MEMORANDUM BY THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH
AND FULHAM (DSW 77)
BACKGROUND
The Council is one of four waste collection
authorities within the geographic area covered by the Western
Riverside Waste Authority. During 1999-2000, the Council collected
over 97,000 tonnes of waste, a small increase from the tonnage
for the previous year.
This waste tonnage includes:
— Around 18,000 tonnes of commercial
waste collected from businesses that have trade refuse agreements
with the Council;
— Approximately 5,400 tonnes of recycled
material, including around 1,000 tonnes collected by third parties,
most notably Cheshire Paper Recycling;
— Around 9,000 tonnes of inert waste,
the vast majority of which is produced by the Council's in-house
highways contractor.
The remainder of the waste tonnage is principally
that collected from households within the borough, currently 76,000
in total. This covers all waste collected from domestic premises,
of which around 40,000 are houses and the remainder flats and
other multi-occupation premises, together with waste collected
from litter bins, streets, parks and open spaces and various premises
falling under the definition for household waste.
The Council incurred a net cost of around £2.15
million in 1999-2000 on collection services. The main element
of this is the direct cost of collection, offset against which
is the income derived from trade waste agreements. This also includes
payments from WRWA for recycling credits and income from the sale
of recyclables. The latter only accounted for around £5,000.
The Council also pays WRWA for the services
provided in disposing of this waste. In 1999-2000, a household
levy of £2.3 million was payable. In addition, a further
charge was raised for non-household waste; this accounted for
around £680,000. The levy is distributed amongst the constituent
authorities of WRWA on the basis of Council Tax, whilst the other
charges are based on tonnages delivered. These charges incorporate
the impact of Landfill Tax, albeit indirectly, through the payments
that WRWA makes to its contractors.
Since the inception of Landfill Tax, there has
been no discernible decrease in waste tonnages. The H&F position
is that a small and gradual increase in tonnages has occurred.
The position varied for the other three members of WRWA, but in
general, overall tonnages have continued to increase. These indicate
that the inception of Landfill Tax has had no impact whatsoever
on waste tonnages.
NATIONAL WASTE
STRATEGY AND
RECYCLING
The Government's National Waste Strategy sets
new targets for handling waste. Amongst these, there is a target
for waste disposal authorities to double their recycling rate
by 2003 (or possibly 2004, Government statements are unclear on
this) where their current performance is below 15 per cent. For
WRWA, this means achieving a figure approaching 16 per cent. The
performance of the four constituent authorities varies, with K&C
generally the highest and Lambeth the lowest. It is however believed
that Lambeth's published figure for 1999-2000 will push them above
both H&F and Wandsworth.
Recycling is a very expensive service to provide
within Inner London, often with poor returns. Therefore, achievement
of a much higher level of recycling is likely to require both
significant levels of local investment and an ongoing publicity
programme. Whether the latter should be run nationally or locally
is a matter of opinion, but certainly, Hammersmith and Fulham
officers are of the view that local campaigns do not always succeed,
and as this is a national problem, it requires a wider approach.
In theory, this cost is offset by the income
from recycling and the recycling credit scheme. However, in practice,
income from recycling has reduced to virtually nothing (only £5,000
in 1999-2000). In addition, although the income from the recycling
credits is very welcome (around £141k in 1999-2000), this
is an expense to WRWA and therefore ultimately is paid for by
the constituent boroughs via the household levy and/or commercial
tonnage charges.
Any reduction in the landfilling of waste as
a result of further recycling will, at least theoretically, lead
to a reduction in handling by disposal contractors and also landfill
tax. This should then translate into a reduced charge to the waste
disposal authority and then to their constituent authorities.
However, this indirect relationship means that it is extremely
difficult to see any immediate benefits from increased recycling,
at least in the short to medium term. The fact that the majority
of cost to Hammersmith and Fulham arises through the levy and
not a tonnage based charge also means that the main incentive
to reduce waste tonnages (ie a reduced cost) may not in fact arise;
the opposite may well be the case.
