Appendix 2

JERSEY TTSD

GREEN WASTE COMPOSTING STAGE 1 SITES ASSESSMENT REPORT

Title Page

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

The States of Jersey intends to replace the existing windrow composting facility that is processing green waste with one or more facilities using enclosed composting technology to minimise emissions of odour and bio-aerosols to the environment. It is also necessary to re-locate the existing green waste reception and shredding facility at La Collette since the site is required for development of the EfW (energy from waste) project. The domestic green waste reception needs to be relocated away from La Collette due to the potential risk of a vapour cloud explosion from the fuel storage depot close by. Due to the time scales for the EfW project, it may be necessary to relocate these existing facilities to temporary sites before permanent sites can be found and developed. This evaluation process has been carried out for the location of permanent rather than temporary facilities.

A large number of state owned and privately owned sites were put forward as potential sites for composting and/or reception of green waste. In view of the large number of potential sites already put forward for assessment, a decision was made to not look for additional privately owned sites that had not been volunteered by their owners with a view to acquiring them through compulsory purchase if they were found to be the most suitable. This report details the initial process of screening out the sites that are unlikely to be suitable leaving the sites that merit more detailed assessment.

A total of 18 privately owned sites and 111 state owned sites were assessed on the basis of the following main criteria:

1. The location of the site within the Island Planning Zones.
2. Vehicular access to the site.
3. Proximity to sensitive receptors for the purposes of bio-aerosols risks.
4. Useable site area.

The current Refuse Handling Plant and Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) at Bellozanne were not included in the list of potential sites considered in Stage 1 assessment as these sites are not available until  the  EfW  project  is  completed.  However,  these  offer  a  potential  location  for  public  and commercial green waste reception facilities and may be included in the RRC relocation review at the appropriate time.

The following table lists which sites are recommended for further assessment.

1 12 sites if sites S11A and S11B are counted as separate sites

Of the sites not being progressed, 10 were eliminated in Stage 1A for being located within the Green Zone and therefore not suitable under Policy C5 of the Island Plan. Should no suitable location be identified amongst the sites that have been passed for further assessment, then these Green Zone sites may be re-visited if they have not already been eliminated on grounds of poor vehicular access.

Tony Voong  John Weatherby Author  Reviewer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY........................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................III 1  INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1

2  STAGE 1A SCREENING.....................................................................................................2

1. Methodology .................................................................................................................2
2. Results...........................................................................................................................3

3  STAGE 1B – SCREENING ON BASIS OF BIOAEROSOL SAFETY & SITE AREA..7

1. Methodology .................................................................................................................7
2. Results...........................................................................................................................8

4  CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................10

APPENDIX A  ADVERTISEMENT FOR PRIVATE SITES............................................12 APPENDIX B  SITE FOOTPRINT ESTIMATION...........................................................13 B.1  Factors Affecting Site Footprint Requirements............................................................13

B.2  Single Site for All Processing......................................................................................13

B.2.1 Including All Reception and Shredding.............................................................................13 B.2.2 Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding...........................15 B.2.3 Excluding Domestic Reception..........................................................................................16 B.2.4 Excluding Commercial Reception......................................................................................16

B.3  Multiple Sites for Processing.......................................................................................16

B.3.1 Including All Reception & Shredding................................................................................16 B.3.2 Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding...........................17

B.4  Separate Waste Reception............................................................................................17

B.4.1 Single Site for Domestic Reception....................................................................................19

B.4.2 Multiple Sites for Domestic Reception...............................................................................19

B.4.3 Single Site for Commercial Reception...............................................................................19

B.4.4 Combined Domestic + Commercial Reception + Shredding............................................20 B.5  Expansion Area for Kitchen Waste..............................................................................20 B.6  Outline Layout Drawings.............................................................................................21

APPENDIX C  GREEN WASTE VEHICLE DATA..........................................................22 C.1  Domestic Vehicle Numbers in Each Quarter Hour.......................................................22 C.2  Commercial Vehicle Numbers in Each Quarter Hour..................................................23 C.3  Design Domestic - Equivalent Unloading Time in Rolling Hours................................24 C.4  Design Commercial - Equivalent Unloading Time in Rolling Hours............................25

