Appendix B

Issues and Options Document - Introduction

The purpose ofthe Waste Management and Planning Strategy Issues and Options document is togenerate discussion about waste management and waste planning in the West ofEngland by seeking the views of stakeholders and the public on the waste issuesfacing the sub-region. These include, for example, how waste should be managed,which new technologies should be used and where the new technologies that willbe required should be located.

The Issues and Optionsdocument includes sections on the amount of waste that needs to be managed overthe twenty year period to 2026, technology options, spatial / planningimplications and sections on shaping the planning and waste managementstrategies. Key issues are summarised at the end of each of these sections andthe views of stakeholders and the public are invited on whether they are theright issues to be addressed or whether there are other matters that should betaken into account in the preparation of the JRMWMS and the JWDPD.

The Issues andOptions document will also need to be accompanied by a robust, credibleevidence base. This is intended to ensure that the JWDPD is soundly based interms of its content and the process by which it is produced. The evidence basewill be relevant to the preparation of the JRMWMS.

A more accessibleversion of the Issues and Options document has been prepared which will beshorter and less technical and better suited to hard to reach groups.

The response fromthe consultation on the Issues and Options documents will inform the nextstages of the JRMWMS and the JWDPD.

Developing a WasteManagement and

Planning Strategy for theWest of England

Issues and Options

Technical Document

December 2006

Contents

How You Can Get Involved

Introduction

PART 1 - TheJoint Waste Development Plan Document

PolicyContext

Shapingthe Joint Waste Planning Strategy

TheCapacity Gap

SpatialImplications for the Joint Waste Development Plan Document

PART 2 - TheJoint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Shapingthe Joint Waste Management Strategy

TechnologyOptions for the Joint Waste Management Strategy

Glossary

Appendices

Appendix A Policy Review

Appendix B The Amount of Waste

Supporting Documents (available separately)

Draft Joint Residual Municipal Waste ManagementStrategy, Jacobs Babtie 2006

Technical Options Appraisal Report, Jacobs Babtie 2006

Strategic Waste Management Assessment for the SouthWest, Environment Agency, 2000

Joint Strategic Planning and Transportation Unit - SubRegional Study of Waste, Entec 2003

How You Can Get Involvedin the Preparation of the Joint Waste Planning and Management Strategies

Role of the Issues and Options Stage

Thepublication of this Issues and Options document is the first step in theproduction of the Joint Waste Development Plan Document (the Joint Waste Plan)and the Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (the Joint WasteManagement Strategy).

Thepurpose of this document is to generate discussion about waste planning andwaste management within the West of England by seeking your views on the issuesfacing the area in general and in particular on how waste should be managed andwhere the new facilities should be distributed.

Thepublication of this document is part of a series of events that are planned totake place. In addition to invitingcomments on this and the associated summary document, it is intended to hold aseries of targeted meetings with key groups. These have been identified as follows:

·        Regulators;

·        Surrounding Authorities;

·        Environmental Bodies;

·        The Public;

·        Waste Industry; and

·        Major Waste Generators.

Seminarevents are also planned across the sub region to allow these key groups to meettogether with other stakeholders to discuss what the key waste managementissues are in the West of England and what the options are for dealing withthem.

Questionshave been provided on the issues that have been identified but your views onany matter covered, or not covered, in this document are welcome.

Itis important that you let us know what you think are the issues and options forthe general distribution of waste facilities and for waste management in theWest of England. Copies of the response formare available at Council offices and libraries or by contacting the West ofEngland Partnership.

Tocontact us you can:

Email us at:

Write to us at:

Visitour website at: www.rubbishorresource.co.uk

Orif you would like to talk to an officer involved in the preparation of thisreport please call:

Yourcomments need to be received by 23 March 2007 in order that they may betaken into account in the development of the next stage of the Joint WasteManagement Strategy and the Preferred Options for the Joint Waste Plan.

KeyStages

OngoingEvidence gathering and datagathering from the Environment Agency

January/March 2007Consultation on the Issuesand Options for the Joint Waste Management and Planning Strategy

Spring/Summer 2007Consideration ofrepresentations received on the Issues and Options

Autumn 2007 Adoption of Joint Waste ManagementStrategy

Sept/November 2007 Consultation on Long List of Sites

December 2007Consideration ofrepresentations received on the Long List of Sites

January 2008Prepare Preferred Optionsfor the JointWaste Plan

May/June 2008Consultation on thePreferred Options for the Joint Waste Plan

Winter 2008Consideration of therepresentations received on the Preferred Options report

January 2009Preparation of the Joint Waste Plan

April 2009 Submission of Joint Waste Plan to the Secretary of State

July2009-July 2010 Examination period of Joint Waste Plan

November 2010 Adoption of Joint Waste Plan

Introduction

The Joint Waste Planning and WasteManagement Project

1.                 The management ofwaste is set to change significantly over the next twenty years withchallenging national and regional targets to reduce the amount of waste goingto landfill and the need to make provision for the range of new recycling,composting and energy recovery facilities which will be required to treat thiswaste.

2.                 Historically thearea known as the West of England (Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire) has exported much of its waste for disposal and assuch the area has very few existing waste management facilities to deal withits waste. The requirements of the newapproach to waste management will therefore see major changes within the Westof England if this area is to take greater responsibility for managing thewaste that is produced in the sub region.

3.                 From a land useperspective national and regional planning guidance requires Local Authoritiesto prepare Waste Development Plan Documents that demonstrate how provision willbe made for the new facilities that are needed in an environmentally acceptablemanner.

4.                 Nationallegislation has introduced a system of trading permits (LATS) for LocalAuthorities that controls how much biodegradable municipal waste (waste that iscollected by local councils from households (including waste from municipalparks and gardens, beaches, fly tipped materials, rubble and street cleaningwaste) that can be broken down naturally) they can landfill. If they exceed their permitted quantity theywill be subject to financial penalties. There is therefore a strong financial driver for municipal wastemanagement strategies to divert the required amount of waste from landfill.

5.                 The four LocalAuthorities have decided that these changes can be best managed in partnershipby preparing a Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy and a JointWaste Development Plan Document for the West of England.

Part 1 - The Joint Waste DevelopmentPlan Document

6.                 In 2004 theGovernment introduced changes to the national planning system. These changesrequire Councils to each prepare a Local Development Framework which willgradually replace their existing Local Plans. The Framework will comprise of aportfolio of documents that will collectively deliver the spatial planningstrategy for an area. The statutory documents in the Local DevelopmentFramework are referred to as Development Plan Documents (or DPDs)

7.                 Although eachCouncil is responsible for producing its own portfolio of documents for itsarea, the decision was taken that, since the collection and management of wastetakes place across local authority boundaries within the West of England, itwas appropriate to consider waste over a greater area than just an individualCouncil area. The four UnitaryAuthorities of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire are therefore working together toprepare a Joint Waste Development Plan Document for the West of England (theJoint Waste Plan).

Part 2 - The West of England JointResidual Municipal Waste Management Strategy

8.                 The West ofEngland Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (the Joint WasteManagement Strategy) is being produced to create a framework for managingmunicipal residual waste generated in the West of England sub-region in asustainable manner. Residual waste is the waste that requires management afterthe material that can be recycled or composted has been recovered.

