1

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

SPECIAL CABINET PANEL

WEDNESDAY, 6 MAY 2020 AT 10:00AM

OPTIONS FOR HERTFORDSHIRE’S RESIDUAL LOCAL AUTHORITY

COLLECTED WASTE POST 2023

Report of the Director of Environment and Infrastructure

Authors: Jo Hawes, Team Leader Waste Performance & Audit Tel: (01992) 555326

Matt King, Head of Waste Management & Environmental Resource Planning, Tel: (01992) 556207

Executive Member: Terry Hone, Community Safety & Waste

Management

1 Purpose of report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to invite the Special Cabinet Panel to make a

recommendation to Cabinet on the future provision of treatment/disposal of Hertfordshire’s residual Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW).

2 Summary

2.1 In July 2019, the Veolia ES Hertfordshire Ltd application (Veolia) for planning

permission for the Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) at Rye House, Ratty’s Lane, Hoddesdon was refused by the Secretary of State (SoS). The contract for provision of a long-term residual LACW solution for Hertfordshire between Veolia and Hertfordshire County Council (the Council) was terminated in August 2019.

2.2 Contracts have been secured for the treatment and disposal of all of the

residual LACW arising in Hertfordshire up until the end of March 2023 with the option to extend these arrangements until the end of March 2024.

2.3 Officers have been exploring the options available beyond 2023/24 and

Members should particularly note the ‘Supporting Information’ summary at section 15 of this report and detailed Appendices, including the market consultation exercise, that have been used to inform the recommendations in this report.

2.4 The optimum approach for the Council at this time is to carry out a

procurement exercise and enter into contracts with service providers to put

Agenda Item No.

7

2

into place long term service contracts (c.10 to 15 years) for the treatment and disposal of Hertfordshire’s residual LACW.

2.5 The procurement of contracts with service providers enables the County

Council to fulfil the primary statutory function for the disposal of residual LACW and also enables the exploration and investigation of alternative options which would take significant time and may experience potential hurdles before being capable of delivery. For example, other emerging technologies or the potential of rail as an alternative method of delivering residual LACW could be explored.

2.6 Alongside the procurement of service contracts, the lack of transfer provision,

and facilities that will be able to accept the direct delivery of waste, in the east of the county leads to the necessity to invest in the construction of an Eastern Transfer Station.

3 Recommendations

3.1 That the Special Cabinet Panel recommends to Cabinet that Cabinet agrees:

3.1.1 That the Assistant Director – Transport, Waste & Environmental

Management be authorised to commence a procurement process to put in place long-term service contracts (10 to 15 years duration) for the treatment and disposal of residual LACW arising in Hertfordshire.

3.1.2 That, in light of the lack of in-county residual LACW treatment options,

that the Council’s LACW Spatial Strategy be updated to reflect the urgent need for an updated waste transfer station network.

3.1.3 That the Assistant Director – Transport, Waste & Environmental Management, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Executive Member for Resources, Property and the Economy and the Executive Member for Community Safety and Waste Management, be authorised to proceed with the development of an Eastern Transfer Station in the financial year 2020/21.

4. Residual waste in Hertfordshire

4.1 Under Section 30(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Council

is required to perform the statutory functions of the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) for Hertfordshire. As a WDA the Council is responsible for arranging the treatment and/or disposal of LACW arising in the County.

4.2 In 2018/19 the County Council managed c.515,000 tonnes of LACW,

c.248,000 tonnes of which was residual LACW requiring treatment and/or disposal.

4.3 Despite improvements in diverting materials to re-use, recycling and

composting services, there remains a significant quantity of material that must

3

be disposed and/or treated. The County’s recycling rate has remained relatively static since 2011/12, at around 50% of household LACW.

4.4 It remains a challenge to project the volumes of waste that may arise over

future years with any certainty so projections tend to consider the existing volumes of waste being generated and apply a growth factor that takes into account the county’s planned housing growth numbers (c.100,000 new households by 2031).

4.5 However, this does not assume any increase or decrease in the total amount

of waste produced on a per household basis which may alter as a result of, for example, changed services to residents, legislation such as new targets or wider changes in the economy such as times of recession. Figure 1 and Table 1 below provides an indication of waste volumes that would likely arise if the only consideration was housing growth and therefore provides a cautious assumption on waste volumes that would require management by the WDA in the long term.

Figure 1

Table 1: Projected municipal residual waste volumes. Figures assume no change in performance but take into consideration household growth.

2018/19 2023/24 2030/31 2035/36 2040/41 2050/51

248,150 259,406 275,267 285,500 295,733 317,304

4.6 The Cabinet Panel is aware of the Government’s “Our Waste, Our

Resources: A Strategy for England” (RWS) 2018 document which was

4

published in December 2018 for consultation. The Council responded to the consultations in May 2019 and a further round of more refined consultations are expected in late summer 2020.

4.7 The RWS contains details of a number of probable measures, that if

implemented, would take place from 2023. The three key consultation areas in the RWS include a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) which looks at how the private sector will fund net costs of dealing with packaging materials and Consistency whereby local authorities will be required to collect a core set of materials, highly likely to include a weekly separately collected collection of food waste and potentially, free garden waste collections.

4.8 The RWS commits to meeting a target of increasing municipal waste

recycling rates to 65% by 2035. In Hertfordshire, the 2018-19 municipal recycling rate was 50.7% so any improvement towards new targets could impact on the quantity of residual LACW requiring management by the WDA. This is summarised in Figure 2 below and shows a projected difference of c. 78k tonnes per annum in the proposed target year of 2035.

Figure 2

4.9 Even if the targets anticipated to be confirmed by government are achieved

there will still be a significant volume of residual LACW that requires treatment and disposal and the WDA must ensure that it plans sufficient capacity to manage waste arising out of a range of scenarios, that is, to plan for the worst but work to deliver the required target levels across

5

Hertfordshire. Volumes for housing growth beyond achievement of a 65% recycling target level in 2035 are projected forward in Table 2 to provide further indications of potential residual LACW volumes requiring management in the long term. Table 2: Projected municipal residual waste volumes assuming that a 65% municipal recycling rate is achieved by the anticipated government deadline of 2035

2035/36 2040/41 2045/46 2050/51

207,570 tonnes 215,010 tonnes 222,807 tonnes 230,693 tonnes

5. Previous procurement of a long-term solution

5.1 The Residual Waste Treatment Programme (RWTP) was initiated to assist

the Council to undertake its statutory duties as the WDA, to provide disposal facilities for all the residual LACW arising in Hertfordshire.