APPENDIX D  COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DETAILS....................................................26

APPENDIX E  STAGE 1B ASSESSMENT SITE MAPS...................................................28 APPENDIX F  STAGE 1B SITES-FACILITIES MATRIX..............................................29 APPENDIX G  LAYOUT DRAWINGS & SITE MAPS....................................................34

1  INTRODUCTION

The  States  of  Jersey  intends  to  replace  the  existing  windrow  composting  facility  that  is processing green waste with one or more facilities using enclosed composting technology to minimise emissions of odour and bio-aerosols to the environment. It is also necessary to re-locate the existing green waste reception and shredding facility at La Collette since the site is required for development of the EfW (energy from waste) project. The domestic reception facility also needs to be relocated away from La Collette due to the potential risk of a vapour cloud explosion occurring from the fuel storage depot close by.

A large number of state owned and privately owned sites were put forward as potential sites for composting and/or reception of green waste. This report details the initial process of screening out the sites that are unlikely to be suitable leaving the sites that merit more detailed assessment.

2  STAGE 1A SCREENING

1. Methodology

An advertisement was placed for private land owners to come forward with potential sites on which green waste composting and/or reception facilities could be located. This advertisement generated responses for 18 potential sites. There were also a further 11 potential state owned sites previously identified.

The advertisement requested a list of information (see Appendix A) that should be supplied for all potential sites. TTSD also compiled an identical set of information for each of the state owned sites.

In the light of the large response, a decision was made to not look for additional privately owned sites that had not been volunteered by their owners with a view to acquiring them through compulsory purchase (if necessary) and if they were found to be the most suitable. Assessment and purchase of sites without the consent/co-operation of the owners is likely to be difficult, time consuming, unpopular and should only be considered as a last resort.

Representatives from Jersey Transport and Technical Services Department (TTSD), the Planning & Building Services Department (PBSD) and Babtie Fichtner undertook initial screening visits to all potential sites (11 state owned sites and 18 private sites). Additional information was also provided by some private site owners during the visits. The primary purpose of these visits was to identify which of these potential sites were highly unlikely to be suitable for the location of green waste composting or reception facilities and which sites should be passed through to the next stage of assessment.

2. Results

Summary results of the visit and stage 1 screening exercise are presented in the following table.

Ten of the remaining sites not recommended for further assessment have been put on a reserve list and may be re-visited if the sites passed for further assessment are found to be unsuitable. These reserve sites are those that would have passed stage 1A screening but for their location within the Green Zone. Sites located in the Green Zone were considered to be unsuitable as under Policy C5 of the Island Plan:

"Proposals for new developments which must occur outside the built-up area will only be permitted in the Green Zone where it is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternative sites available in the Countryside Zone"

3  STAGE 1B – SCREENING ON BASIS OF BIOAEROSOL SAFETY & SITE AREA

1. Methodology

The likely footprint requirements for each type of facility were estimated (see Appendix B) and consideration  given  to  minimum  separation  of  significant  bio-aerosol  sources  to  sensitive receptors to ascertain the likely suitability of each site for the following facilities. Minimum

recommended site footprints are given in the following table. It is recommended that sites with a useable  area  less  than  the  recommended  minimum  should  not  be  considered  for  the corresponding type of facility.

For  the  processing  sites,  the  minimum  values  are  those  estimated  based  on  using  tunnel technology giving an average footprint requirement. The minimum footprint requirements based on technologies requiring the least area were not used as this would severely restrict the choice of technology.

2. Results

The "Sites-Facilities" matrix in Appendix F shows the types of facilities that could potentially be located at each site.