9.                 The West ofEngland Waste Management and Planning Partnership recognise that wastemanagement is changing rapidly and that a local authority's role now farexceeds the simple collection and disposal of waste. National and Europeanlegislation is now the driving force behind the need to manage waste in a moresustainable way. Local authorities are now required to reduce the amount ofbiodegradable waste that they dispose of to landfill or face economic penaltiesunder the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).

10.             The Departmentfor the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states that "Long-term strategicplanning is vital to all authorities in securing both the infrastructure andservice developments necessary to deliver more sustainable waste management. Itis Government's view that all local authorities should either produce or contributeto a strategy or equivalent."^[1]

11.             It is thereforeimperative that a waste strategy is in place to steer all important decisionsand commitments. The Joint Waste Management Strategy is intended to guidethe way residual waste is managed in the long termand to anticipate longer-term pressures so that they can be planned for.

The Relationship between the WasteManagement Strategy and the Development Plan Document

12.             Whilst these twodocuments are being prepared in tandem it is important to remember that thefinal documents will perform different roles.

The key distinction is:

• The Joint Waste Plan will deal with WHERE all waste should be managed;

whereas

• The Joint Waste Management Strategy will set out HOW municipal waste should be managed.

Part 1 - TheJoint Waste Development Plan Document

PolicyContext

Introduction

13. A summary of the relevant European, national, regional andlocal policy drivers for waste management and planning which will need to betaken into account in the preparation of the Joint Waste Plan for the West ofEngland is set out at Appendix A.

14. This has identified the following matters that the Joint WastePlan will need to address:

• The need to reduce the amount of waste generated;
• The need to divert waste from landfill by increasing recycling/composting rates and providing treatment facilities for the remaining waste;
• The need to provide adequate disposal capacity;
• Regional and sub regional self sufficiency;
• The need to enable waste to be managed at the nearest appropriate facility;
• The need to manage waste without endangering human health or harming the environment; and
• The need for the West of England to identify sites for the facilities that are required to manage its own waste.

15. The policy review has identified that the indicative capacityallocations in respect of municipal waste for the West of England identified inthe South West Regional Waste Strategy and incorporated into the draft RegionalSpatial Strategy are different from the figures that have been arrived at fromthe detailed modelling work carried out on the Joint Waste Management Strategy.There is a need to clarify the capacity of new municipal waste managementfacilities required in order for the West of England to be self sufficient.

Issue 1 - The amount ofCommercial & Industrial and construction & Demolition Waste to bemanaged in the West of England.

Issue 2 - The amount ofmunicipal waste to be managed in the West of England.

Regional Allocations

16. The South West Regional Assembly launchedthe South West Regional Waste Strategy in October 2004. Waste planningauthorities are expected to take account of it in making planning decisions anddrawing up and revising waste planning and municipal waste strategies.

17. The Regional Waste Strategyincorporates the Region's waste management requirements to 2020. The indicativewaste management capacity targets for the West of England, which are based onthe area becoming self-sufficient in waste management capacity, are set out inTable 1.

Table 1
South WestRegional Waste Strategy (October 2004)

IndicativeWaste Treatment Capacity Targets for the West England

1. Municipal Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

2. Commercial and Industrial Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

3. Construction and DemolitionWaste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

DataSource - South West Regional Waste Strategy, October 2004

18. These indicative wastetreatment capacity targets for the West of England have been incorporated intothe draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), and they will be testedthrough the Examination in Public. Waste Development Plan Documents areexpected to make provision for facilities based on these indicative capacityallocations. However, more detailedmodelling of the municipal waste stream carried out as part of the Joint WasteManagement Strategy has identified some changes since the figures in Table 1were prepared. The latest forecasts formunicipal waste are set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Indicative Capacities for Municipal Waste Based on the Joint WasteManagement Strategy ('000 tonnes)

Data Source - JointResidual Municipal Waste Management Strategy, Jacobs Babtie 2006

19. The draft RegionalSpatial Strategy identifies managing waste as one of the greatest challengesfacing the region and endorses the approach set out in the Regional WasteStrategy of minimising the amount of waste produced in the region and then tomake a major shift away from the current reliance on landfill of untreatedwaste. Policy W1 of the draft RSS dealswith the provision of capacity to handle waste and requires waste planningauthorities to make provision in their waste development plan documents for anetwork of sites to deal with the indicative allocations for their area, seeTable 1 above.

20. In the interests of usingthe most up to date and accurate information it is proposed to plan on thebasis of the figures set out in Table 2 with regard to municipal waste.

21. The draft RegionalSpatial Strategy has been submitted to the Secretary of State and will have itsExamination in Public in Spring 2007. Itis proposed to submit these revised figures on municipal waste to theExamination into the draft RSS so as to enable this information to be takeninto account in formulating a revision of the indicative municipal wastemanagement capacity because the Joint Waste Plan is required to be in generalconformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

22. In the absence ofinformation to challenge the allocations for Industrial and Commercial andConstruction and Demolition waste set out in Table 1, the West of England willneed to make provision in accordance with these regional allocations.

Shaping theStrategy of the Joint Waste Plan

Introduction

23. This section sets out the initial thoughts of the four UnitaryAuthorities on the key elements of the waste planning strategy. This includes what the strategy might cover,what it is aiming to achieve and by when.

Issue 3 - The scope of the Vision and Aims of theJoint Waste Plan.

Issue 4 - The type and capacity of waste managementfacilities to be covered by the Joint Waste Plan.

The Draft Strategy

24. It is considered that the Joint Waste Plan should establishthe overall spatial strategy for dealing with all waste in the West of England.The overall aim should be to drive the treatment of waste up the WasteHierarchy and to identify the type and number of waste management facilitiesrequired and their locations. This wouldinform the preparation of each Unitary Authority's Core Strategy.

25. In order to drive the treatment of wasteup the Waste Hierarchy, it is suggested that the strategy element of the JointWaste Plan considers the following:

Waste minimisation and re-use

Establishing a sub regionalapproach that seeks to minimise waste in all types of new development, e.g.:

·        new developments to be accompanied by waste audits which document howwaste is to be minimised/ managed during construction and throughout the lifeof the development; and

·        sustainable resource use during construction.

Recycling and composting

·        incorporating capacity targets into provision requirements;

·        identifying sites for the required facilities; and

·        the design and layout of new and refurbished developments to includeprovision for storage and collection of recycling and composting material.

Treatment/Recovery

·        incorporating capacity targets into provision requirements;

·        identifying sites for the required facilities; and

·        considering the contribution that different technologies could make toregional renewable energy targets; and

·         identifying the nature andquantity of residual waste remaining after treatment and consequent disposalrequirements.

Disposal

·        incorporating capacity targets into provision requirements;

·        identifying sites for the required facilities; and

·        considering whether the phasing of facilities is required so as toprevent their over provision.

26. The strategy could distribute out the identified requirementfor waste management facilities between the four Unitary Authorities areas.This will ensure the provision of waste management facilities at the nearestappropriate location having regard to the need to reduce travel and theconsequent environmental costs. Thelocational strategy could also promote community self-containment. Wastemanagement facilities serving new planned growth areas in the West of Englandcould be incorporated at the outset within the design and layout of theseareas, including the opportunity to utilise combined heat and power.

