Ministerial Response - Ash Disposal - 8 March 2013

Findings

Comments

Findings: Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA)

1

The review has shown that approximately 18,000 tonnes  of  IBA  generated  by  the operation of the EfW plant at current levels (approximately 70,000 tonnes of waste per annum)  could  be  recovered  through  a relatively straightforward process including crushing, metal separation, weathering and grading into IBA aggregate (IBAA), which would no longer be classified as waste and would  be  suitable  for  use  by  the construction  industry,  in  either  bound  or unbound form. This would require limited investment  by  TTS  in  appropriate infrastructure  including  a  concrete  base, drainage, and additional fixed and mobile equipment for crushing, grading and metals extraction.

The Minister is keen to recycle bottom ash as soon as is practicable. Trials to separate out metals from the ash have already been started and this could be a first step towards recycling IBA. Trials have commenced on the  stabilisation  of  the  IBA  and  need  to continue to establish if the leachabiliity of the ash can be reduced sufficiently for use in construction. The mechanical processes are straightforward; however the chemical stabilisation is a complex issue to resolve. The Minister is optimistic that recycling can be  achieved,  and  has  a  capital  bid  of £1.5 million  for a  recycling  facility  to  be constructed in 2014, subject to the success of trials this year. The use of the material is dependent on the regulator agreeing the use

Findings

Comments

of the waste in construction, as there is no UK Quality Protocol for end of waste for IBA. The market for the aggregated is being investigated with local aggregate, concrete and asphalt producers. There will always be some residual waste that is not suitable for recovery  which  would  require  disposal locally.

2

Successful recovery of IBA would require the  development  of  a  local  market  for processed IBAA appropriate to the needs of the construction industry. For this purpose it is anticipated that a commercial partnership between TTS and a local quarry operator (or operators) would be the best way forward. Initial approaches have already been made by TTS to the industry. More substantive progress  will  require  confirmation  of  the chemical  make-up  of  IBA  that  can  be produced  consistently  by  the  EfW,  and subsequently  the  operator  would  have  to satisfy  the  regulator  that  IBAA  products derived from it are safe for use in the local environment in whatever form is eventually selected.

The Minister agrees that the development of IBAA  as  a  product  will  require  the Department  to  work  with  construction industry  product  suppliers,  once  the chemical properties of stabilised ash have been  established.  Regulator  agreement  on the beneficial use of IBAA in construction will be essential.

3

The TTS decision to appoint a new operator for  the  vehicle  scrap-yard  and  relocate  it using alternative methodologies will result in the removal of vehicle shredder residues and other contaminated wastes which have up to now adversely affected the chemical profile  of  the  ash  from  EfW  plant;  these must be removed for recycling to succeed.

The Minister is delighted that the new waste metals  contractor,  Hunts  (Jersey)  Ltd.,  is now operating and will not be generating vehicle  shredder  residues  that  require disposal  at  the  new  EfW  plant.  The intention  is  to  assess  the  reduction  in pollutants in bottom ash as a result of this change.

4

To further ensure that significant sources of toxic metals and other waste components do not  enter  the  EfW  plant  waste-stream, contaminating the ash and thus preventing successful  recycling  into  IBAA,  it  is essential that improvements are made to the separation of wastes at source. In particular it is important that batteries, WEEE (Waste Electrical  and  Electronic  Equipment)  and other  potential contaminants  are separated from  the  domestic  waste-stream  derived from  parish  refuse  collections.  This  may point  to  a  need  for  improved  kerbside separation on an Island-wide basis.

The  Minister  supports  initiatives  by  the Department  to  reduce  electrical  goods entering the EfW waste-stream, such as the electrical amnesty' project last year. The States  Waste  Strategy  supports  separation of waste at source and the contribution that kerbside collection can make, as adopted by some parishes. The key to better separation is the change in mindset of everyone who decides not to segregate when they discard items  and  campaigns  to  achieve  this  are ongoing.

Findings

Comments

5

It  is  anticipated  that  capital  investment would be required by TTS to initiate these arrangements by 2014–15. Once the market for  Jersey's  own  IBAA  was  proven  and IBAA  reliably  recycled  within  the  Island, the  processing  of  Guernsey's  waste  could also  be  considered.  However,  firm assurances would be needed of a market for the additional volumes of IBAA produced as  a  result.  The  Panel  considers  that  one way to achieve this might be by means of an agreement  for  Guernsey  to  import  a proportional  volume  of  recovered  IBAA product(s)  for  use  in  their  construction industry.