5.2 A Contract Notice was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union

(OJEU) by the Council on 9th April 2009, on 27th July 2011 the Council entered into a contract with Veolia ES Hertfordshire Ltd (Veolia), a special purpose project company established by Veolia ES Aurora Limited for the RWTP.

5.3 The contract was for the provision, by Veolia to the Council, of residual waste treatment services including the design, construction, financing and operation of a Recycling & Energy Recovery Facility (RERF) at New Barnfield, Hatfield.

5.4 The planning permission for the proposed RERF at New Barnfield was

refused by the SoS in July 2015. 5.5 The contract, as awarded in 2011, contained provisions allowing the Council

on planning failure, to request a Revised Project Plan from Veolia to provide an alternative solution for Hertfordshire’s residual LACW. The contract was varied on the 15 July 2016 to bring the Revised Project Plan, for the ERF at Rye House, Ratty’s Lane, Hoddesdon into effect.

5.6 The planning application was called-in by the Secretary of State on 1

February 2018 and a public inquiry was held in the summer of 2018. Notification was received on 19 July 2019 that planning permission had been refused by the SoS despite the independent planning inspector recommending approval.

5.7 The contract with Veolia was terminated in August 2019.

6. Arrangements post 2021

6

6.1 Following analysis of competition for available capacity in the region, the Council advanced a procurement to put in place short-term ‘bridging’ arrangements for the treatment and final disposal of residual LACW in 2018.

6.2 These arrangements were designed to allow either; a transition from the end of the existing arrangements at the end of 2020 and March 2021 to the point where Rye House ERF was estimated to be operational or, should planning permission not be achieved by VES, to provide arrangements until the point where an alternative solution could be developed and agreed.

6.3 The original procurement resulted in contracts being awarded to all tenderers

and a shortfall (of c. 25,000 tonnes) in the capacity required. A follow-up procurement took place in 2019 and secured capacity for the shortfall.

6.4 The contract term for these bridging arrangements is for two years from April

2021- 2023 (with an extension provision of up to the end of March 2024 if required) and are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Contracts awarded for disposal post 2021

Contractor Facility Max capacity

offered

FCC Recycling UK Limited Greatmoor ERF, Bucks 60,000 tonnes

FCC Recycling UK Limited Bletchley Landfill, Bucks 30,000 tonnes

London Energy Ltd Edmonton EfW, North London 10,000 tonnes

Veolia ES (UK) Limited Springfield Landfill, Bucks 50,000 tonnes

Veolia ES (UK) Limited Rookery South ERF, Beds 40,000 tonnes

Viridor Waste Management Limited

Ardley ERF, Oxfordshire 75,000 tonnes

7. Movement of waste

7.1 Currently waste is transferred by road to the disposal facilities with some

facilities in 2019/20 accepting direct delivery from HWRCs and/or the district and borough councils as Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs). These sites were the Westmill landfill, near Ware and Edmonton ERF in North London.

7.2 As delivery of waste to proximate facilities becomes less feasible (both

Westmill and Edmonton are either unavailable or have significantly reduced capacity in the immediate term), residual LACW must be transferred further afield by road to reach the final disposal point.

7

7.3 Table 4 highlights the cost and road miles travelled for the transfer of waste in

2019/20 and the anticipated costs and mileage post 2021. The loss of proximate facilities results in a c.£550k additional cost to the Council and additional travel of 74,932 miles, the equivalent of three trips around the world.

7.4 The transfer of waste by road has significant impacts on the environment, the

emissions released create air pollution and are a significant contributor to global warming through emission of carbon dioxide. The additional travel miles required for residual waste to arrive at a disposal point results in a greater environmental impact.

Table 4 Road transfer miles and cost. For comparison purposes 250,000 tonnes of residual LACW and 2019/20 prices have been assumed.

Arrangements Tonnage Est. Total

cost (p/a)

Est.

number of

trips (p/a)

Distance

travelled in

miles (return

trip)

Trips

around

the earth

2019/20 arrangements

250,000 £1,423,358 8,261 650,098 26.11

Bridging arrangements

from 2021 250,000 £1,966,936 10,435 725,030 29.12

7.5 The North East of England has a high number of residual waste treatment

facilities and plans for the development of additional facilities. The abundance of facilities means that there is a likelihood that capacity could be secured for a more competitive price than where there is less competition, however, the cost of transfer by road would likely be financially prohibitive.

7.6 An initial overview of the transfer of waste from Hertfordshire by rail has been

sought. 7.7 There are currently five operational freight sidings in Hertfordshire, all of

which are used for aggregates. Further work and feasibility studies would need to be carried out on if there would be a potential to use and develop any of these sites into facilities that would be capable for the bulking of waste to transfer by rail.

7.8 High level costs have been provided by a rail consultant, these are not a

formal estimate as the specifics around the start and end destination are not known. Based on an assumption that 250,000 tonnes of waste would be transported to Teeside in a year, estimates are that each train could carry up to 1,056 tonnes of waste, requiring a minimum of 237 trains in the year and an approximate cost of £1.9 million per year, so likely to be on a par with costs for road transfer shown in Table 4 beyond 2021.

8

7.9 The cost of transfer by rail would also depend on a number of factors, for example:

7.9.1 The length of sidings available at the end of each operation, i.e. if not long enough at either end, there would be a need for additional trains.

7.9.2 The speed at which each end point can load or offload trains and whether a return journey can be made in a day.

7.9.3 The service would be subject to securing contracts for operation and the availability of ‘slots’ on an already congested network.

7.10 There would be significant additional costs (revenue and capital) to enable the preparation and loading of the waste and the management and operation of the sidings (similar to the development and ongoing operation of a transfer station).

8. Infrastructure (waste transfer stations)

8.1 With the exception of 10,000 tonnes of waste which can be delivered directly

to the Edmonton ERF, the residual waste bridging arrangements, post 2021, requires the bulking and transfer of waste out of county, by road, to the disposal/treatment facilities. Map 1 highlights the anticipated direction of movement of the residual LACW.

