Veridis Energy believes that its proposed energy from waste (EfW) plant on the outskirts of Belfast provides a ‘win-win’ solution for diverting waste from landfill. Despite encountering many obstacles, Jim Lynas and Harry McCourt have remained committed to their vision of creating Northern Ireland’s first major EfW designed to accept the residual fraction of municipal, commercial and industrial wastes which can not be recycled or composted.

This shared vision would make a valuable contribution to both waste recycling and power generation in Northern Ireland, whilst helping the Executive, councils and the private sector to dramatically reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.

Earlier this year, Harry’s drive and knowledge within the global waste arena was rewarded when his other company, EMS Ltd in Portadown, was awarded a multi-million pound contract by the Kurdistan government to help it find sustainable solutions and develop infrastructure to target its growing waste problems. Likewise, Jim’s sister company IRS recently received planning consent for a new state of the art recycling facility which will ensure that all recyclable material is recovered prior to thermal treatment.

Strategic importance

Co-owner of the Veridis project, Jim Lynas sees the plant as playing a vital role in dealing with waste which is currently going to landfill whilst meeting the challenge to generate more ‘green’ heat and electricity.

“The benefits of the project for Northern Ireland’s economy are significant. We believe that the project will help solve our over reliance on landfill whilst creating a secure and sustainable renewable energy source. We are already recycling and recovering materials, so only those wastes which cannot be recycled will be recovered as fuel for the EfW,” he added.

The company is only too aware of the hefty EU fines that Northern Ireland will incur if strict landfill reduction targets are not met Jim said. “We are making every effort to communicate our proposals and clarify any concerns that politicians and the public may have. The project provides a single solution to many environmental, commercial and energy related issues.”

As a facility that provides both heat and power, it will contribute to Northern Ireland’s renewable energy targets and in particular Northern Ireland’s strategic goal of 40 per cent renewable electricity generation by 2020. The facility will generate 12.5 MW of renewable power which is enough to supply 20,000 homes.

The project represents a capital investment of over £40 million with the potential for a large percentage of that being invested as sub-contracts for local steel fabrication, electrical, mechanical and IT companies.

“The project is expected to create over 100 construction jobs and up to 40 permanent posts with further spin-off and auxiliary posts during construction and subsequent operations. In times of economic crisis, this private sector investment has to be a welcome opportunity for the people of North Belfast and further afield.”

Technology

Jim and Harry have sourced reliable and environmentally sound technologies for their proposal. “We have worked in partnership with our technology provider, carefully selecting ‘Best available technology.’ We have chosen this particular combustion technology due to its proven track record right across Europe,” Harry commented. Commenting on potential concerns over environmental impacts, Jim explained: “I understand people’s concerns regarding waste treatment plants. Our facility is designed to minimise impacts on the surrounding countryside whilst ensuring that state of the art low emissions technology protects the environment. We are also working proactively with the regulatory authorities to bring an impacted site back into beneficial use.” Jim concluded: “Veridis is committed to developing the project within a timeframe.”

For further information on the Veridis Project please contact Edward Hanna (Head of Strategic Operations and Public Affairs) at edwardhanna@veridisenergy.com 

Web: www.veridisenergy.com

The region’s three waste management groups: arc21, the North West Region Waste Management Group (NWRWMG) and the Southern Waste Management Partnership (SWaMP) are currently undergoing a competitive dialogue process, used when the contracting authority wishes to award a particularly complex contract.

A spokesman from the Department of the Environment has told agendaNi that construction of all the facilities is scheduled to commence in the year 2012-2013 “with the initial plant becoming operational in 2013-2014.” The contracts to successful bidders were originally to be awarded by 2010 or late 2011 but the deadline has been extended, although the department didn’t clarify a new date.

Potential sites include: the Belfast Lough’s North Foreshore for arc 21’s facility; Macosquin, County Londonderry, for the NWRWMG’s facility; and Drumee, County Fermanagh, for SWaMP’s facility.