Comments on each site follows:

1. Private Site 1 – Field 1364, Trinity . The field is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water  Pollution  Safeguard  Area  (NR1).This  site  can  potentially  fit all  reception and processing facilities. There is a potential impact of noise, smell, dust etc. to a neighbouring residential property located on the north boundary of the field.
2. Private Site 4 – Field 506A, Grouville . The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and  is  in  horticultural  use.  This  site  cannot  accommodate  shredding  or  composting facilities due to the limited area and proximity of sensitive receptors. The site may be able to accommodate reception facilities but is far from ideal due to a number of residential properties very close to the boundary. The site location is also less convenient in the East of the Island.
3. Private Site 10 – Fields 1061A, 1061, 1062, St John. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water Pollution Safeguard Area (NR1). It is nominally a large site which includes a large vacant modern agricultural shed and staff accommodation, but only a small portion of the area is usable due to the proximity of sensitive receptors. Reception and shredding facilities could be accommodated on this site. Although the remaining non-excluded area is approximately 6,900 m2 only about 4,000 m2 of it is usable due to the awkward shape. The non excluded area is therefore not sufficient to accommodate a composting facility but reception facilities could be considered.
4. Private Site 11 – Field 188, St Lawrence. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and  Water  Pollution  Safeguard  Area  (NR1).  The  site  is  potentially  large  enough  to accommodate  all  reception  and  processing  facilities  but  availability  is  dependent  on relocation of the existing British Show Jumping operation to another location.
5. Private Site 12 – Fields 712, 713, 715, St Peter. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6), Water Pollution Safeguard Area (NR1), Airport Public Safety Zone (TT34) and Airport Noise Zone (TT33). The site is potentially large enough to accommodate all reception and processing facilities but is inside an airport crash zone.
6. Private Site 17 – Field 1265, St Helier. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water Pollution Safeguard Area (NR1). This site could potentially accommodate reception facilities but access would be through a neighbouring commercial/industrial site. The feasibility/legality of using this access will need to be established.
7. Private Site 18 – Field 1122, St Helier. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water Pollution Safeguard Area (NR1). This site could potentially accommodate reception facilities but access is via a single track road which would need to be upgraded. The cost and feasibility of road upgrade needs to be established.
8. States Site 1 – Field 298, St Peter. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water  Pollution  Safeguard  Area  (NR1).  This  site  is  large  enough  to  accommodate combined  domestic  and  commercial  reception.  The  site  could  potentially  also accommodate shredding on the West side of the site but this would require a new access on the North East side of the site.
9. States Site 2 – Field 1491, St Helier. The site is located in the Countryside zone (C6). There  are  a  number  of  residential  properties  close  to  the  site  boundary.  The  site  is potentially suitable for reception facilities, but not for compost processing.

10. States Site 4 – Field 827, Trinity . The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water  Pollution  Safeguard  Area  (NR1).  In  view  of  comments  from  the  bio-aerosols consultant  (Dr Toni  Gladding) a  50m exclusion  zone for the  proposed dairy  (as  for residential and commercial receptors) has been applied. On this basis, there is potentially enough space left to accommodate all waste reception and processing facilities on site. If need be, the reception facilities could be located within the 50m exclusion zone around the proposed  dairy  as  reception  of  un-shredded  green  waste  is  not  regarded  as  a  major bio-aerosols source (although nuisance is still a consideration).
11. States Site 5 – La Collette Industrial Zone. The La Collette reclamation site is a proposed site for industry (IC7) and a safety zone for hazardous installation (NR13). It also forms part of the East of Albert Plan, currently being progressed by the Waterfront Enterprise Board. The site is large enough to accommodate all processing and shredding facilities but new domestic reception facilities cannot be located at La Collette due to the proximity of the fuel storage facilities, following completion of an assessment into the risk of a vapour cloud explosion at La Collette.
12. States Site 6 – La Collette Leisure Zone. The La Collette reclamation site is a proposed site for  marine  leisure and recreation  (TR6)  and  a safety  zone for hazardous  installation (NR13). It also forms part of the East of Albert Plan, currently being progressed by the Waterfront Enterprise Board. The site is potentially large enough to accommodate all processing and shredding facilities but new domestic reception facilities cannot be located at La Collette due to the proximity of the fuel storage facilities, following completion of an assessment into the risk of a vapour cloud explosion at La Collette.
13. States Site 11 – Fields 1277, 1278, 1274, 1276, St Helier. The site is located in the Countryside Zone (C6) and Water Pollution Safeguard Area (NR1). There are two large plots separated by a public access road. Due to the presence of a number of residential properties around the site boundary, only a small proportion of the area on both plots is not within 50m of a receptor. The remaining area is also irregular in shape and difficult to utilise efficiently. The Northern plot can accommodate reception and shredding facilities. The Southern plot could potentially accommodate a small composting facility to process part of the annual green waste arisings but this would need to be confirmed by a site specific layout to confirm that the facilities can fit within the shape.

