Artist's impression of consortium's proposed facility in Lostock
SITA UK has become the last remaining bidder for West London Waste Authority’s (WLWA) waste treatment contract, following the unexpected withdrawal of a consortium comprised of Tata Chemicals,Europe, E.ON Energy from Waste (EEW) and John Laing Investments from the procurement process.
The 25-year contract, worth £480 million, will see the winning bidder process up to 300,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum from the six WLWA managed boroughs: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames.
EEW in consortium with Tata Chemicals had, in May 2012, been named as one of two groups shortlisted for the tender, the other being SITA UK. There has been no official explanation as to the reasoning for the withdrawal.
A spokesperson the Consortium said: “The consortium decided to withdraw from the tender process for the West London Waste Authority contract and did not submit a final bid prior to the submission deadline. However, it will continue with its plans to secure substantial quantities of waste from other sources to fuel the Sustainable Energy Plant at Lostock.”
Under the contract, which covers the waste of some 1.4 million residents, waste contractors will be expected to cover all aspects of waste treatment including contracts for outputs such as energy, refuse-derived fuel, and recyclates.
However, refuse and recycling collection and operation of Household Reuse and Recycling Centres will not form part of the contract.
Procurement
According to WLWA, Tata and E.ON’s withdrawal from the procurement will not affect the bidding process and a decision on the preferred bidder will be announced at the end of April.
A WLWA spokesperson said: “We can confirm that the EEW consortium withdrew from the tender process on 28 February. This does not affect the procurement process and the authority will continue to evaluate the final tender in accordance with the published criteria.
“The authority will only award preferred bidder status if the proposal received meets our requirements. The timetable for the evaluation and decision on appointment of preferred bidder remains unchanged. The authority will meet on 26 April 2013 to consider the tender evaluation and their decision will be announced on 29 April.”
Read more about the WLWA waste contract.
Lostock Opposition
Plans submitted by Tata and E.ON would have seen the 300,000 tonnes of waste per annum transported a distance of 200 miles from London to Lostock, Northwich, to their proposed 600,000 tonne per year energy from waste (EfW) incinerator.
Plans for the Northwich plant were accepted by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in October 2012, but were met with fierce local opposition.
Opponents argued that the construction of such a large incinerator so close to the centre of Northwich would cause considerable air pollution and traffic problems.
Chairman of the Cheshire Anti Incinerator Network (CHAIN), Brian Cartwright, said: “We must give a guarded welcome to this decision because it was always irresponsible nonsense to be seriously contemplating sending Londoners’ rubbish halfway up the country to Cheshire to be incinerated.
“You will not be surprised to hear that CHAIN and many of our supporters, including members of Cheshire West and Chester Council, have been in contact with the Board of the WLWA on many occasions and pointed this out to them.”
CHAIN have challenged the decision to grant the large facility planning permission and a judicial review will be heard at the High Court in Manchester on May 1.
Read more about CHAIN
resource.co article ai
How will the government and DMOs address the challenges of including glass in DRS while ensuring a level playing field across the UK?
There's no easy solution to include glass in the DRS while maintaining a level playing field. Potential approaches include a phased introduction of glass, potentially with higher deposits to reflect its logistical challenges. The government and DMOs could incentivise innovation in glass packaging design and subsidise dedicated return points for glass-handling. Exemptions for smaller businesses unable to handle glass might also be necessary. Any successful solution will likely blend several approaches. It must address the differing priorities of devolved administrations, balance environmental benefits with logistical and cost implications, and be supported by robust consumer education campaigns emphasizing the importance of glass recycling.