The spokesman said: “While each of the waste management groups has identified indicative locations for the facilities through a rigorous site selection process, it will be the successful bidder in each case who ultimately determines the location of facilities, which will of course be further subject to the outcome of planning and permitting applications.”

A number of bidders have pulled out of the process since 2009, prompting concern that the waste facilities would not be built.

The DoE has said that this was to be expected, adding “the fact that two of the projects are now in dialogue with a single bidder does not pre-empt their capacity to deliver value-for-money outcomes.”

Funding

The department had spent £7.7 million on project development by March 2011.

In Budget 2008, a Strategic Waste Infrastructure Fund (SWIF), which was to be given £200 million for capital expenditure on the three waste management projects, was announced. However, the department’s 2011-2015 overall capital budget is £23.6 million; £2.3 million for the SWIF and £9.3 million for the Rethink Waste campaign, to fund councils for initiatives that will help to boost waste recycling and reuse. The SWIF will be allocated £2.3 million as follows: £0.9 million in 2011-2012; £0.7 million in 2012-2013; £0.5 million in 2013-2014; and £0.2 million in 2014- 2015.

Then Environment Minister Edwin Poots explained this reasoning, saying: “Previously, £200 million was set aside for the capital waste infrastructure fund. It would be better if that funding were made available on a recurrent basis, because most of [the waste management groups] are involved in PPPs.”

He estimated that recurrent funding would not be needed until 2013-2014, and conceded that “the £200 million was not the right model for delivering the waste infrastructure programme.”

When asked to explain the delay in delivering the three waste management facilities, the spokesman said that under competitive dialogue, all matters relating to the operation of the contract are required to be fully addressed in advance of preferred bidder selection, and there is no opportunity to re-open negotiation on any point after selection.

There are “uniquely complex elements and risks associated with major waste infrastructure contracts such as guaranteed minimum tonnages, rates of waste growth and waste composition,” he added.

The waste management groups have therefore extended competitive dialogue “beyond their originally forecast timescales in order to ensure that they arrive at the most economically advantageous solution for their constituent councils.”

The Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy (2006-2020) is under review after the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) was fully transposed in Northern Ireland in April under the Waste Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011.

This Directive had set a target to recycle 50 per cent of household waste by 2020 as opposed to the strategy’s original target of 45 per cent. The addendum to the Waste Management Strategy proposes to increase the target for all municipal waste (household, construction and industrial) to 60 per cent by 2020.

The DoE is consulting on the addendum (until 20 October) which includes a revised delivery programme stating that preparation for a new strategy should get underway by 2012.

As well as complying with current EU legislation, reasons for the addendum include:

• the economic downturn (and the consequent impact on levels of waste, which will be unpredictable for a number of years);

• the fact that the Executive will be forced to focus on legislation rather than infrastructure until funding becomes available; and

• the UK and Scottish governments’ aims for ‘zero waste’.

In addition, future EU waste policy is likely to include more stringent requirements focused on interventions higher up the waste hierarchy e.g. prevention, preparing for re-use, and recycling.

Environment Minister Alex Attwood has said: “Re-focusing delivery of the waste programme on those areas where we can have the greatest impact is a significant step.”

It is suggested that a new recycling policy should be introduced including the introduction of ‘prepare for re-use’ (checking, cleaning or repairing waste products so they can be re-used without any other pre-processing) and recycling targets.

For construction, demolition and excavation waste, the addendum proposed that site waste management plans be legislated for by September 2011. Annual increases of 3.7 per cent in the reusing, recycling and recovery of construction and demolition waste between now and 2020 would see Northern Ireland meeting its 70 per cent target, the addendum claims. The department has delayed making the decision until after DEFRA’s review of its site waste management plans regulations.

A spokeswoman said: “DEFRA expects to have concluded its review by the end of this year. This means that if we proceed to making the Northern Ireland regulations it will be next year at the earliest with implementation of the regulations being rolled out after that.”