Based upon the Stage 1A and 1B assessment, the conclusion is that the following sites merit further investigation as potential sites, for the listed uses:

1. Full size composting facilities that can process all green waste arisings with or without reception facilities attached. These are sites P1, P11, P12, S4, S5, and S6.
2. Partial sized composting facilities that can process at least one third of the green waste arisings but not all of it. The only site in this category is S11. If this site is to be used for composting only part of the available green waste then it will be necessary to compost the remaining  green  waste  on  another  site  listed  in  category  1  above.  The  economic implications of composting only part of the available green waste on a category 1 site even though it is sufficiently large to accommodate processing of all green waste will be considered at a later stage in the assessment process.
3. Reception sites without composting facilities attached. These sites are P4, P10, P17, P18, S1, S2 and S11.

4  CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A total of 18 privately owned sites and 11 state owned sites were assessed on the basis of the following main criteria:

1. The location of the site within the Island Planning Zones.
2. Vehicular access to the site.
3. Proximity to sensitive receptors for the purposes of bio-aerosols risks.
4. Useable site area.

2. The following table lists which sites are recommended for further assessment. The table below is subject to confirmation from the sites owners that the boundaries have been correctly interpreted by TTSD. Ten of the remaining sites not recommended for further assessment have been put on a reserve list and may be re-visited if the sites passed for further assessment are found to be unsuitable. These reserve sites are those that would have passed stage 1A screening but for their location within the Green Zone.

Appendix A Advertisement for Private Sites

Expressions of Interest are sought from landowners who would be interested in providing land, under a sale, long-term lease, or partnership arrangement for the construction and operation of an "In-vessel" Composting Facility or Facilities and / or, reception points for green waste (garden waste).

A modern enclosed or "In-vessel" Composting Facility or Facilities is one of the main facilities required by the Solid Waste Strategy approved by the States of Jersey in July 2005.

Expressions are sought subject to the following criteria:

• The option of constructing more than one enclosed in-vessel compost facility or green waste reception site will be considered. The land requirement for multiple facilities will be proportionately lower. However, the minimum area requirement for submission of a valid Expression of Interest will be 500 square metres for a garden waste reception facility.
• Alternatively, the land should be of sufficient area to provide for the construction of a new single "In-Vessel" Composting Facility of approximately 6,500 square metres (70,000 square feet; 1.6 acres; 3.6 vergées), with a further 20% of this area (1,300 square metres) for provision of landscaping or screening.
• The land must be suitable for the safe access and egress of heavy goods vehicles from a main road and for public vehicles where public waste reception is proposed
• The land should be a sufficient distance from any residential property or other sensitive use.
• The land should preferably be in a location where there is direct access to mains water and

electricity.

• The land should preferably be in a location that has close access to mains drainage.
• The land would be the subject of a planning application prior to the final selection.
• The land must not be subject to any form of restrictive covenant to development.

Further  particulars may  be obtained from:  The Director  - Waste  Strategy  Projects, Transport & Technical Services Department, PO Box 412, States Offices, South Hill, St Helier, Jersey JE4 8UY, (Telephone 01534 448690)].

