+0
Could somebody check a chapter of my report?

Chapter X justifies the proposal with reference to the Waste Local Plan, which recognises the need for a sustainable waste management. According to this plan, the best options are minimisation and re-use, followed by recycling and composting, energy recover, and, only as a last resource, disposal in a landfill. Even though the proposal implies a shift up in the waste hierarchy, with an important reduction of landfill-disposed waste, it should be noted that this project skips the first two options (reduction and re-use), which need nevertheless to be addressed at a higher level.

The Local Plan estimates waste production in the County to equal 900,000 tonnes in 2002; the proposed development would manage 420,000 tonnes per year, which "equates approximately to that expected to arise from the districts of X, Y and Z" (source). This quantity can be divided into three parts:

· X X X tonnes per year to recycling

· Y Y Y tonnes per year to composting

· Z Z Z tonnes per year to energy recovery

Undoubtedly, the amount of waste managed in the proposed facility would be a significant share of the total amount of waste produced in the County. However, it should be noted that the sentence "420,000 tonnes per annum of municipal waste will be diverted from landfill" (source) is misleading, since a non well-defined amount (XYZ tonnes per year, as stated on page xyz, is a rough estimate, valid only under specific assumptions) of ashes is expected to be collected, and the possibility of disposal in a landfill is not being excluded.

The proposal is also related to the planning context at the national, county and local level. The UK legislation (source) does not require the inclusion of this relationship in the EIS, as other European legislations do. Reference to the planning context has probably been added because the issue has been raised by the County Council during the scoping phase. Chapter Y of the EIS tries to establish a sound planning basis for the proposal, in terms of:

· need for a reduction in the amount of waste disposed of in landfills;

· need for an increase of recycling and composting;

· recognition of waste as a renewable source of energy, depending on the technology utilised.

Thank you in advance!
1 2
Comments  
Hi,

Is it me? I like to help but I seem to have a difficult time understanding exactly what you try to get across in your essay. Perhaps I am confused by your word choices and how you set up the tone. For instance in your first paragraph:

Chapter X justifies the proposal with reference to the Waste Local Plan, which recognises the need for a sustainable waste management. According to this plan, the best options are minimisation and re-use, followed by recycling and composting, energy recover, and, only as a last resource, disposal in a landfill. Even though the proposal implies a shift up in the waste hierarchy, with an important reduction of landfill-disposed waste, it should be noted that this project skips the first two options (reduction and re-use), which need nevertheless to be addressed at a higher level.

The Local Plan estimates waste production in the County to equal 900,000 tonnes in 2002; the proposed development would manage 420,000 tonnes per year, which "equates approximately to that expected to arise from the districts of X, Y and Z" (source). This quantity can be divided into three parts:

I can't relate the "highlighted words" to the context .Sorry!
Hi, Goodman,

Thank you very much for your kindness!

Many of the words/expressions you've highlighted are not a choice of mine... for instance

- "Waste Local Plan" is a Plan prepared (in this case) by the County Council (actually, by some counsultants), where they look at the present situation, forecast the future one and decide how waste management should be dealt with;

- "waste hierarchy" is a term for prioritising waste management techniques (1- minimisation, 2 - reuse ..., last one - landfill), so "shift up" should be (but this is a choice of mine, maybe wrong!) reduction in the lowest levels and increase in the highest one (for instance, the more you recycle, the less you dispose of in landfills)

- "equates approximately ... " is a direct quotation from the document I'm evaluating, so don't worry about that

"recognises" and nevertheless" are choices of mine ... probably wrong choices!

What is wrong with "waste production"?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi Tanit,

To me, if I were to compose something which I expect it to be understood by most readers, it would be unwise of me to compose it in a specialized language or in terminology only known to a few. I am not criticizing you. This is straightly my view.

I find the terminology used in your report rather odd. To allow every reader to understand your essay without having to explain it, the expressions and terms should be clear to the context, and so I would offer the following suggestions:

"Waste Local Plan" > Management / Control Plan

"waste hierarchy" > Waste Prioritization

"Shift up" > I think you got the right idea but “up-shift” perhaps is what you meant.

"waste production”> Production is the wrong choice of word because we only produce thing or goods we use, as in crop production, automobile production, and oil refinery production etc.. Perhaps “Waste Collection” may be a better word.