Separate collection of waste was also prioritised in the rWFD. Currently all district councils provide for the separate collection of paper, metal and glass, either by kerbside collection or through recycling banks. District councils also separately collect plastic bottles at kerbsides. The Waste Regulations stipulated that a new strategy must ensure that it will be an offence for private operators not to collect these four waste streams separately where technically, environmentally and economically practicable.

The EU Packaging Directive was transposed in the UK in 2007. Packaging and producer obligations now require businesses with a turnover of more than £2 million that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging waste per annum to join a compliance scheme which takes on the businesses recovery and recycling obligations for a fee. Businesses with an annual turnover of less than £5 million can voluntarily follow an allocation method whereby their obligations are calculated on their turnover and the type of packaging handled. The addendum proposes that the following specific compliance targets be applied to the region:

• minimum collection rates for waste portable batteries of 25 per cent by September 2012 and 45 per cent by September 2016; and

• an overall packaging waste recycling rate of 68.1 per cent for obligated businesses by 2012.

Announcing the consultation in August, Attwood called for representations as to what more he needs to do: “This is not a consultation for the sake of it. It is to challenge me and to ensure that we can make rapid progress.”

There was a strong theme of North/South co-operation to Environment Minister Alex Attwood’s address at this year’s Environment Ireland conference. The conference, in its seventh year, saw the environment ministers from the two jurisdictions attend for the first time.

One of the themes taken up by the new Environment Minister in his speech was the potential for Northern Ireland to tap into funding for environmental research, and he stated this was an area in which both administrations could cooperate. €50.1 billion had been made available for scientific research from the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) project 2007-2013, with €1.9 billion earmarked for environmental research (there is also €2.3 billion allocated for energy research). In February 2009 Northern Ireland had drawn down less than £25 million from FP7 funding, whilst the Republic had secured €600 million. €80 billion in funding for research between 2014-2020 has been proposed by the European Commission, and the Minister said this was also an opportunity Northern Ireland would have to grasp.

“In the rundown of FP7 and the birth of FP8,” said Attwood, “not least because an Irish Commissioner is responsible for all of that, we need to integrate much more what we are doing on the island of Ireland.” Attwood said he would like to see officials from the Republic seconded to Northern Ireland to collaborate on ascertaining project funding from FP7 and the subsequent research programme (Horizon 2020).

Phil Hogan, the Republic’s Environment Minister, referred to environmental research being “essential in Ireland’s journey towards a sustainable environmental future.” He said the Irish Environmental Protection Agency’s research programme “has made considerable progress in the development of environmental research capacity in Ireland and has provided essential support for policy and decision-making at national, regional and local level.”

The green economy was another theme both ministers highlighted in their speeches. Minister Attwood said he had been struck by the growth in the green economy’s growth and the scale of the green opportunity on the island. “In doing that business of recycling, recyclates, renewables, we need to harmonise what we are doing, North and South,” he said.

Minister Hogan, speaking about the economic potential from environmentally sustainable agriculture said that “thinking ‘green’ involves creating a very strong link for the consumer between Irish food, high environmental standards and sustainable production.” The Irish Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s blueprint, Food Harvest 2020, contained a message that “by acting smart and thinking ‘green’, growth will be achieved.”

An initiative of mutual economic benefit, Attwood suggested, could be the creation of a “cross-border national park” encompassing the Mourne mountains, Cooley mountains and Slieve Gullion, “in a way that creates opportunities, jobs, protects the environment and defines the future.” He said that he would be bringing forward proposals for legislation regarding national parks, drawing on best practice in other jurisdictions. “You have a model and we need to learn from that model,” he told the conference in Dublin.

Waste policy was highlighted by both ministers as an area of co-operation. Minister Attwood said that there was a need to work on an all-island basis on waste management options, and with both administrations currently reviewing waste policy this created new opportunities. Citing the All Island Plastics Waste Arising Study, which the ministers jointly launched that morning, Hogan said that due to the size of the island and the structure of the plastic recycling market “the opportunities to pool our resources and to achieve economies of scale can help to overcome these challenges.”