Map 1: Residual waste arrangements post 2021

9

8.2 A requirement for WCAs to directly deliver waste to a point of disposal or

treatment would detrimentally impact WCA service provision. The additional time required to directly deliver waste would require considerable investment in additional waste collection vehicles, operative time and there would be a significant environmental impact of additional vehicles on the road.

8.3 The use of Waste Transfer Stations (WTSs) enables significant quantities of

waste to be gathered in one place prior to being bulk transported through a single larger load to a disposal or processing facility. Two WTSs are operated on behalf of the Council to manage residual LACW arising in Hertfordshire. These are Waterdale, near Watford and Bury Mead Road in Hitchin.

8.4 The Waterdale WTS is the only facility in the Council’s ownership, the facility

receives in the region of 144,000 tonnes of residual LACW per annum from six of the ten WCAs.

8.5 Bury Mead Road WTS is owned by North Hertfordshire District Council

(NHDC), it is a small, basic, open-air facility that receives in the region of 21,000 tonnes of residual LACW per annum from NHDC and two nearby HWRCs.

10

8.6 Stevenage Borough Council (SBC) bulk their residual LACW at their depot in Cavendish Road. The Cavendish Road depot has the necessary Environment Agency permit to enable bulking at their depot rather than deliver their waste to the Waterdale WTS.

8.7 Due to the closure of the Westmill landfill site, East Herts Council (EHC) have

requested amendments to the permit for the depot in Buntingford (leased until 2028) in order to enable the bulking of residual waste. Should this not be possible, EHC would need to deliver waste either to the Edmonton ERF or the Waterdale WTS, both of which would require EHC to reorganise their collection routes incurring additional costs of vehicle, crew and fuel.

8.8 Broxbourne Borough Council (BBC) is within proximate distance of Edmonton

ERF and therefore directly delivers residual waste into the facility. From April 2021 the contract only includes disposal capacity for 10,000 tonnes per annum which is not sufficient for all of BBC’s residual LACW. It will be necessary for at least half of BBC’s waste to be directed to the Waterdale WTS until more proximate facilities can be developed.

8.9 There is currently a significant reliance on a small number of facilities. The

Waterdale WTS is the only facility that is in the Council’s ownership and it is not of a sufficient size to accept all of the Council’s residual LACW and still function so as to prevent major disruption to collection services. Other facilities currently used are either too small to meet future needs or not in direct ownership. In business continuity terms the reliance on the Waterdale WTS as a single key facility represents a significant risk.

8.10 The provision of additional WTS infrastructure to serve Hertfordshire would

provide surety for the management of EHC, BBC, NHDC and SBC’s waste. New facilities would improve the robustness of arrangements should the Waterdale WTS become temporarily unavailable.

8.11 A purpose-built network of WTS would facilitate the further segregation or

treatment of waste types. It is, for example, increasingly important to separate out the more challenging residual LACW streams such as mattresses and bulky waste as the gate fees for disposal are higher than ‘normal black sack’ waste. Once segregated and/or treated such as shredding, materials can be sent to the best value treatment or disposal routes or specialist treatment facilities e.g. wood waste.

8.12 A network of three WTS is the position adopted in the 2016 LACW Spatial

Strategy in the event that a long-term ERF was not delivered in Hertfordshire. This report recommends that the Cabinet Panel recommend to Cabinet that the Council’s LACW Spatial Strategy is updated to reflect the urgent need for an updated waste transfer station network.

8.13 A Northern Transfer Station (NTS) would serve NHDC and SBC. Provision of

a combined waste management facility which could potentially include an NTS, WCA collection depot and a new more modern HWRC is being considered as part of the North Baldock development.

11

8.14 An Eastern Transfer Station (ETS) would serve EHC and BBC and would

prevent the need for either authority to travel the distance to Waterdale transfer station (travel to Waterdale is a cost to all three authorities, EHC, BBC and the Council). The location would be dependent on the availability of land and a successful planning application, however a potentially suitable area of land for an ETS has been identified next to Ware HWRC and sums have been allocated in the Council’s Integrated Plan.

8.15 An alternative site search completed in March 2020 confirmed that the site next to the Ware HWRC is the most suitable site for an ETS. The feasibility study carried out in December 2019 provides an indication of preconstruction and construction costs which are in line with the funds allocated in the Council’s Integrated Plan and this report seeks approval to proceed with the project and associated capital spend of £10m in the Councils Integrated Plan.

9. Market engagement

9.1 Since September 2019, officers have conducted informal meetings with a

wide range of suppliers, community groups and third parties. Following these meetings, a formal pre-market engagement activity was launched in January 2020.

9.2 Responses were received from 10 suppliers. Key points from the analysis of

the responses can be shown in Table 5 below. 9.3 Further information can be found in Appendix A.

Table 5: Key findings from the market consultation

8/10 respondents proposed EfW with advanced moving grate technology.

2/10 proposed the production of RDF followed by disposal.

8/10 cited a preference for contract length of greater than 10 years.

5/10 responded to the section concerning the construction of a facility in Hertfordshire.

Of those 5 that completed the construction section:

5/5 stated that given the history they would have concerns around deliverability and risk of building a facility in the area.

3/5 stated that if the procurement was for a Design, Build, Operate contract it would, or may, prevent them from bidding.

12

10. Treatment and disposal options

10.1 There are a number of different options available for the treatment and

disposal of residual LACW. The Council currently uses a combination of landfill and Energy from Waste facilities (EfWs) which use advanced moving grate technology.

10.2 Appendix B provides a summary on the different technology options available

and also an assessment of the thermal technologies. An assessment carried out by the Council’s technical advisors Ramboll, highlights when compared to other thermal treatments, Advanced Moving Grate technology is a well-documented, well proven technology choice that offers minimal risk to the Council.

10.3 Should the Council wish to pursue the development of a facility specifically for

the treatment of Hertfordshire’s residual LACW (in County or out) there have been a number of changes in the market since the procurement of the previous DBO contract in 2009.

10.4 The current market is one where there is a shortage of recognised, bankable,

EPC Contractors able to take part in competitive tender procurement. Civil engineering contractors also appear reticent to engage on what is perceived to be an increasingly high-risk market sector. The timescale for the situation to normalise and for relationships to be re-established and proven, through delivery of projects, is currently uncertain.