27. The second part of the Joint Waste Plan would then set out thepolicies and proposals to implement that part of the above strategy thatrelates to the following waste facilities:

·        All hazardous and clinical waste treatment and disposal facilities;

·        All landfill / landraise facilities for non inert waste;

·        All Mechanical, Biological and Thermal treatment facilities regardless ofcapacity; and

·        Recycling and composting facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes perannum or over.

28. All new disposal and mechanical, biological or thermaltreatment capacity for non inert waste is considered to be of importance to theWest of England because of the current lack of such facilities in the area andthe need for the area to take greater responsibility for its own waste. Facilities for dealing with clinical andhazardous waste are specialist in nature and have a wide catchment area soplanning for these facilities in a Joint Waste Plan is also consideredappropriate.

29. It is considered that only larger scale recycling andcomposting facilities, which are of sufficient size to cause significant flowsof waste between individual Unitary Authority areas, should be included in theJoint Waste Development Plan Document. Thiswould mean facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum or more.

30. All other waste facilities will continue to be planned for aspart of the individual Unitary Authority's portfolio of development plandocuments and would not, therefore, be included in the Joint Waste DevelopmentPlan Document. This would include:

·        Inert landfill and recycling facilities;

·        Household Waste Recycling Centres (Civic Amenity sites);

·        Waste transfer stations

·        Composting and recycling facilities with a capacity of less than 30,000tonnes per annum; and

·        Waste water treatment facilities.

31. Inert waste has a low value and does not usually travelsignificant distances for either treatment or disposal. Such waste is currently dealt with at eitherwhere it is produced or at local facilities. It is considered that facilities for this type of waste should remain alocal issue with each Unitary Authority making its own provision.

32. Because the local Councils provideHousehold Waste Recycling Centres as a service for their local residents, it isconsidered that their planning and provision is a matter for individualauthorities.

33. Waste transfer stations are primarilydesigned to bulk up material from a local area before moving it elsewhere fortreatment and disposal. Their provisionis also a local issue but will depend on the nature and location of thedisposal and treatment facilities. Thecomposting and recycling facilities currently operational in the West ofEngland are local facilities that are dealing with waste from the local area inwhich they are located and where these facilities continue to deal with wasteprimarily generated within a single Unitary Authority area it is consideredthat their future provision should remain a local issue.

Vision andAims

34. Takingaccount of the preceding paragraphs, it is suggested that the draft Visionfor the Joint Waste Plan should be:

"The West of Englandwill take responsibility for its own waste by providing a network of wastemanagement facilities. This network will be consistent with the Waste Hierarchyprinciple, take account of the environmental, social and economic needs of thearea, and assist in moving towards the longer-term aim of achieving Zero Waste."

35. The Aims of the Joint Waste Planwhich would deliver this Vision are considered to be:

·        To encourage wasteminimisation in new development;

·        To identify sufficient sitesto enable the development of an integrated network of waste management facilitiesthat maximises re-use, recycling and composting and then recovers energy fromthe remaining residual waste;

·        To enable sufficient and timely provision of waste managementfacilities to meet forecast sub-regional requirements;

·        To encourage the provisionof waste management facilities at appropriate locations having regard to theneed to reduce travel;

·        To take account of the needsof business and opportunities for economic growth and the development ofenvironmental technologies; and

·        To ensure that wastemanagement facilities do not harm the environment or endanger human health.

Timescales

36. The proposed timescale for the Development Plan Document is2006 to 2026.

The end date is the same asthat used for the Regional Spatial Strategy and would therefore ensureconsistency with the next tier of planning guidance for this area. Theimplementation of the Joint Waste Plan policies and proposals will be monitoredon an annual basis and the Plan reviewed every five years.

The Capacity Gap

Introduction

37. The current and future situation inrespect of the quantity of waste to be managed in the West of England is setout in Appendix B and summarised in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Indicative Municipal WasteManagement Capacity Targets for the West of England ('000 tonnes)

Indicative Industrial andCommercial Waste Management Capacity Targets for the West of England ('000 tonnes)

Note for 2000/1 553,000 tonnes were recorded undertransfer.

Issue 5 - Theneed for additional recycling/composting, recovery/treatment and landfillcapacity in the West of England.

Issue 6 - Theneed for the West of England to makeadequate provision to manage all the waste that it creates.

What is Required?

38. The keyissue to resolve at an early stage in the preparation of the Joint Waste Planis the shortfall between the amount of waste managed at existing wastemanagement facilities in the West of England and the amount of waste that willneed to be managed at new facilities in the future, taking into account theneed to divert substantial amounts of municipal, commercial and industrialwaste from landfill.

39. To assist in the task of identifying the "gap" betweenexisting capacity and future requirements, the Environment Agency is preparingan assessment of the baseline capacity of waste management facilities for theWest of England. When completed the baseline Capacity Study will be madeavailable on the West of England Waste Management and Planning Strategy website(www.rubbishorresource.co.uk). No capacity gap issues in the West ofEngland have been identified with regard to inert waste and hazardouswaste. The following sections thereforefocus on non inert (municipal, industrial and commercial) waste.

Recycling and Composting

40. Table 3 identifies that approximately 161,000 tonnes ofmunicipal waste is being recycled and composted in the West of England. Adequate facilities to compact and sortkerbside recyclables exist but, as previously identified, there is a shortageof composting facilities. This resultsin some of this material being exported from the area for treatment. The shortage of suitable compostingfacilities is delaying the introduction of more comprehensive food and kitchenwaste collection schemes by the waste management authorities. The current recycling and composting capacityfor municipal waste in the West of England is therefore estimated at 130,000tonnes

41. Based on detailed modelling carried out as part of the JointWaste Management Strategy, future capacity targets are identified in Table3. This identifies a need for 190,000tonnes of annual capacity for recycling and composting by 2010, which meansthere is a need for additional facilities with a capacity of 60,000 tonnes by2010. Additional capacity of 10,000tonnes per annum by 2013 and 25,000 tonnes per annum by 2020 means there is anoverall need for an additional 95,000 tonnes of recycling and compostingcapacity to be provided over the 20 year life of the Joint Waste Plan if thesetargets are to be achieved.

42. If the above recycling /composting rates are not achieved thenincreased tonnages will need to go through a mechanical, biological or thermaltreatment process.

43. Major expansion of composting facilities will be required ifthese targets are to be achieved, with the provision of two 30,000 + tonnes perannum capacity facilities required. Additional recycling capacity for handling kerbside collectedrecyclables will also be required with a need for at least one new facility.

44. In respect of industrial and commercial waste current figuresindicate that the west of England has adequate capacity tomeet the 2010 regional targets but that additional capacity of 60,000 tonnesper annum will be required by 2020. Thegreatest potential for increasing recycling and composting rates in this sectoris considered to exist in the commercial waste stream that has similarproperties to the municipal waste stream (paper, card and food waste). Therefore the extension of recycling andcomposting initiatives in the municipal sector to include commercial wastecould assist in this regard. But therewould be a need for a further two recycling/composting facilities of 30,000tonnes per annum capacity each to achieve this.

Summary A minimum of fiverecycling/composting facilities by 2020 (each of 30,000 tonnes capacity perannum).

Recovery (Mechanical, Biological or Thermal Treatment)

45. Apart from the planned trial plant at Compact Power inAvonmouth there is no mechanical, biological or thermal treatment capacity formunicipal, industrial or commercial waste in the sub region.