Both ministers referred to repatriation of illegally dumped waste from Northern Ireland back to the Republic. The Irish Government is paying all disposal costs and 80 per cent of recovery costs for the repatriation. In August the process of repatriating 10,500 tonnes of such waste from Ballymartin in County Down to the Republic commenced.

Minister Attwood also said the direction of waste recycling movements on the island has convinced him of the need to revise the household waste recycling rate beyond the 60 per cent target that he and his department had been considering. Currently the target is 50 per cent.

InterTradeIreland’s report has found that companies are not impacted significantly by environmental regulations. The report, which examined the impact of regulatory burdens arising from several EU environmental directives, said that only the trans-frontier shipment of waste (TFS)

regulations were proving significantly burdensome.

It recommends:

• reporting requirements arising from environmental regulations should be examined;

• electronic and web-based reporting replace paper reporting;

• a review of requirements and responsibilities for information requests to eliminate overlap;

• the changing of information requirements, particularly for SMEs, including the use of a risk-based approach to target operators performing the highest risk activities in a sector.

The organization consulted with stakeholders, competent authorities and examined several businesses’ experiences in its examination of regulatory burdens arising from directives concerning TFS, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), end-of-life vehicles (ELV) and the control of major hazards involving dangerous substances.

Problems with the requirements from the TFS Directive were expressed by industry members. Financial and administrative burdens associated with shipments of waste between North and South “are not commensurate with the potential risks”.

They also interpretations authorities of notification controls for the movements of waste.

Waste companies, the report stated, did not understand why garden and food waste are deemed notifiable waste (amber list) simply because they are not listed within the TFS regulations or the reason why green (non-hazardous) waste has the same financial and administrative burden as a typical hazardous waste. Participants in the consultation argued that “the costs and administrative burdens being placed upon legitimate businesses, who want to operate in compliance with the regulations, could encourage a black market economy.”

The report recommends TFS clinics to simplify the transport of waste and streamline associated costs, a meeting of regulators to streamline the process for cross-border businesses, and transparency in enforcement at a small operator level.

In light of some of the negative publicity surrounding the waste management industry due to the repatriation of illegally dumped waste, InterTradeIreland stated that “the [waste] industry and regulators need to work with the media to raise the profile of the sector and outline the economic and environmental opportunities.”

During the consultation, arc21, a member of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) in Northern Ireland, was critical of aspects of the status quo. It stated that there are “major barriers to a holistic approach to waste management across the island including, inter alia, the TFS regulations, the UK import and export plan, and the lack of integrated waste management planning.”

CBI members, meanwhile, “did not have any specific issues with differences in environmental legislation in the two jurisdictions.” However the employers’ representative group did find that while the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) has limited flexibility due to environmental legislation mainly being framed by the EU, “there is a view that NIEA remains risk averse in their application of regulations with a desire to avoid any criticism or risk of challenge.”

All-island study shows demand for recyclates

An all-island report on plastic waste has shown that less than a third of plastic waste generated on the island of Ireland in 2009 was recycled, with the same proportion of manufacturing demand for plastic satisfied by recyclate.

The report showed that there is demand for quality standard recyclates from the construction, packaging and “other” sectors (products such as polyester fibres and toys). The study found that the municipal waste stream accounts for 85 per cent of plastic waste collected. Plastic accounts for 14 per cent of overall household and commercial waste across the island. Only 25 per cent of plastic

waste in 2009 was collected for recycling, mainly abroad. Seventy-one per cent of it went to landfill. Of the plastic recycled from households there were 1.6 billion plastic 500ml soft drinks bottles and 1.1 billion plastic 2l milk bottles.