There is also the question of what happens to
recycled materials once these are removed from the waste stream.
As stated above, the commercial value of these materials is at
present extremely limited. New markets are very slow to develop
and there appears to be a reliance on the private sector to develop
new technologies to make better use of materials within the waste
stream. However, without a commercial incentive, it is difficult
to see where the encouragement to do this is going to come from.
Also in the context of recycled materials, there
is a risk that the environmental benefits of recycling are outweighed
by the cost of the various processes that they go through. These
include in particular the cost of transportation. The table attached
to this document summarises what happens to recycled materials
collected by WRWA. In many cases, these are travelling substantial
distances, often by road. This raises the question on exactly
how beneficial recycling really is.
WRWA PROCUREMENT
PROCESS
WRWA is currently nearing the end of a major
procurement process. Its disposal contracts come to an end in
2002 and the Authority is seeking to award new contracts for either
a short term period (up to seven years) or long term (up to 30).
There are three proposals on the table, two
for the short term and three for long term. All three long term
proposals comprise a mixture of expanded recycling and incineration.
The expanded recycling facilities principally revolve around the
provision of a materials recycling facility (MRF) at the main
disposal handling location (the existing site at Smugglers Way,
Wandsworth). Incineration plants are intended to produce energy
and different locations have been proposed for these, ranging
from Nine Elms through East London to Kent.
The size of incinerator proposed varies, however,
these are generally expected to be in the region of 400,000 to
700,000 tonnes per annum. The final sizing depends on a number
of factors, not the least being whether the contractor intends
to take waste from elsewhere other than WRWA.
There have been concerns raised over the sizing
of the proposed incinerators (amongst other factors), in particular
that these will effectively swamp recycling efforts. All three
tenderers have been keen to highlight the efforts that they propose
to make to stimulate and encourage recycling. These include a
proactive awareness campaign, funded either through Landfill Tax
credits or directly, to educate the public and encourage further
recycling.
What is equally clear is that the MRF options
proposed concentrate heavily on handling "dry" materials
separately, and probably excluding glass from this, to make the
handling easier. Whilst this may make sense from their perspective,
it will be difficult to explain to the public why glass is not
as desirable as, say, paper or wood.
THE LONDON
PERSPECTIVE
There are a number of issues that arise principally
due to the London waste environment. These include:
1. The current lack of a London wide strategy
inhibits waste management decisions, which need to be taken. The
Mayor has the responsibility for developing a strategy, but is
unlikely to produce even a working draft until early in 2001.
2. The high proportion of terraced housing
in the borough creates an urgent situation within Inner London,
given the volumes of waste generated and the difficulties arising
from storage, collection, vehicles movements etc. This makes recycling
much more difficult than in leafy, suburban areas, where the issues
are completely different.
3. The proximity principle means that the
majority of the waste generated within the WRWA area should in
theory be dealt with inside the geographic confines of the boundaries
of the constituent authorities. The arrangements currently proposed
by the three tenderers for the long term solutions would all mean
that significant volumes of waste produced within the WRWA area
would be transported outside it for final disposal.
4. Heavy consumerism and lack of control
over amount of packaging means that an unrealistic expectation
is placed on changes in human behaviour required to control the
increase in waste tonnage. It is extremely difficult for individual
local authorities to influence this, and there is the risk of
considerable negative feedback should authorities be forced into
charging individuals for their waste.
5. The impact of New Technology will have
a devastating effect on the amount of packaging used and produced.
As an example, home deliveries from goods ordered on the Internet
introduce additional protective packaging into the waste stream.
There is a considerable growth area and one that most consumers
are unlikely to recognise.
6. Landfill Tax is set far too low at present
to have any meaningful effect on the amount of municipal waste
sent to landfill. Some benefits may have arisen from the effect
it has had on road construction, with more reuse of aggregates
and road surface scrapping, which otherwise were sent for landfill.