11. Residual waste treatment and disposal facilities

11.1 Landfill bridges the gap between the tonnage of residual waste generated and

the capacity to treat it. There is limited landfill capacity in London and the South East, at the time of writing there is one landfill in Hertfordshire, Westmill in Ware, which is due to close and stop accepting waste at the end of March 2020. Analysis by independent consultants Tolvik in their 2018 report “Residual Waste in London and the South East, where is it going to go…?”, concluded that there would be a potential shortfall in landfill capacity before 2025 unless existing sites materially increase their capacity, new landfills are opened and/or waste is transported to landfills outside of London and the South East.

11.2 There are a number of existing residual waste treatment facilities that could

be potentially used by the Council. The ability to use these facilities will depend on the available capacity and the timing of any procurement process to secure any available capacity. In order for the suppliers to bid and for the County Council to be able to obtain the best value for money, the contract terms must be attractive to bidders.

13

11.3 Thermal facilities that are operational, in commissioning or construction located within 100 miles of Waterdale WTS have been identified. There are 23 thermal facilities that have the potential to accept residual LACW, three of these are Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) plants. The Council has contracts with four of the facilities that form part of the bridging arrangements post 2021.

11.4 The full list of the facilities can be found in Appendix C in Table 11. 11.5 In addition to the facilities that are in construction, commissioning or are fully

operational there are a number of emerging facilities for which sites have been identified. Some of these facilities are yet to achieve planning permission, environmental permits and/or funding. Appendix C identifies these emerging facilities at Table 12.

11.6 It is unlikely that all of the emerging facilities listed will be developed, of those

that are developed it may be that they would not be completed and operational until post April 2024 and therefore be able to accept Hertfordshire’s LACW when required.

11.7 Pre-treatment of residual LACW is required for some facilities to provide a

suitable feedstock for thermal treatment. This can be in the form of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) or Solid recovered fuel (SRF). Pre-treatment typically involves manual and mechanical separation or sorting, shredding, grinding etc and may include blending with other materials, drying and pelletisation. Pre-treatment would need to be carried out at a separate contracted facility or at the Council’s waste transfer station. Price indicators on letsrecycle.com show that the cost of preparing RDF is £10-£15 per tonne to cover sorting, baling and wrapping with the cost of SRF higher to meet specified parameters for thermal treatment efficiency.

12. Other local authorities

12.1 A number of local authorities have long term Public Private Partnerships

(PPP) or Private finance initiative (PFI) contracts in place and access to their own facilities. Other local authorities, like the Council’s current arrangements, have service contracts in place.

12.2 Local authorities can be grouped according to their residual LACW

arrangements, there are those that have contracts in place which expire post 2025, those that expire pre-2025 and those facilities that have Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) that require arrangements in place for the residual waste outputs from these facilities after input residual materials have been removed and reduced.

12.3 Authorities which have contracts that expire prior to 2025, or those that need

to put in place arrangements for their MBT outputs will be required to undertake a procurement process to secure capacity for their residual LACW.

12.4 Appendix D provides information on authorities that may be looking to secure

capacity for residual LACW.

14

12.5 In 2018 an assessment on residual waste arrangements that other authorities

had in place was carried out and as a result the market was approached early in order to secure capacity for the bridging arrangements before other authorities went to the market.

12.6 The majority of those other authorities that have contracts that end prior to

2025 have already started procurement processes.

13. Planning

13.1 Following the two planning applications for ERFs in Hertfordshire, two public

inquiries and two refusals by the applicable SoS, the possibility of a site in Hertfordshire being available and the planning application being successful is challenging, and delivery of any new similar project is uncertain.

13.2 The SoS in his decision letter of 19 July 2019 stated for the proposed Rye

House ERF, “there is no obvious alternative site…. that is suitable for the proposed use and is available for a development of the scale proposed.”

13.3 The Planning Inspector, stated that the suggestion that there might be a

possibility to establish a network of smaller sites of c.50,000 tonnes as a “fantasy”, there are no available sites even for one facility, let alone a network of a much smaller sites, the Planning Inspector concluded that “there is absolutely no evidence from this exercise that anything approaching a network of smaller sites was even remotely practical”. “There is not a single location in Hertfordshire where such a plant would not encounter significant local opposition.”

13.4 Two separate planning applications have been submitted for ERFs in

Hertfordshire to deal with Hertfordshire’s residual LACW, both planning applications were called-in by the Secretary of State and subjected to a public inquiry. Both resulted in the refusal of planning permission by the Secretary of State, the Rye House ERF was refused planning permission by the Secretary of State despite the independent planning inspector recommending approval.

13.5 Those that responded to the market engagement exercise raised concerns

about bidding for a contract that required the development of a facility. 13.6 Feedback was that the Council offering a site with planning permission would

make the opportunity more attractive considering the historic planning challenges, with some stating it would be requirement for their company to consider bidding and that because of the risk the Council would need to share the planning costs. Failure to offer a site with planning permission would be a significant barrier to bidding for some and multiple companies said they would be unwilling to develop infrastructure in Hertfordshire.

14. Options available to the Council

15

14.1 There are a range of different types of contractual arrangements available. Table 6 highlights the contract types available, “Do Nothing” is not a viable option as the Council, in its function as Waste Disposal, has a duty to arrange for the disposal of the residual LACW.

14.2 The gate fee paid (the price per tonne paid on arrival at the disposal/treatment facility) is determined by a number of factors, including the type of contract, the location of the facility (generally more capacity in the north of England), the commencement date of the contract, the tonnage and the type of residual waste.

14.3 A January 2020 analysis of EfW gate fees carried out by Tolvik highlighted

that the lowest gate fees are those relating to anchor contracts and the highest gate fees relating to spot or call-off contracts. Analysis shows a trend whereby the gate fees for medium term contracts are approximately 10% higher than those of long-term contracts.

14.4 Long-term contracts are considered to be those contracts that are greater

than 10 years in duration. The market consultation exercise showed that respondents favoured contracts that are greater than 10 years in length.