There are 17,978 people employed in the plastics and polymer sector on the island. In Northern Ireland 67 firms provide 6,147 jobs, while in the Republic 179 firms sustain employment for 11,831 people. The report is aimed at providing business with data on the quantity, the quality, type, origin, destination and end use of plastic waste.

The cautionary tale of Robert Moses formed the backdrop for Edwin Poots’ address to agendaNi’s waste management seminar. In 1948, the New York planner was acknowledged as a leading conservationist when he decided to deposit municipal waste in the city’s tidal marsh on Staten Island.

It became the Fresh Kills Landfill, with a mound eventually growing to 2.9 billion cubic feet in size and leaching an estimated 1 million gallons of toxic materials into the surrounding water table every day.

“At one level, this is yet another story of the iniquities of landfill,” he continued, but it also “reminds us how fallible we all are when it comes to taking decisions about the environment.” Many of us consider ourselves “practical and idealistic” as Moses was described at the time.

Poots stated: “That such an enormous, landfill-shaped gap exists between Robert Moses’ aspirations and the impact of those aspirations demonstrates just how easy it is for a well-intentioned environmental scheme to reap unfortunate and unforeseen consequences.”

The Environment Minister was increasingly appreciating waste management as a “barometer of our willingness to pay more than just lip service to the environment.”

He thought that Northern Ireland’s press had “a much more balanced and enlightened approach” to the issue than in other parts of the UK. Examples included the Belfast Telegraph’s ‘war on waste’ and favourable local reporting.

The challenge was to take the province’s “generally benign attitude to the environment” to the next level during a “singularly chilly economic climate.”

This generation needs to re-think waste but produces far more waste than its predecessors, he commented, yet is equally reluctant to “dip further into its pockets than is absolutely necessary” to manage waste.

As Minister, he was “totally committed” to achieving the Landfill Directive targets and his department would do “all it can” to support the delivery of infrastructure projects. That said, projects needed to demonstrate “unequivocally” that they were the optimum means of achieving those targets.

Robert Moses’ example served as a warning for environmental stakeholders who were confident in their decision- making processes.

“He thought, and his contemporaries agreed, that he was acting for the common good,” Poots explained, “yet their descendents around Staten Island are paying a heavy price for what seemed that right mix of practicality and idealism.”

The Minister had focused on ensuring that delivery structures in waste management were fit for purpose, as he felt a “huge responsibility” to avoid passing a “similar legacy” to this generation’s descendents.

Sixteen successful applications for the Rethink Waste Fund included proposals for glass collection, home composters, household waste recycling centres, and food and garden collections.

Poots was also confident that the Rethinking Waste advertising campaign would “more than repay the outlay.” He wanted waste to be seen as a “financial resource” which could be used by businesses rather than simply being a burden.

Ultimately, it was far more beneficial, economically and environmentally, to avoid creating waste in the first place. The website www.rethinkwasteni.org contains advice on that and the Minister restated his personal commitment to achieving zero waste.

“The day when no waste at all is discarded to landfill may be a long time coming. However, I think the day when we have 90 per cent diversion shouldn’t be a long time coming and [zero waste as a goal] is something that we should pursue nonetheless,” he said.

In conclusion, he again cited Moses and suggested that that “whatever direction you decide to move in to reach your environmental ambitions, you take a long hard look before you actually leap.”

With around 365,000 residents, Fife has the third largest population of Scotland’s 32 council areas. Chris Ewing, the council’s environmental sustainability manager, has overseen a review of household waste and recycling, which started to roll out new services in September.

Most of the area’s waste comes from its 167,000 households. Fife has already

seen dramatic progress in household recycling, up from just 2 per cent in 2000 to 47 per cent in September 2010.

“Like many others, we’re learning as we go along but we have made some significant improvements in the last few years,” Ewing told agendaNi. From being the second worst performer in Scotland, it is now second best. “Things have moved on quite a bit but there’s still an awful lot

to do to meet Scottish Government targets, which is quite challenging.”