However, current levels would probably need to be raised at least
five-fold before any effect was seen. Even than, the indirect
nature of the charge (local authorities are effectively collecting
this for the Government) means that they are likely to carry the
blame.
7. This example of the effect that landfill
tax has had on the reuse road materials illustrates the vital
role markets for collected materials has on stimulating sustainable
waste management actions. The cost of developing markets within
the London area is considerably higher than elsewhere and this
undoubtedly serves as a deterrent.
8. The incompatibility of the three coloured
glass types gives rise to unnecessarily high collection costs
and adverse environmental impact. It seems inconceivable that
some technological fix cannot be applied to overcome this incompatibility,
rendering a common type of container glass from the three types
collected. This would enable the co-mingled collection of all
three colours, and alleviate the current imbalance of excessive
amounts of low value and unwanted green glass. The alternatives
suggested in the waste strategy, of either banning imports of
green glass or seeking to persuade importers to change, are not
realistic.
9. The additional environmental impact from
polluting emissions resulting from additional vehicle movements
necessary in recycling collection systems, especially in inner
London, rarely gets factored into financial or environmental calculations,
when analysing cost benefits.
10. The lack of available storage space within
typical inner London households, denies the Collection Authority
the opportunity to alternate between recycling and general refuse
collections, thus increasing operational costs and total vehicle
movements. There is a wide expectation within London that waste
will be collected at least once a week, and growing pressure to
increase this to twice weekly.
CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence to suggest that the
introduction of Landfill Tax has had no impact on the generation
of waste. In addition, there is no immediate benefit to Collection
Authorities who do manage to achieve significant reductions in
waste tonnages, owing to the current funding regime that applies
to waste disposal authorities.
The cost of recycling is sufficient to prohibit
or at least discourage large-scale expansion of schemes on a borough-wide
basis. The lack of readily available and economically viable markets
for recycled materials within the Greater London area and the
lack of a London-wide waste strategy are also key factors.
DETAILS OF ROUTES TAKEN BY VARIOUS HAMMERSMITH
AND FULHAM DERIVED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS BETWEEN COLLECTION AND
FINAL DESTINATION
| Material | Recycling Conduit
| Comments |
| Mixed Paper and Card (from kerbside scheme and small number of Council-owned bring site banks)
| WRWA | All mixed paper and card delivered to and deposited in the bulk transfer bay at WRWA by the constituent boroughs (and others) is collected for recycling by Severnside Waste Paper Ltd. Severnside is a part of the St Regis Paper group, one of the largest paper makers in the United Kingdom. The material is loaded loose from the bay into 38 tonne GVW bulk tippers for transport by road directly to the mill in Sittingbourne.
Producing approximately 1.25 million tonnes of new paper each year at its eight UK Paper Mill locations, 95% of its raw material is recovered paper. St Regis Paper is part of David S Smith (Holdings) plc, a major corrugated packaging supplier in the United Kingdom and a distributor of stationery and office products.
All WRWA sourced material is taken to Kemsley Paper Mill, Sittingbourne, Kent, for reprocessing into board and forms 25% of the mill's "loose fill" requirement (the remaining 75% of material used in the process being sorted and baled). 500,000 tonnes of recycled product is produced per annum at Kemsley, using 100% recycled fibre.
|
| Newspaper, magazines and advertising materials (from CRL owned bring site banks)
| Cheshire Recycling Ltd | All paper deposited in the Cheshire Recycling owned paper banks is collected by the company's transport contractor, Ryder Ltd, and delivered to a number of transfer stations situated around London it is then transferred into 38 tonne GVW bulk tippers for transport by road to the Bridgewater paper mill located in Ellesmere Port, South Wirral, Cheshire. Cheshire Recycling is a part of the Bridgewater Paper Company, which in turn forms part of Abitibi-Consolidated. Abitibi-Consolidated is one of the world's largest newsprint companies and was formed in May 1997 through the merger of two of North America's largest paper companies, Abitibi-Price and Stone-Consolidated.