Please send applications of Expression of Interest to Transport & Technical Services Department, PO Box 412, States Offices, South Hill, St Helier, Jersey JE4 8UY]. The closing date for applications is 31st January 2006. Applications should be clearly marked "Expression of Interest for Compost Site."

Appendix B Site Footprint Estimation B.1  Factors Affecting Site Footprint Requirements

The footprint requirements for a complete working site depend on a number of key factors including:

1. Composting  technology.  For  the  purposes  of  estimating  footprint  requirements  the composting  technologies  offered  for  the  project,  in  expressions  of  interest  from contractor/suppliers  in  response  to  an  OJEC  advertisement,  have  been  put  into  the following categories:

1. Tunnel composting such as those offered by WTT, Linde, Christiaens, SRS and CRS. Clamp systems should also have similar footprint requirements.
2. Hall composting such as those offered by Earth Tech and New Earth Solutions.
3. Vessel composting such as those offered by Andar/Rotocom and Bioganix.
4. Container composting such as those offered by Alpheco (through Edmund Nuttall) and Vital Earth
5. Vertical systems such as those offered by VCU.

2. Site specific conditions such as the shape of the available plot and the access arrangements. The percentage of space that cannot be usefully employed for equipment or buildings will depend on a combination of the plot shape, access arrangements and to some extent also the technology employed.

B.2  Single Site for All Processing

B.2.1  Including All Reception and Shredding

B.2.1.1  Tunnel Composting Technology

1. A preliminary site layout was developed (see drawing S0870-023 A1) based on the following key assumptions.

1. That annual average processing capacity is 15,800 tonnes/year.
2. That the "in-vessel" composting technology will be tunnels.
3. That the seasonal peaking factor (ratio of tonnage in peak month to average month) is 1.5.
4. That all input waste will be composted in tunnels for a total of 4 weeks in 2 stages.
5. That 80% of the compost product exiting the tunnels can be immediately dispatched for agricultural use.
6. That the remaining 20% of compost product exiting the tunnels will be further matured  for  another  4  weeks  in  aerated  bays  within  the  post  treatment building.
7. The site will include all processing and reception facilities.
8. There must be at least 30m separation between main process building doors and the covered waste reception area.
9. The layout was based on a non site specific rectangular plot and excludes landscaping and any irregular shaped areas outside of this box that may be useable or otherwise.

2. The full site area was split into the following categories:

1. Area for the "in-vessel" composting technology
2. Area for compost maturation as required by the solution proposed
3. Remaining area that would be required regardless of technology employed including:

1. Weighbridge
2. Office and staff/visitor car parking
3. Waste reception, storage and pre-treatment.
4. Product storage, post-treatment and dispatch.
5. Ancillaries and bio-filters.
6. Roads and vehicle turning space.
7. Unused areas within the rectangular site due to imperfect packing of plant and equipment.

Some of these areas are not completely independent of technology employed but the differences should be relatively minor compared to the overall site area.

B.2.1.1  Other Composting Technologies

Indicative layouts and footprint requirements were provided by some technology suppliers with their expressions of interest in the project but each supplier based their estimates on a different set of assumptions, some of which are not stated. It is therefore not appropriate to simply use these estimates directly to compare the different technologies. There is also publicly available information on footprint requirements for different technologies but the value of this information is also limited due to the use of widely differing assumptions and project specific factors.

The following methodology was therefore used by Fichtner to estimate the likely footprint requirements of the different types of technologies.

1. Area for the "in-vessel" composting technology. This area is based on information supplied  by  the  technology  suppliers  by  measuring  approximate  scaled  layouts where necessary. Where appropriate, the measured/given area was adjusted to a processing capacity of 15,800 tonnes/year and peaking factor of 1.5 by assuming that area is proportional to processing capacity. Proportional scaling may not be strictly correct due to edge effects but the error introduced should be relatively small.
2. Area for compost maturation.