By 2020, 60 per cent of Scotland’s waste must be recycled or composted, rising to 70 per cent by 2025. Landfill must be reduced to 15 per cent by 2020 and 5 per cent by 2025.

Very few plastics were being recycled in Fife and no food waste was being collected for recycling and composting. It estimates that 35,000 tonnes of food waste per year is not picked up and a further 15-20,000 tonnes of cans and plastics could be collected on the kerbside.

“For the moment, the target areas for us are collecting more food waste, or collecting food waste for the first time, collecting a lot more cans and plastics but also, coupled with that, enormously reducing the amount of waste that we put to landfill,” Ewing commented.

Trial

A ‘member officer group’, consisting of councillors, officials and representatives from external organisations, was formed to review waste services. On current trends, the council would be paying nearly £25 million in landfill tax over five years. Ewing’s department was also facing an 18 per cent budget over the next three years.

The area has 360 recycling points, 11 recycling centres and a standard three-bin kerbside service:

• Brown for garden and food waste recycling (240 litres);

• Black for landfill (240 litres); and

• Blue for paper and cardboard recycling (140 litres).

Bins are collected fortnightly. During a trial in the Markinch area, from September 2009 to March 2010, the black and blue bins were swapped around so householders were limited to 140 litres of landfill. Collection times were also varied, so paper, cardboard, cans and plastics were collected weekly instead.

This resulted in a 67.5 per cent recycling rate. Ninety per cent of customers were satisfied with the performance, compared to an 80 per cent average. The group therefore decided to roll out the scheme across Fife, starting with Glenrothes in September 2010. It hopes to fully implement the scheme by March 2014.

Support from elected members was essential and the group was able to keep all political parties on the council on board. It also drew up a detailed communications plan, which accounted for most of the work in the roll-out.

Most of the communications work was targeted at householders, although it was also important to keep bin crews and depot staff informed.

Households first received a ‘teaser postcard’ 11 weeks before the roll out, which simply explained that an improved recycling service was “coming soon”. The postcards were designed to be as visible as possible and used real images of food and drink.

Public events started with 10 weeks to go, including visits to community councils, public information evenings, and stands at supermarkets and school gates. If people called with questions, staff would go out and visit them to explain the change.

A second postcard went out seven weeks in advance, explaining which bin should be used for each waste type. In the last month, a detailed information pack was sent out, including a leaflet on the bins and especially focusing on what should and should not go into the new green bin.

Other communication methods have included reminder tags on bins, vehicle advertising, an online bin calendar and facebook page, which picked up 962 hits over 10 days.

Recycling rates in Glenrothes reached 64 per cent in the first five weeks, according to the first estimates. It was previously around 38 percent. The first roll-out covers 22,000 houses and the council received 2,000 queries about the new service during that time. This does not equate to 2,000 households as the IT system logs each question from a resident as a separate query.

No magic bullet

It was almost impossible to do too much awareness-raising, according to Ewing, although there was some room for improvement in internal communication. The council also needed to streamline its process for handling requests for information. Ewing was also pleased with the work of the 12 recycling advisors who, for example, carried out the household visits.

“There isn’t a magic bullet,” he said. “There isn’t necessarily one best solution that fits all and that fits every council. So you’ve got to do a lot of things for yourselves. And we’re doing a lot of things for ourselves by way of feeling our way, by testing new approaches to potentially new systems, testing these on the ground for a period of time, and then taking a view to whether we should roll them out right across the council.”

Communication was two-way. “It’s not just about telling people what they have to do. It’s understanding what their issues are and what we need to do to try and motivate them and enable them to improve their waste management practices,” he added.

As for the magic bullet, he quipped: “When we find it, I think we’ll bottle it and sell it.”

The overall point of waste management is having no waste, according to Andy Bond. May Gurney Environmental Services’ Development Director was speaking at agendaNi’s waste management seminar. The Norwich- based company delivers services for councils in England and Wales.

