north lincolnshire council · 303842/evt/ees/02/a 10th may 2012 municipal waste management strategy...

North Lincolnshire Council

Municipal Waste Management Strategy

May 2012


303842 EVT EES 02 A


10th May 2012



May 2012


Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom

T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com

The Angel, Market Place, Brigg, DN20 8LD


Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom

T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 10thMay David Elphick David Dray Simon Martin Final Issue

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it

and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned

project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or

used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this

document being relied upon by any other party, or being used

for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which

is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other

parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary

intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties

without consent from us and from the party which

commissioned it.

303842/EVT/EES/02/A 10th May 2012 Municipal Waste Management Strategy


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Development of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy ___________________________________ 1

1.2 The purpose of this Waste Strategy _______________________________________________________ 2

2. Legal Requirements and Guidance 4

2.1 European waste policy and legislation _____________________________________________________ 4

2.2 UK waste policy and legislation _________________________________________________________ 10

2.3 Recent changes to waste management legislation and policy _________________________________ 13

2.4 Waste planning ______________________________________________________________________ 15

3. Where We Are Today 22

3.1 Roles and responsibilities ______________________________________________________________ 22

3.2 Waste arisings _______________________________________________________________________ 22

3.3 Waste composition ___________________________________________________________________ 23

3.4 Waste collection and recycling __________________________________________________________ 26

3.5 Waste disposal ______________________________________________________________________ 30

3.6 Timeline since Draft Waste Management Strategy developed _________________________________ 31

3.7 Current cost _________________________________________________________________________ 33

4. The Way Ahead 34

4.1 Future challenges ____________________________________________________________________ 34

4.2 The Carbon Agenda __________________________________________________________________ 40

4.3 Studies conducted ____________________________________________________________________ 41

4.4 Recycling ___________________________________________________________________________ 55

4.5 Risk assessment _____________________________________________________________________ 57

4.6 Consultation ________________________________________________________________________ 63

4.7 Proposed approach to meeting these challenges ___________________________________________ 65

5. Implementation of the Necessary Actions 67

5.1 Roles and responsibilities ______________________________________________________________ 67

5.2 Partnerships with neighbouring authorities_________________________________________________ 67

5.3 Waste reduction/re-use ________________________________________________________________ 69

5.4 Improving recycling ___________________________________________________________________ 71

5.5 Requirements for new capacity _________________________________________________________ 72

5.6 Further consultation __________________________________________________________________ 75

5.7 Impact of the waste strategy on our carbon footprint _________________________________________ 76

5.8 Overall conclusions ___________________________________________________________________ 77

6. Action Plan 80

6.1 Short term action plan (April 2012 – March 2017) ___________________________________________ 80

6.2 Medium term action plan (April 2017 – March 2025) _________________________________________ 86

6.3 Long term action plan (April 2025 onwards) ________________________________________________ 88

Content



Appendices 90

Appendix A. Glossary ___________________________________________________________________________ 91

A.1. Glossary of terms ____________________________________________________________________ 91

A.2. Acronyms __________________________________________________________________________ 93

Appendix B. Legislation and Planning _______________________________________________________________ 95

B.1. Definition of waste ____________________________________________________________________ 95

B.2. Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme ______________________________________________________ 96

B.3. Environmental permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) regulations ________________________ 98

B.4. Recent changes to other relevant legislation and policies _____________________________________ 99

B.5. Future changes to legislation __________________________________________________________ 101

Appendix C. Roles and Responsibilities ____________________________________________________________ 103

C.1. European union _____________________________________________________________________ 103

C.2. National government _________________________________________________________________ 103

C.3. Waste collection and disposal authorities _________________________________________________ 103

C.4. Waste planning authorities ____________________________________________________________ 103

C.5. Environment agency _________________________________________________________________ 104

C.6. Animal health_______________________________________________________________________ 104

C.7. The community sector ________________________________________________________________ 104

Appendix D. Small WEEE Leaflet _________________________________________________________________ 106

Appendix E. Carbon Management Plan ____________________________________________________________ 107

Appendix F. Options Analysis ____________________________________________________________________ 108

F.1. EOA assessment ___________________________________________________________________ 108

F.2. WRATE analysis ____________________________________________________________________ 112

F.3. Residual waste treatment comparison ___________________________________________________ 113

F.4. Organic waste treatment comparison ____________________________________________________ 119

F.5. Whole service impacts _______________________________________________________________ 121

F.6. Costs analysis ______________________________________________________________________ 123

F.7. Overall conclusions __________________________________________________________________ 128

Appendix G. Sources of Further Information _________________________________________________________ 130

G.1. Policy makers ______________________________________________________________________ 130

G.2. Re-use ____________________________________________________________________________ 130

G.3. Recycling __________________________________________________________________________ 131

G.4. Composting ________________________________________________________________________ 131

Appendix H. Study Data and Models _______________________________________________________________ 133

H.1. WRATE Report; ‘Recycling’ ___________________________________________________________ 133

H.2. WRATE Report ‘Residual Waste Treatment’ ______________________________________________ 133

H.3. WRATE Report ‘Organic Waste Treatment’ _______________________________________________ 133

H.4. Excel File ‘Environmental Options Appraisal Workbook’ _____________________________________ 133

H.5. Excel File ‘Mass Flows and Costs Studies 2011/12 - 2030’___________________________________ 133

H.6. Excel File ‘Electricity Revenue Study’ ___________________________________________________ 133

Tables

Table 3.1: Timeline of service improvements since 2008 ______________________________________________ 31

Table 3.2: Waste management costs for Telford & Wrekin and NE Lincolnshire ____________________________ 33

Table 4.1: Comparison with other ‘Family Group Authorities ___________________________________________ 38

Table 4.2: Comparison of HRC services in the region ________________________________________________ 38

Table 4.3: Advantages and disadvantages of the technologies _________________________________________ 45



Table 4.4: Options assessed in the Environmental Options Appraisal ____________________________________ 49

Table 4.5: Statutory SEA assessment criteria _______________________________________________________ 49

Table 4.6: EOA assessment criteria and weightings __________________________________________________ 50

Table 4.7: Normalised residual waste results _______________________________________________________ 53

Table 4.8: Final weighted scores _________________________________________________________________ 53

Table 4.9: Organic waste treatment options ________________________________________________________ 53

Table 4.10: Normalised organic treatment results _____________________________________________________ 55

Table 4.11: Normalised WRATE results for recycling __________________________________________________ 56

Table 4.12: Comparison of gate fees and total cost for treatment/tonne ___________________________________ 60

Table 4.13: Total annual waste management cost (without food) _________________________________________ 61

Table 4.14: Total annual waste management cost (with food) ___________________________________________ 61

Table 4.15: Total annual waste management cost (without food) including cost per household and per capita _____ 62

Table 4.16: Total annual waste management cost (with food) including cost per household and per capita _______ 62

Table 4.17: Satisfaction survey ___________________________________________________________________ 65

Table 5.1: Carbon benefits of diverting waste from landfill _____________________________________________ 76

Table 5.2: Net greenhouse gas impacts of waste treatment technologies _________________________________ 77

Table 6.1: Short-term action plan (2012 – March 2017) _______________________________________________ 84

Table 6.2: Medium-term action plan (April 2017 – March 2025) _________________________________________ 87

Table 6.3: Long-term action plan (April 2025 onwards)________________________________________________ 89

Table B.1: Landfill Diversion Targets (‘000 tonnes) ___________________________________________________ 97

Table F.1: Scenarios analysed in the options assessment ____________________________________________ 108

Table F.2: BEO assessment criteria (based upon current SEA requirements) _____________________________ 109

Table F.3: Final weighted scores ________________________________________________________________ 110

Table F.4: Normalised results __________________________________________________________________ 113

Table F.5: Characterised results ________________________________________________________________ 113



Table F.8: Table of energy recovery comparison ___________________________________________________ 116

Table F.9: Table of results for global warming potential ______________________________________________ 117

Table F.10: Table of results for resource depletion ___________________________________________________ 118



Table F.13: Table for organics global warming comparison ____________________________________________ 121

Table F.14: Business as Usual (BAU) organics ______________________________________________________ 122

Table F.15: Whole service and wet AD ____________________________________________________________ 122

Table F.16: Table of gate fees used ______________________________________________________________ 123

Table F.17: Total waste management costs for ‘BAU’ option ___________________________________________ 123

Table F.18: Overall costs of technology options with food collection (£ million) _____________________________ 125

Table F.19: Without food collection _______________________________________________________________ 127

Table F.20: With food collection __________________________________________________________________ 128

Table F.21: Comparison of costs _________________________________________________________________ 128

Figures

Figure 3.1: Total MSW arisings in North Lincolnshire since 2006/07 ______________________________________ 23

Figure 3.2: Kerbside collected residual household waste composition ____________________________________ 25

Figure 3.3: Residual HRC waste composition _______________________________________________________ 26

Figure 3.4: National Indicators 191 and 192 for household waste ________________________________________ 27

Figure 3.5: Proportions of MSW diverted from and sent to landfill ________________________________________ 31

Figure 4.1: North Lincolnshire’s landfill allowance targets (BMW) ________________________________________ 36



Figure 4.2: Multi criteria comparison _______________________________________________________________ 52

Figure 4.3: WRATE results for the organic waste treatment options ______________________________________ 54

Figure 4.4: Recycling WRATE results ______________________________________________________________ 56

Figure 4.5: Weighted scores for the EOA assessment _________________________________________________ 57

Charts

Chart F.1: Graph of results for the sensitivity analysis _______________________________________________ 111

Chart F.2: Final weighted scores ________________________________________________________________ 111

Chart F.3: Recycling service results _____________________________________________________________ 112

Chart F.4: Graph of combined results for residual waste _____________________________________________ 114

Chart F.5: Comparative energy recovery by treatment technology ______________________________________ 116

Chart F.6: Comparison of global warming potential by treatment technology _____________________________ 117

Chart F.7: Comparison of resource depletion by treatment technology __________________________________ 118

Chart F.8: Comparison of multiple impacts by treatment technology ____________________________________ 119

Chart F.9: Cost comparison by treatment technology in 2014/15 _______________________________________ 123

Chart F.10: Cost comparison by treatment technology in 2029/30 _______________________________________ 124

Chart F.11: Cost comparison by treatment technology in 2029/30 – High tax case __________________________ 125

Chart F.12: Graph of costs 2014/2015 _____________________________________________________________ 126

Chart F.13: Graph of costs 2029/30 _______________________________________________________________ 126

Chart F.14: Graph of costs 2029/30 – High tax case _________________________________________________ 127


i


Waste management is one of the most important and high profile services that a local

authority can offer. It plays a vital role in the quality of life and sustainability of the whole

community, and a pro-active and far sighted approach to collection, disposal and

recycling is essential in meeting the challenges that the Council faces.

North Lincolnshire Council is responsible for the collection, recycling and disposal of

municipal solid waste (MSW) arising in North Lincolnshire. This consists mainly of waste

generated by households. During 2010/11, around 100,000 tonnes of MSW was received

or collected by the Council. Of this, just over a half (52%) was recycled or composted,

with the remainder landfilled.

This means that since the Council last revised its waste management strategy in 2007/8,

recycling and composting performance has continued to increase. This has been as a

result of a further expansion of the Council’s kerbside recycling and organic waste

collection services, including the capture of other materials e.g. small Waste Electrical

and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), together with the promotion of practical waste

reduction measures.

There is still much that can be improved, and many changes will need to be made to

meet the challenges that the Council faces from new and soon to be introduced

legislation from European and Central governments.

Much has changed in the last few years including a change in the way ‘municipal waste’

is defined, and the abandonment of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).

LATS was a mechanism that was being used by local authorities to demonstrate and

assess the contribution of an authority to achieving European targets for biodegradable

waste diversion from landfill. This was one of the main drivers towards the development

of new infrastructure in the municipal waste management industry.

To adapt to these changes and pave the way for a ‘zero waste’ system, which is one of

the government’s key objectives in the medium and long-terms, a new strategy will need

to be produced which will identify changes required to the waste management systems in

the Borough, showing a benefit to the community and the environment at the same time.

This document sets out a description of the systems that are in place, how they are

performing and the initiatives needed to adapt to the future. Waste needs to be managed

in a more sustainable way. This sustainable approach is required to meet new legislation,

which gives a much higher priority to waste prevention, recycling and treating waste to

recover value from it.

Executive Summary


ii


North Lincolnshire Council implemented new recycling collections and the alternate week

collection scheme for non-recyclable dustbin waste in early 2006. This enabled a

recycling rate of 43% to be achieved in 2007/08 and over 50% in 2009/10. North

Lincolnshire Council recognises that further changes are required in order to fully comply

with new legislation, and therefore North Lincolnshire Council’s proposed waste strategy

for meeting these challenges between now and the year 2029/30 is to:

� Limit the growth in municipal waste through the use of waste reduction and

minimisation programmes; and

� Increase the level of recycling and composting of household waste to a minimum of

60%, and meet any future statutory targets set by the Government.

� Adopt a ‘zero waste’ management system by the year 2020

The aspiration is to treat the remaining residual waste and organic waste streams in

facilities located within North Lincolnshire in order to recover energy from them,

preferably in the form of electricity. This will enable North Lincolnshire Council to meet

the requirement to adopt a ‘zero waste’ system by 2020 as stipulated by the government,

and help to off-set the Borough’s carbon emissions.

North Lincolnshire Council will continue to raise awareness on waste and promote

initiatives that could reduce the amount of municipal waste. It will also seek to positively

influence the more sustainable management of non-municipal waste streams generated

locally by offering separate collections of recyclable materials to businesses operating

locally and formalising their use of the Household Recycling Centres.

In order to both achieve strategic outcomes and make a contribution to sustainable waste

management, the Council recognises that deliverability of a proven solution for treating

residual waste in a timely manner is of critical importance. An Environmental Options

Assessment for the management of the residual waste arising in North Lincolnshire

concluded that the most suitable option for meeting future landfill targets is to treat the

residual waste in a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility producing a solid

recovered fuel (SRF) for use in cement kilns or a facility that allows the generation of

electricity with potential revenue benefits to the Council. For the treatment of organic

wastes, the preferred option is to use Anaerobic Digestion.

Deliverability is a key issue for any waste management project, and therefore if these

solutions cannot be delivered, North Lincolnshire Council may have to consider other

options that conform to the underlying principles of diverting waste away from landfill and

usefully recovering value from it, and then develop planning policies accordingly. It is also

important to note that whatever solution is adopted, land will be required for both the

residual waste treatment facility and for facilities to handle any additional organic material

collected or received for composting.


iii


The costs of collecting, treating and disposing of increased amounts of waste have

contributed to higher Council Tax bills. Costs will continue to rise, but the rate of increase

will be higher if there is no change to current waste management procedures.

North Lincolnshire Council recognises the importance of regular consultation with all

stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in order to take into account a wide

range of factors and views as the waste strategy is developed and then implemented.

There was a public consultation on the draft waste strategy between October 2007 and

January 2008. A total of 1,333 responses were received. The results show that there is

strong support for achieving and exceeding the original 45% recycling target, but less

support for providing additional recycling collection facilities. The consultation also

showed strong support for treating the non-recyclable waste produced by local residents

in a facility located within North Lincolnshire, which recovers both electricity and heat

from the waste. These findings have been used in developing this final version of North

Lincolnshire Council’s municipal waste strategy.

Further engagement with the public took place in 2009/10 which indicated that there was

high degree of appreciation of the system in place currently for the collection of dry

recyclables from the kerbside. Since the kerbside collection system was fully rolled out,

recycling levels have increased beyond a revised target of 50%. Recent changes to the

collection of organic wastes may see a slight reduction in the current levels achieved, but

further increases in recycling are expected to occur through an enhancement of the

existing kerbside collection service and improved recovery of materials received at the

network of Household Recycling Centres. This will be undertaken through

communications and behavioural change initiatives and procuring facilities for treating the

organic and residual wastes.

There will also be further consultations as the strategy is implemented and periodically

reviewed, and there will be additional consultation when any planning application for a

new waste treatment facility in North Lincolnshire is considered.


1


North Lincolnshire Council has commissioned Mott MacDonald Ltd to produce a strategy for the

management of solid wastes generated within the authority.

The North Lincolnshire Council area is situated on the southern bank of the river Humber. Occupying

85,000 hectares, the area is predominantly rural in nature with several urban centres the largest of which is

Scunthorpe.

The area has a population of 161,000 occupying a total of 72,940 households. Steel manufacture and

agriculture still dominate the local economy although logistics and chemical manufacturing are growth

areas, located primarily on and around the south Humber bank. The previous extraction of aggregates and

minerals has resulted in an abundance of landfill capacity. Out of an estimated total of 18 million cubic

metres of consented void space within the Humber sub region 14 million cubic metres of this is located

within North Lincolnshire.

As North Lincolnshire is a Unitary Local Authority it has to act as both the Waste Collection Authority

(WCA) and the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) for municipal solid waste (MSW) in North Lincolnshire.

The Council is, therefore, responsible for collecting, recycling and disposing of MSW which mainly consists

of waste produced by households. Other waste streams such as wastes from commercial and industrial

premises, demolition and agricultural wastes, are handled mainly by private sector waste management

companies.

Set against a background of a changing market and waste management technologies, constantly changing

legislation and policy, greater emphasis on sustainability and treating waste as a resource, and the carbon

agenda, the management of waste has come a long way in the last ten years or so. There has been a

move away from large scale reliance on landfilling of waste. North Lincolnshire Council has substantially

increased the recycling rate from just 7% in 1997/8 to a recycling rate in excess of 50% in 2010/11 as a

result of recycling schemes that have been put in place. To further improve this is going to be more difficult

because effective recycling measures are already in place and there are limited opportunities. However,

despite these attempted interventions, the amount of household waste per capita produced in North

Lincolnshire remains one of the highest in the country. Waste prevention is an important aspect of

becoming less reliant on landfilling of waste, but it is a difficult area to tackle because it requires long term

changes in behaviour.

North Lincolnshire Council now needs to focus on a strategy for a long term sustainable solution and to find

the best way forward to manage the residual waste stream. The chosen residual waste treatment option

will need to be deliverable, provide value for money and be environmentally sustainable. Going through a

major procurement process for a new residual or organic waste treatment contract is demanding and can

take several years to put in place. It is also a difficult task because the councils around North Lincolnshire

are committed to their projects. This leaves North Lincolnshire Council isolated, with a comparatively small

amount of waste, looking to procure a solution against a background of a competitive and rapidly changing

market.

1.1 Development of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy

An earlier draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) for North Lincolnshire produced in 2002

outlined the development of additional recycling facilities and services. However, it did not consider options

for management and disposal of waste not collected for recycling.

1. Introduction


2


Subsequent to this, the MWMS that North Lincolnshire developed in 2008 identified residual waste

treatment options and described the changes that would be necessary for the recycling service to meet the

overall objectives of the Council.

This Strategy aims to complete the process of assessing the options available for residual waste treatment,

using tools and information that were not available to the Council in 2008. Since then, the Council has

conducted procurement projects for residual, organic and recycling collection services. This means there is

a much greater knowledge base from which to assess the options as studies have been conducted on key

topics such as: the costs of the various waste treatment technologies and their ‘pitfalls’, the markets for the

output, and a range of other technical, legal and financial issues, all of which have been studied in depth in

the last four years.

New tools that were not available in 2008, such as the Environment Agency’s Waste and Resources

Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) life-cycle analysis tool, have been used in this strategy to

assess the options available much more accurately than had been the case previously. This Strategy

presents a detailed assessment of the options available using the life-cycle methodology, and this, together

with a range of other decision-making tools, has informed the Council on which options to follow in the

short, medium and long-term.

An Environmental Options Appraisal (EOA) has been prepared, which is based on the latest guidelines for

Sustainable Environmental Assessments (SEA)1, so that all of the key Environmental, Socio-Economic and

Technical factors have been included in the appraisal. These factors will be an essential feature in the SEA

document that is being prepared in parallel with this Strategy. Therefore, the Council is confident that the

Strategy meets the sustainability needs of the wider community and minimises all associated impacts.