46. The indicative capacity targets (see Table 3) identify theneed for a combined (municipal and industrial/commercial) total of 230,000tonnes per annum by 2010, increasing to 600,000 by 2013 and 775,000 tonnes perannum by 2020.

47. Additional treatment capacity may also be required if therecycling/composting targets set out above are not achieved.

48. The options for meeting this need within the sub region couldbe to either plan for two large (400,000+ tonnes per annum) facilities or for aseries of smaller (100,000+ tonnes per annum) facilities. Alternatively to allow for flexibility theJoint Waste Plan could identify a range of sites of varying capacities to allowa combination of the above approaches to be implemented.

Summary

Option 1: Two recoveryfacilities (each of 400,000 + tonnes capacity per

annum);

Option 2: Up to 8 smaller facilities (each of 100,000plus tonnes per annum
capacity);
Option 3: A combination ofOptions 1 and 2.

Landfill and Land-Raise

49. Permitted landfill capacity which is suitable for municipal,commercial and industrial (non inert) waste is extremely limited in the West ofEngland with total capacity estimated at only 900,000 tonnes, which is theequivalent of less than two years supply of capacity. Additional capacity will be provided byShortwood Landfill on the north east fringe of Bristol, at a rate of 200,000 tpaover 10 years when this site becomes operational in 2007/8.

50. However the capacity targets for non inert waste (Table 3) in2010 is 855,000 tpa, reducing to 480,000 tpa in 2013 and 285,000 tonnes perannum in 2020. To make provision for this within the West of England willrequire the identification of voidspace, which can deal with an initial inputof approximately 600,000 tonnes per annum, reducing to 280,000 tpa by 2013onwards.

51. This could potentially mean a further three disposalfacilities, each with a capacity of 200,000 tonnes per annum. However to prevent over provision in lateryears it will be necessary to reduce inputs in line with capacity targets. Again the provision of facilities withsmaller or larger annual throughputs would increase or decrease the number offacilities required accordingly.

52. There are a number of substantial voids in the West of Englandcreated as a result of limestone extraction. However having regard to the need to protect water resources these voidsare not considered suitable for the disposal of non inert waste. Given the need that has been identified foradditional disposal capacity this could mean the identification of areassuitable for land raise facilities or for preference to be given to energyrecovery processes that produce an inert residue.

53. If acceptable sites cannot be identified within the West ofEngland there will be a continuing need for the area to export waste to thesurrounding counties for final disposal. In the event of this occurring the West of England will need to reachagreement with the surrounding counties and reciprocal arrangements may beappropriate.

Summary : Landfill or landraisevoidspace for 4 - 4.5 million tonnes to 2020.

Summary of Requirements

54. The above assessment identifies the need for the Joint WastePlan to make provision to enable the following tonnages of non inert (municipaland industrial/commercial) waste to be managed in the West of England:

Table 4 - Summary of Requirements for New Non Inert Waste Management AnnualCapacity ('000 tpa)

55. Combined with the strategy of makingadequate provision for a network of sites within the West of England it isconsidered that there should be a policy approach preventing these sites frombeing used to treat waste from outside of the West of England unless it can beclearly demonstrated that such a facility would be the nearest appropriatewaste management facility for the waste to be treated.

SpatialImplications for the Joint Waste Development Plan Document

Introduction

56. This section considers the different locational strategiesthat could be used to address the shortfall in capacity identified in the Westof England having regard to the suggested strategy for the Joint Waste Plan andthe identified capacity gap. It thengoes on to identify the land use requirements of the principal waste recycling,composting and recovery technologies and the proposed site selectionmethodology.

Issue 7 - Theneed to define the locational strategy for waste management facilities in theWest of England.

Issue 8 - Thedistribution and number of sites required to deliver the locational strategy.

Issue 9 - Theneed to establish how to select sites.

Issue 10 - Theneed to suggest sites or areas which should be included in the assessmentprocess, so that opportunities are not overlooked at a later stage.

Locational Strategies

57. It is considered that there are three broad locationalstrategies that may be appropriate for the West of England. These are

·        A concentrated approach based on fewer larger facilities

·        A dispersed approached based on a higher number of smaller facilities

·        A combination of these two approaches

58. In considering the implications for each of these approachesfor the West of England it will necessary to ensure that adequate sites can beidentified to ensure a range of recycling, composting and recovery facilitiescan be provided to enable the treatment of waste to be moved up the wastehierarchy. Regard has also been paid to where the waste is generated and thesocial, environmental and economic needs of the area.

59. The concentrated approach would generally involve wastetravelling longer distances to treatment facilities but have less potential toimpact on local communities because fewer sites would be required. Conversely the dispersed option would reducethe need to travel but would have greater potential to impact on localcommunities because of the need for more sites. A combined approach of larger facilities serving Bristol where the majority of thewaste is generated and smaller facilities serving the other areas may thereforeoffer the best balance between reducing the need to travel and potentialimpacts on local communities.

Recycling/Composting

60. The concentrated option would be based on the need to identifytwo sites within or in close proximity to Bristol to provide centralisedcomposting and recycling facilities to serve the West of England. This would require two sites of between 2 to4 ha. It would also require the fourUnitary Authorities to work jointly on recycling and composting schemes, whichis not currently proposed.

61. The dispersed option would look at making this a much morelocal activity and could involve identifying sites for up to 10/11 facilitieswith a capacity of 15,000 tpa. Thiswould require 4 sites to be identified within or in close to proximity to Bristol and sites to serveNailsea/Clevedon, Weston super Mare, Bath, Keynsham, Yate andThornbury. This would require 10/11 sitesof between 1 to 2 ha to be identified at the above locations.

62. The combined approach would look at identifying a singlelarger site to serve Bristol and then a single smallersite within each of the other Unitary Authority areas to serve Bath/Keynsham,Yate/Thornbury and Nailsea/Weston. Thiswould require a single site of in excess of 5ha and three further sites ofbetween 2 to 4ha.

63. It is also noted that the need for additional Household WasteRecycling Centre (HWRC) capacity both new and replacement has beenidentified. It is not currently proposedto deal with HWRCs in the Joint WDPD but if this situation were to changefollowing consultation there will be a need to a identify at least fouradditional sites to serve Bristol, Bath, Stoke Gifford and North Somerset.

Summary

ConcentratedOption -Two sites within Bristol, each of 2-4 hectares

DispersedOption -Four sites within Bristol, one site atNailsea/Clevedon, one site at Weston-super-Mare, one site at Bath, one site at Keynsham, one siteat Yate and one site at Thornbury, each of 1-2 hectares.

CombinedOption -One site within Bristol of 5+ hectares, one site toserve Bath/Keynsham, one site to serve Yate/Thornbury and one site to serveNailsea/Weston, each of 2-4 hectares.

Treatment/Recovery

64. The concentrated option would look at providing, by 2020, two400,000 tonnes per annum facilities within or in close proximity to Bristol because this is where thelargest quantities of non inert waste are generated. This would require two sites in excess of 5ha located either East/West or North/South of the city with good access to theprimary road network. The dispersedoption would need eight 100,000 tonnes per annum facilities to provide adequatecapacity and having regard to the centres of population this could requirefacilities to be located as follows:

·        Three facilities to serve Bristol and one facility each toserve Nailsea/Clevedon; Yate, Keynsham, Bath and Weston super Mare.