Pointing to Scotland and Wales’ ambitious targets, Andy Bond emphasised that this is a case where more can be delivered for less money, along with the desired environmental outcomes.

“There is an absolute correlation between the amount of containment we’ve given the public to put waste in and the amount of waste that we’ve got,” he added, pointing out that this was true when wheelie bins expanded in the 1980s and also true with recycling today.

It was essential, in his view, to design high frequency recycling systems and make sure people had enough space to store waste for recycling. Separating garden and food waste also helps. At the same time, storage space for residual waste (i.e. going to landfill) must be restricted. Bond also advocates a cap on the amount of waste being sent to mechanical biological treatment or incineration.

WRAP has found that in most local authorities, kerbside sorting systems offer “reliable material quality and lower net costs for council taxpayers.” Bond concurs and points to Somerset, which was the first area where May Gurney’s operating system (MaGOS) brought about a major change in amount of waste.

This scheme, in 2004-2005, resulted in the lowest residual waste in the UK at that time i.e. 162kg per capita. This fell to 130kg per capita in two districts. Across the area, 150kg less residual waste per person was collected.

Interviewed afterwards, he explained that most local authorities were paying nearly £100 a tonne for disposal so every tonne avoided completely saves them £100.

Bridgend Council, in Wales, had saved £2 million i.e. £33 per household per annum. More locally, he was impressed with Castlereagh Borough Council’s trial to collect dry recycling and food waste together on same vehicle weekly.

“The main challenge is the logistics of changing the systems,” he remarked. “Often you’re going from weekly refuse to alternate weekly refuse. You’re quite often taking away bin size, giving people smaller wheelie bins at the same time.”

Local authorities also needed to introduce change in bite-sized tranches e.g. changing a quarter of Belfast at a time rather than all at once.

Systems choice is key for success, in his view i.e. smaller wheelie bins collected less frequently, and providing more than one box to capture all the dry recyclates.

“Food waste collected weekly at the same time but separate from garden waste really focuses the mind of the public on how much we’re wasting food, and they change their behaviour.”

Good communication must support systems design. As 70 per cent recycling is achievable, he thinks people should be focusing on the next target. In May Gurney’s best performing schemes, capture rates for paper and glass are over 90 per cent and “we can nudge that up to close to 100.” Textiles are only around 50 per cent so there is certainly room for improvement in that category.

“We’ve got great results but we can target specific things, and if we can get everything up to the best, then we’ve got 90 per cent capture rates across the board.”

100 per cent is not possible but the mid- 90s are “really stretching what’s really possible,” he concludes.

SWMPs are currently voluntary, with an estimated 42 per cent of Northern Ireland’s largest construction companies using them.

The amount and type of waste that will be produced on a construction site and how it will be reused, recycled or disposed of must be included in the plan. It must also be updated during the construction process to record how the waste is managed. If there are materials that cannot be reused or recycled, these must also be accounted for. In addition, those responsible for implementing the plans will need to make sure they know the intended destination of waste removed from the site and that their waste is being managed by legitimate registered waste carriers.

Failure to keep a SWMP would be an offence with a fine of up to £50,000 and failure to produce it if requested by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency or a local council would result in a fixed penalty notice of £500. The SWMPs would be reviewed by the Department of the Environment two years after implementation.

A consultation on whether SWMPs should be a statutory requirement is being carried out by the department until 11 March 2011. The DOE says that the plans would tackle illegal dumping of waste and resource inefficiency while allowing construction projects to review their performance against targets set out in the Programme for Government, the Sustainable Development Strategy, the Waste Management Strategy and the Waste Framework Directive. These include:

• reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025;

• reusing and recycling 75 per cent of construction waste by 2020; and

• increasing the amount of materials prepared for reuse, recycling and recovery by 70 per cent by 2020.

The consultation document, launched by Edwin Poots on 3 December, states: “This single plan will hold all the documentary evidence needed to comply with the duty of care, hazardous waste and waste carrier controls.”

