Transcript National Grid PowerPoint Template

Waste Code of Practice – ‘one year on’
Frank Evans
Outline of presentation
 Waste Code of Practice: interpretation, lessons learnt,
feedback, evolution, next steps
 Landowner perspective
 Background to Code of Practice (how, why)
 Principles and scope of Code
 Benefits
 Progress
 Lessons learnt one year one
 Implications for Cluster
 Next steps (including Direct Transfer and Fixed Soil Treatment
facilities)
2
You’ll know us by one name or another!
1986 1990 1997 1999 2000 2002 2005
Centrica
BG
Centrica
BG Group
BG Group
British British
Gas
Gas plc
Power Gen
National Power
Lattice
National Grid
Transco
Nuclear Electric
Central Electricity
Generating Board
National Grid
British
BG
Gas PropertyProperty
3
National Grid
Lattice SecondSite National Grid
Property Property
Property
National Grid Perspective - Landowner

Manages environmental risks associated with its
gasworks portfolio (both surplus and operational land)
and electricity-related sites.

Operates both in UK and US

Historical use of sites

Remediation programme sustained for c.15 years

Sale of surplus property and significant contribution to
UK Brownfield regeneration

High % materials re-use in remediation programme

Leading user of remediation technologies
4
What I am talking about
5
Who – When - Where?
 CL:AIRE (chair)
 England & Wales only
 Environment Agency
 English Partnerships
 Industry representative:
 SAGTA
 EIC
 HBF
 Launched in Sept 2008
6
 Represents the further work
cited in 2006 Environment
Agency document ‘The
Definition of Waste:
Developing greenfield and
brownfield Sites April 2006’
 Field-tested on Cluster pilot
project in England
Why did we need the Code?
7
First two Cluster sites
Hub Site
Dundee Gasworks
20,00
0t
1,000t
Satellite
Site
1,000t
5,000t
15,000
t
LTTD Treatment Area
6,000t
15,000
t
Leven
Gasworks
1,000t
Post-treatment validation
20,00
0t
8
Scope of CoP: Principle Considerations
 Excavated soils – both contaminated and uncontaminated
 Risk-based
 Does not undermine Waste Framework Directive
 Definitive point at which Waste ceases to be waste
 Lines of evidence
 Suitability
 Quantity
 Certainty
 Materials Management Plan
 Review and Declaration by Qualified Person (QP)
 Reality recorded via Verification Report on completion
 Aligns with CLR11 process
9
Existing scope of Code of Practice
Re-used on site of
origin with out
treatment.
Site of origin
(CLUSTER Donor
site)
On site
Treatment
(EP)
Re-used on site
of origin
following
treatment
CLUSTER Hub site
Movement as waste
Cluster receiver
site
10
Movement as non-waste
Future scope of Code of Practice
Re-used on site of
origin with out
treatment.
Site of origin
(CLUSTER Donor
site)
On site
Treatment
(EP)
Re-used on site
of origin
following
treatment
CLUSTER Hub site
Fixed soil
treatment facility
Direct transfer
and use on
another site
Cluster receiver
site
11
Receiver Site
Benefits
 Increased re-use of excavated soils with consequential
savings on transport miles and natural resources
 Waste ceases to be waste before backfilling as opposed
after backfilling.
 Important when backfilling at another site (e.g. Cluster)
 Helps to reduce the ‘blighting’ factor associated with waste
licensing
 Direct Transfer opportunities have the potential to: allow greater flexibility in material reuse
 create a step-change in best practice and value-solutions
12
Step Change
Value
Step-change in
Improvement
e.g. Code of
Practice
Continuous improvement
e.g. better remediation techniques
Quicker analytical methods etc.
Time
13
Progress one year on
 Training and registration
 No. of trained individuals = 220
 No. of registered qualified persons = 70
 Applications
 No. of declarations with Environment Agency = 17
14
Reasons for rate of uptake
 Lower levels of Construction activity
 Exemptions remain as alternative (for the moment)
 Waiting for trained individuals to provide services
 Others waiting for process to mature before using
15
Lessons learnt one year on
 Improvement to format of Materials Management Plan
 Number of Frequency Asked Questions (51 no.)
 Qualified Person
 Cluster
 Verification reports
 Relevant factors
 Aggregates protocol
16
What it means for Cluster?
Landfill
1. A to B. 4000 m3 for treatment
2. From A. 2000 m3 to landfill
Site A
3. B to A. Return 4000 m3
treated for backfill
4. B to A. 2000 m3 of surplus
stockpile for backfill
5. C to B. 3000m3 for treatment
Site B
6. B. to C. 3000 m3 surplus
stockpile for backfill
7. From D. 3000m3 to landfill
Site C
17
Landfill
Site D
8. B to D. 3000 m3 of treated
soils (originally from C)
Constraints to Cluster
 Used to be Definition of Waste
 Now waste issue largely unlocked
 Exchange of materials remains important variation
 Direct transfer
 Main constraints now
 Planning regulations
 Perceptions of waste management centres
 Inclusion of sites that are not part of a pre-defined Cluster
 Multi-landowner contractual arrangements
18
Complexities of Cluster
19
Direct Transfer
 Proposals drafted by steering group for consideration by
Environment Agency
 Similar to re-use at site of origin
 Materials meet relevant criteria
 Holder of material to be satisfied
 Signed declaration from Qualified Person
 Either Donor or Receiver site can own process
20
Fixed Soil Treatment Facilities
 Could operate as a Cluster site under current CoP but
commercially inefficient
 Role for operator as holder of the waste
 Cease to be waste prior to dispatch
 Most efficient if can be producing specification-grade
materials
 Use Direct Transfer approach in short-term
21
Next steps and concluding thoughts
 Direct Transfer and Fixed Soil Treatment Facilities
 Use following changes to how exemptions are used
 Greater use of Code across sector
 Market-development in provision of Qualified Person services
 Evolution and integration of material management plans and site
waste management plans
 Overlaps with other Construction sector activities
 Celebrate and build on success
 Better regulation. EA engagement. Cross-sector support
 Delivering sustainability. Solution not a problem
22
Accessing Code of Practise
 CoP is freely available on CL:AIRE website www.claire.co.uk
 QP training is offered by CL:AIRE. Contact Kirstie McCulloch
[email protected]
 CL:AIRE maintain register of attendance on QP training.
 CL:AIRE is the recognised registration body for QP.
 Example of Materials Management Plan to be on www.claire.co.uk
 FAQs - EA web site (about code and regulatory position)
 FAQs - CL:AIRE web site (generated from training events and
steering group re: practical aspects of use of code)
Thank you for your attention
23