This would involveidentifying eight sites of approximately 1 to 4 ha to serve the abovelocations.

65. A combined approach could involve locating a large (400,000tpa) facility to serve Bristol and a smaller facility(1/200,000 tpa) within each of the other Unitary Authority areas to serve Bath / Keynsham; Yate and Weston/Nailsea. This would require identifyingone large (5 ha plus) site within Bristol and one smaller (1-4ha)site in Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset.

Summary

ConcentratedOption -Two sites within/in close proximity to Bristol, each of 5 plus hectares.

DispersedOption -Three sites to serve Bristol, one to serve Nailsea /Clevedon, one to serve Weston, one to serve Bath, one to serve Keynsham andone to serve Yate, each of 1-4 hectares

Combined Option - One site to serve Bristol of 5+ hectares, one site toserve Bath / Keynsham, one site to serve Nailsea / Weston andone site to serve Yate / Thornbury, each of 1-4 hectares.

Disposal

66. The situation in respect of disposal is slightly differentbecause there is a geological element to be taken into account and also theneed for capacity will decline rather than increase over the plan period. The need for non inert disposal capacity inthe early part of the plan period also remains quite high as the Joint WasteManagement Strategy is based on a recovery facility not becoming operationaluntil 2013. Post 2013 the need fordisposal capacity drops substantially.

67. The only new disposal capacity currently permitted in the Westof England is at Shortwood Quarry in South Gloucestershire. It is also considered unlikely that therewill be any new disposal capacity provided in Bristol. Therefore in order to provide a balancednetwork of disposal facilities to serve the West of England a need for sites inNorth Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset hasbeen identified.

68. The options for meeting this need are considered to be asfollows:

·        Potential to extend existing sites

·        Identify new landfill void capacity

·        Identify new land raise capacity

·        Continue to export to surrounding counties.

69. The existing facility in North Somerset is Yanley Landfill whichhas limited remaining capacity. Proposals to extend Yanley have previously been considered and turneddown at inquiry. However in light of theneed for new disposal capacity that has been identified it may be appropriateto explore options within the existing footprint of the landfill. The remaining voids in North Somerset are in limestone and arenot considered suitable for non inert waste. However if a recovery option which produces an inert residue is usedthere is substantial inert disposal capacity in North Somerset. If these options are not available then itwould be necessary to either identify areas of search for new land raisedisposal facilities in areas beyond the current Green Belt boundaries or tocontinue to export waste for disposal.

70. There are no existing non inert disposal facilities in Bath and North East SomersetCouncil. In respect of new landfillcapacity the only site which could offer any potential is Stowey Quarryalthough the availability and the acceptability of this site for non inertwaste disposal would need to be tested through this consultation process. However an existing permission at Stowey doesallow for the deposit of inert waste to assist in the restoration of thesite. But if Stowey is not suitable theremaining options are again an area of search for a new land raise facility onland beyond the existing Green Belt boundary or a continuation of the currentsituation of exporting waste to the surrounding counties.

71. However, whatever option is selected, given the current lackof disposal facilities in the West of England and that residual municipal wastetreatment facilities are not planned to come on stream until 2013 it isconsidered likely that some non inert waste will continue to be exported fromthe West of England for disposal until 2013.

Land Use Requirements

72. The following table, Table 5, has been prepared by JacobsBabtie and provides information on the land use requirements for the mostcommon type of waste management facilities based on a throughput of 100,000tonnes per annum. Larger capacityfacilities would require larger sites, with a 400,000 tonnes per annum facilityrequiring a site of between 5 and 20 has depending on the technologyproposed. Similarly smaller facilitieswould require less land but a minimum site size of 1-2ha is proposed for thetype of facility that the Joint Waste Plan is proposing to deal with.

Table 5 - Land-useRequirements of Waste Management Facilities with a 100,000 tonne per annumthroughput

NB:Calculations are based on a throughput of 100,000 tonnes per annum.

¹Data taken from ODPM (now Department for Communities and Local Government) Planning For Waste Management Facilities. If facilities were combined on one sitethere could be efficiencies in co-location. Site areas. However for Energy fromWaste and Anaerobic Digestion professional knowledge of existing operatingplants has also been applied.

²Building footprint is the area occupied by the facility building itself. Thisis based on suppliers data for existing facilities. If a number of facilitieswere combined on one site there could be efficiencies in co-location.

³ Datataken from ODPM (now Department for Communities and Local Government) Planning For Waste Management Facilities

⁴ Datataken from ODPM (now Department for Communities and Local Government) Planning For Waste Management Facilities and based on professional judgement.

⁵CO₂ emissions are direct emissions from process element. For MRF, they are equivalent to emissionsfrom electricity used at facility. Data taken from Review of Environmental andHealth Effects of waste Management, DEFRA, 2004 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/research/health/index.htm)

⁶Lead in time is the time assumed from contract close to facility availability.It includes time to achieve planning permission, to obtain the appropriatelicences and/or permits and the construction of the facility, includingcommissioning testing and acceptability testing. Lead in times are based onexperience to date and projected improvements in delivery times.

⁷Defra report on Operational waste facilities in England and Wales, as at end of March 2006 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/wip/data/pdf/waste-facilities.pdf)

Site Selection Methodology

73. In 2003, Entec UK Ltd. prepared a studyof Waste on behalf of Bathand North East Somerset, Bristol City,North Somersetand South Gloucestershire Councils. Akey part of this study was for Entec to develop a methodology that could beused to identify and appraise areas and sites that may be suitable for wastedevelopment.

74. The recommended methodology is describedbelow, and is available for consultation with this report. The chosen methodology is intended to betransparent and founded in 'best practice' so it will be capable ofwithstanding scrutiny at an Examination into the soundness of the DevelopmentPlan Document. It is also intended to be generally applicable across the Westof England so as to ensure a consistent approach and relate to different typesof strategic waste management facility.

75. Having decided to prepare a Joint WasteDevelopment Plan Document for certain types of waste facilities, the fourUnitary Authorities have decided to consult on the methodology before furtherassessing selected sites. This is in order to seek acceptance of the approachto be used for the identification and assessment of sites for strategic wastedevelopment.

76. The methodology comprises of fourstages. The first three stages are anassessment of constraints and opportunities that can be used to identify thegeneral location of areas acceptable for waste uses.

Therecommended approach involves the following:

Stage 1 Theidentification of constraints that WILL rule out waste development as a matterof policy, such as nationally designated landscape, historical or ecologicalareas. These have been termed "Level 1" Negative Indicators.

Stage 2 Theidentification of constraints that MAY rule out waste development as a matterof policy, such as Green Belt. These have been termed "Level 2" NegativeIndicators.

Stage 3 The identification of "Positive" Locationsfor waste development, such as previously developed land or industrial, wasteor mineral sites. These are intended to represent sites or locations where usessuch as waste management facilities would tend to be located and where theywould generally be acceptable in planning policy terms.

Table 6 - Indicators for Site Selection Methodology

77. The final stage provides the detailedframework for the site assessments. Theidentification and assessment of sites will take place as a separate exercisefollowing this current consultation on the proposed methodology.

Stage 4 The assessment ofsites following the application of the above
constraints andopportunities against site-specific criteria.

