EVALUACION DE LAS ACCIONES EXTERNAS SOBRE EL

The above estimations are based on natural performance growth of existing “front end” services such as kerbside recycling, except where known expansion of a scheme is known or anticipated. The WCA’s however each have Best Value targets and national recycling targets to meet and if these are achieved, the volume of residual waste requiring recycling is expected to reduce significantly.

The effect of the region meeting a 30% or a 45% recycling rate by 2009/10 was calculated using the following assumptions:

• Household waste arisings taken as 90% of MSW arisings

• Recycling rate taken as 16.4%3 _{of household waste arisings in 2005/06 and}

increased linearly to reach 30% (and 45%) by 2009/10 and then remaining static to 2020

• All tonnes recycled and all current and planned treatment capacity subtracted from MSW arisings (30% of input to Durham MBT and 20% of Gateshead MBT added back in as rejects)

• BMW of remaining waste for disposal is assumed to be 68% (apart from Durham MBT reject fraction which is assumed to be 40% BMW)

• The BMW remaining for disposal is compared to BMW allowances. The difference is calculated back to obtain the corresponding quantity MSW diversion required. If allowances are greater than BMW for disposal then assumed to be no requirement for capacity.

The remaining requirement for additional capacity after inclusion of increased recycling and current and planned facilities is shown for both growth rates in figures 3.10 and 3.11. Increasing recycling to 30% removes the need for additional treatment capacity until 2010/11 (apart from 50,000 tonnes required in 2007/08) and an increase to 45% recycling could mean that additional plants are not required until 2012. The use of a linear 1.5% annual waste growth rate improves the regional picture further.

Figure 3.10 Residual treatment capacity required after increased recycling and inclusion of current and planned facilities (using 5% reducing growth rate)

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Year To nn es M S W

30% recycling by 2009/10 + current and planned treatment 45% recycling by 2009/10 + current and planned treatment

Figure 3.11 Residual treatment capacity required after increased recycling and inclusion of current and planned facilities (using 1.5% reducing growth rate)

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Year To nn es

3.5.7 Timing

With significant additional treatment capacity on the horizon, and the LATS years set, the timing of contract procurement, plant construction and commissioning is critical. The key stages of a procurement process for a long-term integrated waste management contract are listed in Table 3.4 with the predecessor activities also listed for each stage. An indication of a minimum and maximum potential timeframe as well as risks associated with the key stages of a competitive tender process can be seen in Table 3.5. Figure 3.12 also represents the stages of the procurement process identifying the services that are required at each stage.

The time frame shows that even if it is assumed that the WDAs have completed the project development phase, it is still likely to take at least 3 or 4 years before construction of a facility can be completed. Realistically a new facility is not likely to be constructed until 2011 by which point Tyne & Wear will require over 200,000 tonnes of residual MSW treatment capacity. If planning permission is secured then timeframe is reduced, however, the procurement process and building phases could still take up to 3 years for an MBT plant with planning permission. If facilities are particularly large or the technology or location is contentious, the time frame is likely to be extended towards the maximum end of the range listed in Table 3.5.

Table 3.4 Key Stages in the procurement process

Event Predecessor Activities

Submit Business Case Completion of Sustainability Appraisal

Completion of Project Definition & Feasibility Evaluation Submission of Planning Application Publication of Waste Local Plan Public Inquiry outcome

Favourable completion of Waste Strategy Consultation period Financial Close Finalisation of all relevant contracts and agreements (land, waste

management service, ‘Engineer, Procure & Construct’ contract, power purchase, grid connection)

Grant of Planning Consent Grant of IPPC Authorisation Plant Contract Award Financial Close

Plant Takeover Satisfactory completion of Commissioning Final Certification Satisfactory completion of Defects Liability Period Plant Acceptance Satisfactory completion of Plant Performance Tests

Figure 3.12 Services required throughout technology procurement process Mechanical Separation Biological Treatment Biodegradable Municipal Waste Arisings Source

Segregated Schemes"Bring" Residual Waste

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Composting Facility

In-Vessel

Composter (ABPR) Composter (Green)Windrow

PAS100 (Unknown) Paper / Card Plastic Glass Metals Planning Permission Waste Management Licence

Engineering

End Markets Analysis Technology Advice Services Required - Specific MBT Process

Services Required - General Project Management

Finance Env. Monitoring

"Compost Like" Outputs

Thermal Treatment Processes (EfW/ATT) ENERGY RECOVERY Bio-gas Distribution / Logistics PPC Licence

Table 3.5 Example of Indicative Project Phase Durations for a competitive tender process Project Phase & Risk Minimum Maximum High Risk Activities Project Development 30 months 79 months Planning: Public Enquiry Land: Compulsory Purchase EIA: Unforeseen Env. Constraint

IPPC: Failure to obtain consent Stakeholder: Failure to satisfy

stakeholder requirements Project Procurement 24 months 48 months Strategy: Failure to agree way

forward Negotiation: Failure Design/Construction 24 months 40 months Design/Construction:

Unforeseen Problems at design stage and on site Procurement: Delay in Obtaining

Plant Project Closure 4 months 8 months Commissioning: Failure Total 82 months 175 months

4. Risks