The latest Generation IV fully hydrostatic tracked loading shovels, from leading crawler loader manufacturer, Liebherr, includes two models in the range which are specifically engineered and factory-built for all the requirements of landfill work – the LR 624 Litronic and the LR 634 Litronic.
A number of specific landfill features have been designed into the machines and the latest engine technology is employed to ensure reliability, performance, fuel economy and reduced noise and exhaust emissions.
Liebherr’s well proven and highly developed hydrostatic drive system remains at the heart of the crawler loader range, which now also includes the well-proven high-technology Litronic engine and hydraulics management system to ensure optimum output and efficiency at all times, as well as fulfiling a diagnostic role for maintenance and workover.
One of the most versatile machine ranges employed on landfill, Liebherr hydrostatic crawler loaders are capable of a wide variety of tasks, including: loading and carrying, sorting and condensing garbage, bulldozing and grading. Additionally, these machines come into their own for spreading landfill cover, or on general earthmoving duties when new cells have to be created.
Standard landfill specification includes all the necessary features required to protect the machine and operator – even on the most arduous of sites. These features include lift cylinder covers, external air supply alternator, exhaust manifold isolation, radiator guard, engine air pre-cleaner with automatic dust ejection, cooling system reversible fan, final drive protection rings and fine perforated plates to the engine housing. Optional extras are available such as rear striker bar, fuel tank guard, track shoes with trapezoidal holes, tilt cylinder guard. Rear-view CCTV systems can be installed, as can an automatic central lubrication system.
For the operator, the spacious cab on Liebherr crawler loaders is a comfortable, functional and safe work station for optimum performance and minimum fatigue, is glazed with tinted armoured glass and is fully ROPS and FOPS protected. Employing the science of ergonomics, the cab is lightly pressurised to prevent dust and odour incursion and is fully air-conditioned. A fully adjustable seat, with ventral safety belt, includes twin joystick controls integrated into the armrests – one for travel speed and direction, the other for attachment movements; Liebherr also offers an option of steering pedals via V-pattern travel control. There is even a lockable storage space under the armrest, a cup holder, coat hook and a 12v electric coolbox.
Front end attachments include standard, multi-purpose, waste and clamshell buckets with appropriate bolt-on or flush-mounted weld adaptors for teeth and cutting edges suited to the purpose. A rear-mounted rigid drawbar or three-shank ripper can also be fitted and the latter is particularly useful for loosening overburden.
For more info call 0844 560 7706 and quote ‘Learn to Crawl TS35’
Posts Tagged ‘waste industry news’
Learn to Crawl Before You Work
GREENGROCER FINED FOR RECYCLING!
Local council red tape in Workington, Cumbria, is preventing a greengrocer from recycling his waste, and instead forcing him to use council services to send it all to landfill. They are also adding a £300 fine into the bargain.
Colin Glaister, who is the owner of the Fruit and Veg shop on Oxford Street, was fined by Allerdale Borough Council after he failed to produce a waste transfer note. He was told it was illegal for him to put his vegetables on a compost heap and cardboard on a household recycling site without the notice.
He said: “A £300 fine for recycling waste out of the shop is unfair. Everyone says you should recycle and do your bit. I take all my cardboard to Smurfits. All my fruit and vegetables go on the garden compost heap. We don’t waste them. My uncle takes the cabbages and feeds them to his chickens. I put the potatoes on the compost heap and it goes back into the land. But the council says I am not allowed to do that.
When I asked them what would happen to all my rubbish I was told it would all go to the landfill.”
Mr Glaister, 26, of Salterbeck, is understandably angry about the fine because he was not guilty of fly-tipping.
“If I loaded my van up and disposed of it I would deserve it,” he added. “I am mad that I have been done for recycling.”
Mr Glaister said that, although he has now applied for a bin, he has also written a letter of appeal to the council.
He added: “I think I have been treated unfairly. I said I am sorry I broke the law. I didn’t realise at the time I could do that by recycling. I have been told it is illegal to take the waste off my premises by moving it in my van.