1.2 The purpose of this Waste Strategy

The objectives of North Lincolnshire’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy have been developed over a

number of years through a continuous process involving consultation with the Public and the Council’s

Members and Officers. They have been updated to reflect the changing demands on waste management

system, and are:

� To develop a more sustainable system of waste management, promoting waste prevention in the first

instance, encouraging re-use and recycling, and minimising the quantity of waste disposed of without

recovering value from it;

� To ensure that “Value for Money” principles are applied, and to secure an economic, efficient and

effective waste management service;

� To meet the challenging targets set by Government to recover value from waste and to move towards a

‘zero waste’ system by 2020.

� To meet the Council’s need to reduce its carbon footprint.

� To work in partnership with others in the provision of the service, including government, other local

authorities, private and community sectors; and

� To meet the increasing expectations of residents, and to seek to engage the wider community via the

Council’s Strategic Partnership arrangements.

This new Municipal Waste Management Strategy

_________________________

1 SEAs are a statutory requirement for all key planning documents, including the Council’s Waste Management Strategy, and must be

completed before this document can be officially adopted by the council.


3


� Outlines the legal and policy requirements that the Council will need to meet;

� Describes the waste management services that are currently provided;

� Describes what the Council needs to do;

� Evaluates technical options; and

� Sets out an Action Plan to implement the changes required.

It is important to note that whilst new legislation will require improvements in the management of all waste

streams, the Council is only responsible for the collection of what until recently has been defined as Local

Authority Collected Municipal Waste (LACMW) and Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW).

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/la-definition/


4


This section provides a review of current legislation and the changes that have taken place with respect to

waste management legislation and policies since the Municipal Waste Management Strategy was

developed by the Council in June 2008.

European Union (EU) waste policy and legislation determines, to a very significant degree, the measures

that impact on the management of wastes in the UK. These measures are either transposed through

legislation, or incorporated into waste management policy.

Waste management policy and practice has continued to evolve at a European, national and regional level

and Government policy and legislation. These are driving change in a way that requires increased diversion

of waste from landfill, increased focus on minimising the environmental impact of waste related activities by

reducing the overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use and meeting

recycling targets. The Government’s policy is based on the concept of resource efficiency and the

principles of sustainable development and the waste management hierarchy (i.e. waste prevention,

followed by re-use, recycling and recovery before disposal).

Information on the relevant legislation and policies that North Lincolnshire Council’s Waste Strategy has to

consider are detailed below and in Appendix B.

2.1 European waste policy and legislation

The following legislation was discussed in the Waste Management Strategy:

� Waste Framework Directive;

� Landfill Directive;

� Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste;

� End of Life Vehicles Directive;

� Waste Incineration Directive;

� Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive;

� Directive on Batteries; and

� Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation.

The changes to the legislation since the development of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy that

might have an effect on the Council are discussed below.

2.1.1 Waste Framework Directive

The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) repealed the previous Framework Directive on Waste

(75/442/EEC) and the Waste Directive (2006/12/EC) and entered into force on 12th

December 2008. The

aim of the revised WFD is to promote waste prevention, increase recycling and ensure better use of

resources, whilst protecting human health and the environment. The waste hierarchy is placed at the heart

of waste management.

The revised Directive seeks to increase the use of waste as a resource (e.g. for fuel) and to place greater

emphasis on the prevention and recycling of waste, while protecting human health and the environment. It

includes a new waste hierarchy which differs from the existing hierarchy in how it defines re-use of

materials and in how it distinguishes between recycling and other recovery.

2. Legal Requirements and Guidance


5


The revised WFD now specifies that incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of MSW can be

classified as R1 (recovery operation used principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy) only

where their energy efficiency is equal to or above:

� 0.60 – for installations in operation and permitted in accordance with applicable community legislation

before 1 January 2009

� 0.65 – for installations permitted after 31 December 2008.

Whilst the Commission says the guidelines are not legally binding, it will provide a level playing field in the

application of the energy efficiency thresholds for municipal waste incinerators and the R1 formula will

facilitate Energy from Waste (EfW) moving up the waste hierarchy.

2.1.1.1 EC Regulation on End of Waste

The European Union (EU) Regulation 333/2011 on End of Waste came into effect on 9th October 2011

which establishes criteria determining when certain types of scrap metal cease to be waste under the

revised WFD. This will result in some changes to the producer responsibility regime for packaging. It may

also lead to permitting changes e.g. for the storage of processed ferrous scrap, and will allow the materials

covered to be exported as non-waste. The EU is likely to issue regulations on other waste streams in the

future. The national end of waste criteria for England and Wales are set out in Quality Protocols.

2.1.1.2 Waste (England and Wales) Regulations

The revised WFD has now been implemented by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 which

came into force on 29th March 2011. The Regulations also include amendments to the Hazardous Waste

Regulations 2005 and amends the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

The changes:

� Require businesses to confirm that they have applied the waste management hierarchy (i.e. prevention;

preparing for re-use; recycling; other recovery; and disposal) when transferring waste and to include a

declaration on their waste transfer note or consignment note. The waste hierarchy is partly implemented

through the amended Duty of Care requirements from 28th September 2011 and Governments will

provide guidance on this within the new Code of Practice. The waste transfer note must now also

include the 2007 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of the person transferring the waste.

However, the 2003 SIC codes should still be used on hazardous waste consignment notes;

� Will apply the new waste hierarchy through a new permit condition for waste facilities and where

appropriate a condition relating to mixing of hazardous waste. Applying the waste management

hierarchy will be a condition of new environmental permits and will be added to existing permits when

they are reviewed;

� Introduce a two-tier system for waste carrier and broker registration, which includes those who carry

their own waste, and introduces a new concept of a waste dealer;

� Make amendments to hazardous waste controls and definition which means that some non-hazardous

wastes may now be reclassified as hazardous wastes;

� Exclude some categories of waste from waste controls, notably animal by-products, pet crematoria with

a capacity of less that 50kg/hour and most radioactive wastes, as these are controlled by other

legislation;

� Require production of National Waste Management Plan by Spring 2013; and

� Require the separate collection of waste paper, metal, plastic and glass from 1 January 2015.


6


In relation to the collection of waste, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

interpreted the meaning of separate collection under the revised WFD to include co-mingling whereby

materials are collected together and separated at a later point. A Judicial Review has been brought by the

Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR) who challenged Defra with this interpretation. The Judicial Review has

now been delayed until 13th June 2012 as Defra and the Welsh Government wish to re-word Regulation 13

of the Waste Regulations. In the original regulations, co-mingled collections could count as ‘separate’ but

this clause has now been removed and only separate collections will count. However, this is only where

separate collections are ‘technically, economically or environmentally practicable (TEEP)’ or necessary to

meet quality standards.2

2.1.2 Landfill Directive

The Landfill Directive’s (1999/31/EC) aim is to reduce, as far as possible, the negative effects and pollution

potential of landfill sites. In England and Wales the Directive was transposed into domestic legislation

through The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002.

The Landfill Regulations 2002 and amendments were replaced by the Environmental Permitting (England

and Wales) Regulations 2007. These Regulations have since been further revoked by the Environmental

Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which, in England and Wales, now implement the

Landfill Directive and Council Decision 2003/33/EC establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance

of waste at landfills. The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, Regulation 35(2)(d), implement the

requirements of the Landfill Directive through Schedule 10.

In March 2011, the EU announced that it intends to propose a phase-out of biodegradable waste going to

landfill in 2020-2025 as part of a revision of the 1999 Landfill Directive. At present, the most challenging

target set under the Directive requires the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste it sends to

landfill to 35% of 1995 levels by 2020. It will not be an outright ban in the first instance. As the UK had four

extra years to meet the Landfill Directive targets due to its historic reliance on landfill, any targets put in

place for 2020-25 for the UK are likely to fall four years later in 2024-2029. It is expected to be several

years before any legislative changes are made.

2.1.2.1 Waste and Emissions Trading Act and Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme

The Government has implemented the requirements for the landfilling of biodegradable waste through the

Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (WET Act). In October 2011, this was amended by the Waste and

Emissions Trading Act 2003 (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (2011 No.2499) which also makes

amendments to the Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 (LATS) and the

Joint Waste Authorities (Proposals) Regulations 2009 to reflect a new interpretation of the term ‘municipal

waste’.

The WET Act sets out a definition of the term ‘municipal waste’ based on the Landfill Directive

(1999/31/EC). The UK’s interpretation of ‘municipal waste’ has been widened to include more commercial

waste collected by the private sector (see Appendix B.1). The revised WET Act introduces a new term for

the category of waste that continues to be covered by the landfill allowance scheme, local authority

collected municipal waste (LACMW), in order to distinguish it from the broader term, ‘municipal waste’. The

legislation also introduces the new term into the appropriate places in the LATS and the Joint Waste

_________________________

2 http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/councils-2018could-face-commingled-legal-challenges2019


7


Authorities (Proposals) Regulations. The legislation also removes the provisions allowing supplementary

penalties to be applied to WDAs in England (these previously had the effect of allowing an EU infraction

fine for failing to meet Landfill Directive targets to be passed on to WDAs exceeding their allowances).

Whilst LATS is to be abolished from 2012/13 (see Appendix B.2), the UK Government is still required to

meet the EU landfill diversion targets and will use economic measures such as landfill tax to dissuade the

use of landfill. North Lincolnshire Council’s waste management priority will still be to decrease its reliance

on landfilling of waste.

2.1.3 Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste

In 2004, the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EEC) was reviewed to provide criteria

clarifying the definition of the term 'packaging' and increased the targets for recovery and recycling of

packaging waste. In 2005, the Directive was revised again to allow new Member States transitional periods

for attaining the recovery and recycling targets. There does not appear to be any changes to the target to

recover 60% of all packaging waste by 31st December 2008 (and must, thereafter, continue to ensure that

at least this level of recovery and recycling is sustained) or recycling targets for specific materials, which

include a 60% recycling target for both glass and paper/board. However, a new Packaging Directive is

expected from 2014, which is likely to increase these targets and it will be expected that the packaging

collected in North Lincolnshire for recycling and recovery will contribute towards meeting the UK’s targets.

2.1.3.1 Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations

The Directive is implemented in the UK by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste)

Regulations 2007 SI 871 which requires producers to recover and recycle packaging waste to achieve EU

targets. This was amended by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment

No.2) Regulations 2008 and further amended by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging

Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 SI 2849. These amendments included the establishment of waste

recovery and recycling targets for 2011 and 2012, as the original regulations only had targets until 2010,

together with other technical changes. The regulations set out a recovery target for the years 2010 to 2012

of 74% and introduce recycling targets for specific materials such as an 81% target for glass and

paper/board of 69.5%.

2.1.4 End of Life Vehicles Directive

The End of Life Vehicles Directive (2000/53/EC) was amended by Directive 2008/33/EC with technical

changes including the requirement that Member States have in place a Certificate of Destruction (CoD)

system as part of the vehicle registration/de-registration process.

2.1.4.1 End of Life Vehicles Regulations

The End of Life Vehicles Regulations 2003 SI 2635 implements the Directive and requires vehicle

producers to set up collection, treatment and disposal systems to make sure that components in vehicles

can be recovered, reused and recycled at the end of their life. The End of Life Vehicles (Amendment)

Regulations 2010 SI 1094 amends 2003/2635 by changing the basis on which exemptions from the

restrictions on use of heavy metals in vehicle components are identified. It also provides powers of entry

and inspection for the enforcement authorities. In order to transpose the Directive, improved environmental

standards for vehicle dismantlers have been introduced in the UK. These include new site standards,


8


requirements to de-pollute vehicles at the start of the treatment process and increased recovery/recycling

targets of 85% (by 2006) and 95% (by 2015).

An appointed vehicle recovery agent recovers abandoned vehicles (and untaxed vehicles) on behalf of

North Lincolnshire Council.

2.1.5 Waste Incineration Directive

The Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) aims to limit the risks that waste incineration poses to the

environment and human health and is implemented through the Environmental Permitting Regulations

(England and Wales) 2010 which replaced the 2007 Regulations. In 2007, the Regulations combined the

Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) and Waste Management Licensing (WML) regulations. Their scope

has since been widened to include water discharge and groundwater activities, radioactive substances and

provision for a number of Directives, including the Mining Waste Directive.

Thermal treatment facilities would require a bespoke permit under the Environmental Permitting

Regulations.

2.1.6 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive (2002/96/EC) aims to reduce the quantity

of waste from electrical and electronic equipment and increase its re-use, recovery and recycling.

A re-cast of the WEEE Directive is anticipated and, if approved, new regulations governing WEEE could

come into force in Member States by January 2014. The new targets agreed in the European Parliament

will require member states to increase their WEEE collection rates above the current target of 4kg per

person. As of 2016, 45% of WEEE will need to be collected in the three preceding years. These targets will

then rise further in 2019 to a rate of 65%. This equates to about 20kg per capita separately collected in

2020.

Parliament has also confirmed proposals for a retailer take-back scheme whereby consumers can take

small WEEE items to an electrical retailer free of charge, without having to purchase a new product. This

scheme will apply to retailers of electrical goods with a shop space of 400 sq metres or larger. MEPs also

agreed on tougher restrictions on the illegal export of WEEE to prevent waste electrical items from being

processed in countries where conditions are hazardous to workers and the environment. It will now be the

responsibility of exporters to prove that goods are being shipped abroad for repair or reuse. Some Member

States will be able to derogate from these targets, where this is justified through the lack of necessary

infrastructure or low levels of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) consumption.

2.1.6.1 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations

The Directive has been implemented in the UK through the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Regulations 2006 SI 3289, which aims to reduce the amount of WEEE sent to landfill. The Regulations

require producers of electrical and electronic equipment to register and cover the costs of collecting,

treating, recovering and disposing of equipment when it reaches the end of its life. The Regulations have

since been amended several times, namely:

� WEEE (Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 3454: amends 2006/3289 to encourage prioritising re-use of

whole appliances in the WEEE system;


9


� WEEE (Amendment) Regulations 2009 SI 2957: amends 2006/3289 by improving the Producer

Compliance Scheme approval process and reducing the administrative burden on business by

simplifying the data reporting requirements and the evidence system;

� WEEE (Amendment)(No2) Regulations 2009 SI 3216: corrects a defect in 2009/2957 by requiring

producers of electrical and electronic equipment for domestic use to report details quarterly and

annually for all other EEE; and

� WEEE (Amendment) Regulations 2010 SI 1155: amends 2006/3289 replacing ‘dangerous substance or

mixture’ and (as from 1 Dec 2010 and 1 June 2015) substitutes new definitions of ‘dangerous substance

or mixture’.

North Lincolnshire Council provides facilities for collecting these items at the Household Recycling Centre

(HRC) and also collects small domestic appliances from the kerbside as detailed in Section 3.4.9. Whilst

the Council’s collection rate for WEEE is above the current EU Directive targets, any revised targets agreed

in the European Parliament will have to be implemented in the UK Regulations which will have an effect on

the Council collecting WEEE.

2.1.7 Directive on Batteries

The Batteries Directive (2006/66/EC) aims to reduce the environmental impact of the manufacture,

distribution, use and disposal and recovery of batteries.

The Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators was

amended by Directive 2008/103/EC whereby Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure

that batteries or accumulators which do not meet the requirements of this Directive are not placed on the

market after 26 September 2008. Member States were required to implement this by 5 January 2009.

The Directive aims to increase the level of waste portable battery recycling by requiring Member States to

collect at least 25% of waste portable batteries by 2012 for recycling, increasing to 45% by 2016. Waste

portable batteries are not normally classified as hazardous waste (unless mixed), but industrial and

automotive batteries are. Consequently, the Directive establishes a ban on the disposal of waste industrial

and automotive batteries by landfill or incineration. In effect, creating a 100% separate collection and

recycling target for these types of waste batteries.

2.1.7.1 Waste Batteries and Accumulators Regulations

The Batteries Directive is implemented in England, Northern Ireland and Wales by the Waste Batteries and

Accumulators Regulations 2009 SI 890 which establishes a legal framework and schemes for collecting,

treating and recycling portable, industrial and vehicle batteries. The Regulations apply to all types of

batteries except when used for military and space equipment.

Most producers of portable batteries will finance collection and recycling of waste portable batteries by

joining a Battery Compliance Scheme (BCS). The BCS will take on responsibility for meeting the Directive’s

targets on behalf of its members. Distributors of portable batteries are required to collect waste portable

batteries in store and have a right to call on BCSs to ensure pick up of those batteries. BCSs will also be

required to accept waste batteries for recycling from competent public authorities and economic operators.

Small producers and distributors have exemptions from some or all of the regulations requirements. Finally,

the instrument provides that the treatment and recycling of waste batteries meet standards set out in the

Directive.


10


Facilities for collecting batteries are provided at the Council’s HRC and household portable batteries are

recovered at the kerbside as part of the existing recycling scheme.

2.1.8 Ozone Depleting Substances

The EU Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2009 (EU ODS Regulation) was

introduced in January 2010 and replaced the previous Regulations (Regulation 2037/2000). The Regulation

is aimed at phasing out the use of ozone depleting chemicals and controls the production, import, export,

placing on the market, recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of substances that deplete the

ozone layer. In particular, the EU ODS Regulation concerns the control of emissions from refrigeration

systems, air-conditioning units, fire-protection systems and heat pumps. Annex VI of this Regulation has

been amended by Commission Regulation 744/2010 with regard to critical use of halons which came into

force in September 2010.

2.1.8.1 Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances)

In Great Britain the Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2011

(SI 2011/1543), implement the EU regulation and prescribe offences and penalties applicable to

infringements of the regulation. This applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (relating

only to importation and exportation in Northern Ireland). The previous legislation, the Environmental

Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2002 and the Environmental Protection

(Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 is to be revoked. The Ozone-

Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/216), which apply to England, Wales and

Scotland provide for minimum qualifications for those working on the recovery, recycling, reclamation or

destruction of ODS and the prevention and minimising of leakages of ODS.

North Lincolnshire Council provides facilities for the collection of refrigerators and freezers at the HRC.

These are sent to a suitable facility which separates out the ozone depleting substances, the remaining

materials are then sent for recycling.

2.2 UK waste policy and legislation

The following legislation was discussed in the Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2008:

� The Finance Act and the Landfill Tax Regulations;

� Waste Minimisation Act;

� Animal By-Products Order and Regulations;

� Household Waste Recycling Act; and

� National Performance Indicators.

The changes to the legislation since the development of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy that

might have an effect on the Council are discussed below.

2.2.1 The Finance Act and Landfill Tax Regulations

The Finance Act 1996 contains the primary law on the tax and provides for secondary legislation, which

generally deals with the more detailed implementation of the tax i.e. the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996,

which cover details of registration procedures, credits, accounting and the environmental trusts provisions.


11


Landfill Tax affects all materials collected and sent to landfill. Subsequent Chancellor’s Budgets have

increased this tax and in 2007 proposals were made to introduce the landfill tax escalator. This meant

increases of £8 per tonne each year on active wastes. Since 1996 there have been many amendments to

the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 up to the Landfill Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2011 which came into

force 1st April 2011.

The Finance Act 2011 updated the standard rate of landfill tax to £64 in 2012/13. It will then rise to £72 in

2013/14 and £80 in 2014/15. The UK Government has confirmed that the standard landfill tax rate will not

fall below £80/tonne in future. There was also a freeze in the lower rate (£2.50 per tonne) of landfill tax in

2011/12 and the list of wastes that qualify for the lower rate of landfill tax will remain broadly the same as

present.

This increasing tax burden is seen as the Government’s way of incentivising councils to move away from

the use of landfill as a method of residual waste management and increases the budgetary impact on

councils continuing to use landfill as a final outlet for their residual waste.

One of the main aims of this Strategy is to set out how the Council intends to further reduce its reliance on

landfill and therefore reduce landfill tax costs.