Regulator approval and development of the use of IBAA for construction will take a number of years, and will be dependent on construction activity, as Jersey has a small market  for  secondary  aggregates.  If Guernsey seek processing of waste at the new EfW, the Minister will need to decide whether  to  take  this  to  the  States  for consideration. This could be at a point when the  development  of  IBAA  use  is  still ongoing and only a portion of the output is being recycled. The potential for IBA to be returned  to  Guernsey  for  their  disposal, recovery, or as processed IBAA would need to be considered.

6

It  is  noted  that  there  may  still  be  a requirement for limited landfill capacity for a  small  quantity  of  material  (fines) unsuitable for use as aggregate.

IBA recovery may be possible for much of the  waste-stream;  however  there  will always be some residual waste.

Findings:  Air  pollution control residues (APCr)

1

The  review  found  differing  views  on options for the disposal of hazardous APCr. The Minister for Planning and Environment appears  to  favour  investment  in  plant  to enable  on-Island  processing  of  APCr  for recovery  using  vitrification  technology, which  is  a  highly  technical  and  energy- intensive  option  that  locks  contaminants into a stable glass-like substance. Both TTS and the Panel's advisers consider that this would  be  a  very  expensive  option  for Jersey,  which  would  be  uneconomic compared with existing alternatives that are available either for recovery or disposal off- Island. It is also risky, involving relatively unproven  and  complex  technology.  A further concern is that it would produce at very  high  cost  a  specialised  aggregate material which would have to compete in the market with other forms of inexpensive aggregate, including IBAA, which could be produced  at  much  lower  cost  from  the greater proportion of waste produced by the EfW.

The Minister agrees that processes for the disposal  or  recovery  of  APCr  should  be economically  viable  and  sustainable, particularity  in  respect  of  proven technology with as low as possible energy demand.  Plasma  arc  vitrification  is  not considered  viable  at  present;  however, developing  technology  will  need  to  be reviewed  prior  to  the  end  of  the  current DRR period.

Findings

Comments

2

The  Panel  therefore  favours  the  preferred option  of  the  Minister  for  Transport  and Technical  Services  and  his  Department, which would involve exporting the backlog of  approximately  4,000 tonnes  of  APCr currently  stored  in  Cell 33  for  disposal, followed  by  a  similar  volume  annually thereafter. TTS have advised the Panel that they consider the costs of shipping, landfill taxes  and  gate  fees  could  be  contained within  the  £1 million  budget  currently allocated  for  construction  of  the  cells needed  to  safely  contain  APCr  at La Collette, making export a viable option.

The Minister agrees that export for disposal is  the  most  likely  option  that  the  current procurement  process  will  conclude  with; however, the Minister is keen, if the option is available and economic, to send the APCr output over the next 3 years to the UK for recovery.  The  procurement  process  will identify  the  cost  of  shipping  and disposal/recovery,  and  it  is  hoped  that budgets currently predicted as available will be sufficient.

3

In the first instance, it is considered that the backlog of APCr could be disposed of in former  salt  mines  which  are  now appropriately  permitted  to  accept  the material  either  in  the  UK,  where  this  is classified as disposal, or in Germany, where it is currently viewed as a recovery process. Alternatively, it could be pre-treated by acid stabilisation in the UK for disposal into non- hazardous landfill.

The  Minister  agrees  that  the  most  likely destination  for  the  bags  of  APCr  which have  solidified  would  require  disposal/ recovery in salt mines in the UK or Europe; however, the procurement process will seek out the most economic solution to shipping and disposal/recovery.

4

The legacy' APCr in Cell 33 was bagged with  a  view  to  facilitating  its  removal, should  a  suitable  treatment  or  alternative disposal  option  later  become  available. Whilst this has enabled TTS to retain the option of removal from La Collette, some treatment  processes  cannot  handle  bagged APCr;  and  some  processes  cannot  treat APCr that has been exposed to the elements for  any  length  of  time,  as  it  can  become hardened in storage.