Table 6: Contract types

Design, Build and Operate contract

PFI/PPP contracts duration of 25+ years

Facility contract constructed to meet the Council’s requirements

Can be owned by the Council

Normal with a guaranteed minimum tonnage and/or exclusivity

Can include additional benefits such as income sharing mechanism (electricity and third-party waste)

Anchor contract A contract signed before financial close in order to secure finance

The Council would not own the facility

Contract will include a minimum tonnage guarantee

Potentially may include additional income sharing

Long term contract More than ten years in length

Not tied to financial close of a facility

Authority pays a gate fee to the contractor

Usually include a minimum tonnage obligation

Medium term contract

Up to five years in length

Not tied to the financial close of the facility

Authority pays a gate fee to the contractor

Usually include a minimum tonnage obligation

Spot or call-off contracts

Up to a year in duration

No fixed tonnages

Fixed price

16

14.5 Table 7 contains an analysis of the contract types and have been RAG rated according to their relative financial, operational and deliverability risks.

17

Table 7: Contract types have been RAG rated according to their relative financial, operational and deliverability risks.

Strengths Weaknesses Conclusion RAG

Design, Build and Operate contract (DBO)

Long-term contract is likely to achieve best value for money

Provides surety for capacity and costs over a long period (likely to be 25 years+)

Likely to come with additional ‘added value’ e.g. additional income, visitor centre etc

Local facility would enable direct delivery for WCAs, mitigate use of transfer stations, and reduce transfer miles

A long-term contract means that the Council is ‘locked-in’, protected by negative market changes

Procurement involves significant lead time and associated costs

Achieving planning permission in Hertfordshire is demonstrably difficult

The historic difficulty in achieving planning permission will put off bidders participating in a procurement process

High land prices in the area will be a direct cost to the Council or passed through into the gate fee

‘Locked-in’ so any drops in market prices are not realised

A long-term contract requires a long-term projection on the minimum tonnages

A long-term contract would provide some surety for operations and costs but history in achieving planning permission for a site in Hertfordshire poses significant risk.

R

Anchor contract

Attractive to developers looking to secure finance for a consented facility

May be able to achieve favourable contract conditions (contract price and added benefits)

A long-term contract means that the Council is ‘locked-in’, protected by negative market changes

Little/no control over construction and operation

Until finance is in place there is a deliverability risk

Limited consented facilities that are looking for a long-term contract to secure finance

‘Locked-in’ so any drops in market prices are not realised

A long-term contract requires a long-term projection on the minimum tonnages

Risk associated with achieving planning permission is avoided but limited chance of securing a site within reasonable distance of Hertfordshire.

R

18

Long term contract (10+ years)

A long-term contract means that the Council is ‘locked-in’, protected by negative market change

Low/no risk in terms of planning and construction

Lower costs than a DBO in terms of procurement support

Likely to be an appealing length of contract to the market and attract favourable gate fees

‘Locked-in’ so any drops in market prices are not realised

Unlikely to receive any additional benefits, for example a share of income

Most attractive contract term to the market and no risks with planning and construction, but no additional benefits.

G

Medium term contract (up to 5 years)

Flexible, able to react to changes in the market, opportunity to benefit from new capacity/lower prices if it arises

Low risk, no risk in terms of planning, construction etc.

Lower costs than a DBO in terms of procurement support

Exposed to market changes, no surety over capacity and prices

Unlikely to receive any additional benefits, for example a share of income

Frequent procurement processes would need to be undertaken.

Contract length may not appeal to the market.

No risks with planning and construction, but short-term contract not as appealing to current market. More readily exposed to negative market changes.

A

Spot or call-off contract (one year or less)

Very flexible to benefit from any changes in the market i.e. new facilities coming online leading to lower gate fees.

Very exposed to negative market changes.

No surety of capacity.

Potentially require more capacity within the transfer station network to cope with fluctuations in confirmed capacity.

Process/resource intensive, continual procurements.

Contract length may not appeal to the market.

Flexibility allows for benefit in positive market changes, but equally exposes to negative market changes. Continual procurements are resource intensive.

R

19

15. Supporting Information Summary

15.1 Further to section 9 of this report, Appendix A summarises the market

engagement exercise responses and supports a conclusion that market appetite for a new Design, Build & Operate contract for a long term facility in Hertfordshire for residual LACW is scarce or would represent significantly altered risk profiles to the Council from the previous attempts by Veolia.

15.2 The procurement of a design, build and operate contract would be a long process and will involve the procurement of advisors to support the Council through the process. There would be a need to for a procurement of short-term service contracts to secure capacity until a long-term contract is awarded and a facility is constructed. As noted in this report, short term arrangements are likely to represent worse value for money to the Council than longer-term contracts.

15.3 The information supports a recommendation for a long term (10 to 15 year) tender exercise to be undertaken for disposal beyond 2023 or 2024 with a longer contract length providing surety to suppliers and being more likely to secure the most economically favourable prices for the Council.

15.4 Further to section 10 of this report, Appendix B provides detail of the available technology options and concludes that Advanced Moving Grate Technology, which is the technology of choice in the four regional facilities the Council will use beyond 2021, is the most flexible, proven, robust and available technology choice.

15.5 Further to section 11 of this report, Appendix C provides details of the research into available and emerging facilities that could or would be able to provide treatment for the Council’s residual LACW. This assessment supports the recommendation for a long term (10 to 15 year) tender exercise to be undertaken for disposal beyond 2023 or 2024 with evidence that existing and future capacity is available at the time of tender and into the future.

15.6 Further to section 12 of this report, Appendix D provides details of other Local Authority arrangements and an assessment of the relevant likely end dates for each of those authorities. This concludes that the Council was correct to procure the short-term arrangements early (during 2018) prior to many of the regional authorities coming to market but that, there is no compelling information that suggests the Council will need to swiftly procure prior to 2023. It is suggested therefore, that once the existing arrangements beyond 2021 have bedded in, officers could conduct a tender process during late 2021 and early 2022 for long term arrangements.

15.7 In summary, the procurement of long-term service contract(s), at this time, offers surety over the disposal of residual LACW in the next 10 to 15 years but also maintains a greater degree of flexibility in comparison to a 25 to 30 year PPP or PFI arrangement.

20

15.8 During the contract period the Council can continue to assess any new technologies and the impact of changes in the residual waste stream as a result of changing legislation, targets and policies. It can also explore the viability of more sustainable modes of transporting waste.

