DOCSLIB.ORG

Paper No. Wrwa 863 Western Riverside Waste Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paper No. Wrwa 863 Western Riverside Waste Authority ITEM 5 PAPER NO. WRWA 863 WESTERN RIVERSIDE WASTE AUTHORITY 19th September 2018 MEETING General Manager REPORT (Contact Mark Broxup - Tel. 020 8871 2788) AUTHOR/DATE 11th September 2018 SUBJECT Report outlining progress with operations and other matters since the previous meeting of the Authority. Page 1 Executive Summary Pages 1 to 9 Items reported on Page 9 Recommendations Pages 10 -20 Appendix A - Performance Monitoring Tables Pages 21-28 Appendix B – WRWA/Cory Joint Statement and CONTENTS Fact Sheets in response to LGA statement on plastics. Pages 29-62 Appendix C – Ricardo 1st report – Joint Waste Policy Support Pages 63-113 Appendix D – Ricardo 2nd report – Joint Waste Policy Support STATUS Open BACKGROUND None PAPERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. This paper brings Members up to date on operational and other matters which, in themselves, do not warrant production of a separate paper. The majority of these matters are for Members' information, but where approval is sought this is referred to in the report. The specific matters covered in this report are:- a) Operations b) Performance Monitoring c) Joint Statement in response to LGA’s report on Problems with Plastic Recycling d) Joint Waste Policy Support e) End of the line Waste Avoidance/Reduction Campaign f) Constituent Council New Recycling Initiatives g) English Resources and Waste Strategy h) Cory Riverside Energy’s plan for a new Energy Park i) Autumn Open Day for Residents j) Members Visit to Belvedere k) Items costing between £5,000 and £30,000 OPERATIONS Transfer Stations/ Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) 2. There has been no major disruption in service to the main Transfer Stations’ operations since the last Authority meeting. PERFORMANCE MONITORING Introduction 3. Detailed performance monitoring is shown at Appendix A to this report. The tables shown set out: a. the tonnages of each waste type (including co-mingled recycling contamination) delivered by each constituent council in the current financial year to date, together with projected outturn tonnages, compared against those budgeted for and the previous financial year’s outturn; 1 b. the projected annual cost for each commodity, compared to what these would be if the Authority’s budgeted tonnage of each commodity was received; c. forecast tonnages for future years, adjusted simply by the number of working days in each year; the major waste type and co-mingled contamination tonnages are also shown on a monthly as well as an annual basis; d. comparisons of the tonnage of each major waste type handled by each constituent council on an annual basis; e. comparisons by borough of the tonnages of Locally Authority Collected Waste (LACW), household and non-household waste, household waste arisings per dwelling and per person; and f. weight-based recycling performance on a household and LACW basis. Points to Highlight 4. Whilst General Waste (the residual waste that cannot be reused or recycled and is sent for energy recovery) accounts for around 77% of the delivered waste stream, it accounts for almost 93% of the Authority’s costs after allowing for the treatment of the contamination within the co-mingled recycling. By comparison co-mingled recycling represents 18% of the delivered tonnage, but only accounts for 4% of the Authority’s costs. 5. From tonnage data to date we are predicting a 1.7% reduction in total waste handled by the Authority in 2018/19 from that budgeted for and a 2.6% reduction in General Waste. The levels of reductions vary across the constituent councils with, for example, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea predicted to have 3.1% and 1.3% reductions in General Waste respectively. 6. General Waste for 2018/19 at the Household Waste and Recycling Centre is currently forecast to be over 19% below that predicted in the budget and the total waste figure is down by around 8% (possibly due to General Waste successfully being diverted into the reuse and recycling waste streams). However, these figures could change in time as there is a great deal of seasonality in the HWRC figures, with the 2 prolonged spell of hot weather experienced this summer likely to be a factor in this reduction. 7. The tonnage of co-mingled recycling collected by Lambeth is down on the forecast for 2018/19, by nearly 2%, with Kensington and Chelsea’s and Hammersmith & Fulham’s down by around 1%. In contrast, Wandsworth’s co-mingled recycling tonnage is forecast to be up by 1% on that originally forecast for the year. Contamination levels are generally better than the corresponding period last year, with an overall figure of 14.1% now predicted for 2018/19. JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION’S STATEMENT ON PROBLEMS WITH PLASTIC RECYCLING 8. On 4th August 2018 the Local Government Association (LGA) issued a statement concerning the problems associated with the recycling of plastic waste, suggesting that two-thirds of plastics are not recyclable, and they are calling for manufacturers to work with councils to develop a plan to stop unrecyclable packaging from entering the environment in the first place. Further information can be found here: https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/two-thirds-plastic-packaging-pots-and- trays-unrecyclable 9. The Authority and Cory prepared a joint statement in response to the LGA’s statement and also produced fact sheets that provide detailed information on how materials are recycled, where they are recycled and what products are made from the recycled material. Copies of both the joint statement and the fact sheets are attached at Appendix B and are available on the Authority’s website. JOINT WASTE POLICY SUPPORT 10. In June 2017, the Authority considered a Recycling Performance report (Paper No. WRWA 832) which led to a seminar being held for Authority Members on 14th September 2017, the outcomes of which were discussed at the Authority’s September 2017 meeting (Paper No. WRWA 838). Authority officers subsequently met with officers from the constituent councils, on 4th October 2017, to discuss the matter further. 