The Minister agrees that export for disposal is  the  most  likely  option  that  the  current procurement  process  will  conclude  with; however, the Minister is keen, if available and  economic,  to  send  the  APCr  output over  the  next  3 years  to  the  UK  for recovery.

5

Once the backlog has been dealt with, APCr subsequently  generated  by  the  EfW  plant could be stored temporarily, using suitable infrastructure, and then shipped at economic intervals  to  the  same  facility  under conditions approved by the regulator.

APCr is likely to be accumulated for export in dry powder form, which could be in a silo at the new EfW or in powder tanker shipping  containers/lorries.  This  will  be explored  in  the  current  procurement process.

6

The initial options of disposal in salt mines or  use  of  acid  stabilisation  should  be periodically reviewed against any available alternatives  of  export  for  recovery, including  accelerated  carbonation, vitrification,  and  acid-washing  to  recover

The Minister agrees that export for disposal is  a  likely  option  that  the  current procurement  process  will  conclude  with; however, the Minister is keen, if available and  economic,  to  send  the  APCr  output over  the  next  3 years  to  the  UK  for

Findings

Comments

gypsum substitute. Should these alternatives be  proved  to  offer  viable  solutions  for Jersey's  hazardous  APCr  in  due  course, there should be an automatic presumption that export for recovery would be favoured over  disposal,  following  the  principles  of the  waste  hierarchy.  There  would  be  an expectation that export for recovery should be adopted as soon as it proved feasible on practical and economic grounds.

recovery.  The  development  of  other processes in the future would be considered for adoption in the next APCr management contract.

7

Export for disposal requires Jersey to make application  to  the  UK  Department  for Environment,  Food  and  Rural  Affairs (Defra)  for  approval  on  the  grounds  that Jersey  does  not have  existing  facilities to adequately  process  or  safely  landfill  this hazardous  waste.  This  has  already  been done and the response is currently awaited.

The Minister is delighted to have recently been granted the DRR for export of APCr from the UK Authorities.

Implications  for  the  importation  of Guernsey's waste

The  potential  importation  of  a  significant quantity of Guernsey's domestic waste for incineration at Jersey's EfW plant has been under discussion for some time. The figure of  30,000 tonnes  is  seen  as  a  practical proposition, as this would bring the plant to its full operating capacity of 105,000 tonnes per annum. The benefits to Jersey would be in the form of any payment received and an increased ability to generate electricity for local consumption.

If Guernsey seeks processing of waste at the new EfW, the Minister will need to decide whether  to  take  this  to  the  States  for consideration,  which  will be  informed  by the contribution to the capital and operating overheads of the plant, as well as electricity revenue.  Additional  revenue  from  waste acceptance  fees  have  the  potential  to  be used  to  support  environmental improvements.

However,  it  is  clear  that  processing Guernsey's  waste  would  also  generate additional  quantities  of  ash.  From  its investigation,  the  Panel  is  aware  that  the general  presumption  under  the  Basel Convention  against  the  export  of  such wastes would render the popular solution of sending a proportionate volume of ash back to our sister Island impractical. This would leave  Jersey  with  the  problem  of  how  to deal with some 1,700 tonnes of extra APCr and  8,000 additional  tonnes  of  IBA annually, which would clearly need to be factored into any potential agreement.

IBA recovery may be possible for much of the  waste-stream;  however,  there  will always be some residual waste. Regulator approval  and  development  of  the  use  of IBAA for construction will take a number of  years,  and  will  be  dependent  on construction activity, as Jersey has a small market  for  secondary  aggregates.  If Guernsey seeks processing of waste at the new EfW, it could be at a point when the development of IBAA use is still ongoing and only a portion of the output is being recycled. The potential IBA to be returned to Guernsey for their disposal, recovery or as  processed  IBAA,  would  need  to  be considered. The DRR allows the export of

Findings

Comments

APCr to the capacity of the EfW plant and would  not  constrain  the  export  of  this residue.

If the Minister for Transport and Technical Services  adopts  the  recommendations  for ash  disposal  in  this  report,  a  similar additional volume of 8,000 tonnes of IBAA would be produced, which would require a larger  market  for  IBAA  construction materials in due course. Permission would also  need  to  be  sought  in  the  short  to medium  term  for  export of  the  additional APCr.  Because  of  these  factors  it  is recommended  that  a  new  ash  disposal strategy  is  allowed  time  to  settle  in  and prove itself in operation before a decision on importing Guernsey's waste is made.