2.2.2 Waste Minimisation Act

This Act allows local authorities to promote waste reduction schemes and campaigns, whilst supporting

other legislation enabling local authorities to determine the form of collection of waste and the receptacles

in which it is collected. The Act’s main priority is to give powers to local authorities, both WCAs and WDAs,

to take steps to minimise the generation of waste (household, commercial and industrial).

North Lincolnshire Council has a waste minimisation programme e.g. provision of home composting units

to households. In order to support its waste minimisation programme, the Council has adopted measures

that include alternate weekly collections, the non-collection of excess or side waste and a ‘flat lid’ policy.

The Council has also introduced differential charging for new and replacement residual waste bins. This

provides households with the opportunity to ‘downsize’ their standard 240 litre capacity residual waste

container, free of charge, for a smaller 140 litre version. Since April 2008, all new occupiers of homes, both

existing and new-build, have been issued with a 140 litre residual waste container as standard. In addition

to this, tailored collections allow residents to trade residual waste capacity for additional recycling capacity,

a scheme which has won national recognition and which will be further promoted in the future.

The Council actively promotes the national “Love Food, Hate Waste” campaign and has representation on

a Regional Waste Prevention Programme supported by most local authorities within Yorkshire and the

Humber.

2.2.3 Animal By-Products Order and Regulations

Animal By-Products (ABPs) comprise animal carcasses, parts of carcasses, or products of animal

origin not intended for human consumption e.g. meat, fish, milk and eggs, and other products of animal

origin including blood, hides, feathers, wool, bones, horns and hoofs. They can present a risk to human and

animal health if not used or disposed of safely.

The EU Animal By-Products Regulation 1069/2009 and EU Implementing Regulation 142/2011, which

entered into force on 4th March 2011, sets out the rules on use and disposal of ABPs. The Regulations


12


control the use of ABPs when used as feed (including pet food), as fertilisers, or as technical products, in

composting or anaerobic digestion, and on disposal by rendering and incineration. The rules also prevent

catering waste being fed to livestock.

On 23rd March 2011 the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations No.2011/881 came into

force. Similar legislation applies in the rest of the UK. The Regulations include some derogations from the

EU rules.

Historically, North Lincolnshire Council carried out co-mingled collection of green waste plus fruit and

vegetable peelings. However, this service has been discontinued as a result of concerns regarding the

ABPR regulations. Collections have been modified so that green waste is now collected separately, whilst

the whole of the food waste is collected as part of the household residual waste stream.

2.2.4 Household Waste Recycling Act

The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 requires local authorities in England to collect at least two

separate recyclable fractions of household waste by 2010. A guidance document was published in April

2005.

The introduction of the new recycling schemes, as detailed in Section 3.4, means that North Lincolnshire

Council has met this requirement.

2.2.5 National Performance Indicators

The “best value” performance indicators for recycling and waste were replaced in April 2008 by three

National Indicators:

� NI 191: Residual household waste per household – Waste collected, minus material sent for recycling,

composting or re-use;

� NI 192: Household waste recycled and composted – Material sent for re-use, reprocessing or controlled

biological decomposition; and

� NI 193: Municipal waste landfilled – Collected municipal waste sent to landfill, including recycling

rejects.

The National Indicator Set of measures against which local areas and local authorities were previously

judged by inspectorates and government came to an end at the end of March 2011. The ending of the old

performance framework allows councils working with partner agencies, the public and private, voluntary

and community sectors to identify improvement priorities that matter most locally. Local agencies are also

free to choose and use a wider range of local measures and targets to report and demonstrate progress to

the public and other stakeholders on these priorities and more general service performance issues.

The National Indicator Set is being replaced by a single comprehensive list of all the data returns central

government expects local government to provide. The single data list is a catalogue of all the datasets that

local government must submit to central government in a given year. The National Indicator Set was set up

to aid the performance management of local authorities by central government and consisted of processed

indicators rather than pure data. The single data list is simply a catalogue of all government’s data

requirements from local government. It has been assembled to aid transparency rather than to manage

performance of local councils and facilitates the control of the volume of data central government asks of

local government. However, some datasets collected to calculate National Indicators remain required


13


where they are judged sufficiently valuable at a national level. Councils will not have to provide anything

that is not on the list, unless extra funding is provided. The list for 2011/12 included a requirement for the

Council to report their data into WasteDataFlow. The list for 2012/13 is currently being developed (as of

March 2012).

In relation to recycling targets, the UK as a whole, still has a target for this that falls under the requirements

of the revised WFD. This target requires the UK to re-use and recycle 50% (by weight) of waste (at least

paper, metal, plastic and glass) from households by 2020. WasteDataFlow will be the system which is used

to collate and report performance on this UK target to Europe.

2.3 Recent changes to waste management legislation and policy

The following sections set out other legislation and policies that have come into effect since the Municipal

Waste Management Strategy 2008 was developed.

2.3.1 Government Review of Waste Policy in England

The Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 is a review of waste policies in England. The

aim is to move towards a ‘zero waste economy’ between 2012 and 2020’ through Defra’s Structural Reform

Plan. The idea of waste as a resource underpins the results of the review.

The approach in the waste strategy revision is based upon a national approach to targets through market

drivers rather than the more interventionist approach at a local level which previously existed. One of the

most significant aspects of the Government review of waste policy was the abolition of the LATS, which will

end after the 2012/13 scheme year. The rationale is to use the landfill tax escalator to drive waste away

from landfill in a broader sense, rather than just focusing on household waste, in line with the revised

definition of municipal waste that is being adopted (i.e. interpretation of municipal waste was revised in

2010 to include a much greater proportion of commercial and industrial waste collected by the private

sector).

This review of waste policy in England identified that LATS had been effective in kick starting significant

efforts to divert waste away from landfill, but the rising level of landfill tax (with increases maintained

towards a floor of £80 per tonne in 2014/15) means it is now, by far, the more significant driver and LATS is

no longer considered an effective tool to ensure delivery of the EU landfill targets. The Government

believes that England is on target to meet the target to recycle 50% of waste from households by 2020 and

remains on course to meet the 2013 Landfill Directive Target. They have the confidence that based on

reasonable assumptions England will meet its share of the UK’s 2020 target. The review stated that LATS

only addresses the local authority proportion of municipal waste and does not act on the commercial waste

element managed by the private sector. Therefore, the scheme is no longer considered to be the most

appropriate means of ensuring that England meets its share of the UK Landfill Diversion targets3. In fact,

the scheme is regularly identified as a barrier to local authorities providing enhanced services to small

businesses by collecting and treating household and business materials together, and it is thought by

ending LATS at the end of the 2012/13 year, this barrier will be removed. The landfill tax will remain the key

_________________________

3 Consultation currently out on the proposed policy statement for Part 2 of the Localism Act 2011. Part 2 introduces a discretionary power for a Minister of the Crown to require a public authority to pay some, or all, of a European Court of Justice financial sanction where the public authority has demonstrably caused or contributed to that sanction. The expectation is that, through the use of the provisions in the Act to incentivise compliance by public authorities, the risk of financial sanctions being allocated to the UK (and therefore the risk to public authorities) will be significantly reduced.


14


driver to divert waste from landfill and remains necessary to ensure key EU targets in 2013 and 2020 are

met.

The review also stated that with existing measures in place and new actions which will drive waste up the

hierarchy, it is likely that some waste will end up in landfill that could be put to better use and which may

warrant the introduction of additional legislative tools such as landfill bans or restrictions, to ultimately

achieve the Government’s aim. In 2012, the Government will consult on introducing a restriction on the

landfilling of wood waste, with the aim of diverting the still substantial tonnages that end up in landfill to

better uses up the waste hierarchy. They will also review the case for restrictions on sending other

materials to landfill over the course of the Parliament, including looking specifically at metals, textiles and

biodegradable waste.

Within the review a greater emphasis is being placed upon the role of waste derived fuels such as solid

recovered fuel/refuse derived fuel (SRF/RDF) and the market for these is to be encouraged, particularly

with respect to the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). Overall the production of SRF/RDF is being regarded

as ‘other recovery’ rather than disposal in the waste hierarchy and has therefore effectively moved higher

up the waste hierarchy.

Another area that was identified for review was the WasteDataFlow system and the burden of data entry

placed on local authorities. Weight-based measures of performance will still be necessary for some

purposes, but impacts of waste management are increasingly considered in carbon terms as a more

accurate measure of environmental impact than weight. The Government intend to promote the use of a

carbon metric reporting tool for use by Defra and local authorities to measure and report on waste

management. It is recognised that tools exist already and the intention is to build on this, possibly linking

carbon reporting into the WasteDataFlow system.

Other priorities are to:

� Accelerate recycling and reducing waste creation in the first place by providing incentives for

householders, “recycling on the go” schemes, better services for businesses and voluntary responsibility

deals focussing on the hospitality industry, paper, direct mail, textiles and construction waste. This

includes Defra launching a £500,000 funding pot (Waste Prevention Fund) which will support

businesses, social enterprises and councils in undertaking waste prevention activities;

� Scrap unfair bin fines and taxes while bringing in powers to deal with repeat fly-tipping offenders and

genuine nuisance neighbours;

� Crack down on illegal fly-tippers who persistently and recklessly pollute the environment and

countryside, including introducing appropriate powers to seize vehicles and penalties that might include

offenders clearing up items they have dumped; and

� Consult on increased recycling targets to 2017 for plastic, steel, aluminium and glass.

The Government will publish a follow up zero-waste action on waste prevention (Waste Prevention Plan) in

December 2013 to check progress and address further developments under any new EU regulation.

Alongside the review of waste policy, the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Strategy and Action Plan was published

and a £10m loan fund to stimulate a strong growth in AD is to be administered by WRAP.

It is noteworthy that the review of waste policy did not introduce targets above the 50% household waste

recycling goal by 2020. However, targets set by the devolved administrations are higher with both Wales

and Scotland aiming for a 70% recycling rate by 2025 and Northern Ireland considering setting a 60% goal


15


for 2020. It may be that in the future, England follows the lead of the devolved administrations and

increases the recycling target, which will obviously affect North Lincolnshire Council.

2.3.1.1 Bin fines

The intention to reduce penalties for incorrectly putting out household waste for collection was set out in the

review of waste policy. There are proposals whereby Councils will no longer be able to impose ‘bin fines’

of up to £1,000 on households that overfill their bins or accidentally leave their rubbish out on the wrong

day.

The Government is proposing to amend Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which sets

out the penalties which local authorities may apply to householders who present their waste incorrectly for

collection. These amendments will abolish the criminal offence currently provided for in Section 46 and a

new civil sanction will be put in place instead. Local authorities will continue to be able to issue fixed

penalties, but only if they can prove that a household is causing harm to local amenity by putting out their

rubbish in the wrong way. These penalties will also be reduced to £60-80, so they are more proportionate

with other offences such as parking fines and shoplifting. The changes will mean that Councils will still be

able to take action against people who cause problems for their neighbours or the environment by not

managing their rubbish properly, without the same threat applying to people that make innocent mistakes.

2.4 Waste planning

The following planning policy documents and guidance will have an impact on planning for future waste

management facilities in North Lincolnshire.

2.4.1 National Planning Policies

2.4.1.1 Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) notes and their replacement Planning Policy Statements (PPS) are

prepared by the Government following public consultation to explain statutory provisions and provide

guidance to local authorities and others on planning policy and operation of the planning system. With

immediate effect from 27th March 2012, the system of PPGs and PPSs has been revoked to be replaced by

a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In respect of waste, however, this was excluded from

NPPF as there will be new waste guidance in due course as part of the National Waste Management Plan

for England. PPS10 remains in force for the time being, however local authorities preparing waste plans

and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in NPPF so far as relevant.

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (Published March 2005

and amended March 2011) (PPS10)

The overall objective of Government policy on waste set out in the strategy for sustainable development

(Securing the Future) (updated March 2005) is to protect human health and the environment by producing

less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. The Department for Communities and Local

Government (DCLG) advised all local authorities in March 2011 of an update to PPS10 to ensure that it

incorporates the new waste hierarchy set out in the revised WFD. The changes to PPS10 ensured that

local authorities have regard to the waste hierarchy in the preparation of their waste plans; and that

hierarchy is capable of being a material consideration in determining individual planning applications.


16


2.4.1.2 National Planning Policy Framework

The draft National Planning Policy Framework was published for consultation in late 2011. This proposed to

greatly simplify the guidance that was in existence from over 1000 pages to 52 pages. The shift in

emphasis towards a presumption in favour of sustainable development with special protection given to

areas of environmental designations was criticised by many as favouring growth at the expense of

environmental protection. The final version has alleviated these concerns to some extent by reintroducing

the presumption favouring brownfield development, an improved definition of sustainable development and

there is greater emphasis on good quality design.

The final version has to be read as a whole to fully interpret and apply NPPF. Principal paragraphs of

relevance to development generally include:

� Paragraph 5 of the new NPPF, which states the principles of the NPPF should be applied in Local

Planning Authority decisions on planning applications.

� Paragraph 12 requires the status of the development plan to remain as at present. It states that

proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved and that

proposed development that conflicts should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate

otherwise.

It is highly desirable that planning authorities should have an up to date plan in place.

NPPF notes that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date,

permission should be granted unless there are adverse impacts that are significant and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the whole NPPF, or where specific policies in

NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

In addition, it should be noted that Circular 5/05 concerning Planning Obligations has been cancelled

although NPPF still refers to the tests to be applied.

NPPF now states that the Local Plan is the plan for future development of the local area drawn up by the

local planning authority in consultation with the community. In law, this is described as the development

plan documents adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies

or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be development plan

documents, form part of the Local Plan. The term includes old policies which have been saved under the

2004 Act.

NPPF states also,

“For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 200439 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:


17


● the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); ● the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and ● the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.”

What this should mean for the Council, as far as waste planning is concerned, is that it should be made

easier to gain planning permission for waste treatment plants as long as these are sensibly sited, are of

innovative good quality design and whose significant adverse impacts are not outweighed by their benefits.

A key aspect of this document is the provision that development should be on previously developed land

(brown field sites), where possible.

It is likely that this will follow similar lines to the general guidance with emphasis on anaerobic digestion

technologies, and measures to encourage the adoption of energy generating technologies, both of which

are favoured by the current government.

2.4.2 Regional Planning Policies

Since the new Coalition Government in 2010, there have been changes to the planning policy system,

which includes the introduction of The Localism Bill to Parliament on 13th December 2010. It was given

Royal Assent on 15th November 2011 but some provisions are to be implemented over the next few

months and there is some uncertainty as to the detailed arrangements. This legislation is aimed at shifting

power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. One of the

main changes to the planning policies is the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies effective from the

1st April 2012.

The extant regional planning policy document is Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

adopted May 2008, and this will remain a material consideration in policy plan making and during the

determination of planning applications. It will have to be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment

before it can be revoked.

The Environmental Report on the Yorkshire and Humber RSS states that the objectives of the waste

policies can be achieved by other means:

“These objectives can be delivered by other means than through a regional strategy. The European Union

Waste Framework Directive sets the overall statutory requirements. Revoking the regional strategy will not

impact on these requirements. The focus for delivering spatial waste plans and implementing the directive

lies at the local authority level. Waste planning authorities are expected to continue to take forward their

waste plans to provide land for waste management facilities, to support the sustainable management of

waste. Data and other information prepared by partners, including the Environment Agency and other

waste planning authorities will continue to assist in this process.”

2.4.3 Local Planning Policies

2.4.3.1 North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework

The Local Development Framework (LDF) contains a collection of local development documents produced

by the local planning authority which collectively form the spatial planning strategy for its area. The Core


18


Strategy within the LDF sets out the vision, strategic objectives and delivery strategy for achieving these.

The LDF should eventually replace all of the saved policies within the Local Plan (see Appendix B.4).

The planning system is currently undergoing reform to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine

the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live. The Government’s proposal for a simple and

consolidated national planning policy framework went out for consultation last year and this will have

implications for specific areas of planning policy. In the meantime, current national policy and guidance are

set out in a range of documents including planning policy statements, planning policy guidance and

circulars.

The following planning policy documents and guidance will have an impact on planning for future waste

management facilities in North Lincolnshire.

2.4.3.2 Core Strategy

Chapter 12 of the Core Strategy (June 2011) contains waste planning related policies. It states that the

Council has prepared a Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) from 2008 to 2025. In order

to achieve the objectives of the MWMS, it is necessary to provide an appropriate planning framework for

sustainable waste management, treatment and recovery. The Strategy identifies broad locations which

could accommodate waste management facilities. This will be based on a criteria approach that promotes

sustainable waste management in a sequential pattern, and in locations that support the proximity principle

and self-sufficiency principle.

The waste policy stated in the Core Strategy is ‘C20 Sustainable Waste Management’, which states that

“The Council will consider new and enhanced facilities for the treatment and management of waste in the

following broad strategic areas:

� Scunthorpe;

� South Humber Bank Employment Area;

� Flixborough Industrial Estate;

� Power station sites and other high energy usage installations; and

� Farms which will directly use organic agricultural products derived from waste treatment.

In general, a sequential search will be made for the location of waste management facilities from the

highest to lowest preference as follows:

i. On site management of waste where it arises at retail, industrial and commercial locations, particularly

in the main urban areas (The Proximity Principle);

ii. Pursuit of neighbourhood self-sufficiency, at the lowest practicable level for the waste stream concerned

(The Self-Sufficiency Principle);

iii. Encouraging co-location of waste facilities – at Materials or Resource Recovery Park for example;

iv. Locations at existing mineral extraction and waste landfill site;

v. Locations at established and proposed industrial and business sites;

vi. Locations in redundant farm buildings and associated land; and

vii. Use of other previously-developed land.

The Council will promote sustainable waste management by:

� Requiring Site Waste Management Plans for future major developments to minimise waste;

� Requiring the integration of facilities for waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and composting, in

association with the planning, construction and occupation of new development;


19


� Providing guidance on minimising potential social, environmental and economic impacts that are likely

to arise in the development of waste infrastructure; and

� Establishing a planning policy framework that identifies suitable locations for waste management.”

2.4.3.3 Forthcoming Development Plan Documents

The Council is progressing towards an Options Paper for the Minerals and Waste Development Plan

Documents (DPD) (forming part of the LDF) and this is expected to be available over the next 3 months,

subject to members approving the document to be published. However this will now need to take NPPF

policies into account.

2.4.3.4 North Lincolnshire Local Plan

North Lincolnshire Council has a statutory duty to prepare a development plan. The development plan sets

out the Council’s policies and proposals for land use, transport and the environment, and to determine

planning applications for development in accordance with the development plan. Therefore planning policy

and waste management are inextricably linked to the development of future infrastructure for waste

management in the UK. Planning decisions will influence whether or not the UK will be able to meet the

landfill diversion targets set by the Landfill Directive.

Due to the commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Secretary of State

issued a direction in September 2007 setting out which policies would continued to be ‘saved’ beyond

September 2007. As a result, those ‘saved’ Local Plan policies will continue to form the basis on which

planning decisions are made until they are replaced by new policies in the Local Development Framework.

All the waste policies contained within the Local Plan (May 2003) were saved by the Secretary of State and

these are listed in Appendix B. These policies relate to the detailed matters concerning siting, design and

environmental impact of a proposed waste management facility, and the policies identified below are

relevant to how waste applications are determined within the Council.

W1 – Applications for Waste Management Facilities states that proposals for waste management

facilities will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:

� The proposed site has adequate access and the local road network or other proposed transport facilities

can accommodate the anticipated traffic;

� The proposed siting, design and landscaping of the development are of the highest practicable standard

and are appropriate to the location of the proposal;

� The engineering design of the development is technically feasible and accords with current best

practice;

� Where appropriate, adequate provision should be made at the planning design stage for the provision of

gas or leachate control systems;

� The development includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no unacceptable visual

and other amenity impacts;

� The development includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impacts

on ecological and archaeological interests;

� The development includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no significant risk of

pollution or danger to public health or safety;

� Where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the restoration, aftercare and management of the

development to an agreed and suitable after-use. Applications for waste disposal will be required to be

accompanied by proposals for high quality restoration of the site within a reasonable time scale.