11. In January 2018, following a procurement exercise as detailed at the last Authority meeting (Paper No. WRWA 850), Ricardo were appointed to advise on: 3 i. the accuracy of the data used to prepare Paper No. WRWA 832 and the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from it; ii. any differences in performance between the constituent councils on different waste types; iii. the suitability of having a range of performance targets, as opposed to the current ‘one size fits all’ weight-based recycling targets; iv. the enhancement of the current recycling programme, with a new focus on a number of waste minimisation initiatives; and v. building on the work detailed in i) to iv) above, to draft a new joint waste policy for the Authority and its constituent councils. 12. Two reports from Ricardo, which cover points i) to iv) above, are attached as Appendices C and D, respectively, to this report. 13. The Ricardo reports’ confirm the accuracy of the data used by officers to prepare Paper No. WRWA 832 and the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from it. The Ricardo reports are very comprehensive but officers would wish to highlight the following points: a) waste prevention/minimisation, including reuse, is a more effective intervention, since, by removing or reducing the demand for goods, it maximises the reduction in demand for raw materials and the associated environmental impact of their production. The Authority’s proposal for the consideration of material specific campaigns to minimise the volume of waste discarded by residents, as outlined in Paper No. WRWA 842 in June 2017, would reduce not only the level of material wasted by residents, but would also represent a saving for residents against the purchasing costs involved. This approach would reduce the carbon impact of these wastes, whether introduced as stand-alone initiatives or in conjunction with the introduction of dedicated collection services. b) given their built environment and demographics, the Authority and its constituent councils generally perform well in comparison to London as a whole and the rest of the UK in terms of dry recycling performance. The 2015 ‘At This Rate’ report by SITA (now Suez) noted that the highest reported recycling rate for authorities with a proportion of multi-occupancy 4 dwellings of above 50% was 39%. In 2016/17 WRWA recorded a capture rate of 34% with a multi-occupancy rate of 73%; c) the lack of garden waste available constrains the Authority and its constituent councils overall weight-based recycling rate, which is a combination of dry and organic recycling. As a result, the level of recycling performance contrasts poorly with outer London and England, where garden waste tonnages are more easily available; d) consideration of alternative methodologies for measuring the best environmental option for each material stream would enable more appropriate targets to be set which would better reflect the performance in the Authority’s area, whilst also demonstrating environmental best practice. For example reducing or recycling textiles and WEEE would generate significant carbon savings but would contribute very little to weight based recycling targets. e) conversely, food and garden waste recycling would only result in small (if any) carbon savings although they might make a greater, but probably still modest, contribution to weight bases targets. The reports highlight that the carbon benefits of treating food waste by Anaerobic Digestion are small when compared to EfW and would be reduced further, or possibly disappear completely, after factoring in the carbon impact of the necessary additional collection services, transport from WTS to reprocessor, delivery of containers (including regular delivery of liners), and the embedded carbon in the containers provided. Utilising the Waste & Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) mean capture rate for food waste recycling, suggests it would be also be difficult to achieve a five percentage point increase from the Authority’s current weight based recycling rate of around 26.5% to 31.5%.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement
    Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement VOLUME NUMBER: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN010093 DOCUMENT REFERENCE: 07 7. 3 November 2018 Revision 0 APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Planning Act 2008 | Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement - Document Reference 7.3 Harry’s Yard, 176-178 Newhall St, Birmingham, B3 1SJ T: +44 (0)121 454 4171 E:[email protected] Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement - Document Reference 7.3 Contents Summary 3.4 Site Analysis 3.4.1 REP Site 1.0 Introduction 3.4.2 Sun Path Analysis 1.1 Introduction 3.4.3 Access 1.1.1 Cory Riverside Energy Holdings Limited 3.4.4 Site Opportunities and Constraints 1.1.2 Riverside Resource Recovery Facility 1.2 Purpose of the Design and Access Statement 4.0 Design Process 4.1 Overview of the Design Process to date 2.0 The Proposed Development 4.2 Good Design Principles 2.1 Overview 2.2 Key Components of the Proposed Development 5.0 Illustrative Masterplan 2.2.1 The Energy Recovery Facility 5.1 Introduction 2.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion Facility 5.2 Illustrative Masterplan Proposals 2.2.3 Solar Photovoltaic Panels 5.2.1 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 1 - North to South - Stack South 2.2.4 Battery Storage 5.2.2 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 2 - North to South - Stack North 2.2.5 Other Elements 5.2.3 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 3 - East to West - Stack West 3.0 Site Overview 5.2.4 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 4 - East to West - Stack East