IBA recovery may be possible for much of the  waste-stream;  however,  there  will always  be  some  residual  waste.  The regulator approval and development of the use of IBAA for construction will take a number of years, and will be dependent on construction activity, as Jersey has a small market  for  secondary  aggregates.  If Guernsey seeks processing of waste at the new EfW, it could be at a point when the development of IBAA use is still ongoing and only a portion of the output is being recycled.  The  potential  for  IBA  to  be returned  to  Guernsey  for  their  disposal, recovery or as processed IBAA, would need to  be  considered.  The  DRR  allows  the export of APCr to the capacity of the EfW plant and would not constrain the export of this residue.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA)

1

The  current  policy  of permanently  burying  IBA in  sealed  cells  at La Collette  should  cease, and  all  IBA  produced  in future  at  the  EfW  plant should  be  processed  into IBAA (incinerator bottom ash  aggregate)  of  a consistent quality suitable for  use  by  the  local construction industry.

TTS/ ENV

Accept in principle subject to practical constraints

Subject  to  future  budgetary constraints,  IBA  should  be processed  and  stabilised  for use as potential aggregate in the future. IBA recovery may be  possible  for  much  of  the waste-stream;  however,  there will always be some residual waste. The regulator approval and development of the use of IBAA  for  construction  will take  a  number  of  years, and will  be  dependent  on construction activity, as Jersey has  a  small  market  for secondary  aggregates.  It  is likely  that  there  will  be  a

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

stockpile  of  IBA  at La Collette from the new plant production  to  date  for  some time into the future.

2

Transport  and  Technical Services  should  prioritise discussions  with  potential commercial  partners  to develop a local market for recycled IBAA product(s), with  the  aim  of  ensuring that  the  full  volume  of aggregate  produced  at La Collette  can  in  future be utilised in preference to continued  importation  or local  extraction  of  raw materials for aggregate.

TTS

Accept

A  dialogue  with  commercial partners has commenced with a  view  to  achieving  IBAA usage  development  with  a potential  benefit  of  a  small reduction in the quarrying of virgin aggregates.

3

The  Department  should investigate possibilities for reducing  the  legacy  of existing  ash  cells  at La Collette by mining any cells filled with IBA since the  start  of  operation  of the  new  EfW  plant,  if ongoing  tests  prove  that the  quality  of  this  ash makes  it  suitable  for processing into IBAA.

TTS

Accept

It  is  accepted  that  the  IBA from the new plant in the new IBA-only  cells  could potentially  be  recovered  for use,  in  part.  However,  it  is likely  that  there  will  be  a stockpile  of  IBA  at La Collette from the new plant production  to  date  for  some time  into  the  future,  as  the construction  market  demand for  secondary  aggregates  is limited.

Air Pollution Control Residues (APCr)

4

An  alternative  to  the current storage of APCr in Cell 33  should  be  agreed between  TTS  and  the regulator  as  a  matter  of urgency, to avoid the need for  construction  of  a second  cell  for  APCr storage.

TTS/ ENV

Superseded

The approval of the DRR now means  that  export  will  be possible  for  the  next  3 years and  that  a  successor  cell  to Cell 33  will  not  be  required during that period.

5

Subject  to  acceptance  of the  Duly  Reasoned Request  (DRR)  recently applied  for  by  the

TTS/ ENV

Agreed

The Minister is very keen to export the backlog of APCr in Cell 33  and  has  initiated  a procurement process to seek a

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Department  of  the Environment on behalf of TTS, the backlog of APC residues  currently  stored in  Cell 33  should  be exported  to  an  approved disposal facility as soon as possible.

contractor  to  remove  the material for disposal/recovery as soon as possible, subject to budgetary constraints.

6

Once  the  backlog  is exported,  appropriate infrastructure  should  be constructed  to  enable temporary  storage  of APCr  subsequently generated  by  the  plant, prior to export for disposal at  the  same  facility  at economic intervals.