20


Normally, this will be for agriculture, forestry, nature conservation or amenity/recreation. Other beneficial

uses which accord with the policies of the development plan may be permitted. A scheme of aftercare

for period of five years following restoration will be required for waste disposal sites which are restored

for agriculture, forestry or amenity use;

� There would not be adverse cumulative environmental effects having regard to other similar

developments which are either taking place or permitted to take place in the area.

In addition, proposed sites for major management facilities should be located close to the strategic road

network.

Policy W8 Protection Zones and Waste Management Facilities states that proposals for waste

management facilities will be permitted provided that there is adequate protection zone between the waste

development and neighbouring existing or proposed sensitive uses.

Planning consent will not be granted for land uses or other activities within that zone which could be

adversely affected by the effects of the waste development and which could prejudice the ability of the

waste operator to implement the permission.

W13 - Waste Transfer Stations states that proposals for new waste transfer stations to ensure an

integrated and adequate network of appropriate waste management facilities will be permitted provided

that:

� The proposed site is located within an existing industrial site or on land which is permitted or allocated

for industrial or related development, or is within an area that has already been disturbed by permanent

development; and

� The proposal is suitably located in relation to the existing network of transfer station sites; and

� The proposal will not give rise to unacceptable impact upon local communities or the environment.

2.4.4 Other Relevant Planning Policies

2.4.4.1 Planning Guarantee

Recycling and waste management companies can expect their planning applications to be dealt with more

swiftly under a new Planning Guarantee. The Guarantee is designed to create greater certainty for local

communities by speeding up local planning applications that get stuck in the system. The Planning

Guarantee will mean that no planning application should take longer than 12 months to reach a decision

including any appeal. Consultation will be undertaken to determine the measures that should be

undertaken if the timeline is not met.

2.4.4.2 National Policy Statement for Energy

National Policy Statement for Energy and a specific document for Renewable Energy will set the framework

to be used by the independent Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) when deciding on planning

applications for EfW facilities with a capacity of more than 50 MW. When IPC is abolished this role will

move to a new unit in the Planning Inspectorate. Most facilities for burning MSW are smaller than this, at

around 10-15MW, however the policy will have an effect on the availability of markets for some of the fuels

produced by waste treatment plants such as mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plants

The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure was laid in final draft form on 23 June

2011. The document is intended to form the core strategy of future renewable energy development and


21


sets out the policy framework on which planning decisions on major energy infrastructure should be based.

The role of biomass and waste projects has been understated with both expected to play an increasingly

important role in helping the UK to meet its future energy needs. The policy statement’s waste focus is on

combustion generation stations that use waste including non-renewable sources of waste and biomass as

a feedstock, although it only applies to facilities with an electricity generation capacity above 50 MW. AD is

not included in the Policy Statement Doc. The Government’s final proposed Energy NPS will be debated in

Parliament, although the date is subject to confirmation from parliamentary authorities.

2.4.5 Overall

Although the changes to the planning system set out in NPPF are some of the most significant ever to have

been introduced. The presumption in favour of sustainable development will challenge decision makers and

there will be many rapid moves to produce up to date local plans. This will take time, however, and there

could be many S 78 appeals in the next couple of years. In North Lincolnshire these changes will help

facilities to be built, but the system still includes provision for challenging the process where developments

are significant in adverse impact. It is likely that the impact of these changes will be minimal in North

Lincolnshire as there is a large amount of brownfield land in the Borough. The Borough’s industrial land

base means that waste treatment facilities have a higher degree of acceptability than is the case in other

parts of the country.


22


3.1 Roles and responsibilities

There are a number of bodies that have responsibilities for waste management. These are:

� European Policy: Environment Directorate of the European Commission;

� National Policy: National Government (Defra and the Department for Communities and Local

Government);

� Collection and Disposal: WCAs and WDAs; and

� Regulators: The Environment Agency (EA) and Animal Health (AH) (the new name for the Sate

Veterinary Service).

The community sector also has a role to play in waste management, through their activities in both re-use

and recycling schemes.

The regional tier of government from England is in a state of flux since the coalition government came to

power in May 2010. Under their control, the vast majority of the landscape of regional institutions will no

longer exist by 1st April 2012 and very many of the related funding streams will also have been closed

down. Funding to Local authority Leaders’ Boards has ceased (these were previously Regional

Assemblies) and the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) which they produced have been revoked. The

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are to be closed by April 2012 and the regional planning regime

established by the previous government has been repealed, all of these to be replaced by a more localised

approach from central government. However, the management of waste is not greatly affected by these

changes as it is mainly guided by legislation passed down from the EU.

Further information on the role of each of these bodies can be found in Appendix B.

As North Lincolnshire is a Unitary Local Authority, under the requirements of the Environmental Protection

Act 1990, it has to act as both the WCA and the WDA for MSW in North Lincolnshire. The Council also has

to ensure that all the requirements set out by legislation on waste have been implemented, coordinate with

the voluntary/community sector on their provision of re-use and recycling schemes, and liaise with the

Regulators to ensure that the waste management services it provides do not cause damage to either

human health or the environment.

This chapter describes the waste collection, recycling/composting and waste disposal services that the

Council currently provides and gives information about the amount of waste recycled.

3.2 Waste arisings

In England in the year 2010/11 approximately 26.2 Million tonnes of local authority collected municipal

waste were generated. This is down from 26.5 Million tonnes the previous year. The average recycling rate

for England was 41.5%, which is an increase from 39.7% the previous year. The statistics indicate that, in

terms of recycling, the Council is performing well as their recycling rate is in excess of 50%.

The latest figures from 2010/11 show that MSW generation in North Lincolnshire was approximately 95,000

tonnes. 87,000 tonnes was household waste, either collected at the kerbside or taken to the Household

Recycling Centres (HRC). This roughly equates to a household waste generation rate of

3. Where We Are Today


23


541kg/capita/year4. The current UK average is 464kg/capita/year

5. The per capita generation of waste in

the Borough is an issue that will need to be addressed in the future in order to keep costs down and to

reduce our carbon footprint.

Figure 3.1 shows MSW arisings in North Lincolnshire since 2006/07. It shows that there is a general falling

trend in MSW arisings, although there was a small increase in 2009/10. Household waste makes up the

majority of MSW arisings. Household waste has decreased year-on-year until 2008/09 and since then has

remained relatively stable at approximately 87,000 tonnes. MSW, as a whole, has decreased by 8% since

2006/07. This general decrease in MSW generation in recent years is in line with the national trend.

Figure 3.1: Total MSW arisings in North Lincolnshire since 2006/07

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

ton

nes/y

ear

Other wastes

Household

Source: Waste Data Flow

3.3 Waste composition

The two main municipal waste streams are kerbside collected household waste and waste brought to the

HRC. A small element of municipal waste is also trade waste. Waste composition studies were conducted

in 2008 on kerbside collected household waste and in 2009 on HRC residual waste, and for household

waste this was carried out again in 2010. These compositional studies are detailed below.

_________________________

4 National Indicator results

5 National Association of Waste Disposal Officers best value statistics 2010/11


24


3.3.1 Household waste

Compositional analyses of kerbside collected residual waste, and garden and kitchen waste recycling

collections from households were conducted in North Lincolnshire in June 2010. The biodegradable

component of the residual waste was calculated to be 57.7% (as shown in Figure 3.2). The principal

component of the waste stream is putrescible waste (27%), then miscellaneous combustibles (20%) and

paper and card (14%).

The biodegradable component was calculated using the standard assumptions for biodegradable municipal

(BMW) used for WasteDataFlow calculations, and shows that the waste collected by the authority is slightly

less biodegradeable than the average assumed by the Environment Agency and Defra (68%). This may

have implications for some waste treatment technologies, and is an issue that will need to be considered

when they are proposed.

A similar waste compositional analysis was undertaken in 2008 and comparisons with the 2010 study show

that in 2010, as well as a 0.69kg/hh/wk reduction in the levels of residual waste being presented at the

kerbside for collection, there were also changes in the composition. The 2010 analysis shows that in

residual waste there was a lower proportion of dry recyclables, garden waste and recyclable fruit and

vegetable waste than in the 2008 study. This is reflective of an increasing recycling and composting rate.

An understanding of the composition of the waste generation in North Lincolnshire is an essential part of

planning and developing the service. As a part of the recent residual waste procurement project an analysis

of the chemical composition of the waste was also undertaken in 2011 to help with the evaluation of the

risks going forwards with respect to important issues such as the amount of chlorine and heavy metals in

the waste. These influence the quality of any fuel that may be produced from North Lincolnshire’s waste.

It is important to be aware of the changes in waste composition. A waste treatment technology needs to be

in place, which is flexible enough to adapt to changing waste composition resulting from, for instance,

increases in recycling and composting. It should also be able to adapt to general changes in the behaviour

of the public. However, this is difficult to predict over the length of a typical waste management contract,

which can vary from 15 to 25 years or longer.

Figure 3.2 shows the kerbside collected residual household waste composition from the 2010 waste

composition study.


25


Figure 3.2: Kerbside collected residual household waste composition

Paper and card

14%

Plastic film

7%

Dense plastic

8%

Textiles

6%

Misc.

combustible

20%

Glass

3%

Putrescibles

27%

HHW

1%

Misc. non-

combustible

6%

Ferrous metal

2%

Non-ferrous

metal

1%

WEEE

4%

Fines

1%

Source: North Lincolnshire Waste Composition Study, June 2010 (Table 3.2)

3.3.2 Household Recycling Centres residual waste composition

Residual waste analyses from the HRCs were carried out in 2009. These were conducted on waste

deposited in general waste skips at four of the eight HRCs. Samples were taken during the weekend and

also during the week to examine potential variations in the waste stream.

The biodegradable proportion of the residual HRC waste stream, represented in Figure 3.3, was estimated

to be 40.60% (3.02% of this was putrescibles and 6.99% paper and card). This is relatively low in

comparison to residual household waste. The figure also shows that the highest proportion of the waste

was miscellaneous combustibles at 40.31%.

The proportion of the waste that could have been recycled was also examined. From all of the general

waste surveyed, 34.7% could have been more effectively disposed of via kerbside collections or via

recycling points within the site itself.


26


Figure 3.3: Residual HRC waste composition

Putrescibles,

3.02%

Misc. combustible,

40.31%

Textiles, 2.94%

Plastic film, 0.72%

Ferrous Metal,

2.85%

Glass, 2.93%

Non-combustible,

12.55%

Non-ferrous metal,

0.84%

WEEE, 1.59%Dense plastic,

9.95%

Paper and card,

6.99%Hazardous, 2.12%

Household Bags,

13.18%

Source: North Lincolnshire HRC Waste Composition Analysis, March 2009 (Table 3.1)

3.4 Waste collection and recycling

The Council provides for the regular collection of household waste, dry recyclables and green waste and

operates an alternate week collection scheme for the vast majority of households in the Council’s area. The

service is currently not provided to flats, but the Council is considering options for these properties.

Each household served by the collection scheme has been issued with:

� A brown bin for green waste;

� A blue box for paper;

� A green box for metal (cans and foil) and glass;

� A green or grey bin for residual waste;

� A burgundy bin for plastic bottles and cardboard; and

� A bag for textiles.

In addition, the householders can put out small items of waste electrical equipment within separate carrier

bags for collection.

This combination of wheeled bins and boxes has enhanced the separate collection of recyclables, which

together with improvements in collection scheme efficiency and increased householder participation has

ensured that the Council exceeded its medium term target of 50% recycling by 2010/11. The recycling rate

for 2010/11 is 51.8%. Figure 3.4 shows the changes in recycling rate since 2006/07.


27


In 2010/11 there was a change in the recycling collection regime from a comingled green and food waste

collection to one where green waste is now collected separately and food waste is collected in the residual

waste. As a consequence of this it is expected that there will be a slight reduction in the performance of the

system and a dip in the recycling/composting rate.

In addition to the implementation of alternate week collections, other measures adopted included the non-

collection of excess or side waste and a ‘flat lid’ policy. As an important aspect of improving recycling, the

Council recently introduced differential charging for new and replacement residual waste bins. This

provides households with the opportunity to ‘downsize’ their standard 240 litre capacity residual waste

container, free of charge, for a smaller 140 litre version collected fortnightly. New households are equipped

with the smaller size of bin to encourage recycling and replacement bins are of the smaller size. Research

conducted within the UK has repeatedly demonstrated the relationship that exists between constraints on

household waste storage capacity and recycling performance.

Despite these attempted interventions, the amount of household waste per head of population produced

locally (an important issue for the type and scale of waste management problems) remains amongst the

highest in the country at 541kg in 2010/11. This figure includes the waste deposited at the extensive

network of HRCs. Whilst this figure is above average, Figure 3.4 shows the National Indicator 191

(Residual household waste per household) results since 2006/07 and indicates that the waste per

household has actually decreased from 801kg/hshld/year in 2006/07 to 582/kg/hshld/yr in 2010/11.

It should be noted that the National Indicator system ended in March 2011 (see Section 2.2.5), however,

the system of reporting through WasteDataFlow has continued and these National Indicators are still being

used as useful indicators for the waste management service provided by the local authorities.

Figure 3.4: National Indicators 191 and 192 for household waste

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

kg

/ho

useh

old

NI192 Percentage HH waste

sent for Reuse, Recycling or

Composting

NI191 Residual Household

Waste per Household

(kg/household)

Source: Waste Data Flow


28


3.4.1 Household Recycling Centres

There are eight HRCs, and in 2010/11 approximately 20,000 tonnes of waste was received at them, of

which approximately 13,600 tonnes was recycled. The HRC service is currently contracted out to the

private sector, but the Council has recently resolved to bring the service back under local authority control..

This decision has been taken so that the service may benefit from being under the direct control of the local

authority, as the HRC network needs further improvement in order to improve the Council’s recycling rate,

and to prevent any abuse of the system.

The HRC are provided for the benefit of residents living locally. They include facilities for collecting glass,

plastic bottles, cans, paper, cardboard, garden waste, textiles, fridges and freezers, aluminium foil, motor

oil, cooking oil, electrical and electronic equipment, scrap metal, batteries, wood and bric-a-brac.

The sites also receive bricks, rubble, plasterboard, soil and tyres from households, but a charge is made for

these materials. Trade waste is also accepted, by prior agreement with the site operator, at the HRC within

Scunthorpe. A charge is also levied for this service.

The level of HRC site provision within North Lincolnshire is amongst the most generous within the UK. At a

ratio of over 5 sites per 100,000 population the density of provision is over three times the national average

which is around 1.5 sites per 100,000. This high level of provision and extensive opening arrangements is

believed to be the principal reason for the above average amount of household waste per capita recorded

locally. Waste deposited at these sites is, by definition, household waste but anecdotal evidence and

benchmark comparisons with other authorities, supports the view that a high proportion of received material

is commercial waste consigned by traders and businesses operating locally. The relationship between the

quantity of waste generated and the way in which the HRC network is utilised will play an important part in

the development of the waste management system in the future. The Council will be looking to regulate the

amount of commercial waste received at the HRC network and to ensure that the sites are used efficiently.

3.4.2 Community recycling facilities

The Council provides community recycling facilities at 28 locations throughout North Lincolnshire (including

those at the eight HRCs) for residents who wish to deposit glass, textiles, cans, newspapers and

magazines (some sites do not have facilities to collect all of these materials). In 2010/11 approximately

1,300 tonnes of materials were received at the community recycling facilities, 1,200 tonnes of this was

recycled.

A list of all recycling locations, including the eight HRCs, is available on the North Lincolnshire website.

3.4.3 Bulky household waste collection

The Council collects, on request from householders, waste that falls outside the scope of the regular

weekly collection service. Generally these are wastes that are too bulky or too difficult to be handled by the

regular collection. This service does not cover such items as asbestos and dead animals. The bulky waste

collection service is currently provided free of charge (first collection only – second and subsequent

collections are chargeable).


29


3.4.4 Clinical waste

Clinical (yellow bag) waste is collected free of charge from domestic households. It is also collected from

healthcare premises on a chargeable basis. This service is operated in partnership with the Primary Care

Trust, who clinically assesses all applicants and refers those eligible to the Council. In 2010/11,

approximately 30 tonnes of healthcare waste was separately collected.

3.4.5 Commercial and industrial waste collection

The Council currently provides a ‘Trade Waste’ collection service whereby approximately 1200 commercial

premises are serviced by agreement. The frequency of collection, types of waste and volumes of material

collected varies from producer to producer. In November 2008, the Council introduced separate collections

of recyclable materials from all local authority owned and operated premises and this service is being

expanded in response to the redefinition of municipal waste. In 2010/11, approximately 4,000 tonnes of

commercial and industrial waste was collected. The recycling rate from this particular stream and the take-

up rate of the service are currently both low. The Council has the intention of actively improving this service

through greater awareness and communications in the future. The ongoing integration of collections from

household and trade premises will also enable the Council to offer the same or similar services currently

available to domestic occupiers of property to those in the business sector. A significantly reduced marginal

cost of collection and recent announcements on the removal of VAT from local authority commercial waste

collections will also assist with the price competitiveness of the service and which historically has been a

barrier to service take up. A greater understanding of how the commercial waste steam interfaces with the

HRC service will also be developed so that, both of these services can be managed more efficiently and

cost effectively.

3.4.6 Street cleansing

The Council provides a regular service throughout the area, seven days per week. High use areas, such as

shopping precincts, usually have either permanent cleansing staff or daily cleaning regimes. In 2010/11,

approximately 500 tonnes of street cleansing waste was collected. The appearance of the overall street

scene with respect to litter, is one which features highly when surveys are conducted (see Chapter 4),and

so this is a service which is constantly monitored for service efficiencies and improvements.

3.4.7 Abandoned vehicles

Abandoned vehicles are removed in accordance with relevant legislation. This service is delivered, on

behalf of the Council, by an appointed vehicle recovery agent. The Council also has adopted powers to

deal with untaxed vehicles found in the area. In 2009/10, there were 7 abandoned vehicles and in 2010/11

there were 4 and a recycling rate of 95% is reported from the reprocessor.

3.4.8 Fly-tipped waste

The Council collects fly-tipped waste and in 2010/11 the Council collected approximately 400 tonnes of this

waste stream. It investigates the source of each arising, and takes enforcement action if the source of the

waste can be identified. In 2009/10, there were 1,082 reported incidents and in 2010/11 there were 1,183

incidents.


30


3.4.9 WEEE

Following the transposition of the WEEE Directive into UK law, North Lincolnshire Council, registered each

of its eight HRCs as Designated Collection Facilities (DCFs) for the collection of WEEE. The Council

subsequently entered into an agreement with an approved Producer Compliance Scheme (PCS) for the

removal and treatment of all WEEE delivered to these facilities.

In 2009/10, a total of 1,706 tonnes of WEEE comprising the five main streams: Large Domestic Appliances

(LDA); Small Domestic Appliances (SDA); Televisions and Monitors (Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)); and

Fluorescent Tubes, Refrigeration Equipment (Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)), was recovered through

the DCF’s. This equated to 23.64kg/household/year or 10.72kg/head. This was significantly above both the

European Directive target to treat 4kg of WEEE per head and the average of 7.3kg achieved nationally.

Despite this relatively high level of recovery, an analysis of the composition of the kerbside collected

residual household waste stream completed in June 2010 confirmed the presence of SDA equivalent to

14.04 kg/household/year or 1,011 tonnes in total.

A pilot scheme of 3,000 households was introduced in December 2010 adding SDA to the existing range of

collected materials. The pilot was successful and the scheme was expanded to all 72,000 households from

May 2011.

The objectives of the pilot were:

� To meet customer demand for additional material collections at the kerbside;

� To confirm the results of the compositional analysis;

� To determine the extent of householder participation in such a scheme;

� To enhance existing levels of recycling and landfill diversion; and

� To remove potentially polluting elements of the household waste stream.