16. Financial implications

16.1 The Council currently spends c.£27m on residual waste (including the

operation and maintenance of the transfer stations, disposal and haulage of residual waste). The Council’s Integrated Plan has identified ongoing pressures of £2.9m from April 2021 to fund the disposal of residual LACW when existing arrangements end in March 2021.

16.2 The prices secured through service contracts via a future procurement

process cannot be confirmed, however, the supporting evidence to this report suggests that the best value rates are linked to longer length contract opportunities.

16.3 The Council’s arrangements beyond 2021 (see Table 3) have secured

significant capacity into three regional ERFs in Greatmoor, Ardley and Rookery. It is reasonable to consider that these service providers would be interested in a longer-term tender opportunity for Hertfordshire’s residual LACW for the period beyond March 2023 or March 2024.

16.4 The 2011 contract the Council held with VES, should planning permission

have been granted, would have resulted in the construction of an in-county solution for Hertfordshire’s residual LACW and delivered significant savings to the Council over the life of the contract, projected to be in excess of £100m over 30 years. Refusal of planning permission by the Secretary of State and the ultimate termination of the contract with VES means that the Council is likely to face increased financial pressure in the cost of treatment and disposal of residual LACW.

16.5 The procurement of a Design, Build and Operate contract would be highly

likely to deliver savings on disposal over a 25 to 30 year period, however there are significant costs attached to the procurement process, for example the requirement for external, legal, financial, planning and technical support. In addition to the documented planning risks, there is reduced market interest and a recent trend of challenges in delivering facilities.

16.6 The cost of building an ETS is within the Council’s Integrated Plan at

£10million, it is anticipated that the capital allocation is brought forward to commence in the financial year 2020/21. The figure highlighted in the Integrated Plan was based on estimates provided following a feasibility study that was carried out in December 2019.

16.7 Further funding to cover the costs of developing infrastructure including an

NTS would be needed to be secured.

21

16.8 As part of the risk management process for the RWTP a special contingency was created to deal with contract risks. The termination fee paid to VES was taken from this reserve account. The remaining balance is £6.8m and could support a range of related waste management activity such as the preparation of waste e.g. shredding in order to attract the lowest contracted gate fees.

17. Legal implications

17.1 Under the Environment Protection Act 1990, the Council is required to

perform the statutory functions of the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) for Hertfordshire, to make arrangements for the disposal of waste collected in its area, therefore there is a need for the Council to put in place contracts for the treatment and/or disposal of residual LACW.

17.2 The procurement process carried out in order to put in place contracts post

March 2023 or March 2024 shall be carried out in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and any subsequent changes in procurement regulations associated with exiting the European Union.

17.3 It is not anticipated that significant internal or external legal services support

would be required to support the recommendation in this report for a long term service contract.

18. Equalities implications

18.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they

are fully aware of and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

18.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential

impact of that decision on the Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

18.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to

have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

18.4 An EqIA will be undertaken before the commencement of the procurement

process.

18.5 There is no EqIA related to this report

22

Appendix A - An assessment on the market engagement responses, including those that did not formally submit a response has been compiled in Table 8 below and includes a commentary on the deliverability of the technology. Table 8 Provider

Proposed

Solution

Preferred

Contract

Term

Min/Max

Tonnages

Ad

va

nc

ed

Mo

vin

g

Gra

te

RD

F f

ire

d d

eri

vati

ve

Ga

sif

icati

on

/Py

roly

sis

RD

F p

rod

uc

tio

n

(fo

r e

xp

ort

)

Re

fere

nce

fa

cil

itie

s

(te

ch

no

log

y &

co

mp

ara

ble

fe

ed

sto

ck

)

De

liv

era

bil

ity

Qu

ali

tati

ve r

isk l

eve

l

Other comments

A Out of county EfW with moving grate technology. Pre-treatment of bulky waste required.

10 + years

30 - 150,000 tpa

M (M)-L

Low risk technology however construction risk remains.

B Out of county EfW with moving grate technology. Pre-treatment of

> 15 years Not stipulated: subject to timing of procurement, capacity and planning.

M-H

(M)-L

Low risk technology however planning and construction risk remains. Organisation owns additional facilities so balancing of tonnage should be possible.

23

bulky waste required.

C RDF or MSW supplier to out of county facilities.

Up to 15 years

Up to 50,000 tpa

(×) M-L

M Whilst RDF preparation is established practice, proposed facilities and development projects referenced are not in operation. Technology supplier has no proven track record in the treatment of MSW derived RDF.

D Out of County ERF with moving grate technology. Restrict bulky waste.

10 – 20 years

50,000 – 395,000 tpa

M M-(L)

Proposed facility has a long history of delays due to planning and permitting. Not yet constructed hence a slightly elevated risk level at this time.

E MRF and RDF supplier.

3 – 7 years 50,000 tpa M-(L)

Production of RDF is recognised but disposal point unknown, potential risk around duty of care/reputation with no disposal route confirmed

F Out of County EfW with moving grate technology. Able to receive and treat bulky waste.

5 – 25 years considered

200,000 tpa – 300,000 tpa

M M-(L)

Low risk technology however planning risk remains.

24

G Out of County EfW with moving grate technology. MRF will act in pre-sorting capacity.

> 10 years Max 315,000 tpa, no minimum.

M M-(L)

Based on information available proposed plant appears to be conventional advanced moving grate technology. Low risk technology however planning risk remains.

H Out of county EfW with moving grate technology. Pre-treatment of bulky waste required.

25 years. 15 year minimum.

200,000 tpa – 250,000 tpa

L Established operator with operational facilities

I Out of county EfW with moving grate technology. Pre-treatment of bulky waste would be required.

15 years Min not specified – Max 400,000 tpa

M-H

(M)-L

Plant currently in construction

J Out of county EfW with moving grate technology.

10 – 15 years

92,000 – 115,000 tpa

M-H

(M)-L

Plants currently in operation. Any new ERF would require planning and permitting hence elevated risk.

25

Bulky waste restricted.

K Out of county EfW.

10 – 15 years

Potentially all of Hertfordshire’s waste

M M Planning risk. The proposed plant is not in accordance with the Local Plan.

L Would suggest an approach based on our needs. Closed coupled gasifier.

Unspecified 1.5 MW facility = 30ktpa Could have multiple facilities in multiple locations.

