet
Page 59 and 60: Reform of the economic and regulato
Page 61 and 62: Box 15: An example of incentives to
Page 63 and 64: Box 17: Measures to tackle fly-tipp
Page 65 and 66: Box 18: The UK Producer Responsibil
Page 67 and 68: Option (a): developing markets for
Page 69 and 70: Building regulations 6.26 One of th
Page 71 and 72: minimisation targets for office was
Page 73 and 74: Recommendation 9: DEFRA together wi
Page 75 and 76: Figure 12: Landfill tax rates and p
Page 77 and 78: 6.53 Lessons from the introduction
Page 79 and 80: management strategy in reducing was
Page 81 and 82: Box 26: Department of Health eviden
Page 83 and 84: 7. CHAPTER STRATEGIC HEADINGS INVES
Page 85 and 86: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 87 and 88: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 89 and 90: What could a reduction in waste gro
Page 91 and 92: Box 27: current collection infrastr
Page 93 and 94: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 17: Two
Page 95 and 96: Industry: what’s needed? 7.19 Sin
Page 97 and 98: Priority 4: improving the research
Page 99: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 18: Summ
Page 103 and 104: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 102 Pressures f
Page 105 and 106: scheme to tackle priority areas for
Page 107 and 108: Figure 19: A new framework for the
Page 109 and 110: will be required and then translate
Page 111 and 112: Recommendation 31: DEFRA and ODPM s
Page 113 and 114: Recommendation 34: ODPM and DEFRA s
Page 115 and 116: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 114 2. Strategi
Page 117 and 118: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Summary of key
Page 119 and 120: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Recommendation
Page 141 and 142: ANNEX A. THE ROLE OF THE STRATEGY U
Page 143 and 144: Lester Hicks - ODPM, senior officia
Page 145 and 146: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT The conclusions
Page 147 and 148: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 146 3. Commerci
Page 149 and 150: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 151 and 152:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 153 and 154:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 152 Community s
Page 155 and 156:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 154 Licensed si
Page 157 and 158:
Waste Strategy 2000 - Government vi
show all

Waste not want not - States Assembly

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

Delete template?

Save as template?