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Report 2018 2 Sustainability Report 2018 Cory Riverside Energy
    SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2018 2 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2018 CORY RIVERSIDE ENERGY CONTENTS Report highlights 3 About Cory Riverside Energy 5 Chair’s statement 10 CEO’s statement 11 Scope of the report 12 Governance and Materiality 14 Our sustainable business strategy 17 Our sustainability performance 21 Making london a more sustainable city 22 Our sustainability performance against priority areas 30 Our performance scorecard and future plans 40 Appendix 49 Report highlights In 2018, we established our sustainable business strategy to help drive performance across our business in line with five key priority areas aimed at: • supporting London’s circular economy by processing recyclable waste, enabling resource recovery from non-recyclable residual waste, and creating by-products for use in construction; • reducing the level of waste sent to landfill and exported abroad; and • partnering to increase awareness of recycling, the circular economy and the role of the River Thames for freight transportation. 4 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2018 CORY RIVERSIDE ENERGY REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Our sustainable business strategy seeks to improve BUSINESS INTEGRITY our operations to support London’s aims of becoming We have instigated a health and safety culture change programme a sustainable city, and support the nine United to reduce the incidents and accidents we have in our operations. Nations Sustainable Development Goals that we have We have increased awareness and understanding of modern identified as having the greatest ability to impact. We slavery and anti-bribery and corruption amongst employees and invite you to explore our 2018 sustainability report for our suppliers, through enhanced policies and procedures. a greater insight into Cory’s key priorities, which are At our energy from waste facility, we have remained fully compliant summarised below.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfill and Residual Treatment Capacity in the Wider South East of England Including the ➢ East of England ➢ the South East of England ➢ London
    Landfill and Residual Treatment Capacity in the Wider South East of England including the ➢ East of England ➢ the South East of England ➢ London for the East of England Waste Technical Advisory Body South East Waste Planning Advisory Group London Waste Planning Forum Final Report May 2021 with Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Context ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Waste arising ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Residual Waste Treatment Facilities ....................................................................................... 3 3 Recycling rates and targets ............................................................................................................ 5 4 Scope of the Report ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Capacity of Waste Management Facilities .............................................................................. 5 4.2 Waste Arisings ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 London policy context ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cory Riverside Energy: a Carbon Case 2 | a Carbon Case CORY RIVERSIDE ENERGY
    Cory Riverside Energy: A Carbon Case 2 | A Carbon Case CORY RIVERSIDE ENERGY Carbon Trust Peer Review Cory Riverside Energy: A Carbon Case The Carbon Trust has conducted a peer-review on the report Cory Riverside Energy: A Carbon Case. The scope of this study was to run a comparison between two alternative scenarios for waste management and its goal being to demonstrate which has the lower impact: the conversion of waste into electricity within Cory Riverside Energy’s operations, with waste transport by road and river; and the disposal of the same waste to a UK landfill site with waste transport by road only. This was accepted as suitable for the goal of the study and to be in line with the UK Government 2014 Defra study, Energy from Waste: A Carbon Based Modelling Approach. The main findings of the peer-review were: • The carbon footprint study is based on an appropriate methodology and identifies the key carbon impact categories for Cory Riverside Energy’s own Energy from Waste activities and an alternative scenario of the waste being sent off to Landfill. • The study also supports Cory Riverside Energy’s results regarding the comparative analysis of their own Energy from Waste operations to the alternative scenario of Landfill. 1 March 2017 Carbon Trust Certification Limited 4th Floor Dorset House 27-45 Stamford Street London SE1 9NT www.carbontruststandard.com Registered in England and Wales Number 06547658 Registered at 4th Floor, Dorset House, 27-45 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NT “Cory Riverside Energy’s mission is to provide London with a safe, secure, affordable and sustainable energy supply and to continue to do so into the future.“ 4 | A Carbon Case CORY RIVERSIDE ENERGY Who we are Cory Riverside Energy (‘Cory’) is one of the leading waste management companies in London with 275 employees across a network of sites and facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Permit Appendices
