| |
Executive Summary
Delivery of the aims and objectives of the National Waste Strategy: Scotland, is being driven
by the development and implementation of an Area Waste Plan for each of the 11 waste strategy
areas. Together they will provide a coherent and integrated strategy for dealing with
Scotland's waste in the long term. SEPA has facilitated the formation and interaction of
the Waste Strategy Area Groups (WSAGs), which have produced these plans to tackle issues of
waste management at a local level. The Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway WSAG prepared this
Area Waste Plan (AWP) following nationally determined guidance¹. The process was a
voluntary consultative and consensual driven system, with aspirations embracing opinions of
all stakeholders i.e. local people, businesses and organisations. This was driven by use of
Stakeholder Fora, who have independently appraised the system and developed their own
response to the draft AWP and by extensive consultation. The results of the consultation have
been reported on and incorporated into the Area Waste Plan (Annex 4 provides links to these
and other associated reported).
To date the focus of the AWP has been on the wastes that are currently handled by the local
authorities i.e. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Other wastes, such as industrial and special
wastes, are not considered in detail due to a lack of comprehensive data. Further work will
be required to develop waste-management options for these, once quantification and analysis
has been completed. SEPA has initiated a number of priority waste stream projects to tackle
these issues and now has a formal Waste Data Strategy to gather and analyse the data required.
The principle of sustainable development is now fully embedded at all levels of government
thinking and policymaking. The Scottish Executive recognises that effective resource use is a
crucial element of sustainable development and therefore set the following objective within
their Spending Proposals for 2003-6:
Ensure progress towards sustainable waste management in Scotland and achievement of EU
landfill reduction targets by 2010, 2013 and 2020.
The Executive therefore set an overall national target to increase the amount of waste
collected by local authorities which is recycled or composted to 25% by 2006.
The methodology for choosing the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for waste
management was introduced in the AWPning process². This process takes environmental,
economic, technical and social factors into account when considering waste-management
problems. The BPEO decision provided a flexible framework to manage wastes until 2020. In
order to deliver the BPEO, a staged approach is necessary, primarily because of the
timescales involved and the changes that will take place in technology and legislation over
this period.
One of the key issues driving this process is the Landfill Directive. This requires an
incremental diversion of Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste (BMW) from landfill. The target
years are set in the Landfill Directive and, assuming the UK takes a 4-year derogation on the
targets, the target dates will be for 2010, 2013 and 2020. The four local authorities within
the WSAG are all operating to very different political, contractual and geographical
constraints. The BPEO chosen, has therefore, been designed to allow maximum flexibility to
each of the authorities in determining how they implement the BPEO for the different target
dates. It should be noted that some of the authorities have sought to implement their system
so as to achieve 2020 targets as quickly as possible and thereafter adapt to greater
recycling and source separation, etc., whereas others have implemented a phased approach
focusing on 2010 and 2013 targets.
Description of BPEO
As the results of the outcomes from the consultation process and feedback from the Stakeholder
Fora Reports the WSAG has moved to adopt the generic BPEO framework outlined in Figure 1. It
should be noted that this model is hierarchy led. It stays at a generic level. By this we
mean the model sets the principles to be followed in achieving the BPEO. It does not go down
to the detailed level of specifying plant and facilities. This approach allows each of the
authorities to put forward its detailed proposals, including specific technologies,
facilities, possible partnership working, so that they can be judged against the generic
model. The model places an emphasis on the minimisation of waste at source and thereafter
seeks to limit or minimise the amounts of materials falling to a lower order of the hierarchy.
The key values being expressed in this model are: commitment to reducing waste at source, a
commitment to increasing the reuse, recycling and/or composting of materials through the use
of source separated collection systems, a commitment to ensuring that the remaining waste,
i.e. the mixed waste, does not go direct to end point disposal. In keeping with the aims of
the hierarchy, mixed waste should be treated so as to further recover materials for recycling
and/or composting, etc., thereafter consideration should be given to the further recovery of
value from the waste. It is envisaged that the reliance on landfill be minimised, but no
material will go directly to landfill and that only the residuals and unsuitable elements
that fall out of the processes would end up being landfilled.