The latter point was of particular significance for the Council who are currently in the process of procuring a

long term residual waste treatment solution. During dialogue with prospective bidders, concerns had been

raised about heavy metals and other elements within the municipal waste stream and the potential impact

of these on a range of technical solutions proposed. Along with batteries, the SDA within the residual waste

stream had been identified as a potential source of heavy metals. Household portable batteries are already

recovered at the kerbside as part of the existing recycling scheme.

3.5 Waste disposal

North Lincolnshire’s current waste disposal contract is with Biffa, who receive residual municipal waste at

their Roxby landfill. This was established in May 2011 and is an interim contract (1 year + further years up

to a maximum of 3 years) following the expiry of the SITA contract which involved the delivery of residual

waste to the New Crosby landfill site in Scunthorpe. The contract with Biffa is intended to be a stop-gap

until the process of procuring a permanent sustainable long term6 treatment solution for residual waste is

completed. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.

There are a number of other operational landfills within the North Lincolnshire area including the site at

West Halton near Winterton operated by WRG. This site is permitted to receive both hazardous and non-

_________________________

6 20-25 year duration is normal for a long-term solution for residual waste due to the high cost of the infrastructure


31


hazardous waste. Currently MSW from the neighbouring local authorities of the East Riding of Yorkshire,

Kingston upon Hull and North East Lincolnshire are received into this site. A number of other sites operated

by some of the process manufacturers including Corus, Cemex and Singleton Birch are also provided for

the individual waste streams generated by their respective activities.

The quantity of waste being disposed of to landfill is falling each year as other treatment options such as

recycling and composting divert greater quantities of wastes from landfill (see Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5: Proportions of MSW diverted from and sent to landfill

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

ton

nes/y

ear

MSW diverted

MSW sent to landfill

Source: WasteDataFlow

3.6 Timeline since Draft Waste Management Strategy developed

As mentioned earlier, this Strategy is part of the process that has been developed since 2002, and which

was revised in 2008. Since then a number of initiatives have been enacted that have helped the Council to

reach the current levels of recycling and are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Timeline of service improvements since 2008

Date New Service Coverage Provider Receptacle

1 Apr 2008 Free initial 140 litre residual bin provided to new residents/new properties

All of NLC properties

North Lincolnshire 140 litre green wheeled bin

Nov 2008 Tetrapak Recycling at HRC


3 HRC Kirton/Broughton/Barnetby Recycling bank

Nov 2008 Schools and office buildings recycling scheme

Schools and office buildings

Schools and office buildings Range of different sized wheeled bins


32



11 May 2009 Kerbside burgundy bin and brown bin recycling - Round 18

3,000 approx Alternate week collection properties 140 burgundy and brown wheeled bin

3 Jul 2009 Book/CD/DVD banks


All NLC HRC Recycling bank

6 Aug 2009 Aerosols accepted in Green Box Scheme


North Lincolnshire properties Green 38 litre box

Sep 2009 Confidential waste collections

Commercial properties

Commercial properties dedicated sack or 180 litre bin

29 Sep 2009 Commercial glass recycling

119 Properties Pubs, clubs and restaurants with NLC trade waste service

240 litre bin with green lid

Jan 2010 Node Recycling 1 block of flats Queensway Flats Node Recycling Bank

1 Feb 2010 Household batteries accepted in green box


North Lincolnshire properties Green 38 litre box

1 Mar 2010 British Heart Foundation bulky collection scheme commenced


North Lincolnshire properties N/A

1 Mar 2010 Composting Framework - Straights commenced


North Lincolnshire properties Range of composters/water butts, wormeries

July 2010 Textile bags now collected by Palm/PD for I&G Cohen


North Lincolnshire properties Red sack

22 Nov 2010 Bric-a-brac All of NLC properties

All HRC Container/skip

23 Nov 2010 Paint for re-use All of NLC properties

Cottage Beck Road HRC Container/skip

Dec 2010 Trial small WEEE kerbside collection (R2TH01, R2TH02. R2FR03. R2FR04)

3300 properties Brumby and Riddings Plastic carrier bag

10 Jan 2011 Household cooking oil rolled out to all HRC


All HRC Plastic drum

Feb 2011 Commercial recycling

Commercial properties

Commercial properties Range of different sized wheeled bins

9 May 2011 Residual waste taken to Biffa landfill from this date


North Lincolnshire properties N/A

16 May 2011 Small WEEE kerbside expansion rollout


North Lincolnshire properties Plastic carrier bag

31 May 2011 Removal of all uncooked food waste from brown bin


North Lincolnshire properties Brown bin

01 Jul 2011 Green waste taken to Briers Hill Recycling Ltd from


North Lincolnshire properties Brown bin/HRC green waste


33



this date

3.7 Current cost

The current statistics that the Council provides to the annual survey by the National Association of Waste

Disposal Officers (NAWDO) best value statistics for 2010/2011 show the following data for North

Lincolnshire Council.

The costs for waste collection, recycling and disposal in 2010/11 was:

� Collection (WCA revenue expenditure including support costs): £4.145 million (this includes the bring

site and kerbside recycling collections); and

� Disposal (WDA revenue expenditure including support costs): £6.85 million (this includes the costs for

the HRC).

It was also reported that the cost of:

� municipal waste management was £72.04 per tonne (£42.55 per person); and

� municipal waste collection was £43.59 per tonne (£25.75 per person).

As a comparison, Table 3.2 shows the waste management costs for two local authorities within the same

‘family group’ i.e. Telford & Wrekin (with a population of 162,300) and North East Lincolnshire (with a

population of 158,200).

Table 3.2: Waste management costs for Telford & Wrekin and NE Lincolnshire

Local Authority WCA revenue expenditure (£)m

WDA revenue expenditure (£)m

Municipal waste management

Municipal waste collection

Telford & Wrekin 4.815 5.342 £85.79/t

£40.88/person

£46.94/t

£22.37/person

NE Lincolnshire 4.455 5.823 £70.50/t

£36.81/person

£54.06/t

£28.23/person

N Lincolnshire 4.145 6.85 £72.04/t

£42.55/person

£43.59/t

£25.75/person

Source: NAWDO best value statistics for 2010/11

From the comparisons above it can be seen that the WCA revenue expenditure for North Lincolnshire is

less than the other two local authorities, whilst at £6.85 million the WDA revenue expenditure is higher than

the other two local authorities. In terms of costs for municipal waste management North Lincolnshire is

slightly higher than North East Lincolnshire, but the reverse is true for the costs for municipal waste

collection. Overall the service costs to the resident show that the service represents good value for money.

This Council will seek to improve this performance, by improving the arrangements for all of the waste

streams and looking to generate revenues, wherever possible.


34


Although North Lincolnshire continues to increase the amount of waste which it recycles, it needs to set a

clear way forward for managing the overall municipal waste stream, including the management of the

residual and organic waste streams in new facilities. It is intended that the implementation of this strategy

will enable the Council to:

� Reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that is landfilled in order to both meet the requirements of

the Landfill Directive and to meet the yearly landfill allowance targets which were set up to the year

2013 by the WET Act.

� Meet any statutory recycling targets, which are set by UK Government. North Lincolnshire met its

statutory targets for recycling 16% of household waste by 2003/04 and 24% 2005/06. The waste

strategy for England published in 2007 proposed recycling targets of 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and

50% by 2020. The Council has already met these, but new targets are likely to be proposed by the

government later this year following the policy review published in June 2011.

� Meet any statutory targets to reduce the amount of household waste not reused, recycled or

composted. The new waste strategy for England proposes a 50% reduction per person by 2020. This

target may also be revised following the adoption of the revised framework directive which has altered

the definition of municipal waste. (see Appendix B.1)

� Assist new and existing Trade Waste customers in the achievement of a new national target for the

reduction of commercial and industrial waste going to landfill. Following the new trade waste system,

whereby recycling bins are provided, this programme will be expanded in the future to enhance the

performance of this important waste stream.

� Prepare the ground work for the Council in its task of achieving a ‘zero waste’ system by 2020 as

required by central government.

� Further improve the delivery of the kerbside recycling system.

� Address the remaining issues related to waste generation in the county by targeting services such as

the HRC service.

� Provide various means for helping engagement with all of our stakeholders.

4.1 Future challenges

One of our challenges in the short-term will be to meet the requirements set by the Landfill Directive on

reducing the amount of biodegradable waste that is landfilled. The European Commission have the power

to fine Member States (including the UK) who do not meet their targets, and the level of this fine is currently

500,000 Euros (about £450,000) per day.

North Lincolnshire Council will also need to meet requirements set by the Government’s new way of

reporting the performance of local authorities. The new system that will replace the system of national

indicators includes an overall measure for recycling and composting, which is one of the main ways that

measure and report performance.

4.1.1 The single data list

The single data list is a catalogue of all the datasets that local government must submit to central

government in a given year. This system has been introduced to replace the NI system of indicators in

order for local authorities to have flexibility in focusing on the performance areas that matter most to their

residents, using a performance framework which lists a range of measures that include those related to

waste performance. These represent what the Government believes should be the national priorities for

local government, working alone or in partnership, over the next three years. They replaced all other sets of

4. The Way Ahead


35


indicators, including Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) and Performance Assessment Framework

indicators, in April 2008.

4.1.1.1 What is included in the list for waste

The National Indicator Set was set up to aid the performance management of local authorities by central

government and consisted of processed indicators rather than pure data. The single data list is a catalogue

of all central government’s data requirements from local government. It has been assembled to aid

transparency rather than to manage performance of local councils and facilitates the control of the volume

of data central government asks of local government. However, some datasets collected to calculate

National Indicators remain required where they are judged sufficiently valuable at a national level.

The new measures on environmental sustainability include three on waste:

� NI 191 - Residual household waste per household

� NI 192 - Household waste reused, recycled and composted

� NI 193 - Municipal waste landfilled.

Other measures on environmental sustainability, which are relevant to the waste strategy, are:

� NI 185 Carbon dioxide reduction from Local Authority operations

� NI 195 Improved street and environmental cleanliness (levels of graffiti, litter, detritus and fly posting)

� NI 196 Improved street and environmental cleanliness – fly tipping.

North Lincolnshire Council will maintain its high level of street cleaning, and will continue to take

enforcement action against fly tippers if the source of the waste can be identified. Reducing the amount of

waste that is landfilled will reduce North Lincolnshire Council’s carbon dioxide emissions, and the impact of

this is considered later in the waste strategy.

4.1.2 Waste Emissions Trading Legislation

The UK Government has implemented the diversion of biodegradable wastes set in the EU Landfill

Directive through the WET Act 2003. This introduced the Local Authority Trading Scheme (LATS), which

was designed as a means of spreading the responsibility for meeting the Landfill Directive targets between

all authorities by assigning targets for each authority relating to the amount of biodegradable waste that it

could landfill each year to 2020. This process is to be abandoned post 2012/13. The targets that were set

for North Lincolnshire are shown in Figure 4.1 and reflected the Directive’s requirement to reduce

biodegradable wastes by set amounts in target years of 2009/10, 2012/13 and 2019/20.

The targets, or allowances as they are referred to, are based on the presumption that MSW contains 68%

of biodegradable material by weight. The initial allowance for biodegradable BMW disposal in North

Lincolnshire was set at 58,000 tonnes in 2005/06. This broadly equates to an effective landfill limit of

85,000 tonnes of MSW overall. This annual allowance diminished each year.


36


Figure 4.1: North Lincolnshire’s landfill allowance targets (BMW)

Predictions on future waste arisings showed around 3,000 tonnes of waste more than the imposed

allowance limit would be landfilled in 2012/13. The Council therefore has forward traded landfill allowances

to meet the target, as is permitted under LATS.

In 2010/11 North Lincolnshire landfilled 46,643 tonnes7 of MSW, including 27,985 tonnes of biodegradable

waste. This was below the allowance limit of 35,529 tonnes for the same period. The original landfill

allowance limit for 2012/13 was 26,511 tonnes of biodegradable waste. With forward trading, this limit has

been increased to 32,511 tonnes and should not be exceeded.

Up to the end of the year 2012/13 the WET legislation enables the UK Government to fine authorities that

do not meet their yearly targets. The level of this fine was proposed to be £150 for each tonne of waste

landfilled above the specified landfill allowance. In addition, there may be further fines payable to the

European Union if landfill diversion targets are not achieved in 2020.

Although the UK will not have to pay any fines to the European Union until 2013 at the earliest, as the

targets for 2010 were met, the WET legislation will enable the UK Government to fine any authority that

does not meet its yearly targets.

However, the Government recognised that whilst some authorities were easily meeting their allowances

because they have installed a suitable treatment plant, other authorities, which include North Lincolnshire,

will not be able to meet their longer-term targets until they have installed a suitable treatment facility to treat

the remaining waste. This was the basis of the principal of allowing allowances to be traded between

_________________________

7 NAWDO Best value statistics 2010/11


37


authorities. The aim of the trading of allowances was to enable authorities to meet their obligations through

purchasing allowances at a lower cost than the cost of paying a fine to the Government. LATS proved to be

ineffective as the amount of trading was very low, and unpopular, as it was still seen to be unfair to poorer

authorities that often have difficulty in implementing recycling collection along with difficulties in siting of

waste facilities in inner cities.

This resulted in the government announcing as a part of the waste review, published in June 2011, that

LATS was to be abolished in England completely, with no trading of allowances and no fines imposed to

individual authorities for non-compliance with landfill allowances. Instead the fines imposed by the EU will

be paid on a national basis, although the mechanism for this has yet to be evolved, it is still likely that poor

performing authorities will attract a higher proportion of the national fine, or will be penalised in another way

such as reduced capital grants from central government, for instance. As a result, there still remains a

driver for the diversion of waste from landfill for the Council, even though the implications are difficult to

quantify at the present time.

4.1.3 Growth in waste arisings

Historically, a standard assumption for waste growth nationally was set at up to 3% per annum. This

formed the basis of many studies looking at waste management strategies and in procurement projects

nationally and was used as the basis of the 2002 waste strategy, the revised waste strategy in 2008 and

the procurement outline business case document in 2007. However, the changes in behaviour that have

arisen due to the adoption of the type kerbside recycling services adopted by the Council, together with a

range of other socio-economic factors, has seen waste arisings drop in recent years, with many authorities

recording negative growth generally in waste arisings.

It is now considered that waste arisings will tend to grow in line with trends in the number of households (or

the population generally). This means that, in the future, the emphasis will be placed on managing the

amount of waste generated per person and per household to ‘decouple’ waste arisings from economic

activity generally.

Waste minimisation and re-use initiatives aim to tackle the growth in waste produced by a household.

However, even if these initiatives were to reduce the growth in waste per household to zero, then arisings

of household waste would still increase as a result of an increase in the number of households.

In developing the models underpinning the costings data and other studies, it has been assumed that

waste will increase in line with the predicted increase in the number of households in the Borough. This has

been used as a baseline, with a target being assessed for waste minimisation which brings the Borough’s

per capita waste generation in line with the national average. The current assessment of growth in housing

is estimated to be just under 0.5% per annum, this figure has been used in the modelling studies.

4.1.4 Per Capita waste generation

One of the key features of the Council’s waste is the quantity that each person produces. If a comparison is

made between North Lincolnshire and other similar Unitary Authorities, as in Table 4.1, it is evident that

North Lincolnshire produces a very large amount of waste per capita.

Per capita waste generation in North Lincolnshire is currently around 541kg per person compared to the

typically rural East Riding of Yorkshire’s 516kg per person, and far higher than Derby City which produces

only 433kg per person per year. Although, it should be expected that Derby City generates less waste per


38


household as less green waste will be generated in an urban environment. Obviously, if the amount of

waste produced per person can be reduced this will go along way towards reducing the costs and impacts

of waste generation.

Table 4.1: Comparison with other ‘Family Group Authorities

Authority Population Households Household Waste Recycled (%)

Household Waste Composted (%)

Household Waste per capita (kgs)

Derby City Council 244,100 106,500 21.47% 25.52% 433

Telford & Wrekin Council 162,300 68,950 24.38% 19.03% 497

North East Lincolnshire Council 158,200 71,215 17.37% 16.89% 501

Cheshire West & Chester Council

327,300 147,240 24.86% 22.48% 511

East Riding of Yorkshire Council 337,000 149,551 21.76% 1.98% 516

North Lincolnshire Council 161,000 72,940 23.54% 28.16% 541

4.1.4.1 Household Waste Recycling Centres

Table 4.2 provides a comparison of the HRC service provided by the Council with the service provided by

neighbouring ones. This shows that there are a higher number of sites per capita, but also a proportionally

larger amount of waste going through them. The relationship between overall waste generation and the

HRC service is not a clear one. However, it seems likely that one of the reasons why the Council has so

much waste per capita may be that trade waste is finding its way into the household system via the HRCs.

There are a number of measures that can be used to improve this situation. One of these is to monitor the

usage of the sites using number plate recognition of vehicles to check that users are bona fide. This could

be combined with the use of CCTV to monitor the types of vehicles using the facilities.

Allowing trade customers at the HRCs and charging a gate fee could also help in reducing the abuse of the

system. The interface between this service and the commercial collections can therefore be improved

benefitting both services by providing commercial vehicles access to the sites together with general

communications and awareness programmes.

Table 4.2: Comparison of HRC services in the region

Authority Population Households Number of

Sites Households

per HRC

Total HRC municipal

waste (tonnes)

Total HRC municipal waste per

capita (kg)

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

337,000 149,551 10 14,955 51,529 153


161,000 72,940 8 9,118 26,224 163

North East Lincolnshire Council

158,200 71,215 2 35,608 12,773 81

4.1.5 Improvements to the Recycling Services

The kerbside collection service, together with the other recycling collections such as the HRCs and bring

sites, have been successful in raising recycling rates to level in excess of 50% overall. The Council will be

looking to make further improvements in these services in the future.


39


However, the challenge here is to improve an already successfully adopted system, and as such there are

no major changes planned regarding the waste streams collected at the kerbside or the receptacles used.

With respect to altering collection frequencies, studies undertaken by the Council indicate that it would not

be cost effective to increase the frequency of residual waste collection.

Collection of the food waste fraction separately could be implemented if the necessary funding could be

secured to integrate with a new organic waste treatment facility.

Improvements generally will come from incentivising the contractor through the delivery of the service. At

the time of writing the Council is in the process of procuring a new waste collection contract (kerbside

collection and logistical support of the HRCs). Measures that will encourage the capture of materials will be

a part of the new contract.

As the collection service for commercial wastes develops, greater integration of the collection of this type of

waste together with the household waste collection is anticipated. As a part of this, the logistics of the

service will be reviewed and improved, this includes looking at the routes that collection vehicles use for

collecting all wastes with the aim of improving the efficiency of collecting wastes and reducing costs.

4.1.6 Future management of residual waste

If the amount of waste continues to increase in line with the predicted increase in the number of

households in the Borough between now and 2027, the total amount of municipal waste that North

Lincolnshire is producing will be about 125,000 tonnes per year by 2027 compared to the current quantity

of approximately 95,000 tonnes in 2010/11.

The new recycling scheme and its roll-out to the entire Borough have increased the recycling rate from

24% in 2004/05, to 43% in 2007/08, to 51.4% in 2009/10 and 51.8% in 2010/11. The performance of the

system is expected to drop slightly due to the need to divert food wastes from the green bin to the blue

residual bin. This was due to concerns with the type of process being used at the time (Windrow

composting).

The abandonment of the LATS means that the County no longer has the threat of paying landfill allowance

fines as a driver for diverting waste from landfill. However, there are a number of reasons why it would be

unacceptable to continue with a ‘business as usual’ approach to managing the County’s residual and

organic wastes, principally:

� North Lincolnshire would not be making a full contribution to meeting the targets for the UK set by the

Landfill Directive, resulting in the fines imposed by the EU being shared by local authorities across the

UK, many of which are deprived and/or do not have the ability to site waste management facilities within

their area.