78. The assessment of sites and locations willneed to be subject to a "sequential" approach. Set in the context of alocational strategy (see paragraphs 56 - 72), this will enable the best sitesavailable within required locations to be chosen for use as waste managementfacilities. Table 7 sets out theproposed objectives and indicators for site assessment criteria. These aresubject to consultation as part of this report.

Table 7 - Objectives and Indicators for SiteAssessment Criteria

Part 2 - TheJoint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy
Shaping The Joint Waste Management Strategy

Introduction

79. TheJoint Waste Management Strategy only considers the management of residualmunicipal waste and it is not intended to replace the unitary authority'sexisting waste strategies, which already consider source segregation ofmaterials for recycling and composting. Residual waste is the waste thatrequires management after the material that can be recycled or composted hasbeen recovered. Currently the majority of the residual waste produced in theWest of England is disposed of to landfill outside the region.

80. The Joint Waste Management Strategy will set out theobjectives and proposals for waste treatment and disposal that will applyacross the region, and the options for meeting performance standards andtargets.

Issue 11 - The West of England needs to develop arange of facilities for the treatment of residual municipal waste between nowand 2013 which will meet the required landfill diversion targets.

Draft Visionand Objectives

81. The proposed draft vision and objectives of the Joint WasteManagement Strategy is as follows:

The four local authorities in the West of England areaare working together to develop, in consultation with local residents and otherstakeholders, a range of facilities for the treatment of municipal residualwaste.

These will deliver significant reductions in theamount of waste, particularly biodegradable waste, being sent to landfillsite. They will also maximise theefficient recovery of resources and encompass environmental, social andeconomic factors.

Each local authority will maintain a long termcommitment to increase waste reduction, recycling and composting and will movetoward a longer term aim of achieving zero waste.

Objective 1.

To deliveroperational municipal residual waste treatment facility capacity, between nowand 2013, which will result in:

·        Meeting thefinancial and environmental objectives of the four waste disposal authoritiesin the sub-region, including landfill diversion targets;

·        Meetingtonnage/treatment requirements of the Regional Waste Strategy;

·        Minimising wastedisposal cost in the West of England;

·        Moving waste management up the waste hierarchy anddeveloping more sustainable practices.

Objective 2.

To secure sufficient fundingto implement the Joint RMWMS.

Objective 3.

To provide the opportunity for local residents andcommunity & special interest groups to inform the delivery of the strategicobjectives;

Objective 4.

Todevelop and implement an external communications campaign which will:-

·        Raise awarenessof the waste management challenges facing the Partnership;

·        Raise awarenessabout requirement to provide treatment capacity in the West of England area andinitiate discussion on treatment technology options.

·        Enable theopportunity for participation in the process by all residents in the West ofEngland

Timescales

82. TheJoint Waste Management Strategy is intended to create a pathway for residualmunicipal waste management for the next 20 years, up to 2026, in alignment withthe Waste Development Plan Document. However, it is anticipated that sometreatment facilities will still be operating for some time after 2026.

83. Wastemanagement is a dynamic area and there can be uncertainty about legislation andtechnology beyond the short to medium term. As a matter of protocol the Joint Waste Management strategy shouldtherefore be fully reviewed every five years by the Unitary Authorities.

The TechnologyOptions for the Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Introduction

84. JacobsBabtie have evaluated a range of technologies and undertaken a modellingexercise on behalf of the West of England waste partnership to enable thedifferent options to be consulted on.

Issue 12 - The need to select a robust and deliverabletechnology to manage the residual municipal waste in the West of England to meet landfill diversion targets and avoidfinancial penalty.

Issue 13 - The need to have a robust evaluationprocess.

Options AppraisalSummary

85. As partof the West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership's (thePartnership) waste management strategy development for the treatment ofresidual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) thePartnership conducted an Options Appraisal (OA) to evaluate a range of residualwaste treatment technology options available. Figure 1 illustrates in aschematic the process of selecting a reference project through an optionsappraisal process.

Figure 1: The Options Appraisal Process

86. The OA process, facilitated by Jacobs U.K. Limited(Jacobs) has provided the Partnership Authorities with a model for the seventechnology options selected.

87. Eachtechnology option was evaluated against both qualitative and quantitativecriteria - i.e. environmental, socio-economic, technical and financial, inorder to provide a relative ranking of the technology options against eachother.

88. Inorder to provide a process that is transparent, accountable and robust, theselection of the evaluation criteria involved a wide range of stakeholdersthrough consultation. A wide range of stakeholder representatives wereconsulted at key stages of the OA process, including participation at theEvaluation Criteria and Scoring Consultation workshops. In addition to the four Unitary Authority(UA) Executive Members on the Partnership's Member Project Board, appropriateScrutiny Panel Councillors also took part. Representatives from umbrella organisations in the West of England werealso invited for consultation, including environmental interest groups, wasteindustry, regional government and agencies, health trusts and parishcouncils. Stakeholder groups from eachUA's local area were invited for consultation, including housing associations,pensioner's forums, waste management forums, environment interest groups,residents' groups, citizen's panels and local strategic partnerships. Inaddition, the Member Project Board also considered the outcomes from theseinputs and the criteria and weightings. This process is also consideredessential in the engagement of stakeholders and allows their considerations tobe taken into account and allows the stakeholder groups to focus and explorespecific areas of concern.

89. Thetechnology options were ranked against all the Quality Evaluation Criteria at aScoring Consultation Day including the same stakeholder groups invited to theCriteria Consultation Day, as well as Scrutiny Panel Councillors, the outcomesof which were considered by the Member Project Board, which further consideredthe indicative costs of each option, the final product being a ranking of thetechnology options.

90. The OAprocess carried out by Jacobs does not serve to draw any conclusion from theevaluation process, but serves to provide further information that can then betaken forward in this document and the Joint Residual Municipal WasteManagement Strategy (the Joint Waste Management Strategy). This publicconsultation is being carried out on the process and outcomes before apreferred technology option is identified and agreed to be taken forward toform an Outline Business Case (OBC) for the procurement of residual wastemanagement services.

91 The Jointwaste Management Strategy is being produced to create a framework for managingmunicipal residual waste generated in the West of England sub-region in asustainable manner. It is fundamental that a waste strategy is in place tosteer all important decisions and commitments. The Joint Waste ManagementStrategy is intended to provide a long term structure for the management ofresidual waste and to anticipate longer-term pressures so that they can be plannedfor.

92. The OBCis relevant to any major procurement project as the purpose of the OBC is tosupport and justify the choice of service delivery route as recommended in theJRMWMS and to provide decision-makers with all of the relevant project informationto enable approval to be given.

TECHNICAL MODELLING OF WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

93. A key element of the OA is a TechnicalOptions Appraisal, the aims of which are to undertake technical modelling ofselected residual waste treatment technologies in order to:

·        Compare theirperformance against Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) biodegradablemunicipal waste landfill diversion targets;

·        Identify therecycling and recovery rates likely to be achieved in conjunction with thecurrent and proposed collection systems and identify potential additionalmaterials that could be collected if necessary;

·        Allow thePartnership to determine the size and type of facility;

·        Determine theindicative capital and operational costs associated with the options;

·        Allow thePartnership to identify a preferred option and develop a reference case for usein a final OBC;

·        Complete the OBC;and,

·        Assist in theproduction of the JRMWMS.