Exec. Summ. Figure 1 - Generic Model
The model does not assume that every element will be deployed in every part of the area.
Instead, it assumes that the most suitable elements are selected and a mechanism put in place
to ensure that processes can be scaled up or down or re-routed to other elements in response
to changing markets or improvements to technologies.
The commitment of each of the local authorities to this type of approach, as well as to the
consultation requests for more detail, is clearly demonstrated in their proposals, the
specific targets they have identified for their area and the facilities they are aiming to
introduce, are set out in Chapter 3.
Diversion of Waste from Landfill
The overall scale of the task and achieving the EC landfill diversion target should not be
underestimated. Table 1 sets out the amount of BMW that would have to be diverted. Given the
uncertainty surrounding factors controlling waste growth, the figures were modelled on waste
growth at an upper limit of 2% (as set out in the Strategic Waste-management Baseline
Assessment – SWMBA 2001). This table demonstrates the impact even a small increase in waste
growth can have on the overall tonnages that require to be dealt with. The proposals being
put forward by the local authorities have identified specific targets as a means of achieving
this diversion and judging their performance. These are set out in Table 2.
Exec. Summ. Table 1 - BMW Diversion Requirements
| Maximum projection at 2% innate waste growth |
| Year |
1995 |
By 2010 |
By 2013 |
|
| Total MSW |
310,100 |
417,000 |
443,000 |
|
| Total BMW |
186,000 |
251,000 |
266,000 |
|
| BMW Diversion |
|
111,000 |
173,000 |
|
| BMW Landfill |
|
140,000 |
93,000 |
|
Source: Data from SWMBA 2001 Appendix 2 (rounded to nearest thousand).
Indicators
To ensure that the objectives of the AWP will be achieved, the WSAG will need to periodically
review progress. As such, a regular monitoring and review system will have to be set up and
this is specifically one of the action points identified by the WSAG, and indeed was one of
the outcomes from the consultation process.
Whilst the WSAG is reluctant to impose fixed targets without a national framework to follow,
it has acknowledged that performance indicators are required so as to gauge the progress of
the plan. They have, therefore, set out a number of indicators, in addition to recycling and
diversion targets. The full list of performance indicators is given in Table 2.
The local authorities are setting a clear and ambitious commitment to maximising the
recycling of waste and minimising what goes to landfill. By 2020 the group is aiming to have
reduced the areas landfill dependency from over 90% to some 28%.
Exec. Summ. Table 2 - Performance Indicators Combined Waste Strategy Area
| |
Combined WSA |
| Performance Criteria |
By 2010 |
By 2013 |
By 2020 |
| *EC Diversion Target (as % BMSW) |
33% |
54% |
65% |
| **EC Diversion Target (as % of total MSW) |
19% |
33% |
40% |
| Recycling (dry recyclate) |
19% |
23% |
34% |
| Composting (and home composting) |
14% |
16% |
18% |
| Total recycling |
33% |
39% |
52% |
| MSW treatment*** |
51% |
49% |
44% |
Segregated collection
(as % of households) |
74% |
84% |
91% |
| Landfill |
59% |
46% |
28% |
| Total waste diverted from landfill |
41% |
54% |
72% |
| * |
The EC Diversion Targets for BMW reduction are 25% by 2010, 50% by 2013 and
65% by 2020, against a 1995 baseline. The targets shown here are the aspirations of
the authorities, i.e. what they aim to achieve.
|
| ** |
BMW is regarded as 60% of MSW for calculation purposes.
|
| *** |
% MSW treatment is the amount of mixed waste (not segregated) that will go for
further treatment. (SAC consider that segregated kerbside collection of wastes is treatment
of wastes and will consider further treatment methods after 2013).
|
The shift in how the authorities are proposing to manage MSW over the period of the plan, is
best represented in Figure 2 below.
| Exec. Summ. Figure 2 - |
Proposed Changes in How Waste Dealt with Between 1998 and 2020 |
| Note: |
Recovery technologies can yield compost and recycling outputs as well as weight losses
due to water and carbon dioxide vapour hence the lower percentage than in performance
indicators (to avoid double counting).
|
To put this ambitious plan into action the WSAG has identified the additional facilities most
likely to be required for the area, as set out in the Table 3 below.