� Not providing waste management facilities will do nothing to meet the Council’s obligations regarding

the safe-guarding of the environment discussed in Section 2, or to move towards a ‘zero waste’ system

as proposed by the government by 2020

� Not providing waste management facilities would do nothing to improve the Council’s carbon footprint

as landfilling has very high burdens (see WRATE analysis)

� Not providing waste management facilities would reduce the Council’s ability to divert waste from landfill

and therefore increase the burden that it places upon the environment by not recovering value from

resources, which together with the carbon agenda is one of the most important considerations for waste

management going forwards.


40


� It will not ‘future proof’ the Council from potential fines or other disincentives that may be imposed by

future governments or the EU for failing to improve the impact of their waste management activities.

� It will not off-set the increasing costs of landfill tax.

Consequently, North Lincolnshire Council needs to consider how it can treat the remaining waste in order

to meet these objectives

4.1.7 Future Management of Organic Wastes

Organic wastes are one of the main priorities for diverting waste from landfill due to the production of

greenhouse gases associated with it. Currently food waste is included in the residual waste stream. This

should be viewed as a valuable resource and should not simply be disposed of. Options will be explored for

utilising this type of waste, with the aim of looking to gain as much value from this waste stream as is

economically viable. One of the options for this waste stream is to procure a facility such as an anaerobic

digestion facility (AD) which produces biogas as well as a type of compost. The gas can be used in several

ways: it can be injected into the gas grid, used as a vehicle fuel, or it can be used to generate heat and

electricity which is then exported to the national grid. The latter option has a double benefit in that it can

generate revenues from the sale of electricity, and also from the sale of Renewables Obligation Certificates

(ROCs) which are part of a government incentive scheme to generate electricity from renewable sources.

4.2 The Carbon Agenda

The Council became a formal signatory to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change during 2003.

This involved the Council making a public pledge to take a lead role in tackling the effects of climate

change locally. Historically, climate change featured in the Council's Local Area Agreement and the

Comprehensive Area Assessment process under the key line of enquiry "use of natural resources". At the

time, the government's performance framework included indicators on climate change and carbon

emissions and the Council's climate change action plan, adopted during 2006 aimed to reduce the

Council's impact upon climate change.

The Carbon Trust has been providing councils with technical and change management support and

guidance through the Local Authority Carbon Management Programme to help reduce carbon emissions

and deliver financial savings. The programme was launched in 2003 and a systematic analysis of local

authority’s carbon footprint.

The primary focus of the Carbon Management Programme is to reduce emissions under the control of the

Council such as buildings, vehicle fleets and street lighting. The Council was responsible for producing

30,000 tonnes of CO2 during 2008/2009. In that year, the Council's energy bill from all sectors (including

schools) amounted to £5.2m and was expected to rise to £8.7m by the end of 2014.

The Council’s Carbon Management Plan sets a target for reducing the organisation’s carbon footprint by

33% by 2014 and the effect of achieving this target is expected to lead to a reduction in energy costs to

£4.7m by the end date. This represents a 10% decrease on the 2008 baseline costs.

The recycling fund works by investing funds into a range of energy/carbon saving projects and the

projected energy savings are top sliced in the coming years and are re-invested in the fund. This, in turn, is

used to invest in further energy saving schemes. This fund provides interest free loans to public sector

organisations for the capital cost of implementing energy saving measures and technologies.


41


Clearly the waste management system has a major role in helping the Council to reduce its carbon impact.

It can do this in a number of ways:

� Encouraging less waste production (waste minimisation)

� By utilising the resources within the waste management system more efficiently

� By reducing the distances that materials are moved

� By choosing a carbon efficient means of managing residual and organic wastes through the Council’s

future procurement programmes

� Developing opportunities to generate electricity or off-set the use of fossil fuels where practicable

It is important to ensure that consideration is given, at all of the key stages of the development of the waste

management system, to the carbon impact, and that it becomes one of the key drivers and measures of the

system.

4.3 Studies conducted

Over the last few years the Council has gained a significant amount of experience in assessing the various

waste treatment technologies available. Understanding waste technologies has been necessary as the

Council has been in the process of securing contracts and/or new facilities to treat the residual and organic

waste steams. The process of procuring long-term solutions is complex and highly technical. This has

necessitated the use of external advisors for the key aspects of these projects, i.e. the legal, financial and

technical aspects of the proposals, and during these projects the proposals submitted have been

scrutinised extensively. Detailed due diligence assessments of the technologies have therefore been

conducted. A key aspect of these assessments is to determine the strengths and weaknesses of all the

technical proposals.

In addition to the due diligence assessments that have been undertaken for the proposals, a number of

separate studies have been commissioned which have supported the procurement projects including:

� Assessment of treatment options for the residual waste using a detailed assessment of the options

taking into consideration the requirements of the Council’s Strategic Environmental Assessment.

� Assessment of markets for materials produced by recycling/composting schemes.

� Assessment of markets for the products produced by waste treatment plants.

− this has included an assessment of the market for the Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF) produced by

some waste treatment plants such as Mechanical Biological Treatment Plants (MBT),

− the availability of residual waste treatment capacity regionally on a merchant basis

− the trends in electricity prices and green energy revenues

− an assessment of the options for profit-share from Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) /Anaerobic

Digestion (AD) plants

� Conducting an Environmental Options Assessment (EOA) study to identify the best option

environmentally for managing North Lincolnshire’s waste.

� Conducting a feasibility study into the possibility of procuring a regional Anaerobic Digestion facility for

the treatment of organic wastes.

All of the technologies have, therefore, had a high degree of scrutiny applied to them, using the experience

gained from a number of projects around the UK and overseas and applying the lessons learnt to the

Council’s own specific requirements.

The Council has, therefore, developed an excellent understanding of the issues surrounding each

technology, and their strengths and weaknesses in a North Lincolnshire specific context having conducted

soft market testing and the EU ‘competitive dialogue’ process for organic and residual waste treatment


42


facilities. The main technical options for the treatment of the wastes produced by the Council are discussed

in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.

4.3.1 Residual Waste

4.3.1.1 Energy from Waste/ Combined Heat and Power

Energy from Waste (EfW) is a process where residual waste is burnt in a specially designed furnace and

the heat used to produce electricity. This should not be confused with ‘mass burn’ incineration, a process

which was used until the early 1970s which simply burnt the waste with no energy recovery. This is not an

option now as this type of plant would not be licensed by the Environment Agency. Energy form waste and

other types of incineration are very tightly regulated principally by the Waste Incineration Directive (WID).

This Directive limits the amount of pollutants that can be produced from the process. If the limits are

continuously exceeded the plant will be shut down. Monitoring of the emissions is constant for many

chemicals and can even be made available to the public in ‘real time’.

Energy from Waste offers a source of ‘green’ energy and can be given credits for the energy generated

from the organic fraction of the waste if it reaches a high level of efficiency or when the steam generated is

used to supply heating to housing or industrial units nearby. This is known as ‘combined heat and power’

(CHP).

This is often a controversial option in many areas of England. However, in North Lincolnshire the Council

has detected very little opposition to this, mainly due to the fact that many parts of the County such as the

Scunthorpe areas are highly industrialised.

EfW is a well established technology and a market for the main product (electricity) is readily available. The

introduction of the EU Waste Incineration Directive and strict enforcement of emissions standards means

that the latest generation of incinerators operate to very high standards. The Review of the Environmental

and Health Effects of Waste Management commissioned by Government concluded that the effects on

health from emissions from incineration, largely to air, are likely to be small in relation to other known risks

to health.

4.3.1.2 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

As the name implies this is a combination of technologies. It includes mechanical separation of recyclable

materials from the waste using a variety of techniques to extract metals, cardboard or plastics. It also

includes biological processes designed to treat the organic part of the waste, and produce a type of

compost, or a ‘soil improver’. Most MBTs produce a type of fuel termed solid recovered fuel (SRF) or refuse

derived fuel (RDF) which can then be burnt in a suitable plant such as an EfW plant or a Cement kiln,

where the fuel may be used to reduce the plant’s reliance on coal or other fossil fuels.

Where the biological process is Anaerobic Digestion, this produces a biogas, which can be used to provide

power for the plant, with any excess exported to the national grid.

MBTs encompass a wide range of technologies depending on whether composting (often termed

‘Biodrying’) is used instead of AD, and whether the biological process comes before the separation

processes. There are five main types of MBT plant.

� Plants that incorporate anaerobic digestion to generate biogas for electricity production. Anaerobic

digestion also generates a digestate to be discharged or to be dewatered, producing a compost product


43


� Plants that produce an RDF product

� Plants that produce a compost product and/or a stabilised material for landfilling as well as an RDF

product

� Plants that produce a compost product

� Plants that stabilise waste prior to landfill.

Plants can be termed MBT, MBT (AD), BMT or BMT (AD) depending on the type. There are also a few

specialist types of plant that may use all of these technologies in combination. There are several examples

of MBTs technologies throughout Britain, with notable examples in London, South Wales and in Lancashire

Some Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) technologies are reasonably well developed, and are

operating in other European countries, but markets for the products (fuel and/or compost) are limited in the

UK at present. As a part of the residual waste procurement project, a separate study has been conducted

on the markets for the SRF/RDF produced by MBT plants. The study was undertaken to assess the

commercial risks with developing a plant of this type as the gate fee for the fuel produced could vary

considerably depending on the regional and national market develops.

Potential applications for the soil improver/compost associated with this type of plant are limited. As the

source of waste that feeds the plant is not source-segregated, it cannot comply with regulations governing

food wastes (the animal by-products regulations or ABPR). It is possible that some of these regulations

may be relaxed in the future. Also, the Government is still considering whether the use of the compost/soil

conditioner from MBTs at landfilled should be classified as landfilling, and therefore would not count

towards diverting waste from landfill. These issues are some of the main technical risks associated with this

type of process.

The quality of the fuel that is produced is also another important consideration. Contaminants in the

feedstock impact on the quality of the fuel, examples of which include mercury or other heavy metals.

4.3.1.3 Mechanical Heat Treatment

Mechanical heat treatment or ‘Autoclave’ technology consists of a large pressure vessel into which the

waste is placed and heated to a temperature of around 150˚C using a source of steam. This turns the

waste into a fibrous material from which recyclables such as glass and metals can be then recovered. An

example of this type of technology is the Sterecycle plant in Rotherham.

The fibre, which is high in organic content, can then be used as a type of low-grade compost for use in

landfill sites as a part of the restoration process. An alternative is to use the fibre as fuel as it has high

calorific value. The main risks associated with this type of technology lie in finding a market for the fibre,

and also in the way in which the fibre is classified when it is applied to a landfill, as it may not count towards

diversion targets.

4.3.1.4 Advance Thermal Treatment (ATT) technologies∗

This is a range of technologies that are related to incineration, but use a more controlled chemical reaction

in the combustion chamber. In a ‘normal’ combustion process, the waste is heated with an excess of

_________________________

∗ sometimes referred to as ‘Advanced Conversion Technologies’ (ACT)


44


oxygen from the air, so that it is burnt completely. In an ATT process the process is carried out with a

controlled supply of oxygen so that the waste is not completely burnt.

There are three main alternatives:

� The waste can be converted chemically into a type of gas called ‘syngas’ using the injection of steam

into the combustion chamber. This can be stored and used as a fuel;

� Alternatively the waste can be broken down by the action of the heat to produce another type of fuel

related chemically to diesel fuel, again this can be stored and used; and

� A form of gasification called ‘close coupled gasification’ (CCG). In this, the gas produced is burnt

completely in 2-stage combustion process, so that the gas produced cannot be physically separated out

and stored.

This type of technology has been used in other industries, but is relatively new to the treatment of

household wastes. Examples exist in Europe and Japan with examples of CCG in Norway, Slovenia and in

several plants being developed in the Isle of Wight, Scotland and Derby.

4.3.2 Organic Waste

Although organic wastes can be treated in thermal processing plants, the potential for using organic wastes

as a renewable resource means that it is becoming less acceptable to allow organic wastes to be a

significant part of the residual waste stream. The potential to generate electricity via anaerobic digestion

means that more councils across the UK are adding segregated food waste collections to enable this to

happen. There are however, a limited number of technologies that can be used to treat organic wastes.

They fall into the categories of composting and anaerobic digestion.

4.3.2.1 Composting

Composting is a natural process that employs bacteria, fungi and other simple organisms in the presence

of air to break down the waste and produce a soil improver. There are two main types of composting used

to treat household organic wastes.

i. open windrow composting

In this, the organic wastes are placed in specially shaped piles known as ‘windrows’ which are then turned

periodically using a machine to ensure that the correct flow of air reaches the waste and to prevent the

conditions from becoming anaerobic.

ii. In-vessel composting (IVC)

The waste materials are placed in a number of enclosed ‘vessels’, each of these is often about the size of a

domestic garage, although larger examples are available. The amount of air, moisture and temperature of

the waste is controlled, and the process monitored using electronic probes.

The main difference between the two types of technology is that open windrow composting can only be

carried out on green wastes, as a result of controls required in the Animal By-Products Regulations

(ABPR). This was brought in by the EU in 2002 following the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. All

organic wastes which are separately collected and contain kitchen wastes must be treated in an ABPR

compliant facility. The regulations stipulate the length of time, and temperature at which organic waste must

be treated, this is to ensure that any diseases such as foot and mouth that may be present in the food


45


waste are killed and cannot be transferred to animals if the compost or soli improver made form the waste

is applied to land.

4.3.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

Anaerobic digestion, like composting, is a natural process that uses micro-organisms to break down the

waste materials to produce a soil improver. The process is similar in nature to the one that takes place in

the stomach of cows, and produces large volumes of methane (biogas) as a by-product. This can be used

to generate electricity, injected into the gas grid, or provide a fuel for vehicles.

There are a number of different process technologies made by different manufacturers. These are based

on ‘wet’ or ‘dry’ systems and can digest the organic wastes at different temperatures. These are termed

mesophilic (middle) or thermophilic (high) temperature processes. The conditions employed can be

optimised to produce biogas efficiently or favour the production of fertiliser depending on the project

specifics and the type of technology employed.

There are two other important features of AD and IVC compared with windrow composting:

� Anaerobic digestion cannot treat dense woody materials as these can only be broken down biologically

by fungi, which cannot survive in anaerobic conditions; and

� Both technologies’ can be built to meet the ABPR regulations which specify the temperature and

amount of time that waste is treated in order to kill any diseases that may be present.

4.3.2.3 Advantages and disadvantages of treatment technologies

The advantages and disadvantages of the various technologies are compared in the table below.

Table 4.3: Advantages and disadvantages of the technologies

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Residual Technologies

Energy from Waste The technology is well established. Markets are available for the electricity that is produced.

Metal and ash which are recycled do not currently count towards recycling targets.

Can be problematical in planning terms due to objections.

Gasification Markets are available for the electricity that is produced. Electricity can qualify for ROCs.

Technology is not yet proven with household waste in the UK, although becoming more established.

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Based on existing well proven technologies used in MRF facilities, etc. Flexibility and relatively low capital cost.

Markets for the RDF fuel product are currently limited.

Mechanical Heat Treatment (including Autoclave technologies)

Range of potential markets for the main product A higher proportion of dry recyclable materials can be recovered for recycling

Technology is not yet fully established Markets are currently limited

Organic Technologies

Windrow Composting Composting is a simple technology and is very well established. This is already used by the Council to treat recovered green waste. There is an established market for products.

Not permitted for use with food waste

In-Vessel Composting Relatively simple technology and is very well established. Market for products well established including to the public.

Markets for the compost well established. Does not produce electricity.


46


Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Anaerobic Digestion Markets are available for the electricity that is produced.

Technology not yet well established for household waste. Markets for the compost product are limited. Relatively high capital cost.

4.3.3 Review of markets

4.3.3.1 Dry Recyclables

Reviews of markets for dry recyclables have found that they are well established, and the size of the

market for ‘higher grade’ products is strong. The value of recovered metals, particularly non-ferrous metals

has been very strong in recent years resulting in a strong rise in value over recent years. The markets for

other dry recyclables such as paper and cardboard, glass and textiles although variable, historically are

well established in the UK.

The market for WEEE is less well established, although this is set to change as the EU is setting stringent

targets for the diversion of WEEE, along the lines of the diversion targets set for landfill diversion.

4.3.3.2 Composts and Digestate

Composts produced by IVC and open windrow composting can be produced to high standard, and can

suitable for sale to the general public. The standards are known as ‘publically acceptable standards’ (PAS).

The standard for compost is PAS100, and source segregated wastes such as the Council’s green waste

can be used to make this grade of compost. There is a ready market for this type of compost through retail

outlets. There are other lower grades of compost which are only used in agriculture. The market for these is

strong as they are a good soil-conditioner and much of the UK’s soils have been degraded by the long-term

use of chemical fertilisers. They are also becoming more cost-effective as the price of chemical based

fertilisers rises due to their high intrinsic energy demand. There is a small revenue associated with

composts

Digestate is the AD equivalent of compost, although it is generally much higher in water content. The PAS

standard for digestate is PAS110. The market for PAS110 digestate is in its infancy as this is a relatively

newly-developed standard. The response so far has been generally positive, particularly in agriculture

where this is particularly attractive as AD digestate contains high levels of nitrogen, which is generally

absent in composts. It means that AD digestate is an attractive alternative to chemical and liquid fertilisers.

AD digestate can be utilised in a concentrated or diluted liquid form. The market is expected to expand as

the availability of AD plants increases in the medium to long-term. Currently the discharge of digestate

entails a small cost for the producer of the AD digestates, however this may become a revenue as demand

increases.

4.3.3.3 MHT Fibre

The market for MHT fibre is very much in its infancy in the UK, as there are very few plants offering this

type of technology. Although products can be made from it, the bulk of this type of material is used as low-

grade compost for landfill cover or as a fuel for cement kilns, etc. Long term contracts for cement kiln or

EfW incineration may also have risks due to the metals and other elements in the fibre produced, so the

long term off-take of this product has a degree of uncertainty.


47


4.3.3.4 Electricity

The Council has done a substantial amount of work on the issue of electricity generation and the trends in

the market over the medium and long-term. It is fair to say that there is a ready market for any electricity

produced by a process. This is due to the issues surrounding the generation of electricity in general, which

is related to the reduction in the supply of North Sea gas and in the uncertainties surrounding the

replacement of the1st generation of nuclear reactors.

In addition to the revenues from electricity sales to the national grid, waste technologies can attract

payments for the production of ‘green’ electricity. This is under the ‘Renewables Obligation Certificates’

scheme and is a payment from the government on top of the payment that is received for the sale of

electricity. Currently both of these are in the region of £45 per megawatt hour (MWh) generated by the

plant. Under the current rules some types of EfW plant can qualify for ROCs if they are sufficiently efficient,

depending in the biodegradability of the waste input. Currently this is limited to a 50% maximum, and

therefore maximum of half a ROC per MWh.

Currently plant generating ‘green electricity’ can also attract a double ROC (£90/ MWh) if the gas produced

is of sufficiently high calorific value. This applies to the electricity generated by anaerobic digestion

facilities.

As with all incentive schemes of this type the revenues and availability may vary over time and this is one

of the factors that will need to be further assessed in detail when assessing proposals for treating the

Council’s waste.

The Council uses a considerable amount of energy per year. In 2010/11 this amounted to 17.7GWh (17.7

million kWh) of electricity for buildings, plus a further 9.5GWh for street lighting and other unmetered

supplies. This is a significant proportion of the generation capacity of waste management plants, such as a

small energy from waste plant which can generate around 80 GWh annually. It is hoped therefore that the

guarantee of supply to a plant, such as this, may yield a favourable deal for the council for the supply of

electricity.

A study undertaken in relation to potential electricity revenues (see Appendix H.6) indicates that there is

considerable scope for gaining a revenue share from a proposed facility, and using this to gain either a

lower gate fee at the start of the project, or an ongoing profit share. This can be done in a number of ways.