94. Themodelling of technologies is integral to the OA process. Figure 2 below illustrates in a schematic thetechnical modelling process undertaken.

Figure 2: The technical modelling process

95. As partof the appraisal process, Jacobs were required to forecast future wastearisings of the Partnership authorities. Historical data on waste arisings andcomposition has been provided by the Partnership authorities, which has beenused, along with housing projection data to model a potential waste arisingsscenario over the next 30 years.

96. Current source segregation activities that the UAs undertakewere analysed in detail i.e. kerbside collections, Household Waste RecyclingCentres (HWRCs), bring banks etc. The quantity of source segregated material issubtracted from the total MSW to estimate the quantityof residual waste that remains for treatment.

SCENARIOS

97. A Status Quo (SQ) scenario and a Programmed ServiceImprovement (PSI) Scenario were modelled in the Capture Rate Model. The SQ option sitsalongside the technologies in the Technology Model, whilst the PSI option forms the baselineperformance on top of which the technology options (1 to 7) are modelled.

·          SQ - The Partnership carry on as they are today (2005/06) with nochanges to future source segregation performance; and,

·        PSI - The Partnershipimplement all the service improvements that are currently planned beyond2005/06 i.e. improving source segregation performance.

98. Inclusion of these two scenarios gives a comparativeperformance for the technologies against the current situation (SQ) andprojected future changes (PSI).

99. In order for the modelsproduced to have an acceptable degree of accuracy in relation to facilitiescurrently offered by the market, specific technology types and manufacturerswere modelled.

100. The waste treatment technologies modelled reflect technologiesthat are operating and proven in the market (not just in the UK), that arebeing proposed in local authority contracts at this time, and that areconsidered to be bankable and do not have unacceptable risks associated withdelivering them. The options are based on the best current available data;however, this does not preclude other technologies that may be proven in thefuture, being included at a later date.

101. For each technology option two scenarios were then modelledin the Technology Model, the Meet (LATS) Targets and the Exceed (LATS) Targetsscenarios:

·        Under the Meet Targets scenario the treatment technology is modelled toprocess the minimum amount of available and appropriate waste throughputrequired in order to comply with the Partnership's LATS targets. A 10% bufferwas incorporated on top of the targets as a comfort zone.

·        Under the Exceed Targets scenario the treatment technology is modelledto process the maximum amount of waste that is available and appropriate. Thisgives the best possible performance against LATS targets.

102. A hypothetical contract period of 28 years has been modelled,based on experience with current contracts being negotiated. This 28 yearperiod was applied to the technical modelling.

103. The technology options modelled are shown below in Table 8.

Table8 - Technology options modelled

104. Moredetailed descriptions of the technology options are provided below, using acronymsfrom Table 8.

Option:Status Quo (SQ)

The Status Quo optionsimply models the current planned level of source segregation to maintain theexisting level of service i.e. the performance at 2005/06 continuing throughoutthe 28 year modelled period.

Option: Programmed ServiceImprovements (PSI)

The PSIoption assumesthat the Partnership takes steps to improve source segregation performance, forexample, by increasing recycling and composting through improving participationin current kerbside schemes or collecting additional materials. This does not include the construction of anyresidual treatment facility. This optionis useful as a comparison against other options and will also demonstrate theneed for the project by presenting the performance of this option against LATStargets. The PSI option represents thebaseline source segregation performance and is used as the baseline model forthe technology options 1 to 7.

Option 1: EfW

The residual waste in thisoption is put through a basic mechanical treatment process, which primarilyremoves oversize and contrary material. The remaining materials are processedat the EfW facility, which is modelled on mass burn / moving gratetechnology. The waste is combusted toproduce steam and electricity and the ash residues produced are landfilled. Inthe majority of UK operating facilities,ferrous and non-ferrous metals are typically recovered from the bottom ashafter the thermal treatment, however, they may also be removed at the start ofthe process and therein count towards BVPI recycling targets. There are issues,which would need to be considered by the operator, over product quality ofmetals recovered from the start of the process, as recovered metal qualitygenerally improves post thermal treatment,

Option 2: MBT + IVC + TT

This option assumes thatresidual waste is treated at an MBT facility. The compostablematerial from the MBT process can then be sentto an IVC facility for further processing and stabilisation. The remainingmaterial forms a SRF with a high Static Respiration Index that can be sent to athermal treatment process.

Option 3: MBT + TT (3^rd) +LF

This option models theresidual waste being mechanically treated to remove metals, plastics to producean SRF. The SRF is recovered at a 3^rdparty thermal treatment facility. The remaining fine fraction material is thenmoved to a hall where it undergoes an aerobic composting process for a periodof approximately 6-7 weeks stabilising the waste by reducing itsbiodegradability. The resultant "biostabilised" compost like output material can then be landfilled.

Option 4: AC + AD

This option isbased on an autoclave and treatment of the output material though an ADprocess. Residual waste is loaded into a rotating autoclave (sealed cylinder)and using steam and pressure treatment technology the biodegradable fraction ofthe waste is broken down into a homogeneous organic "fibre". The processoutputs are sanitised secondary recyclate, for example, metals and plastics forre-manufacture and an organic 'recyclable' fibre.

The fibre is thenpassed to an AD process is carried out within sealed, cylindrical digestion tanks where theorganic waste is liquefied, heated and broken down by bacteria. The methane gasproduced by the digestion process in the tanks can be harnessed and used togenerate electricity. The resulting output is a 'digestate' product which canbe marketed as a compost soil improver.

Option 5: MT + AD + TT (3^rd)+ Mtn

The organic fraction fromthe mechanical separation process is fed into an AD process for furthertreatment. Anaerobic Digestion iscarried out within sealed, cylindrical digestion tanks, where the organic wasteis liquefied, heated and broken down by bacteria. The methane gas produced by this process inthe tanks can be harnessed and used to generate electricity. The resulting output is a 'digestate'product, which can be marketed for spreading to land applications.

Option 6: AC + TT

This option is based on anautoclave and treatment of the output material through a thermal treatment suchas pyrolysis or gasification. Residualwaste is loaded into a rotating autoclave using steam treatment technology andthe waste is broken down into its organic and inorganic elements. The processoutputs are sanitised secondary recyclate, for example, metals and plastics anda fibre. The fibre is then passed to a thermal treatment process, to becombusted to produce electricity and the ash residue produced islandfilled.

Option 7: MT+TT

The residual waste in this option is put through amechanical treatment process which prepares the waste for combustion. Theremaining materials are processed at a Pyrolysis / Gasification facility. Thewaste is combusted to produce electricity and the ash residue produced islandfilled.

RESULTS OF THE TECHNOLOGY MODELLING

105. Thewaste technology modelling results displayed in Figure 3 below shows that SQand PSI options both fail to meet LATS targets. Thisdemonstrates the need for a residual waste treatment technology in order tomeet the shortfall against LATS targets. The figures also show that eachtechnology option (1 to 7) is capable of meeting LATS targets under Exceedtargets scenarios.

106. Theperformance of each technology option against BVPI recycling and compostingtargets (82a and 82b) is presented in Figure 4 against the Exceed Targetsscenario.