Exec. Summ. Table 3 - Maximum Additional MSW Facilities Required
| |
EAC |
NAC |
SAC |
DGC |
WSAG |
Maximum handling capacity |
| Compost |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
156,000 tonnes |
| MRF |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
5 |
224,000 tonnes |
| Transfer stations |
2-3 |
2 |
|
1 |
6 |
| Treatment |
1-2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
284,000 tonnes |
| Landfill |
|
1 |
|
2* |
1 |
142,000 tonnes |
| C/A and/or recycling |
2-3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
Not applicable |
* extension and redevelopment of existing sites only
Source: Summary of local authority Practices and Plans - Annex 6
The proposed facilities are the maximum number of additional facilities needed to implement
the BPEO. Each of the authorities will put forward its detailed proposals, including specific
technologies, facilities and possible partnership working, to be judged against the generic
BPEO model developed in the AWP. The model itself does not assume that every element will be
deployed in every part of the area.
It should be noted that the table of waste-management facilities is indicative only, as
contractual arrangements between local authorities and waste-management industry, funding and
resourcing issues, etc., waste-growth issues and the like may introduce a slight variation on
the scale of facilities required to achieve the diversion targets. Schematics of the likely
additional plant at the modelled maximum waste tonnages are given in Figures 3-5.
Exec. Summ. Figure 3 - Schematic of Likely Additional Plan and Capacity by BPEO 2010
Exec. Summ. Figure 4 - Schematic of Likely Additional Plan and Capacity by BPEO 2013
Exec. Summ. Figure 5 - Schematic of Likely Additional Plan and Capacity by BPEO 2020
| Note: |
Losses of water vapour and CO2 are attributed to the output material, e.g. the 38,000
tonnes going to energy from waste comprises 30,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel and
8,000 tonnes of losses. See chapter 3 for full details.
|
BMW Landfill Targets
The main statutory target that the local authorities must achieve, is the diversion of
biodegradable material away from landfill. This will be measured as the amount landfilled.
The BPEO put forward by the waste strategy group delivers those targets. It has been modelled
against a worst-case scenario of a continual 2% annual growth in waste over the period of
the plan and has been found to be robust enough to deliver the targets with a margin of
safety. (see Table 4 below).
Exec. Summ. Table 4 - BMW Diversion Targets
| Target Years |
BMW Permitted to Landfill* |
BMW Landfilled
(in accordance with BPEO) |
| By 2010 |
140,000 |
74,000 |
| By 2013 |
93,000 |
62,000 |
| By 2020 |
65,000 |
43,000 |
* from SWMBA 2001
Conclusions
The Plan outlines the framework required to move from the current practices of waste
management to an integrated system, which will shift the emphasis towards resource management.
The use of these resources should bring about economic, environmental and social benefits,
through the elements of value recovery – recycling, composting and energy production. The
magnitude of this change is very substantial. All sectors of industry and society will have
to play a significant part, from waste reduction to the efficient operation of the waste
management facilities. This framework provides guidelines within which change can be effected
and progress can be monitored.
Signpost to this Plan
This AWP has 5 main parts:
| Section 1 |
Sets out the background to the AWP in the context of the Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway Area.
|
| Section 2 |
Summarises the strategic framework and key drivers behind the development of the AWP.
|
| Section 3 |
Details the BPEO for the management of the MSW.
|
| Section 4 |
Covers wastes that are not included in the BPEO.
|
| Section 5 |
Sets out the way forward to implementing the AWP.
|
¹Supporting Guidance for Area Waste Plans, SEPA 2000.
²Best Practicable Environmental Option Decision Making Guidance, SEPA 2000.
|
|