The simplest is to split revenues based upon an agreed threshold. An alternative is to use a continuously

changing ‘hedging arrangement’ based upon the actual revenue received on a daily or weekly basis. This is

much more complex contractually, and generally it is felt that the former option is preferable, as it has less

risk of down-sides if electricity revenues were to drop to unexpectedly low production levels.

4.3.3.5 SRF/ RDF

Solid recovered fuels (SRF) and refuse derived fuels (RDF) are the terms used for the fuels produced by

waste treatment facilities. They vary in composition, but generally consist of the mixed waste fraction, after

recycling, which has been shredded and dried. Depending on the source, this can have a relatively high

proportion of biodegradable materials of up to 50%, although it is generally lower than this. The presence of

low-grade materials such as plastic, paper and cardboard gives the fuel a high calorific value. It is therefore

attractive to high energy users as a replacement for fossil fuels such as coal in the case of power stations

and cement kilns.


48


A review has been conducted into the market for SRF/ RDF in the North Lincolnshire area, looking at

capacity and gate fee trends. This is a difficult area to predict, as the use of SRF in some off-takers is

dependant upon incentive schemes which may have a risk long-term of being ended or reduced in value.

Generally the uptake of SRF as a fuel in the UK has been slow, because there are a limited number of

facilities that are capable of using the fuel. This is a result of technical and licensing issues, as any plant

using this must be WID compliant. Currently much of the SRF produced in the UK is exported to continental

Europe, such as Holland, Germany and the Baltic states. Use of SRF can therefore attract a premium in

terms of the gate fee and the cost of transportation. In addition, published studies by the government have

tended to over-estimate the potential size of the market due to assumptions about the use of SRF in coal

fired power stations. This market has not really evolved due to technical considerations resulting from the

demands and costs of meeting emissions legislation.

The use of SRF in cement kilns, which is the other main alternative, has also been slow. This has been

largely due to issues surrounding the licensing of this type of incineration. As there is no agreed standard

for SRF in Europe yet, licensing has to be on a case-by-case basis for the process to comply with WID.

There are also concerns that the limits set for the more hazardous elements in the fuel may become more

stringent as time goes on, increasing the risks associated with being committed to this type of technology.

It can be expected that the market will expand in the medium to longer term. However, this is difficult to

predict and brings with it inherent risks long-term.

4.3.3.6 Merchant Plants

An alternative to the procuring of a facility by the Council is the possibility of using a ‘merchant’ facility.

Currently there are none in the County and none that are at an advanced stage of delivery. If an

opportunity arises in the future to use a merchant facility, this will be considered on its merits. However, this

will depend upon the delivery of Council’s procurement projects and the general market conditions.

It should be noted that, as a general principle, exporting waste for treatment out of the county is not

politically acceptable as a first option, except for contingency purposes, for example. The Council’s

preference is treatment within the county for environmental and socio-economic reasons (the ‘proximity

principle’).

The Council also prefers to retain as much of a stake as is practicable in the facilities that it uses for future

waste treatment and disposal. This means that some form of joint or whole ownership in facilities is

preferred. This will help to deliver facilities by encouraging contractors to the area, and will enable the

Council to manage the delivery of the facility and its operation in pro-active manner. It will also have the

benefit of increasing the scope for profit and revenues shares with contractors.

4.3.4 Environmental Option Assessment

The assessment of different treatment options can be conducted using an Environmental Options

Assessment (this has replaced the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) assessment). The

Environmental Option Assessment (EOA) study has been undertaken on the future options for waste

management, looking at the whole service, but focusing on the residual waste management options, as this

is the only part of the waste management service which has yet to move away from landfill.


49


Seven scenarios, which cover a range of possible treatment/management options for the residual waste

resulting, have been studied. These have been developed over some time and are a development of the

options studied in 2005 for the previous waste management strategy. They are based upon the experience

gained over this time from the procurement projects and also the changes that have occurred in the waste

management industry in the intervening years, such as greater delivery of facilities, and a greater

knowledge of the issues and the markets for the by-products of the processes.

The options are outlined in the table below. They represent examples of all of the main technologies

available for the treatment of residual wastes. The definitions also include information that is specific to

North Lincolnshire, such as the locations of facilities, which are based on existing or proposed plants.

Table 4.4: Options assessed in the Environmental Options Appraisal

Scenario Definition

1 Do nothing Business as usual: all - materials currently landfilled continue to be landfilled with growth rate proportional to the population growth predicted for the authority

2 Regional EfW Plant available in neighbouring area within the region

3 Autoclave Outside N Lincs Autoclave with landfilling of fibre produced

4 MBT in N Lincs Facility built in central location, providing a fuel for a cement kiln, which can be located within the County or elsewhere.

5 Large EfW Merchant facility outside of the County at maximum practicable distance

6 ATT in N Lincs Pyrolysis/ Gasification plant built within the county with central location. Capacity in the region of 80,000 tonnes per annum

7 MHT outside N Lincs Residual waste transported to mechanical heat treatment facility within maximum radius of 50 miles (from centre of the County).

The EOA involves assessing and evaluating the infrastructure required to deliver each of these scenarios

against three principal assessment categories:

� Environmental objectives

� Socio-economic objectives

� Operational objectives.

Each of these is further defined by a range of indicators, which provide a quantitative or qualitative

measure of the performance of the scenario against that objective. These are shown in Table 4.5. They are

based upon the latest guidance regarding the statutory requirements for Strategic Environmental

Assessment. This approach ensures that the strategy and the SEA are integrated in terms of looking at the

same environmental indicators.

Table 4.5: Statutory SEA assessment criteria

SEA Directive Topics Core Strategy SEA Objectives

Biodiversity To protect and enhance biodiversity and important wildlife habitats within and outside designated sites

To ensure the protection and enhancement of designated sites including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

Flora

Fauna


50


SEA Directive Topics Core Strategy SEA Objectives

Population

To tackle poverty, social exclusion and inequality geographically as well as demographically

To enhance skills, qualifications and the overall employability of the population

To reduce crime, the fear of crime and to promote safer neighbourhoods

To improve accessibility to education, employment, recreation, countryside health, community services and cultural facilities for all sectors of the community

To encourage the participation in culture, leisure and recreational activities, including in the Countryside

To maintain and strengthen the local economy to promote future economic prosperity for North Lincolnshire in rural and urban areas

To create vibrant towns and village centres in both rural and urban areas

To increase diversity of employment

To support and improve the economic activity for rural areas through the retention of local facilities

To promote and enhance opportunities for tourism, particularly in rural areas

Human Health To promote healthier communities

Soil To make the best use of previously developed land and existing buildings

To protect local water resources, soil quality and quantity

Water To minimise the risk of flooding

To protect local water resources, soil quality and quantity

Air To improve air quality

To reduce congestion, particularly around the South Humber Bank Ports

Climatic Factors To adapt to the impacts of climate change fro the built and natural environment

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions particularly from transport

Material Assets

To provide a sufficient and appropriate mix of housing that is affordable, decent and designed to a high standard

To improve public transport provision and promote sustainable modes of transport

To increase energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy particularly from wind energy

To reduce generation of waste, the proportion sent to landfill and to increase re-cycling

To promote the use of sustainability sourced products and resources and re-using and recycling products

Cultural Heritage (including architectural and archaeological heritage)

To protect and enhance heritage assets including archaeological sites and monuments, historic landscapes, and local townscapes and their settings

Landscape To maintain and enhance the quality of countryside and wider landscape

These have been assessed using a weighted matrix analysis. In this, a score is derived for each criterion

and then multiplied by a factor (the weighting) to give an overall score. The weightings used in the study

are listed below, together with the data source used for the analysis. The full data treatment is given in

Appendix F.

Table 4.6: EOA assessment criteria and weightings

Objective Criterion Weighting

1. To ensure prudent use of land and resources

Resource depletion avoided burden in 1m year timescale (WRATE) 4.8%

Land-take (Ha) 2.4%

2. To reduce greenhouse gasses Emissions of Greenhouse gases (WRATE) 11.8%

3. To minimise air quality impacts Human toxicity (WRATE) 5.6%


51



Air acidification (WRATE) 2.6%

Ozone depletion (WRATE) 3.7%

Odour issues (WRATE) 2.7%

Dust problems (WRATE) 2.8%

4. To conserve landscapes and townscapes Visual and landscape impacts 4.5%

5. To protect local amenity Noise 3.6%

Litter and vermin 2.0%

6. To minimise adverse effects on water quality

Eutrophication (WRATE) 2.6%

Aquatic ecotoxicology (WRATE) 3.4%

7. To minimise local transport impacts Transport impact (WRATE GHG) 5.1%

8. To provide employment opportunities Number of jobs created (includes transport) 2.4%

9. To provide opportunities for local education and participation

Potential for participation in recycling/ composting and waste minimisation 4.0%

10. To minimise costs of waste management Overall costs (£M) 9.4%

11. To ensure reliability of delivery

Maturity of technology including markets for products and bankability 4.2%

Technical delivery of the facility including planning/ permitting 6.7%

12. To conform with waste policy

Waste minimisation 5.0%

Percentage of materials recovered (%) 5.2%

Percentage of materials recycled/ composted (%) 5.5%

Total 100.0%

The weightings have been agreed as part of the development of the waste management strategy. These

have been modified slightly on the basis of the lessons learnt by the Council since the previous document

was published. More weight has been given to the criteria under heading 11 ‘To ensure reliability of

delivery’ and heading 10 ‘Overall costs’. Where possible, WRATE has been used to provide quantitatively

comparable data to underlie the scores. This reduces the subjective scoring, and makes the exercise more

robust technically. One of the benefits of using the WRATE program is that the data can be filtered to focus

on particular impacts in detail.

4.3.5 WRATE Analysis

As part of the assessment process, WRATE analysis of the options has been undertaken. WRATE stands

for “Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment” and is the Environment Agency’s Life-

Cycle Analysis tool for measuring the impact on the environment of waste management systems. It

consists of an extensive database of processes, materials, receptacles and vehicles which can be pieced

together using a graphic interface to build up a model of the waste management system. The results from

this have been used as the basis for the scores in many of the criteria listed in the BEO options appraisal

above.

WRATE can be used to calculate the impact on the environment of the system by determining the quantity

of materials and chemicals that are emitted to air, land and water. It also assesses the amount of energy

generated or off-set by a process.


52


The results are calculated for: Global Warming Potential, Eutrophication, Acidification, Human Toxicity,

Aquatic Ecotoxicity, and Resource Depletion.

The results of the study are presented and discussed below, and presented in full in Appendix F and

Appendix H.

4.3.5.1 Residual Waste Treatment

A model for each of the technology options listed above was built up using the data from a mass flow

model. This model was developed for the assessment, together with other information such as the data

from composition studies undertaken recently for the Council.

The ‘multi criteria analysis’ results are shown in Figure 4.2 and the results in WRATE are shown with

impacts giving positive numbers and benefits giving negative numbers. This means that the further down

the graph a bar goes the better.

Figure 4.2: Multi criteria comparison

Figure 4.2 shows all of the results for each of the 6 factors together for all seven options. The figures that

produced the charts are shown in Table 4.7. They show clearly that there is a considerable benefit from

moving away from the use of landfill as the waste disposal option (the red bar on the left of each column).

When comparing each of the options on Global Warming Potential (the left hand column) it can be seen

that MBT (option 4) shows the greatest benefit (least impact), followed by MHT (RDF) (Option 7) and EfW

(R) which is Option 2. In terms of the WRATE impacts, MBT scores highest in all of the impacts except for

acidification and eutrophication, where MHT and Autoclaving are better respectively.


53


Table 4.7: Normalised residual waste results

Impact Assessment

LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT

MHT (RDF)

Unit Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Climate Change: GWP 100a

Eur.Person.Eq 787 -517 137 -730 -390 -41 -596

Acidification Potential: Average European

Eur.Person.Eq 22 -129 -558 -775 33 -119 -802

Eutrophication Potential: Generic

Eur.Person.Eq 350 145 -12 276 213 -11 250

Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity: Faetp Infinite

Eur.Person.Eq 93 -1,625 -1,885 -2,830 -1,535 -152 -1,928

Human Toxicity: htp Infinite

Eur.Person.Eq -3 -1,069 -1,603 -2,192 -1,168 -94 -1,541

Source: WRATE assessment

The results are shown below. They show that the MBT option scores well compared to the other scenarios

modelled.

Table 4.8: Final weighted scores

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT MHT (RDF)

Environmental 0.10 0.38 0.32 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.38

Socio-economic 0.028315 0.07446 0.069133 0.158 0 0.149168 0.0383244

Operational 0 0.170633 0.0528 0.211339 0.170633 0.177694 0.1239245

Total Score 0.131207 0.62 0.439198 0.865275 0.428437 0.662247 0.5444439

4.3.6 Organic waste treatment

For the organic waste treatment service a similar study has been undertaken using data from the

composition studies and the mass flow model developed for the assessment. The main options that have

been assessed are:

Table 4.9: Organic waste treatment options

Scenario Definition

1 ‘Wet’ Anaerobic Digestion

This is a form of anaerobic digestion that uses significant quantities of water during processing. This has the advantage of making the process more efficient at producing biogas, but has the disadvantage in that large volumes of ‘digestate’ need to be marketed, or dewatered prior to spreading to land

2 In-Vessel Composting As discussed earlier, this is a relatively simple aerobic technique which uses an enclosed environment and forced aeration to compost the waste

3 ‘Dry’ Anaerobic Digestion This process uses less water than wet AD and has the advantage of being able to process a certain amount of woody material which is sometimes used as a bulking agent, which passes through the system

4 Business as usual This is modelled as being windrow composting of the green and garden wastes with landfill of the food fraction


54


Scenario Definition

5 Landfill This is shown to illustrate the saving in comparison with a ‘do nothing’ scenario, in reality option 4 is the least that the Council could do and fulfil its obligations

4.3.7 Results

The results clearly show the benefits of all of the options over the ‘do nothing’ scenario, particularly in the

critical impact of global warming potential and eutrophication. AD shows greater benefits than IVC due to

the generation of electricity making the process less impacting on the environment. IVC shows a slightly

worse performance overall than the ‘business as usual option’. This is mainly due to the relatively high

energy usage of IVCs.

Figure 4.3: WRATE results for the organic waste treatment options


55


4.3.7.1 Results of the Organics WRATE Analysis

Table 4.10: Normalised organic treatment results

Impact Assessment AD(W) IVC AD(D) BAU LF

Unit Total Total Total Total Total

climate change: GWP 100a Eur.Person.Eq -312 52.9 -181 23.8 472

acidification potential: average European

Eur.Person.Eq 254 79.4 159 7.42 24.6

eutrophication potential: generic

Eur.Person.Eq 123 124 191 219 540

freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP infinite

Eur.Person.Eq 15.5 89.8 124 29.4 -8.75

human toxicity: HTP infinite Eur.Person.Eq -7.01 76.3 55.4 80.1 -1.99

resources: depletion of abiotic resources

Eur.Person.Eq -853 177 -420 -38.3 -541

4.4 Recycling

The impact of the recycling system has been assessed. This is based on data obtained from wastedataflow

that the Council produces for the government, and the mass-flow modelling undertaken as a part of the

study. No major changes to this are envisaged in the life-span of the strategy, so this has been compared

with the ‘do nothing’ scenario of landfilling. It illustrates the improvements that have been made in the

Council’s management


56


Figure 4.4: Recycling WRATE results

Table 4.11: Normalised WRATE results for recycling

Impact Assessment LF Rec

Unit Total Total

climate change: GWP 100a Eur.Person.Eq 483 -1,495

acidification potential: average European

Eur.Person.Eq 15 -1,390

eutrophication potential: generic

Eur.Person.Eq 31 -260

freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP infinite

Eur.Person.Eq 71 -3,902

human toxicity: HTP infinite Eur.Person.Eq 0 -3,125

resources: depletion of abiotic resources

Eur.Person.Eq -519 -4,021


57


4.4.1 Conclusions

The outcome of the BEO assessment is that the best scoring technology type is MBT based within the

Borough. Of the other options, EfW within the region and advanced thermal treatment score highly, a

sensitivity analysis indicating that these are difficult to differentiate (see Appendix F).

Figure 4.5: Weighted scores for the EOA assessment

Weighted Scores

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

LF

EfW

(R

)

Auto

MBT(C

)

EfW

(90)

ATT

MH

T (R

dF)

Option

Score

Environmental Socio-economic Operational Total Score

It should be noted that all of the major options score significantly higher than the ‘do nothing’ option of

landfill, which in practical terms does not fulfil many of the objectives required and therefore scores very

poorly. The assessment shows the benefits of situating plants within the County and gives an indication of

the benefits of applying the ‘proximity principle’ to the choice of waste technology used.

The study also shows that although MBT is the highest scoring option, options which provide a means of

generating electricity also score highly, particularly if situated within the Borough. This gives a range of

options which are acceptable in practical terms, and which will have demonstrable benefits to the Borough

as a whole.

4.5 Risk assessment

The waste hierarchy encourages reducing the amount of waste produced, increasing the level of recycling,

and recovering value from the residual waste. Therefore the waste strategy should follow the aims of the

waste hierarchy, but also ensure that the adopted strategy can be delivered and is as free from risks going

forwards as is practicable.

The principal risks to North Lincolnshire in successfully implementing the waste strategy come from the

following key areas:

� Acceptability of the solution

� Technical operation of the facilities

� Marketing of the products that would be produced by treating the waste

� Future Proofing


58


� Cost.

� Funding

It is therefore important to understand these risks and to ensure that the impacts are considered

appropriately as the strategy is implemented.

4.5.1 Acceptability

When the public oppose waste treatment facilities, gaining planning permission will be difficult. However, if

facilities are delayed then there will be significant financial implications for North Lincolnshire. The public,

as a whole, is more sophisticated in terms of their knowledge of waste management issues than was the

case a few years ago, and the efforts to engage with them in delivering facilities must be sensitive to this.

Local issues such as the import and export of wastes need to be taken into account. It is one of the guiding

principles of waste management in North Lincolnshire that waste should not be imported or exported out of

the Borough if at all possible

There will also be a need for high quality designs that are visually acceptable to the public, and a need for

information on the impacts of these facilities, particularly if sited in high-profile areas. While the impacts can

be minimised, they cannot be eliminated. Landfills will still be required for the foreseeable future. Whilst the

amount of waste that will need to be landfilled will reduce, additional landfill capacity may still be required

over the longer term. This is especially true in other local authority areas but less so in North Lincolnshire

where existing consented void space is in abundance.

There will be a need for both appropriate planning policies and education.

The recycling rates required will require the public to both adapt their lifestyles to minimise the amount of

waste that they generate, and increase the amount of the remaining waste separated out for recycling. If

the increase in recycling rates is not achieved, then the residual treatment facility will need to treat more

waste. There will be a need to use suitable public education programmes that aim to ensure that the

required recycling and minimisation rates are achieved.

4.5.2 Technical operation

The main area of concern for deliverability of the waste management strategy will be the management of

the residual waste, for which the main issues are reliability of the treatment technology and the availability

of markets for the products that they produce. Landfilling, although used as a baseline comparison in the

modelling studies, does not represent a viable option. This is because it fulfils none of the objectives of the

waste management strategy in technical or environmental terms. It also represents the biggest single risk

factor, as far as costs are concerned, due to the new system of reducing landfill by the use of taxation

rather than the previous target-based system.

EfW technology is a very well established technology and there is a readily available market for the

electricity that would be produced. There is also the possibility of generating ‘green electricity’ from the

biodegradable fraction of the waste. How this is measured is still being finalised by DECC, but there will be

some potential revenues.

Mechanical/Biological treatment (MBT) and mechanical heat treatment (MHT) technologies are less well

established, and markets for the products that they produce are currently limited. At the present time a

significant proportion of the fuel produced is exported to Europe, as relatively few facilities are currently


59


available in the UK. The option of using cement kilns exists. However, this is typically regarded as a high

energy using industry which is less desirable in the long term, if one considers the Council’s carbon

footprint including its sub-contractors. This is also dependant upon the construction industry being relatively

buoyant in the long term, which is by no means certain.