He expects that writing and implementing a SWMP will formalise project management tasks that should already be carried out, and will shift the focus of this work towards achieving resource efficiency.

“The construction companies that are most likely to notice an additional administrative burden are those whose paper trail for waste transactions is less well managed,” Poots said.

At design and planning stage, the person responsible for the SWMP will have to adapt specifications to address the waste that is expected to be created. As work progresses, the SWMP must be updated with the actual quantities of waste arising. As the department may inspect the plans, they must reflect the true picture.

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has estimated that the amount of construction, demolition and excavation waste produced in Northern Ireland is around 4 million tonnes per annum, of which around 1.3 million tonnes (33 per cent) is currently reused or recycled. In addition, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency estimates that up to 1.7 million tonnes (42.5 per cent) of construction and demolition waste per year is illegally dumped. The department concludes that approximately 1 million tonnes (25 per cent) of construction and demolition waste is landfilled every year.

Research by the Building Research Establishment suggests that the cost of implementing SWMPs is approximately 1 per cent of the total project cost. It identified a cost-benefit break-even point for projects valued at £250,000. A minimum value of £300,000 has therefore been suggested, with more detailed reporting required for projects costing more than £500,000.

Smaller builders responsible for projects under £300,000 will not be subject to SWMP regulations, but following the two- year review, new proposals would be put forward to minimise any illegal activity from that group.

A review of Planning Policy Statement 11 (PPS11), which covers the development of waste management facilities, is currently underway.

In November, Edwin Poots said: “The existing policy is out of date. We need to take account of recent changes to European legislation such as the new revised Waste Framework Directive. I am also honouring a commitment given in the 2006 Waste Management Strategy to work towards revising [PPS11] by 2011.”

The revised Waste Framework Directive stated that EU member states must implement the “laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive” by 12 December 2010. Interested parties, such as the Assembly’s Environment Committee, submitted their views to a consultation on the review which ended on 31 December.

The Chair of that committee, Cathal Boylan, tells agendaNi: “I can confirm members are fully in support of the department’s aim to promote the highest environmental standards in development proposals for waste management facilities. It is essential that planning policy statements are sufficiently up to date to support the department’s waste policies not least to ensure that we meet our obligations to European Directives and the Waste Framework Strategy.”

Putting the review in context, Boylan explains: “PPS11 has now been in place for 10 years during which there have been a multitude of changes to the way in which waste has to be managed. There has also been a significant change in the amount of waste produced and the options available for waste management.”

When asked what changes the committee proposes, Boylan responds: “The Department maintains that effective application of the new waste hierarchy, as required by the European legislation, will undoubtedly reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill including biodegradable waste and should help to meet targets established in the Programme for Government’s public service agreements.

“The committee will be monitoring this closely and will seek to assess the revisions made to PPS11 to achieve this and ensure that waste is treated appropriately.”

Boylan is keen to stress that the review of PPS11 should not just be viewed as necessary in order to comply with European legislation.

“Managing waste effectively is part and parcel of delivering good society and making where we live a nicer place to be.”

He adds: “Key to this is making people aware of the waste hierarchy which encourages the prevention of waste being produced in the first place, makes provision for materials to be re-used or recycled and then looks at opportunities for energy recovery with disposal being an absolute last resort for a small amount of waste.”

Once the department has completed its review the committee will receive a briefing from officials and will “discuss and formalise” its position.

Boylan adds that during the Environment Committee’s inquiry into climate change in 2009, it recommended that the department should develop a “series of measures” to be delivered by local authorities that would change attitudes and behaviours in relation to waste. It also said that small to medium enterprises should be provided with more assistance in their waste management by local authorities.

Boylan concludes: “I am therefore confident that members take this issue very seriously and will be endeavouring to ensure that PSS11, among other measures, helps to support better waste management by being supportive and encouraging of innovation and technology.”