The Bridgewater mill produces approximately 240,000 tonnes of standard and coloured newsprint per annum, plus 20,000 tonnes of "Value Added" products, using over 95% recycled content.
Although CRL guarantee to take all tonnage collected through local authority schemes, none goes to landfill or is incinerated. Any tonnage that cannot be used by CRL's UK mills because of machine downtime or general over-capacity is firstly offered to other UK reprocessors with whom there is a reciprocal agreement. This is more cost-effective to both parties than either exporting or importing to cater for under or over-capacity.
Any remaining tonnage is baled at Ellesmere, prior to being transported by ship to Abitibi-Consolidated mills located overseas (mainly in Asia). During 1998-99, CRL collected 360,000 tonnes of material countrywide, of which 30,000 tonnes were shipped overseas. Abitibi-Consolidated' overseas mills are viewed by CRL as a useful means of mopping up domestic over-capacity prior to the industry stepping up a gear in order to process all the material collected in the UK.
|
| Clear Glass | WRWA | All clear glass delivered to and deposited in the bulk transfer bay at WRWA by the constituent boroughs (and others) is collected for recycling by Berryman Ltd. The material is loaded from the bay into 38 tonne GVW bulk tippers for transport by road initially to the processing plant in Dagenham, Essex. Here, the cullet is washed and contamination removed before being crushed into uniform sized pieces.
The material is then sold on by Berrymans and transferred again by road to UK glass manufacturing companies such as British Glass in Sheffield, for recycling into new glass products.
|
| Brown Glass | WRWA | All brown glass delivered to and deposited in the bulk transfer bay at WRWA by the constituent boroughs (and others) is collected for recycling by Berryman Ltd. The material is loaded from the bay into 38 tonnes GVW bulk tippers for transport by road initially to the processing plant in Dagenham, Essex. Here, the cullet is washed and contamination removed before being crushed into uniform sized pieces.
The material is then sold on by Berrymans and transferred again by road to UK glass manufacturing companies such as British Glass in Sheffield, for recycling into new glass products.
|
| Green Glass | WRWA | All green glass delivered to and deposited in the bulk transfer bay at WRWA by the constituent boroughs (and others) is collected for recycling by Berryman Ltd. The material is loaded from the bay into 38 tonne GVW bulk tippers for transport by road initially to the processing plant in South Kirby, Merseyside. Here, the cullet is washed and contamination removed before being crushed into uniform sized pieces.
Where there is a market, the material is then sold on by Berrymans and transferred again by road to UK glass manufacturing companies such as British Glass in Sheffield, for recycling into new glass products.
Owing to the current glut of green glass in the UK, domestic glass manufacturing companies cannot currently handle all the material being collected. Much of it is therefore being stockpiled until such time as:
(a) British glass manufacturing companies can take it for recycling;
(b) alternative markets can be found for it, eg construction and highways aggregate; or
(c) a market can be found overseas, eg some green glass has recently been transported to Argentina by ship for recycling.
|
Other Boroughs and Other Materials
Plastics
| SITA Cremorne Wharf (K&C) | At present, of the 4 boroughs constituting WRWA, only K&C collects plastic bottles. These are collected via the integrated kerbside waste and recycling collection scheme and delivered to the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) partially sorted by the operation at Cremorne Wharf, both operated on the borough's behalf by SITA Ltd.
When the markeet allows SITA arrange for the sorted K&C derived PET bottles to be transported by road (as part of larger loads) to a plant in Somptin, East Sussex for reprocessing. When the market is depressed and unviable, unsorted mixed plastics are transported by ship as part of larger loads to China.
There is likely to be no net environmental benefit in transporting relatively low-density materials like plastics over such large distances.
Wandsworth would like to tap into this operation via WRWA, but as yet have not done so.
|
| September 2000 | |
|
|