One more advise, try to put all the words you use in context.
Hi, Goodman,

Thank you for your comments and constructive advice, I'll try to rephrase some sentences, so as to make the chapter more readable.

If you google "Waste Local Plan" and "waste production" (as Marius often writes, with the inverted commas! Emotion: smile ), you'll find 285,000 results for the first one (nearly all from the UK) and 433,000 for the second one (from Australia, the UK, the USA etc.), so, to me, it seems that they're quite common, aren't they?

Besides, I think there's a huge difference between "waste production" and "waste collection" (but I'd like to hear some native speakers on that and check if I'm mistaken).

As for "waste hierarchy," I'm aware of the fact that it is a technical expression, but I'm sure it is the correct one. See, for instance, wikipedia (a site for specialists? not at all!)
It depends who you are writing your report for. If it for the general public then you'll need to explain or re-phrase the industry jargon. If it is for those in the waste industry or the local council then they will understand these terms and you should use the correct technical expressions.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thank you Nona.

I'm supposed to be the local council's consultant (but it's actually an academic essay).

Should you have any advice about the grammar ...

Thank you again.
In that case you do need to use all the correct technical terms and all the lovely beaurocratic language beloved by local authorities.

expected to arise from the districts of X, Y and Z" (source). - not clear if each district will produce this amount or if it is combined·

However, it should be noted that the sentence "420,000 tonnes per annum of municipal waste will be diverted from landfill" (source) is misleading, since a non well-defined amount (XYZ tonnes per year, as stated on page xyz, is a rough estimate, valid only under specific assumptions) of ashes is expected to be collected, and the possibility of disposal in a landfill is not being excluded. This gets a little confusing as it is such a long sentence. 'non well-defined' is not very stylish.

The proposal is also related to the planning context at the national, county and local level. The UK legislation (source) does not require the inclusion of this relationship in the EIS, as other European legislations do. Reference to the planning context has probably been added because the issue has been raised by the County Council during the scoping phase. Chapter Y of the EIS tries to establish a sound planning basis for the proposal, in terms of:

· a need for a reduction in the amount of waste disposed of in landfills;

· a need for an increase of recycling and composting;

· the recognition of waste as a renewable source of energy, depending on the technology utilised.
TanitHi, Goodman,

Thank you for your comments and constructive advice, I'll try to rephrase some sentences, so as to make the chapter more readable.

If you google "Waste Local Plan" and "waste production" (as Marius often writes, with the inverted commas! Emotion: smile ), you'll find 285,000 results for the first one (nearly all from the UK) and 433,000 for the second one (from Australia, the UK, the USA etc.), so, to me, it seems that they're quite common, aren't they?

Besides, I think there's a huge difference between "waste production" and "waste collection" (but I'd like to hear some native speakers on that and check if I'm mistaken).

As for "waste hierarchy," I'm aware of the fact that it is a technical expression, but I'm sure it is the correct one. See, for instance, wikipedia (a site for specialists? not at all!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy

I guess, “waste production” is a term in European countries, and to think of it, we do say

“ Produced waste” as in the following:

Municipal Solid Waste - Basic Facts

In 2005, residents, businesses, and institutions produced more than 245 million tons Total Waste Generation - Click on Chart to View Information in ...

Radioactive waste is produced by a number of sources, but by far the largest quantities -- in terms of both radioactivity and volume -- are generated by the ...

In 1998, the produced 6.5 billion tons of waste. A significant percentage of this waste was produced in the coastal temperate rainforest ...

There are definitely differences in how we use this common language on opposite sides of the pond. In my opinion, I prefer to say “we had generated 245 million tons of waste in 2005” rather than “ produced” which is perfectly fine, but personally, [produce] just doesn’t go with [waste].

When we are writing something of specific nature, the selection of words and phrease are so critically important as the readers may not understand the terminology and lingo of the particular field. I’ve been employed in the semiconductor field for over 18 years and some of my work involved spec and procedure writing. I found out if I write my procedures in a heavy technical style, not everyone has the capacity to understand it clearly, although they should. So I have to change the tone and style to a less technical format for this reason. That’s just my own experience. On the other hand, I have no problem understanding Nona, although she lives on the other side of the pond! Emotion: big smile
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more