R EQUERIMIENTOS EN P LANTA

The study found that 370,000 tonnes per annum residual waste treatment capacity was planned for the region in addition to the 300,000 tonnes currently available. A further 310,000 tonnes of capacity was also considered to be possibly available in the region in the long-term. A regional summary of the potential capacity for each of the LATS target years is shown in Table 9.1

Table 9.1 Potential residual MSW treatment capacity for the North East (tonnes per annum)

Facilities 2009/10 2012/13 2019/20

Current Facilities 296,000 296,000 296,000

Planned Facilities 370,000 370,000 370,000

Possible Facilities 180,000 180,000 310,000

Total Capacity 846,000 846,000 976,000

After consideration of current facilities and using a 1.5% linear waste growth rate, the additional capacity required within each sub-region, to meet the LATS targets was as follows:

• Tyne and Wear required approximately 200,000 tonnes of additional treatment capacity in 2009/10, 350,000 tonnes in 2012/13 and 500,000 tonnes of capacity in 2020;

• Durham required approximately 100,000 tonnes of additional treatment capacity in 2009/10, 200,000 tonnes in 2012/13 and 250,000 tonnes of capacity in 2020; • Northumberland required approximately 20,000 tonnes of additional treatment

capacity in 2009/10, 50,000 tonnes in 2012/13 and 100,000 tonnes of capacity in 2020; and

• Tees Valley did not require any additional treatment capacity.

The study found after consideration of all current and planned plants, there remained a requirement for additional MSW treatment capacity for the region. The total capacity required within the region for the first LATS target year 2009/10 was predicted to range from 30,000 to 100,000 tonnes, depending on the rate at which waste arisings increase on an annual basis Figure 9.1 illustrates the additional capacity required within the region to meet the LATS

required if waste grows at a rate of 5% per annum, reducing to 0% by 2015 with the capacity required if waste grows at a linear rate of 1.5% per annum.

Figure 9.1 Total Requirement for Residual Waste Treatment capacity in the North East (after inclusion of current and planned facilities)

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 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 M S W c ap ac ity r eq ui re d (T on ne s)

5% reducing growth rate 1.5% linear growth rate

The addition of further capacity provided by the ‘possible’ facilities reduced the requirement for additional capacity in the Durham and Tyne and Wear sub-regions. Under this scenario Durham required 30,000 tonnes of additional capacity in 2011 increasing to 125,000 tonnes in 2020 (assuming a linear 1.5% growth rate). The additional capacity required in Tyne & Wear had reduced to 25,000 tonnes in 2013 and 20,000 tonnes in the last target year of 2020 and no capacity was required in the intervening years.

In summary, the Tees Valley sub-region is not expected to require additional treatment capacity and it is expected that Northumberland will secure sufficient treatment capacity through the PFI process to meet its LATS targets. It is not currently known what type of technology is likely to be used in Northumberland. Durham has an existing MBT plant and a strategy to build more plants, to ensure achievement of the LATS targets. Darlington, included within the Durham sub-region for the purposes of this report, is currently finalising a waste strategy and could seek EfW or MBT solutions to meet the LATS targets. When all current, planned and possiblel capacity is taken into account, the Durham sub-region, according to the data and assumptions applied, may still require residual treatment capacity. If a the 5% reducing growth rate is applied there is a requirement for treatment capacity in Durham for 2007/08 of approximately 50,000 tonnes, however this is reduced to 20,000 tonnes using a linear waste growth rate of 1.5%.

The Tyne & Wear sub region may not require further treatment capacity if all current, planned and possible capacity is realised. A combination of EfW and MBT autoclave technology has

been assigned to the sub-region within this study, effectively removing any requirement for further treatment. However it is assumed that the autoclave technology will produce output streams for the majority of which suitable markets will be found, therefore diverting 80% of the inputs from landfill. In reality it may be difficult to secure markets for the fibre (as RDF or SRF), which is likely to comprise 50% of the output stream, and therefore the sub-region would potentially only divert 30% of the inputs (90,000 tonnes per annum when both planned and possible plants are considered) from landfill and further capacity (approximately 150,000 tonnes) would be required to combust the fibre.

If the capacity of the planned or possible plants is actually secured by authorities outside the region or by a different configuration of authorities within the region than assumed, then each sub-region could have a different MSW treatment requirement from the scenario illustrated in this report.

If the local authorities intend to meet the LATS targets by purchasing permits in the short-term it is likely that the costs could be £4.7 million in 2009/10 (assuming a 5% reducing waste growth rate and cost of permits at £20) if only the ‘current’ facilities are in place. If however the price of permits in 2009/10 is greater than the current average of £20/tonne, the costs could be vastly greater.

The effect of increasing recycling across the region to reach 30% by 2009/10 was investigated using a range of assumptions and ultimately demonstrated that the region could meet the first target year for LATS (2009/10) by achieving 30% recycling, based only on current and planned sites. If the recycling rate remained at 30% for the period 2010 to 2020, further treatment capacity would be needed from 2010/11 onwards (5% reducing growth rate). If an average of 45% recycling were achieved by 2009/10 then no further treatment capacity would be required until 2012. The use of a linear 1.5% annual waste growth rate showed that if the recycling rate remained at 30% for the period 2010 to 2020, further treatment capacity would not be needed until 2011/12 onwards and if an average of 45% recycling were achieved by 2009/10 then no further treatment capacity would be required until 2014.

The timescale involved in the procurement, planning and commissioning process for a new waste management contract or large treatment facility can be up to 8 years which indicates that if the Local Authorities have yet to start the process, it is unlikely that any currently unplanned residual waste treatment facility will be operational by 2010. The planning process for a small scale MBT plant may however be quicker and less contentious than energy from waste plants but there are other risks and uncertainties surrounding MBT which may make it an unattractive prospect for Local Authorities.

It is also worth noting that the waste management industry is becoming increasingly stretched for the resources to bid for large contracts and are therefore selecting the most attractive tenders on the basis of risks, economics and strategic fit with their development plans. It is important that Local Authorities are aware that if their tender is not attractive to the industry, they will receive few, if any, competitive bids and struggle to demonstrate value for money. This does however provide opportunities for smaller scale companies or local companies to bid for waste management contracts.