1. Hall composting systems already include for maturation within the hall so no additional maturation area is required.
2. Container and vertical composting technology suppliers proposed to carry out maturation using the "in-vessel" technology so that no additional maturation area is required.
3. For  the  vessel  systems,  the  maturation  residence  time  indicated  by  the technology supplier was used by Fichtner to estimate the area by assuming that area required is proportional to residence time.
4. The cage system technology supplier indicated a maturation period of 4 weeks which  should  require  approximately  the  same area  as  that  for  the  tunnel composting system.

The following table summarises the results of the footprint estimates for different types of technologies.

The following comments can be made:

1. The choice of technology has a relatively small impact on the overall site footprint requirements.
2. The area required for composting and maturation account for only a small proportion of the total site area.
3. The requirement for at least 30m separation between main process building doors and the covered reception area significantly increases the length of site roads, wasted space and overall site area.

B.2.2  Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding

If the domestic and commercial waste reception facilities are located on a separate site(s) then a significant reduction in area can be achieved. Some of the area reduction is due to removal of some of the space required for waste reception but it is mainly due to removal of roads and wasted space required for 30m separation of the covered reception from process building doors due to bio-aerosol risks.

B.2.3  Excluding Domestic Reception

Excluding only domestic waste reception means that commercial waste reception is still required. Whilst there is a slight reduction in the number of unloading positions required the turning areas remain the same. The reduction in site area is not significant.

B.2.4  Excluding Commercial Reception

Excluding commercial waste reception should allow the depth of the reception area to be reduced and the right hand site boundary to be moved approximately 10m to the left.

B.3  Multiple Sites for Processing

B.3.1  Including All Reception & Shredding

The site area for processing one third of the total annual arising of 15,800 tonnes/year has been estimated using the following methodology:

1. It  is  assumed  that  the  composting  and  maturation  areas  will  be  proportional  to processing capacity.
2. The covered reception area is reduced to an area of 35m x 25m.
3. One  third  of  the  reception/pre-treatment  building  and  post-treatment  building  is assumed to be proportional to processing capacity for areas related to storage of wastes

or products. The remaining 2/3rds of these two buildings is assumed to be vehicle manoeuvring  and  equipment  space  which  should  be  relatively  independent  of processing capacity.

4. The area of the bio-filter is assumed to be proportional to processing capacity.
5. The area for plant, equipment and buildings (including canopied reception area) was estimated for the large single site. The above assumptions were used to estimate the area for plant, equipment and buildings (including canopied reception area) for the smaller (1/3rd capacity site).
6. It is assumed that the full site area is proportional to the area for plant, equipment and buildings and reception area.

The results of the estimates are presented in the following table.

B.3.2  Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding

Due to the need to having minimum turning areas for delivery vehicles, there would be little reduction in site area if either domestic or commercial reception of waste is excluded.

If both domestic and commercial reception is excluded, then the percentage reduction in site area is assumed to be the same as for the full capacity plant.

B.4  Separate Waste Reception

The following steps were involved in estimating the area requirements for waste reception.

1. Waste delivery vehicle numbers was provided by TTSD for 3 half days in 2005 and two full days in 2007 (see Appendices C.1 and C.2).
2. Data  provided  by  TTSD  indicates  that  the  annual  green  waste  arising  in  2005  was approximately 11,360 tonnes/year compared to the design capacity of 15,800 tonnes/year for the new facility. The green waste arisings for 2007 is not yet known. The surveyed vehicle numbers were increased proportionally to reflect the higher design capacity. It has also been assumed that the 2007 green waste arisings is 11,360 tonnes/year.
3. The adjusted quarterly hourly data was used to calculate the rolling hourly vehicle numbers and hence the peak hourly vehicle numbers for each day.
4. The hourly vehicle numbers were multiplied by the average unloading times (4.9 minutes for domestic vehicles and 8.2 minutes for commercial vehicles) provided by TTSD to give equivalent unloading times for each rolling hour for domestic vehicles, and commercial vehicles (see Appendices C.3 and C.4). These equivalent unloading times are then divided by  60  minutes/hour  to  give  the  number  of  vehicles  that  need  to  be  able  to  unload simultaneously (see table below).