× H H Very little information provided, no technical details. Unknown technology with no proven track record or supporting detail. Reference facilities cited but not explained. Supplier proposes authority funded project development – this is not standard practice and indicates lack of supplier strength. Silent on by-product quality/quantity/treatment.

M Form of gasification. 30% RDF, 70% woodchip.

Lifespan of plant is 15 – 20 years.

2,000 tpa in one plant, would look at a modular approach for our waste volumes.

× L H Very little information provided, no technical details. Unknown technology with no proven track record or supporting detail. Document implies over 100 reactors would be required to process 200ktpa. Substantial pre-treatment required to achieve “homogenous” fuel. Silent on by-product quality/quantity/treatment.

26

Appendix B - Technology Assessment

Residual waste disposal techniques can be split into two categories, those that require pre-treatment or pre-processing and those that do not. The pre-treatment or pre-processing of the waste would likely result in additional costs to the Council and be required to be carried out on site at a transfer station (space allowing) or taken off site to be pre-processed to the required specification.

Table 9 – High level overview of technologies for residual waste treatment

Residual Waste

Treatment/Disposal

Description Pre-treatment

Pre-processing Without pre-treatment the varying size and composition of unprocessed waste is not suitable for most thermal treatments. The purpose of pre-processing is to produce a material with consistent physical properties and compliant chemical properties. Pre-processing includes manual and mechanical separation or sorting, shredding, grinding, blending with other materials, drying and palletisation.

RDF Refuse derived Fuel (RDF) is a material that is produced from waste that has undergone some sort of treatment process. It is then used in thermal processes.

SRF Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) is a fuel produced from non-hazardous waste in compliance with the European Standard EN 15359. It is then used in thermal processes.

Landfill The disposal of waste into or onto land.

Advanced moving grate technology

Temperatures in excess of 850°C are used to convert waste into gas, this then heats water in a boiler to produce steam which generates electricity and/or heat. Facilities which achieve a certain efficiency rating are accredited as R1 facilities and are known as Energy Recovery Facilities (ERFs).

Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT)

Uses gasification and/or pyrolysis

Pyrolysis Waste is heated in the absence of Oxygen which produces a gas, char and fuel oil. The char can be used as RDF and the gas used for power generation.

Gasification Occurs in the presence of oxygen, produces a gas which can be used to generate steam to be used for power generation.

27

Plasma Arc Gasification Heating technique using in gasification and pyrolysis, very high temperatures (3,800°C) used to break up the molecular structure.

Two stage combustion In the first combustion chamber the waste undergoes gasification/combustion under controlled air conditions before passing to a secondary chamber for complete combustion.

Autoclaving Also referred to as Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT), high temperature under high pressure steam to kill bacteria and pathogens.

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

Generic term for the integration of several process including materials recovery, composting and anaerobic digestion.

RDF Export In 2018 c.3m tonnes of RDF was exported to Europe for treatment in facilities in Scandinavia, Germany and the Netherlands, an estimated reduction of c.8% compared to 2017. The fall in export is thought to be down to more opportunities in the domestic market, competition from other European countries exporting their waste and EfW facilities in European countries reaching their capacity. In 2020 Sweden brought in an incineration tax, the Netherlands extended the waste incineration tax to cover imported waste (previously the tax only applied to Dutch residual waste) from January 2020 and are looking at implementing a carbon tax from January 2021. These taxes not only increase the cost of exporting RDF to Europe but impacts domestic capacity as export of waste becomes less appealing. “Incineration tax” is being increasingly mentioned by some politicians and there is a risk that this could be implemented in the UK, currently there are no plans, but this would impact costs for the Council.

28

Energy from Waste comparison

To make the right technology choice it is important to look at the key criteria as the facility will be operated for many years, needing to provide a reliable and robust service.

In the current climate a number of other criteria must be addressed. These include:

Energy efficiency and recovery;

Environment – emissions, health and safety;

Flexibility to handle variations in waste composition;

Fit within the local infrastructure and plans for the future; and

Ability to operate on a large commercial scale.

Whilst a number of alternative technologies are actively promoted by development companies, there is little evidence to suggest that they have achieved sufficient track records and performance levels required for the Council for:

(i) safe and secure residual waste treatment

(ii) combined with ability to deliver high service availability and

(iii) high levels of consistent energy production into a local energy network. The commercial and stakeholder relationship consequences of service failure or short comings would be significant for the Council given the volumes of residual LACW. On this basis, the Council’s technical advisors, Ramboll recommends the use of well proven Advanced Moving Grate Combustion.

29

Table 10 – Thermal treatment overview of key comparison criteria Advanced Moving Grate Thermal Gasification/ Pyrolysis Two Stage Combustion

Operation experience

Information level Well documented Limited data available Limited data available

Handling changes in waste composition

Higher flexibility Lower flexibility Medium flexibility

Annual availability ≥8,000 hours <5,500 hours <7,000 hours

Net electricity production at 10MJ/kg

0.6-0.65 MWh/t 0-0.25 MWh/t 0.4-0.45 MWh/t

Technical risks

Overall assessment Low High Medium

Proven treating MSW or MSW derived waste

Well proven Well proven in Japan (with very little net electricity production)

Further demonstration of track record still required from independently owned plants.

Number of plants >22,000 <15 outside of Japan <20 facilities

Advantages - Well proven - High availability - High efficiency

- Facilities could apply for renewables benefits

- Better perception in the UK

- Facilities could apply for renewable benefits

- Potentially better public perception in the UK

Disadvantages - Limited access to renewables benefits from government

- Less positive perception in the UK

- Low net efficiency - Availability uncertain - Unproven technology to

produce syngas for use in gas turbine or upgrade to fuel

- No reference plants achieve steam parameters or/and availability similar to facilities based on advanced moving grate technology.

30

Appendix C – Residual Waste Treatment facilities Table 11 below details the facilities that are operational, in commissioning or in construction within 100 miles of Waterdale transfer station. In addition to these facilities there are a number of potential facilities that are going through the planning process or trying to achieve financial close (see Table 12). These facilities are not guaranteed to come online and be available in the future for use by the Council. The use of any of the facilities in Table 11 and Table 12 is dependent on the supplier being successful in a competitive procurement process.