They told me I was breaking the law and that I was supposed to hire a bin off the council. They will empty the bins once a fortnight. That will cost me about £5 a time. The rubbish will be left in my bin for two weeks during the summer. Who wants to smell rotting vegetables every day in the hot weather?”
An Allerdale Council spokeswoman stated that, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, business owners must show how they dispose of their waste. If they fail to do this they will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. She said that workers at the shop were warned three times before the fine was dished out and that Mr Glaister was visited on April 3 and failed to produce the necessary legal documentation. Officers wrote on April 10 advising of a visit on April 21 at which the documentation would be required.
“The proprietor still failed to provide the necessary legal notice and was therefore issued with a fixed penalty notice,” she added.
“The proprietor has since arranged a contract for waste disposal with the necessary documentation.”
She said it was not the council’s intention to fine people. “The idea is to encourage them to think about who they give their waste to and not to simply choose the cheapest option or dump their rubbish.”
By law, a waste transfer notice has to be produced by a business whenever trade waste is transferred from a business premises to a registered waste carrier or waste disposal operator. The idea behind the notice is obviously a decent one and should combat illegal dumping. However, fining a business which is responsibly disposing of their waste seems ludicrous. Companies taking responsibility for their waste without unnecessary use of council resources surely should be encouraged (as the council spokeswoman suggested). Can the local borough council really need the £300 that badly?
An initiative whereby greengrocers distribute their waste produce as compost to local allotments and council gardens seems to be a brilliant idea. Sadly, maybe it would only work if someone could make money out of it rather than save money.
THE BEAST WITH A MOTIVE
John Brooke and his wife Lindsay, of John Brooke Sawmills, decided to purchase a Bandit Beast Recycler from Global Recycling for their site in Nottinghamshire.
John ‘hates waste’ and for the last 25 years they have been utilising every scrap of wood and turning it into sawdust, chippings and occasionally logs. But you can never be entirely efficient and John and Lindsay felt that, despite Britain becoming an increasingly environmentally aware place, there was no facility for local people
to turn their waste products into something useful.
Their fifty-acre site is nearing completion and the ‘Beast’ is now hungry and roaring to get to work. It will be used to pull out any metal with a large magnet, which will then go for scrap. The machine will then chip up and digest all the wood or greenery, finishing with a product that can either go right back to the land again as compost or
off to fuel various power stations.
So what’s next in the evolution of John Brooke Sawmills? “To finally make some money” laughs Linda. “In the timber industry the margins are so small that it makes good sense for us to tackle the recycling and environmental side, making good use of waste – because there is a lot of it!”
For further information about the ‘Beast’ contact Global Recycling on 0870 770 8540 or visit their web site at: www.globalrecycling.eu
County Council Join Skip Permit Goldmine Bandwagon
It’s currently free to obtain a permit for placing a skip on a public highway from Cumbria County Council. But, like so many other local authorities, they’ve had a great idea…
The idea goes something like this: “Why provide something for free when we can squeeze more revenue out of it?”
Recently approved budget papers indicate that a £15 fee for each highway skip permit would raise a staggering £900,000 a year in additional revenue for the council. And that’s not all – the level of the charge has yet to be set, and could be even higher when it comes into force this summer.
Councillors in opposition have been voicing their opinions on the unfairness of the proposed charges.
Stewart Young, Labour group leader, said: “This discriminates between those able to place a skip on their drive and those who live in terraced houses who will have to pay. It is unnecessary and should not be introduced.”
Brampton Skip Hire owner, Rick Allan, said: “We’re being used as tax collectors. It’s ridiculous. It penalises people for not being able to afford a house with a drive.”
A spokesman for the council said that most councils charge for skip permits already, pointing out that in Hertfordshire the fee is £40 and in Lancashire £22.50.
What a great defence! Next time I find myself being violently beaten in the street, I’ll try not to be angry, but to remember that I should just accept it because some people get murdered…
“IT’S INERT GUV… HONEST!”