Figure 3:Technology performance - Exceed targets

Figure 4:Performance against BVPI 82a and 82b under Exceed Targets Scenario

107. Theresults from the BVPI modelling show that the technologies would all improveBVPIs (82a and 82b) to varying degrees. Table 9 below tabulates the performanceagainst LATS targets and Table 10 tabulates the performance against BVPI.

Table 9 - The performanceagainst LATS targets in 2019/20 under the Exceed targets model (figuresrounded)

Table10 - The BVPI performance of each technology option in 2019/20 (figuresrounded)

108. Inaddition to the Recycling and Composting BVPI, it should be noted that a BVPIexists for energy recovery, namely BVPI 82c. This OA has not explicitlymeasured performance against BVPI 82c, but has considered energy recovery oftechnology options in evaluating against other level two sub-criteria, whichare explained in the next section.OPTIONSAPPRAISAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

109. Inaddition to the technical appraisal each waste technology option was alsoevaluated against a series of weighted qualitative and quantitative assessmentcriteria including, socio-economic, environmental and financial criteria.

110. A long list of potential Level TwoSub-Criteria were listed against four Level One Criteria (Technical,Environmental, Socio-Economic and Financial) as set out in Table 11 and Table12 below. This long list was drafted by Jacobs and the Partnership's WasteManagement Officers at a meeting on 5 September 2006. The long list was developed using Government, ODPM, 4Ps,Defra guidance, experience from a number of options appraisals conducted withother local authorities, feedback from industry and the SustainabilityAppraisal indicators provided by ERM (Defra appointed external advisors).

111. The industry was invited to feedback theirviews on Level One and Level Two sub-criteria via an Industry Consultation Dayheld on 20 July 2006. These were usedto help determine the long list of Level Two sub-criteria.

112. Whilst the Member Project Board recommendeda short-list of Level Two Sub-criteria to be used in the OA, it was recognisedthat the transparency and robustness of the OA Process would be significantlyenhanced if a wider range of stakeholders were involved in the criteria shortlisting and weighting process.

113. Therefore, representatives from a range ofstakeholder organisations were briefed on the process for the selection ofevaluation criteria at a meeting on 7 September 2006. Attendees were invited to submit their initial thoughts onLevel Two sub-criteria by email or post. The information and opportunity toparticipate was also provided to a number of other stakeholder representativesby email.

114. Toprovide a further and final opportunity for input into the Evaluation Criteriaselection process, a Criteria Consultation Day was held on 22 September 2006. A wide range of stakeholders were invited toparticipate in the day, they were also provided with the opportunity toparticipate electronically if they could not attend the event.

115. Theattendees were asked to shortlist Technical, Environmental and Socio-economicLevel Two Evaluation sub-criteria, and to weight those short-listed criteria.The results of this short-listing exercise are presented in Table 11, whichshows the Level Two sub-criteria used in the OA process; it also shows thepercentage weightings proposed by stakeholders at Criteria Consultation Day.

Table11 - Criteria used in the OptionsAppraisal process recommended by the Member Project Board

116. Participantsat the Criteria Consultation Day were not invited to feedback on potentialLevel Two sub-criteria under the Level One Financial criterion. It was agreedby the Member Project Board at the meeting of 7 September 2006 that Cost/ finance would be considered exclusively bythe Member Project Board. Only one financial Level Two sub-criterion was takenforward, being 'Financial Cost - costs of delivery of each option.'

117. TheMember Project Board considered the weighting of Level One criteria i.e.Socio-Economic, Environmental and Technical. An anonymous vote was taken toweight the Level One Criteria. The Member Project Board was then presented withthe outcome of Level One weighting determined at Criteria Consultation Day, inorder to compare their weightings. The Board considered the differences andresolved the following Level One criteria weightings to be taken forward toScoring Consultation Day shown in Table 12.

Table12 - Weightings for Level One criteria recommended by the Member Project Board

118. Membersthen considered the Level Zero weighting i.e. Cost versus Quality, where theQuality Level Zero criteria encompasses the Socio-Economic, Environmental andTechnical Level One criteria.

119. Adecision to propose the weighting split shown in Table 13 was taken by theMember Project Board on 26 September 2006.

Table13 - Weightings for level 'Zero' criteria recommended by the Member ProjectBoard

SCORING CONSULTATION DAY

120. Theagreed OA evaluation criteria that comprise the Level Zero Quality criterionwere used to evaluate each technology option. This process was conducted at astakeholder workshop, Scoring Consultation Day, on 12 October 2006, where participants were divided into five groupswith every group scoring each technology option against each of the criteria.Technical presentations preceded each scoring session to provide stakeholderswith appropriate information and data on which to base their evaluations.

121. Thestakeholders that were invited to participate at Scoring Consultation Day areshown below in Table 14.

Table14 - OA invitees

122. Thescores for each group were then entered into a database where they could beaveraged and weighted according to the method set out above and the agreedweightings of evaluation criteria. The outcomes from the process are shown inFigure 5.

Figure 5 -Results of the consultation scoring day against the Level Zero Qualitycriterion

123. Figure 5 firstly shows that the Status Quooption scored poorly and demonstrated that stakeholders did not believe thatthis method of waste management was viable in the future. The three technologyoptions that emerged with the highest scores were:

1.   MechanicalTreatment + Thermal Treatment (63.3);

2.   Energy from Waste(58.6);

3.   BiologicalMechanical Treatment + Thermal Treatment + Landfill (57.2).

124. The SQoption was evaluated as the poorest against the criteria and therefore rankedlast.

COST CRITERION

125. The costof each option has also been modelled in an indicative Cost Model asillustrated in Figure 1. This Cost Model used outputs from the TechnologyModel, in terms of projected facility throughputs. Against a series of costmodelling assumptions the capital expenditure, the operating expenditure andthe potential revenues for each technology option was projected over the 28year hypothetical contract period to determine an indicative service cost interms of a Net Present Value (£). This service cost included the costs formanaging source segregated materials i.e. at kerbside, at HWRCs and at bringbanks, though excludes capital expenditure on infrastructure associated withmanaging these wastes.

126. The Costcriterion 'costs of delivery of each option' was considered at a Member ProjectBoard meeting on 24 October 2006. The indicative Net Present Value (£) for eachtechnology option is presented in Table 15.

Table15 - Net present values of technologyoptions (£) (rounded)

127. TheMember Project Board Members scored the technology options in the same way thatthat scoring was undertaken at Scoring Consultation Day.

Figure 6 - Results ofthe evaluation of the Cost Criterion at the Member Project Board of 24 October 2006

Overall Outcome of Options Appraisal EvaluationProcess

128. In combining the scores at the Level Zero Quality and the Costcriterion, the following ranking of the technology options emerges.

Table 16 - Summary of scoresand ranking of technology options against Quality and Cost Criterion to producetotal weighted score and rank.

129. The results are presented in Table 16 and illustrated below inFigure 7.

Figure 7 - Summary total weighted scores

130. To summarise, the ranking of technology options as evaluatedagainst a series of evaluation criteria through a robust, transparent andcomprehensive OA is shown in Table 17.

Table17 - Summary ranking of technology options asrecommended by the Member Project Board

131. The OA process has taken place over a six month period from Mayto November 2006. There has been considerable activity during this period, assuch, a summary of the key meetings and workshops that have taken place aredescribed in Table 18.

Table18 - Summary of the key decisions, actions and activities during the OptionsAppraisal process

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Appendix A - Policy Review