    Riverside Energy Park Environmental Permit Appendices APPENDIX: SITE CONDITION REPORT B December 2018 Revision 0 Riverside Energy Park Site Condition Report i Riverside Energy Park Site Condition Report Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 1 1.3 The Objective ................................................................................................................ 1 2 Desk Study Information .............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Geology, Hydrogeology & Hydrology ............................................................................ 3 2.2 Pollution History ............................................................................................................. 4 3 Previous Contamination and Site Investigations .................................................................... 9 3.2 Site Investigations ......................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Soil Contamination Monitoring & Results .................................................................... 12 3.4 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring & Results .............................................. 34 3.5 Gas Monitoring and results ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cory Riverside Energy
    Riverside Energy Park Statement of Reasons VOLUME NUMBER: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN010093 DOCUMENT REFERENCE: 04 4.1 November 2018 Revision 0 APFP Regulation 5(2)(h) Planning Act 2008 | Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Statement of Reasons Riverside Energy Park Contents 1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 3 Project Description .......................................................................................... 5 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 5 3.2 REP ....................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Electrical Connection ............................................................................ 6 4 Description of the Order Land ........................................................................ 7 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7 4.2 Location ................................................................................................ 7 4.3 REP site and Main Temporary Construction Compound - Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................ 7 4.4 Electrical Connection
    [Show full text]
  • Other Reports Template
    Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Volume 2: Appendices Riverside Optimisation Project Appendix B.4 Note on Public Health and Evidence Riverside Optimisation Project Note on Public Health and Evidence On behalf of Riverside Resource Recovery Limited Project Ref: 50407 | Rev: 1.0 | Date: April 2021 Registered Office: Buckingham Court Kingsmead Business Park, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 1JU Office Address: Link House, 78 Cowcross Street, London, United Kingdom, EC1M 6EJ T: +44 (0) 20 7492 5700 E: [email protected] Riverside Optimisation Project Public Health and Evidence Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this Report ................................................................................................... 1 2 Energy Recovery Facilities and Health .................................................................................. 3 2.1 Public Health England Statement .................................................................................. 3 2.2 Public Health England (PHE) Research ........................................................................ 3 3 Ultrafine Particulates................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Monitoring of Particulates .............................................................................................. 6 3.2 Emissions of Ultrafine Particulates from
    [Show full text]
  • Wasting London's Future
    Wasting London’s Future Environment Committee March 2018 Holding the Mayor to account and investigating issues that matter to Londoners Environment Committee Members Leonie Cooper AM Shaun Bailey AM (Chair) Conservative Labour Caroline Russell AM David Kurten AM (Deputy Chair) UKIP Green Joanne McCartney Tony Arbour AM AM Conservative Labour Jennette Arnold OBE AM Labour The Environment Committee examines all aspects of the capital’s environment by reviewing the Mayor’s strategies on air quality, water, waste, climate change and energy. Contact Grace Loseby, Assistant Scrutiny Lisa Lam, External Relations Officer Manager Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 020 7983 4299 Telephone: 020 7983 4067 Follow us: @LondonAssembly #AssemblyEnv facebook.com/london.assembly Contents Foreword .................................................................................... 4 Summary .................................................................................... 6 Recommendations ...................................................................... 7 1. Introduction ..................................................................... 10 2. Preventing Waste ............................................................. 12 3. Increasing recycling .......................................................... 16 4. Reducing residual waste ................................................... 23 5. Energy from waste and benefits from waste disposal ...... 26 Our approach...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cory Riverside Energy’S Efw Plant