By Marco Muia aka “Enviroman”
Here goes another year in the wacky world of waste. We are in for a busy year again with lots of legislative changes, but one old issue just won’t go away. Despite having a shutdown over the Christmas break whilst the construction industry closes down and skip sales slow down for a week or so, you get back to the yard and that great stockpile of screened soil is still there looking for a home and probably the only thing on site that stubbornly refuses to move, despite your best efforts. I have had a number of reader enquiries recently regarding problems with screened soil and the fact that in some areas the EA deem it unsuitable for exempt or inert sites? I have covered this issue before with regard to fines from trommels processing mixed waste and have summarised below the current situation and answers to the questions asked.
What is inert waste?
Strictly speaking inert waste is defined in Regulation 7(4) of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, as follows:
“(4) Waste is inert waste if -
(a) it does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations;
(b) it does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm to human health; and
(c) its total leachability and pollutant content and the ecotoxicity of its leachate are insignificant and, in particular, do not endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater.”
In other words “very restricted”! Operators of inert waste landfills must ensure that their site only accepts inert waste which meets the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) or inert wastes which do not need testing, which are defined by their EWC codes (below). Any that are not listed must pass the WAC test. For more details on WAC just type “wac” into Google and it will direct you to the correct EA website page.
European Waste Code = 10 11 03
Description = Waste glass based fibrous materials
European Waste Code = 15 01 07
Description = Glass packaging
European Waste Code = 17 01 01
Description = Concrete
European Waste Code = 17 01 02
Description = Bricks
European Waste Code = 17 01 03
Description = Tiles and ceramics
European Waste Code = 17 02 02, 20 01 02
Description = Glass
European Waste Code = 17 05 04, 20 02 02
Description = Soil and stones (excluding topsoil and peat)
The WAC test only needs to be carried out if your inert waste is to be accepted at a landfill which is licensed to take it. The regulations do not apply to “the use of suitable inert waste for redevelopment, restoration and filling-in work or for construction purposes”. In other words the use of inert wastes for exempt operations is acceptable subject to the material being fit for use and fitting in with the exemption criteria, most of which I have covered in previous articles. Furthermore the wastes deposited at exempt sites have to be suitable for the end use and not necessarily inert. This is a matter between you and the exempt operator and of course subject to scrutiny by the Agency.
Recovered soils are probably the biggest problem facing the industry today or at least the one with no immediate solution. The Environment Agency and WRAP have been working on a soil protocol but there has been little news on the outcome. In the mean time if you are dealing with clean excavated soil there should not be a problem with its re-use or deposit in exempt or licensed sites, however, it must meet the relevant conditions for that exemption. The problem occurs where the Agency still deem the screened material to be waste even if builders and other users are queuing up to use the final product. This issue will only finally be sorted when we have a soil protocol or case law on the matter. There is nothing to stop you drafting a soil protocol if you wish to do so. The Agency are unlikely to agree its contents but the document could be useful in the event of enforcement action.
Screened soils from transfer stations are a wholly different scenario. Screening mixed construction and demolition waste often creates a soil like material we best know as fines and which is commonly described as inert when it may in fact be non-hazardous or depending upon the analysis, even hazardous (mainly because the eco-toxicity test is very strict). The only answer is that the matter needs to be considered on a site by site basis i.e. is your waste acceptable at the site you wish to take it to and what requirements do you need to meet. It may be that your waste is not inert but that the destination site can take it as cover, for example. Agreeing the analysis requirements before you send samples to the lab is important. I have seen many jobs held up because the Agency or destination site wanted more analysis carried out.
It is important that loads are not cross contaminated and also to have a clear indication of what you want to do with your soils. Our biggest problem is the Agency’s lack of consistency on the matter with some geographical areas receiving more attention than others. I would be grateful to hear how your screened soils are viewed by your local Agency officer as I am compiling a case file for soil protocols.
Finally, I apologise for not covering the EA’s fees and charges proposals as promised but the last few articles have arisen from requests within the industry which are more pressing. If you have any subjects or legislation for future articles please let us know by getting in touch with The Skip.