5. From the above table the following sizing criteria is recommended:

1. For a single site to take all domestic and commercial deliveries, the facility should be designed to be able to unload 9 vehicles simultaneously.
2. For a single site to take all domestic deliveries only, the facility should be designed to be able to unload 6 vehicles simultaneously.
3. For  a  single  site to take  all commercial  deliveries only,  the  facility  should  be designed to be able to unload 5 vehicles simultaneously.

Note that these results are very approximate due to the limited survey data available and the assumptions that have been necessary. It is still necessary to allow for some vehicle queuing in case  the  facilities  cannot  cope.  In  the  event  that  excessive  vehicle  numbers  are  regularly encountered at particular times or particular days, at least some of the users will learn to avoid known peak periods thereby helping to reduce long term problems.

The results of the estimates are presented in the following table.

Note that these areas do not include site offices, staff parking, and queuing of delivery vehicles (although  some  queuing  space  is  inherent  in  some  of  the  layouts).  It  is  assumed  that  no weighbridges will be required at any of the reception sites.

2 Excludes unused area 17.5m x 35m

B.4.1  Single Site for Domestic Reception

Two example layouts for a single site to accept all domestic green waste are provided in drawings 0871-018 A1 and 0871-042 A1. Both layouts allow up to 6 vehicles to unload simultaneously.

1. Drawing  0871-018  A1  assumes  the  use  of  smaller  skips  with  a  capacity  of approximately 9 m3 each.
2. Drawing 0871-042 A1 assumes the use of larger skips with a capacity of 36 m3 which will significantly reduce the number of skip wagon journeys between the reception facility and the processing facility.

B.4.2  Multiple Sites for Domestic Reception

To estimate the minimum footprint required for reception of at least part of the Island's domestic green waste two example layouts using a footprint of 500 m2 were produced as

follows (refer to drawings 871-017 A1 and 871-041 A1):

1. Option 1 (drawing 871-017 A1) allows space for 4 skips and up to 2 vehicles to unload simultaneously. This layout is based on a typical civic amenity site traffic flow system which requires minimal vehicle manoeuvring. Turning space for the skip wagons is limited. If we assume the average unloading times remain the same as for the existing reception facility then 3 such sites will be required to cope with the total domestic green waste arisings for Jersey. Not having to reverse into position prior to unloading will help to reduce the time spent on site but having to climb up steps to unload into skips will increase the time for unloading.
2. Option 2 (drawing 871-041 A1) allows space for up to 7 skips and up to 5 vehicles to unload simultaneously. Vehicles will need to turn and reverse prior to unloading. The turning space for the different vehicles will be shared which will have traffic flow, safety and manning implications. There is no space for vehicle queuing. The vehicle manoeuvring arrangement will be similar to the existing waste reception facility. This layout may mean that only 2 such sites will be required to cope with the total domestic waste  arisings  for  Jersey  but  is  not  recommended  due  to  site  traffic  and  safety implications.

The above layouts show that 500 m2 is likely to be the minimum area required for reception of  domestic  green  waste.  Smaller  plots  will  mean  significantly  more  sites  resulting  in excessive staffing costs. Sites that are not staffed are likely to result in problems with litter, health and safety and the quality of green waste collected.

The advertisement for expressions of interest by private land owners to propose sites for green waste reception specified a minimum area of 500 m2.

B.4.3  Single Site for Commercial Reception

An example layout for a single site to accept and shred all commercial green waste is provided in drawing 0871-020 A1. The site footprint is 28 m x 37 m = 1,036 m2. Up to 6

vehicles could unload simultaneously but the vehicles would share the same turning area. A dividing wall is proposed to enable vehicles to continue unloading one half of the site whilst a bulk vehicle is being load on the other half. The layout is very confined.

It is assumed that shredding will not take place on site. If shredding is required, the need to keep  a  minimum  distance  of  30m  between  the  shredder  and  the  reception  facility  will significantly increase the site footprint.

