|
Warrington Clinical Waste Treatment Centre Appeal Proposed Outline Evidence of Alan WatsonAnnex 3 Waste Composition Data for Gloucestershire
|
səhifə | 19/20 | tarix | 03.05.2018 | ölçüsü | 0,69 Mb. | | #41058 |
| 38.Annex 3 Waste Composition Data for Gloucestershire
Waste Composition
-
The Outline Business Case150 included a pie chart giving some indication of the total waste composition for 2004/5. This shows a breakdown of an average household bin including separately collected recyclables and compostables:
-
A report by Enviros151 for GCC in 2007 included a useful table showing the range of waste compositions across the County. Particularly notable is the large difference between the commercial arisings and the household arisings:
-
The only detailed indication of the composition of commercial and industrial waste assumed for the design of the incinerator is that included as Table 3 in the summary of the WRATE assessment by Ramboll152:
-
This is claimed to be based on the waste composition provided by GCC at the time of the tender. This data is now 4-5 years old and there are serious doubts about whether it is representative of the current residual waste composition. It certainly will not reflect the waste composition for the period 2019-2020 which was selected by Ramboll as the “representative assessment year”.
-
It is also not clear what evidence base supports the assumption of the C&I analysis mirroring the WCA analysis with the exception of combustibles and non combustibles. It is normally expected that C&I waste would have a higher calorific value than MSW but this is not reflected in the Ramboll assessment.
-
Table 4 provides further details of the moisture and ash contents along with the claimed percentages of biogenic and fossil carbon:
-
It should be noted that there is an error in this table in the way that the average values are calculated for biogenic and fossil carbon. The average values, weighted against the tonnages in Table 1 of the Ramboll assessment which shows the waste flows for WCA, HRC and Third Party wastes. The arithmetically correct averages should therefore be 14.48% for biogenic carbon and 11.44% for fossil carbon.
-
Waste composition data for kerbside collections in Gloucestershire153 this was carried out during two seasons (February and July 2008).
-
This was supported by waste composition data for HRCs in Gloucestershire covering only the residual waste. It is important to note that this Waste composition analysis carried out during only one season in July 2008.
-
Data was also provided of the waste composition from Cotswold District Council in February 2009154:
-
It is interesting to compare this waste analysis with that undertaken by Ramboll of the tenders for the Guernsey waste contract. The assumptions used by Ramboll for the waste which would be incinerated in that case are very different from those in Gloucestershire and markedly different from the household waste analysis:
-
It can be seen that the largest single item is organics (food waste) which actually burns very badly, if at all, without support fuels:
-
Kg/hh/wk and percentage of material type present in each stream, Gloucester
Kerbside capture rates for target materials in Gloucester
-
The highest capture rate was achieved for Garden waste at 94%. Of the dry recyclables, glass and aluminium were the best performers, with capture rates of 86% and 85%. The capture of steel food and drinks cans was 74%, while recyclable paper achieved a capture rate of 69%. Plastic bottles had a capture rate of 52% and 41% of food waste was captured. Light card had a capture rate of 27%.
Capture rates for target materials in Gloucester, April-July 2010, operational data
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
|
|