    INDUSTRY FOCUS by ETHAN O’BRIEN Carbon Management Advisor at Cory Riverside Energy Energy from Waste and Recycling tonnes of recyclables per annum. the approach; the Cory Compliance In this regular feature, we focus Cory’s river based, local waste Team use their expertise in running on how organisations across disposal and energy generation an Integrated Management System different industries approach solution has substantial carbon (IMS) covering an ISO 14001 energy management. Here, savings compared to road based Environmental Management System, we are exploring the world of transport and landfilling of waste. ISO 9001 Quality Standard and an energy from waste and recycling Throughout the operation using OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health with Ethan O Brien, Carbon energy responsibly, increasing and Safety Standard to develop Management Advisor at Cory efficiency and reducing carbon the energy management strategy Riverside Energy. emissions are central to enhancing within the company. The next phase the Cory Riverside Energy brand. to enhance the existing IMS, is to Cory Riverside Energy’s (Cory) incorporate an ISO 50001 energy mission is to provide London with a A unique approach for a unique management system, further safe, secure, and sustainable energy operation demonstrating Cory’s commitment supply, derived from London’s waste to improving energy management. resource. Cory use a fleet of tugs Energy management at Cory has and barges on the River Thames to been high on the agenda since To produce energy and manage transport sealed containers of waste 2008. It has officially been endorsed waste resource, energy is required (c.750,000 tonnes pa.) from riparian by senior management in a Carbon in day to day operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Cory Riverside Energy
    Riverside Energy Park Planning Statement VOLUME NUMBER: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN010093 DOCUMENT REFERENCE: 07 7.1 November 2018 Revision 0 APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Planning Act 2008 | Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Planning Statement Riverside Energy Park Contents 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 overview of the Proposed Development and DCO Application ..................................... 1 1.2 The Need for New Energy and Waste Infrastructure .................................................... 3 1.3 Planning Assessment .................................................................................................... 4 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Purpose and Scope of the Planning Statement ............................................................ 6 2.2 The Applicant and Study Team ..................................................................................... 7 2.3 Requirement for Development Consent and EIA .......................................................... 8 2.4 The Development Consent Order Process ................................................................... 9 2.5 Other Application Documents and Plans ...................................................................... 9 2.6 Requirement for other Consents
    [Show full text]
  • Costs in the Legal Challenge to the Riverside Energy Park Generating Stations Order 2020
    REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR DECISION – DD2498 Title: Costs in the legal challenge to the Riverside Energy Park Generating Stations Order 2020 Executive Summary: This request is seeking approval of expenditure of £60,925 to cover outstanding GLA legal costs and third party costs payable to the Secretary of State and to Cory Environmental Limited following the Mayor’s decision to discontinue the legal challenge to the Riverside Energy Park Generating Stations Order 2020. ADD2457 approved additional expenditure of up to £30,000 (£10,000 having already been authorised) to proceed with the legal challenge of the Secretary of State’s grant of a Development Consent Order in favour of Cory Environmental Limited for a new waste incinerator. Total legal costs are £45,925. Decision: That the Executive Director of Good Growth approves expenditure of: 1. £25,000 to the Secretary of State; 2. £30,000 to Cory Environmental Limited; and 3. £5,925 to cover outstanding GLA legal costs (taking the total authorised expenditure on legal costs to £45,925) AUTHORISING DIRECTOR I have reviewed the request and am satisfied it is correct and consistent with the Mayor’s plans and priorities. It has my approval. Name: Philip Graham Position: Executive Director, Good Growth Signature: Date: 2 November 2020 PART I - NON-CONFIDENTIAL FACTS AND ADVICE Decision required – supporting report 1. Introduction and background 1.1. On 9 April 2020, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Alok Sharma, announced his decision to grant Cory Environmental (Cory) a development consent order (DCO) for a new waste incinerator in Belvedere, Bexley.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to UKWIN's Climate Change
    A response to UKWIN’s Climate Change Impacts Report (published October 2018) October 2018 PAGE 2 A RESPONSE TO THE UKWIN REPORT CEO Foreword The latest report published by the UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) – ‘Evaluation of the climate change impacts of waste incineration in the United Kingdom 2018’ – is deeply flawed. This is both frustrating and highly concerning, as it risks diverting the attention of policy-makers away from the looming crisis of how to process the millions of tonnes of waste the UK produces every year that cannot be recycled. The issue is not whether or not burning refuse to generate electricity is more carbon intensive than solar or wind power (it clearly is) but whether creating energy from waste is better than landfill operations, with their associated issues of leachate, unconstrained corrosive gas emissions to atmosphere, and water course pollution – to name a few. None of this is mentioned in UKWIN’s report. We completely agree that waste must be minimised and recycled as much as possible. After that it must be disposed of as cleanly, usefully and efficiently as possible. For UKWIN to imply that landfill is carbon negative and therefore a preferable solution to EfW is incredibly irresponsible and in direct contradiction of the Government’s own legally-established waste hierarchy. Handling the UK’s residual, non-recyclable waste in an environmentally-responsible manner cannot be taken lightly and requires constructive unbiased policies based on objective fact. Unfortunately, UKWIN’s report does not support this in any way. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it also does not offer a single solution to the UK’s waste capacity crisis.
    [Show full text]