Table 11: Facilities that are operational, in commissioning or construction within 100 miles of Waterdale

Facility Technology Operator Location Consented

Capacity

(Ktpa)

Status Distance from

Waterdale

Edmonton EfW * EfW LondonEnergy North London 675 Operational 21.8

Hoddesdon ACT ACT Bouyges Hertfordshire 90 Commissioning 24.6

Lakeside EfW Viridor/Grundon Slough 420 Operational 25.1

SELCHP EfW Veolia Lewisham LB 88 Operational 25.8

Eco Park ACT ACT Suez Surrey 60 Construction 29.9

Rookery South * EfW Covanta/Veolia Central Beds 480 Construction 31.9

SLWP (Beddington) EfW Viridor Croydon LB 275 Commissioning 33.4

Greatmoor EfW * EfW FCC Buckinghamshire 300 Operational 33.5

Milton Keynes ACT Amey Milton Keynes 90 Operational 36.8

Ardley EfW * EfW Viridor Oxfordshire 300 Operational 46.8

Riverside EfW Cory LB Bexley 785 Operational 49.7

Chineham EfW Veolia Hampshire 102 Operational 57.7

Allington EfW FCC Kent 500 Operational 66.2

Kemsley EfW WTI Kent 550 Construction 72.6

Coventry EfW City Council Coventry 315 Operational 75.8

Peterborough EfW Viridor Peterborough 65 Operational 76.2

31

Lancing EfW Enviropower West Sussex 20 Operational 83.7

Portsmouth EfW Veolia Portsmouth 210 Operational 84.3

Baddersley EfW EfW Equitix Warwickshire 103 Construction 84.8

Suffolk EfW Suez Suffolk 269 Operational 89.8

Marchwood EfW Veolia Southampton 210 Operational 90.9

Tyseley EfW Veolia Birmingham 400 Operational 90.9

Newhaven EfW Veolia East Sussex 242 Operational 95.4

* Facilities HCC have contracts with

Table 12 Updates on emerging facilities

Facility Location Operator Status Capacity

(kpa) Update (Feb 2020)

Edmonton #2

North London NLWA Pre-Construction

700

Construction of a facility to replace the existing, aging facility. Groundwork for construction has commenced. Commissioning expected in January 2025. Existing plant to be decommissioned in 2027.

Rivenhall Essex Indaver UK Ltd

Planning/ Permitting

500

Environment Agency is proposing to accept an Environmental Permit application for the facility. Planning Permission has been received. The project is for an Integrated Waste Management Facility to burn Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) as well as incorporating a MBT, an anaerobic digestion plant and a recovered paper pulping facility. As the facility is for SRF there would be a requirement for Hertfordshire's residual LACW to be pre-treated.

32

Corby Northants Clean Power Planning/ Permitting

195

Planning consent was in place for a facility using gasification technology, in October 2019 approval was given to move to "more proven" traditional moving grate technology in order to receive funding.

Newhurst Quarry

Leicestershire Biffa Consented 350 Partnership with Covanta, in 2018 increased the permit to 350k to match the planning permission. Planning and permit achieved. Financial close achieved February 2020.

Allington - extra line

Kent FCC Planning/ Permitting

350 Consultation launched to increase the capacity by an additional 350k tpa, the existing facility already handles 500k. DCO to be submitted in late 2020.

Belvedere - second plant

LB Bexley Cory Planning/ Permitting

650 Plans submitted for DCO to build another facility next to the existing plant, timetable for a decision in April 2020 and to have the facility operational 2023/24.

Waterbeach Cambridgeshire Amey Planning/ Permitting

250 Cambridgeshire County Council turned down the planning application, referred to the SoS and public inquiry was held. Anticipating a decision in first half of 2020.

Lea Bank Energy Park

Bedfordshire Emsrayne Renewable Energy Ltd

Not yet in planning

500

Facility fuelled by RDF. A scoping opinion was issued by Central Bedfordshire Council in August 2018, the developer has advised that it plans to refrain from submitting an application until several months after Brexit in order to monitor how the economy is performing. As the facility is for RDF there would be a requirement for Hertfordshire's residual LACW to be pre-treated.

New Circular Technology Park

West Sussex Grundon/ Viridor

Consented 200 Planning permission achieved for a technology park in 2014, Grundon and Viridor announced partnership in September 2019. Proposed technology is gasification.

Medworth Wisbeach

Cambridgeshire MVV Environmental Ltd

Planning/ Permitting

600 Scoping opinion was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (DCO application) on January 2020. Planning application anticipated to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q4 2020.

33

Tilbury TGP - Phase 2

Thurrock TBC Planning achieved

320

Planning achieved, not yet reached financial close. Commissioning currently estimated in 2023. Facility to burn Solid Recovered Fuel. As the facility is for SRF there would be a requirement for Hertfordshire's residual LACW to be pre-treated.

34

Appendix D - Other Local Authority Arrangements Officers regularly keep updated as to what other authorities have as their arrangements and subsequently what they are planning to do in the future (see Table 13). Map 2 below shows these groupings and the potential ‘competition’ for capacity in facilities that might arise. Map 2

35

Table 13: Surrounding counties requiring residual waste capacity

Authorities with contracts that end before 2025

Norfolk Currently have three contracts which expire in 2021 for residual waste, a mix of RDF,

EfW and landfill. Also have in place an Inter-Authority agreement with Suffolk to

send some waste to Suffolk’s Great Blakenham ERF.

Luton Contract in place until 2021/22.

Central Beds Contracts in place until 2021/22.

Bedford Contract in place until Q3 2020.

Northamptonshire Contracts in place until 2021.

Leicestershire Prior-Information Notice published in the OJEU in 2019, existing contracts will end in

2021 or 2023.

Derbyshire Long term contract for a gasification plant was terminated in august 2019.

Dorset Contracts for renewal 2020.

Thurrock Contract in place until 2024.

Surrey Hot commissioning of the gasification plant delayed in November 2019. Construction

started in 2015.

Authorities with MBT

Cambridgeshire PFI contract until 2036, outputs from the MBT go to landfill.

Essex Framework contract in place for waste not treated through MBT and for the MBT

outputs, framework expires in 2021.

Wiltshire RDF contracts until 2025 for MBT outputs.

West Sussex Outputs from MBT go through RDF contract up to 2022.

This information helps determine the best window for the Council to go approach the market in order to stand the best change of securing the capacity required for residual LACW.