B.4.4  Combined Domestic + Commercial Reception + Shredding

An example layout for a single site to accept and shred all domestic and commercial green waste is provided in drawing 0871-019 A1. The overall site area is approximately 75 m x

50 m = 3,750 m2 but approximately 750 m2 of this area is not used. There is also some scope for further reducing the site area by eliminating the strip at the bottom of the site which is intended for ease of movement of the loading shovel. Up to 9 vehicles (only 5 shown) could unload simultaneously but the vehicles would share the same turning area.

The inclusion of shredding significantly increases the site footprint due to the requirement for a 30m separation from the unloading area but will increase bulk density (and hence number of bulk loads) prior to transporting to the processing facility.

An estimate of the number of skips involved can be made using the following assumptions:

1. From historical vehicle data in years 2003 to 2005, the number of deliveries vehicles in a peak day is approximately 230% of the number in an average day. It is assumed that this ratio is also applicable to waste volumes.
2. Data from bulk density trials for another project suggests that the bulk density of unshredded green waste is approximately 300 to 450 kg/m3 for unshredded green waste and approximately 600 kg/m3 for shredded green waste although conservative design

calculations tend to use a lower figure. 3)  Annual waste arising of 15,800 tonnes.

On this basis, a peak day would require transport of approximately 7 large skips (36 m3 capacity each) of unshredded waste or 5 skips of shredded waste. Use of this size of skips will depend on the ability of the roads to and from the site to cope with the associated vehicles. Smaller skips would mean more journeys.

It is assumed that no weighbridge will be required on site. B.5  Expansion Area for Kitchen Waste

The Jersey Waste Strategy envisages the possibility of future kerbside collection of kitchen waste for composting.  There is  likely to  be  significant  cost savings  if the  kitchen  waste  is also composted in the same facility as the proposed green waste composting facility. The following assumptions have been made regarding the composting of kitchen waste.

1. The Waste Strategy envisages approximately 17,000 tonnes/year of kitchen waste arisings. For the purposes of this exercise we have assumed that up to 50% of the arisings will be collected for composting. UK experience suggests that significantly less than 50% will be collected so the 50%  assumption is conservative for the purposes of estimating area requirements.
2. Unlike green waste there should be very little seasonal variation for kitchen waste.
3. Kitchen waste is generally very wet making it very difficult to compost without the addition of bulking material such as cardboard or green waste. The green waste could be collected with the kitchen waste at the kerbside or mixed together at the composting facility.
4. In the UK, it is normal for at least some of the separately collected green waste to be composted separately from the kitchen waste in less expensive windrow composting sites. Windrow composting is not acceptable in the long term in Jersey so there would be very little cost benefit in separate composting of green waste and kitchen waste.

5. The  area  requirements  will  depend  on  the  ratio  of  mature  PAS100  grade  compost compared to less mature agricultural grade compost which in turn depends on market demands. For the purposes of this exercise, TTSD would like to assume that all of the additional tonnage will be composted to PAS100 grade product. The area required for compost maturation will be significantly increased.

Layout  drawing  0871-024  A1  shows  an  approximate  layout  for  complete  reception  and processing of 15,800 tonnes/year of green waste and 8,500 tonnes/year of kitchen waste on a single site based on the use of tunnel composting technology. The overall site area requirement is 12,700 m2.

B.6  Outline Layout Drawings

871-017.A1  Partial Domestic Reception - Vehicle Drive by 871-018.A1  Domestic Reception - Small Skips

871-019.A1  Domestic Reception + Commercial Reception + Shredding 871-020.A1  Commercial Reception - Outline layout

871-023.A1  Single Site Composting – Green Waste Only

871-024.A1  Single Site Composting – Green + Kitchen Waste 871-041.A1  Partial Domestic Reception - Vehicle Reverse

871-042.A1  Domestic Reception – Large Skips

The above drawings are provided at the end of the report.

Appendix C Green Waste Vehicle Data C.1  Domestic Vehicle Numbers in Each Quarter Hour

C.2  Commercial Vehicle Numbers in Each Quarter Hour