TTS/ ENV

Agreed

APCr  is  likely  to  be accumulated for export in dry powder form, which could be in a silo at the new EfW or in powder  tanker  shipping containers/lorries. This will be explored  in  the  current procurement process.

7

Export for disposal should only  continue  for  the duration  of  the  initial approval  provided  under the DRR (understood to be 3 years).

TTS/ ENV

Agreed in principle subject to economic recovery options availability

The  Minister  agrees  that export for disposal is a likely option  that  the  current procurement  process  will conclude  with;  however,  the Minister is keen, if available and  economic,  to  send  the APCr  output  over  the  next 3 years  to  the  UK  for recovery. The development of other  processes  in  the  future would  be  considered  for adoption  in  the  next  APCr management  contract.  If economic recovery options are not available for the next DRR period,  an  application  to extend  the  DRR  for  APCr would be needed.

8

Options  for  export  to recovery  rather  than disposal  in  the  UK  and elsewhere  should  be reviewed  at  regular intervals,  with  particular attention  to  developing technologies  such  as accelerated  carbonation,

TTS/ ENV

Agreed subject to commercial contract obligations

The  development  of  other processes in the future would be considered for adoption in the  next  APCr  management contract.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

thermal  processes, including vitrification, and acid-washing  to  recover gypsum substitute.

9

In the event that export of the bulk of Jersey's APCr production  to  a  proven recovery process becomes viable  (even  during  the period  of  the  DRR approval),  subject  to  any contractual  obligations TTS should take steps to divert exported APCr to a recovery  process  rather than  disposal  as  soon  as practicable.

TTS/ ENV

Agreed subject to commercial contract obligations

The  Minister  agrees  that export for disposal is a likely option  that  the  current procurement  process  will conclude  with;  however,  the Minister is keen, if available and  economic,  to  send  the APCr  output  over  the  next 3 years  to  the  UK  for recovery. The development of other  processes  in  the  future would  be  considered  for adoption  in  the  next  APCr management contract.

10

The  Department  should continue  to  investigate possibilities  for  the recovery  of  APCr  rather than  disposal,  to  ensure that  within  3 years  all APCr  produced  can  be recovered  (either  on-  or off-Island)  via  a recognised  process  that takes  into  account  the principles  of  the  waste hierarchy,  best  practice and  prevailing  EU,  UK and local legislation.

TTS/ ENV

Agreed in principle subject to market recovery options

Developing  recovery  options for APCr will continue to be considered  by  TTS. Developing  processes  would be considered for adoption in the  next  APCr  management contract.

Importation of Guernsey's Waste

11

Prior  to  any  decision  on the  importation  of  waste from  Guernsey  for incineration  at  Jersey's EfW plant, the new policy for ash disposal including recovery of all IBA and a sustainable  solution  for APCr  waste  should  be fully proven.

TTS/ ENV

Reject

IBA recovery may be possible for much of the waste-stream; however, there will always be some  residual  waste.  The regulator  approval  and development  of  the  use  of IBAA  for  construction  will take  a  number  of  years, and will  be  dependent  on construction activity, as Jersey has  a  small  market  for

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

secondary  aggregates.  If Guernsey seeks processing of waste at the new EfW, it could be  at  a  point  when  the development of IBAA use is still  ongoing  and  only  a portion of the output is being recycled.  The  potential  for IBA  to  be  returned  to Guernsey  for  their  disposal, recovery  or  as  processed IBAA  would  need  to  be considered. The  DRR  allows the  export  of  APCr  to  the capacity of the EfW plant and would not constrain the export of this residue.

12

Any  contractual arrangement  for  the acceptance  of  Guernsey's waste for treatment should be conditional, not only on a  proven  ability  to successfully  treat  all additional  waste  volumes arising,  but  also  on confirmation  of  a  viable market  for  the  resulting products.  This  might require  agreement  from Guernsey  to  accept  a suitable  proportion  of IBAA,  either  as  bulk aggregate or in the form of manufactured product(s).

TTS/ ENV

Reject

If Guernsey seeks processing of waste at the new EfW, it could be at a point when the development of IBAA use is still  ongoing  and  only  a portion of the output is being recycled.  The  potential  for IBA  to  be  returned  to Guernsey  for  their  disposal, recovery  or  as  processed IBAA  would  need  to  be considered.