Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Fifth Report



SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM BY GREATER MANCHESTER WASTE LIMITED (DSW 10 (A))

  I have pleasure in enclosing further details of Greater Manchester Waste's calculations regarding the potential costs of meeting the 2010 targets for recycling and recovery, as requested by the House of Commons Select Committee for Sustainable Waste Management (Appendix 1, 2 & 3).

  I would also like to bring to the attention of the Committee the recent EU working document on the management of biodegradable wastes. This document lists the types of biodegradable waste that are suitable for treatment via composting or biomechanical stabilisation and gives a hierarchy of treatment options.

  The document does not support the biomechanical stabilisation of biodegradable wastes for subsequent use as a soil forming material. This does not provide a future for the development of products from municipal wastes for land remediation purposes, and only provides a route for biostabilising these wastes prior to landfill disposal.

  The document details land spreading regimes for these materials as a substitute for virgin top soil applications. However, the limits to application of these recovered materials are so stringent that this will not allow the development of soil profiles capable of supporting sustainable tree growth.

  In the event of this working document being transposed into legislation, it does not support innovative techniques of recovering the organic fraction of municipal waste as a viable soil forming material capable of supporting tree growth. If the UK is to meet the diversion targets in the Landfill Directive, the support and development of schemes such as GMW's Organic Recovery Process must be supported and encouraged.

  GMW have successfully manufactured a Soil Making Material by a biomechanical process which utilises Dano drum pulverisation technology. The Soil Making Material consists primarily of organic materials such as paper, card and vegetable matter and includes mineral substances such as stone and grit.

  The Soil Making Material has a high nutrient content and is ideally suited as a soil amendment in land reclamation projects. It enables the establishment of a fully functional and retentive ecosystem capable of supporting substantial tree growth. The material is regularly tested for chemical and biological parameters, levels of which are consistently below the thresholds within the ICRCL and MAFF standards. The material is also consistent with the standard for soil forming materials detailed in the recent DETR guidance publication on these materials.

  The Soil Making Material is spread on derelict land and former landfill sites to improve the quality and depth of the topsoil. This provides environmental improvement through the ability to support three growth and provide a community recreational asset. Manufacture and spreading of this material makes a significant contribution to diverting biodegradable materials from landfill and also conserves the use of primary materials for restoration purposes.

  GMW believe that this material must be recognised within the confines of existing and forthcoming legislation to enable this innovative and sustainable recycling technique to continue. In the absence of this support, a significant level of landfill diversion and the opportunity to bring derelict land back into use will be lost.

J N Lea
Director of Technical Services

APPENDIX 1

DEVELOPING RECYCLING

ACTION TO MEET 2010 TARGETS
0% Growth in waste arisings 3% Growth in waste arisings
Municipal Waste Arisings27 39.65
Household Waste Arisings26.46 38.9
30% Recycling7.911.67
45% Recovery12.1517.84
Additional Recycling Capacity
Existing Recycling Capacity2.16 2.16
Additional Recycling for 30% Target5.74 9.51

APPENDIX 2

DEVELOPING EfW FACILITIES

ACTION TO MEET 2010 TARGETS
0% Growth in waste arisings 3% Growth in waste arisings
Municipal Waste Arisings27 39.65
Household Waste Arisings26.46 38.9
30% Recycling7.911.67
45% Recovery12.1517.84
Additional EFW Capacity
Difference between recycling & Recovery targets 4.256.17
Existing EfW Capacity2.4 2.5
Additional EfW for 40% Target1.75 3.67
No. of new plants (200,000 tpa capacity) 919

APPENDIX 3

CAPITAL/REVENUE COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING 2010 RECYCLING/RECOVERY TARGETS

  Based on the tonnage projections shown in Appendix 1 and 2, and in particular the 3 per cent growth in waste arising assumption, the following has been rationalised:
Capital £m Revenue £mNote
Recycling
Collection70542 1
MRF47524 2
MRF-Labour69 3
MRF-Maintenance47 4
MRF-Operating Costs 475
Total Recycling545729
Recovery
Thermal Recovery Plant1,425 1506
Landfill Cost Saving (303)7
Total1,970576

Notes:

  1.  Based on £57/tonne Bath figures (as on original schedule). The Capital figures assume vehicle capacity of 8,000 tonnes/annum and a vehicle cost of £60,000.
  2.  Based on £1.5 million capital cost for a 30,000 tonnes/annum clean MRF. Assumed write off period 20 years.
  3.  Assumes 15 people at £20,000 per annum plus on costs.
  4.  Assumes maintenance is 10 per cent of capital costs.
  5.  Assumes other running costs of 10 per cent of capital cost.
  6.  Based on 200,000 tonne/annum plant at £75 million cost as in original figures. Gate fee assumed to be £40/tonne for revenue calculation.
  7.  Landfill saving calculated at £23/tonne including tax.

December 2000


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 19 March 2001