The technologies for pyrolysis / gasification are still being developed in the UK, and carry risks associated

with the long-term reliability of operation and any changes in the waste composition going forwards.

4.5.3 Marketing of the products

The targets within this strategy are wholly dependant on the ability to provide products that are acceptable

to the market. If the products are not of sufficient quality or markets do not exist for the products then the

materials will need to be landfilled or burnt. This would increase the cost for treating the residual waste due

to the need to pay for the further treatment/landfilling of the products. If the material was sent to landfill,

North Lincolnshire would be exceeding its landfill allowance target. Any additional costs, including gate fees

and landfill tax, would have to be met.

One of the risks associated with using MBT outputs as a fuel in cement kilns, for instance, lies in the

regulations surrounding the emissions to air that may be produced. This is due to the presence of heavy

metals and elements such as chlorine. There are risks in the long-term that the regulations governing this

type of activity may be changed and resulting in the fuel produced having to be landfilled or burnt in another

more expensive type of facility such as an EfW.

The other area of concern regarding deliverability of the waste strategy is the availability of markets for

materials collected for recycling or composting. Markets for dry recyclable materials, such as paper, are

well established. There are significant potential markets for some compost products, such as those

produced by IVC and windrow composting facilities, made to the PAS100 standard, but these have not yet

been fully established in the case of the ‘digestate’ produced by anaerobic digestion plants, made to the

similar PAS110 standard. One advantage that North Lincolnshire has, however, is the availability of

agricultural land on its doorstep which may enable AD facilities and other biofuel projects to be attracted to

the area.

Electricity has a ready market and is one aspect of residual and organic waste treatment plants that can

make them attractive in helping to solve waste disposal problems. There are incentives such as ROCs for

renewable energy which organic waste treatment and some types of residual treatment facilities can earn

for the electricity that they generate. This is an important aspect in gaining value for money from any facility

that the Council is able to procure and will feature in its efforts to help the waste management system to

contribute to the area’s wider aspirations in becoming a centre of excellence for the production of green

energy technologies.

The risks for markets can be significantly reduced through careful evaluation of the proposed systems

during the procurement process.

4.5.4 Future Proofing

Developing a waste management strategy that is future proof is particularly challenging. There are a

number of reasons why the delivery of a waste management strategy can fail. Key risks here lie in changes

in legislation and changes in the waste that is produced.


60


Waste legislation is constantly changing, the changes to the LATS system being a good example. This type

of change can have a large bearing on a contract going forwards, even in the short to medium term. Long

term changes are almost impossible to predict.

All waste management technologies need waste with the right characteristics in order to work cost

effectively. This means that when a contract is procured the Council can become locked in to providing

waste within a narrow range of factors such as the moisture level and the quantity of certain materials. This

has an impact on the ability of the Council to react to changes in the way waste is produced by the

householder, and can in some circumstances result in the Council paying large amounts of money in

compensation to a contractor if the waste does not meet criteria that may have been agreed years

previously.

This tends to indicate that it is preferable to procure contracts for waste treatment that tend to be shorter

rather than longer, to manage this type of risk. Currently the shortest viable contract length for a residual

facility is regarded as being around 15 years as a minimum, and it is usual to procure longer contracts, up

to 25-30 years in length, so that the high cost of building the plant is paid of over a longer period of time, to

reduce the ‘gate fee’.

4.5.5 The cost implications

This section discusses the cost modelling that was carried out for the scenarios considered in the

Environmental Options Appraisal discussed in Section 4.3.4. The costs used have been based on literature

reviews of gate fees for the technologies and knowledge of the market in order to compare the costs for the

different scenarios. The literature figures for the technologies are used together with the current known

costs of the recycling and organics services. These are then inputted into a series of scenarios developed

from the mass flow model undertaken for the EOA to give an overall cost for the three services together.

Table 4.12 shows a comparison of gate fees and total costs for treatment per tonne between the different

scenarios. The landfill scenario is used as a baseline and it should be noted that the gate fee for this

scenario excludes the landfill tax which the Government now sees as the main driver to reduce the reliance

on waste going to landfill. In a study like this the gate fees will be project specific and it would be possible

for the Council to negotiate a share in revenue which would reduce the costs going forward. However, this

would be dependent on issues such as electricity costs and demand and carbon trading which will make

different options more competitive going forwards.

Table 4.12 shows that the cheapest gate fee (excluding landfill) is for green treatment at £26/tonne, whilst

the highest is for MHT (RDF) at £105/tonne. In terms of total cost for treatment, which includes the cost for

transport, the cheapest option (excluding landfill) is for green treatment at £26/tonne and the highest is for

MHT (RDF) at £118/tonne.

Table 4.12: Comparison of gate fees and total cost for treatment/tonne

Gate fees/ tonne Transport distance Cost/tonne/ mile (round trip)

Total cost for treatment/ tonne

Landfill (exc tax) £12 0.0 0.28 £12

EfW (regional) £97 29.4 0.28 £105

EfW (90) £97 90.0 0.28 £122

Autoclave £90 46.4 0.28 £103

ATT £102 0.0 0.28 £102

MBT £100 0.0 0.28 £100


61


Gate fees/ tonne Transport distance Cost/tonne/ mile (round trip)


MHT (RDF) £105 46.9 0.28 £118

Green treatment £26 0.0 0.28 £26

Food AD £45 0.0 0.28 £45

Recycling £43.91 0.0 0.28 £44

Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 show the estimated yearly waste management cost in 2029/30 (with food and

without food waste collection) for each of the scenarios considered in the Environmental Options Appraisal.

This total cost covers recycling, collection of residual waste and waste treatment/disposal. There are two

landfill baseline scenarios, one based on a landfill tax rate of £80/tonne in the year 2014/15 and the other is

based on continuing the landfill tax escalator rate of £8/tonne per year up to 2020. This equates to

£120/tonne and has been assumed based on the stated Government policy of using landfill tax as the main

driver to divert waste away from landfill. For the basis of the analysis, it is assumed that landfill tax will

remain constant at £120/tonne throughout the remaining years, under consideration.

The tables show that the highest total annual waste management cost is the EfW (90) scenario both

without and with food waste collection (£9,081,275 and £9,152,279 respectively). The lowest cost

(excluding the lower landfill cost scenario) is the MBT scenario, both with and without food waste collection,

at £7,153,959 and £6,731,745 respectively). However, the MBT scenario is only marginally cheaper than

the ATT scenario and it should be noted that with the MBT scenario, the RDF is going to a cement kiln and

is not generating electricity. The EfW (regional) and the Autoclave scenarios have very similar total annual

waste management costs. The landfill (high) scenario is more costly than MHT (RDF), ATT, MBT,

Autoclave and EfW (regional), even the lower landfill cost scenario is only marginally cheaper than the MBT

scenario which shows that ‘doing something’ in terms of residual waste treatment does not cost much more

than ‘doing nothing’ and sending the residual waste to landfill.

Table 4.13: Total annual waste management cost (without food)

Scenario (without food)

2029/30

Landfill £6,328,673

Landfill (High) £8,344,032

EfW (regional) £7,420,108

Autoclave £7,553,267

MBT £6,731,745

EfW (90) £9,081,275

ATT £6,832,513

MHT (RDF) £8,323,316

Table 4.14: Total annual waste management cost (with food)

Scenario (with food)

2029/30

Landfill £6,828,630

Landfill (High) £8,550,336

EfW (regional) £7,739,424

Autoclave £7,852,679

MBT £7,153,959


62


Scenario (with food)

EfW (90) £9,152,279

ATT £7,239,664

MHT (RDF) £8,507,620

Table 4.15 and Table 4.16 show the total annual waste management cost (without food and with food

waste collection), together with the cost per household and the cost per capita for 2029/30.

The tables show that the highest cost per household is the EfW (90) scenario at £125.50 (without food) and

£126.48 (with food) and is the highest cost per capita at £52.10 (without food) and £52.50 (with food). The

scenario with the lowest cost per household (excluding the lower landfill cost scenario) is MBT at £93.03

(without food) and £98.87 (with food) and is the lowest cost per capita at £38.62 (without food) and £41.04

(with food).

Table 4.15: Total annual waste management cost (without food) including cost per household and per capita

Scenario (without food) Total Cost per household Cost per capita

Landfill £6,328,673 £87.46 £36.31

Landfill (High) £8,344,032 £115.31 £47.87

EfW (regional) £7,420,108 £102.55 £42.57

Autoclave £7,553,267 £104.39 £43.33

MBT £6,731,745 £93.03 £38.62

EfW (90) £9,081,275 £125.50 £52.10

ATT £6,832,513 £94.43 £39.20

MHT (RDF) £8,323,316 £115.03 £47.75

Table 4.16: Total annual waste management cost (with food) including cost per household and per capita

Scenario(with food) Total Cost per household Cost per capita

Landfill £6,828,630 £94.37 £39.17

Landfill (High) £8,550,336 £118.17 £49.05

EfW (regional) £7,739,424 £106.96 £44.40

Autoclave £7,852,679 £108.52 £45.05

MBT £7,153,959 £98.87 £41.04

EfW (90) £9,152,279 £126.48 £52.50

ATT £7,239,664 £100.05 £41.53

MHT (RDF) £8,507,620 £117.58 £48.80

4.5.6 Funding

The Council also has to consider the cost to Council Tax payers. The review of costs has indicated that any

of the options, which include treatment of residual waste, would be less expensive in the medium to long

term than just continuing to landfill the waste, particularly if as is assumed, that the landfill tax escalator

continues past 2014, which most commentators think will happen.

In order to fund a residual or organic waste treatment plant, the Council will have to find a partner

organisation to share the cost. This can be undertaken in a number of ways, under the umbrella term of

PPP or Public/Private Partnership. The two most common are; ‘project finance’ where the contractor


63


borrows the money required and the council then pays for the service over a prescribed period, often 20-25

years. The alternative often used is called ‘prudential borrowing’ where the council follows a set protocol

recommended by the government for borrowing money and part finances the project.

The advantage of the latter method is that the council has a greater stake in the plant, and therefore more

control over issues such as the maintenance and running of the plant. It makes it more attractive to

potential contractors who have to borrow less money, and can also mean that the length of the contract can

be shortened as the amount of money the contractor needs to pay back to the banks is much smaller. The

Council will be investigating these options and any other alternatives that may be proposed in order to

facilitate the procurement of new facilities.

Government funding for projects through PFI, for example, has been cut back recently so this may not be

an alternative for treatment facilities.

For waste collections, there is currently available a £250M fund aimed at weekly waste collections

announced by the Government. It is not envisaged that the council will be bidding for funding to collect

residual wastes weekly for a number of reasons. Firstly, the current system has been very effective in

increasing recycling levels and going to a weekly collection may be counter-productive and encourage

more waste to be produced. The current system has been generally well received and changes may well

be unpopular. Also, the funding itself is relatively small and of short duration (2 years) and so would not be

suitable for changing the current system, as this would be a long-term commitment. Instead, this funding

source may be suitable for the introduction of segregated food waste collection, and this possibility is being

explored by the council.

4.6 Consultation

North Lincolnshire Council recognises the importance of regular consultation with all stakeholders,

particularly members of the public, and this has been carried out throughout the development and

implementation process of the Waste Strategy and will continue into the future to enable the Council to

further develop the waste management service. The Council has undertaken a range of consultation

exercises, including feedback on its waste management service, and has reacted positively to the

stakeholders’ opinions by implementing any changes, where possible, to the waste management service as

a result of those comments.

A number of surveys seeking residents’ opinion on a range of issues have previously been undertaken by

Market Research companies and consultants on behalf of the Council. The consultation on the Core

Strategy of the Local Development Framework ‘A Better Place to be?’ in 2006 asked local residents for

their views on renewable energy sources and climate change. The findings showed that there was

overwhelming support for recycling (93%) and EfW (75%).

A public consultation on the draft Waste Strategy was carried out during October 2007 to January 2008. A

total of 1,333 responses were received, and the main findings from the consultation process were:

� Current collection system:

− 79% of respondents were satisfied with the current arrangements for recycling of household waste;

− 62% of respondents were satisfied with the current arrangements for collection of non-recyclable

household waste;

− The majority of respondents considered that limiting the size of the bin they have for non-recyclable

waste did not encourage them to recycle more of their waste; and


64


− The majority of respondents considered that households who produce the most waste should not

have to pay more for the collection and disposal service that they receive.

� Recycling:

− 83% of respondents supported the aim of increasing the level of recycling and composting of

household waste to a minimum of 45% by 2010; and

− Only 23% of respondents considered that more kerbside recycling facilities should be provided,

irrespective of cost.

� Treatment of non-recyclable waste:

− 66% of respondents supported the aim of dealing with locally produced non-recyclable waste in

North Lincolnshire, but only 15% of respondents felt that waste produced by other councils should be

dealt with in North Lincolnshire, even if local residents were to benefit financially; and

− 66% of respondents stated that it is acceptable to dispose of non-recyclable waste by burning it to

produce heat and electricity.

� Education on waste awareness:

− 83% of respondents considered that more should be done to inform and educate residents about the

benefits of recycling; and

− 74% of respondents believed that consumers should be encouraged to buy fewer packaged goods.

The results of the consultation showed that there was strong support for achieving and exceeding the 45%

recycling target. In response to this, the Council adopted a local target of 50% to be achieved by 2010.

Less support was evident for providing additional recycling collection facilities. There was also strong

support for treating the non-recyclable waste produced by North Lincolnshire residents in a facility located

in North Lincolnshire, which recovers both electricity and heat from the waste. These findings were used in

developing the previous version of North Lincolnshire Council’s MWMS.

Table 4.17 shows a satisfaction survey undertaken in 2009 (“Interim Place Survey 2009: Prepared for

North Lincolnshire Council”) comparing the various services that the Council carries out. This shows that

compared with other services such as sport/leisure facilities, the waste management services such as

refuse collection, doorstep recycling and local tips/HRCs all achieve a high net satisfaction i.e. +73%,

+75% and +73% respectively. This together with the fact that the Council does not receive a lot of

complaints about waste related issues indicates that stakeholders are happy with the waste management

service provided. The only waste related issue that stakeholders were less happy with was keeping public

land clear of litter and refuse which had a net satisfaction of +39% and is therefore an area that the Council

will need to work on in order to increase the satisfaction of the service provided.


65


Table 4.17: Satisfaction survey

Source: Interim Place Survey 2009

The Council will endeavour to continue effective consultations and communications with stakeholders and

one measure that the Council may consider is the setting up of local community involvement groups/forums

who will be able to have an input into discussions regarding waste treatment facilities.

4.7 Proposed approach to meeting these challenges

Having assessed the waste management challenge that North Lincolnshire faces, considered a number of

options, conducted a number of studies, consulted stakeholders, and assessed both the costs and the risks

involved with a number of approaches to meeting this challenge, a broad strategic approach has been

developed. The Waste Strategy, which follows the waste management hierarchy, and accounts for the

findings from the studies and assessments conducted, is that the Council needs to implement

arrangements that:

� Limit the growth in waste arisings through the use of waste reduction and minimisation programmes;

� Allow the Council to be able to achieve any future statutory recycling and other targets imposed by the

Government;

� Treat the remaining waste in facilities located in North Lincolnshire in order to recover energy in the

form of a fuel, electricity and/or heat from it. This will enable North Lincolnshire Council to meet the

targets set by the Government and help achieve the long term target of achieving greater sustainability;

and

� Provide sufficient future landfill capacity for any waste which is either unsuitable for recycling or cannot

be made into a useable product after being processed in the treatment facility.

The Environmental Options assessment has shown that the most suitable option for meeting future landfill

targets is to treat the residual waste in an MBT facility. The options of either a small EfW facility (such as

that located in a neighbouring authority) or a pyrolysis/gasification are less favourable, but would still have


66


benefits to the environment, plus the possibility of revenues from electricity. The technologies for

pyrolysis/gasification are still being developed and there are known issues regarding suitable sites for EfW

facilities within the County such as the size of the Council’s waste generation. However, all of the treatment

options, with the exception of MHT and EfW facilities placed outside North Lincolnshire have benefits.

Deliverability is a key issue for any waste management project and therefore, if these solutions can not be

delivered, North Lincolnshire Council may well have to consider other options that conform to the

underlying principles of diverting waste away from landfill and usefully recovering value from it. It is

important to note that whatever solution is adopted, land will be required for both the treatment facility and

for facilities to handle any additional material collected for composting.

The adoption of the Waste strategy will mean that North Lincolnshire will make an effective contribution

towards meeting the UK target for reducing the amount of BMW which is landfilled.


67


This section:

� Identifies key responsibilities;

� Discusses possible partnerships with neighbouring authorities and the private sector;

� Outlines North Lincolnshire’s activities for developing both waste minimisation and recycling initiatives;

� Discusses how North Lincolnshire will arrange for a new waste disposal contract which will enable the

landfill allowance targets to be met; and

� Assesses the impact on our carbon footprint.

It also presents the proposed timetable for implementing the Strategy, discusses how the Council plans to

keep this programme on track, and identifies how further consultation will be conducted as the Strategy is

implemented.

5.1 Roles and responsibilities

There are a number of groups that will have a role to play in implementing North Lincolnshire’s Waste

Strategy, namely:

� National Government:

Provides the legislative framework for the management of wastes in the County. It also provides

incentives through taxation and other means, and from time to time can provide funding through various

bodies such as WRAP and Defra;

� Regulators:

Ensuring that facilities for processing dry recyclables, composting collected organic material, and

treating the residual waste meet all environmental requirements on emissions to air, water and land;

� North Lincolnshire Council:

Arranging for the provision of facilities for recycling and composting, procuring a new waste

management contract, and ensuring that any new treatment facilities are sited in accordance with the

policies in the Waste Development Plan. Appropriate Council assets will be employed to assist with

delivery;

� Waste management companies:

Operating recycling and composting services, operating the facility that will treat North Lincolnshire’s

residual waste, and providing capacity for any landfilled waste;

� Voluntary groups:

Providing both facilities that enable items to be re-used, and providing and/or supporting additional

recycling services;

� Commerce and Industry:

Reducing waste arisings by, for example, reducing the amount of packaging required for products, and

increasing the amount of material that they recycle; and

� Public:

Participating in both waste reduction and recycling activities. The public will also have an important role

in the continuing consultation as the Strategy is implemented, particularly with regard to the provision of

any treatment facility, which is constructed in North Lincolnshire.

5.2 Partnerships with neighbouring authorities

Joint working on waste by local authorities is a key feature of the National Waste Strategy. The Regional

Spatial Strategies have also acknowledged the strategic significance of waste management and the need

for an effective regional waste treatment and disposal infrastructure.

5. Implementation of the Necessary Actions


68


North Lincolnshire Council along with the three neighbouring unitary local authorities of North East

Lincolnshire Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council were created

following the abolition of the former Humberside County Council in 1996. Immediately following the

reorganisation of local government the two authorities on the north bank of the Humber joined together and

contracted to a single private sector organisation for the management of their MSW until 2024. Similarly,

the North East Lincolnshire Council entered alone into a long-term contract for the management of its

municipal waste stream for the same period.

North East Lincolnshire Council is currently updating its waste strategy, which was previously published in

2004. The new draft strategy sets higher recycling targets, and includes a target to stop landfilling of any

biodegradable MSW by 2020 at the latest, with the aim of achieving this by 2015. Achieving this target will

require additional treatment capacity. North East Lincolnshire already treats some of its residual MSW in a

combined heat and power (CHP) facility, and its preferred approach to meeting the target, based on its

assessment of current treatment technologies, their costs, and the risks associated with them, is to use a

second CHP facility located at the same site as that used for the current CHP facility.

Although the new plant will have a capacity which is higher than the estimated arisings of waste which is

currently landfilled. North East Lincolnshire Council is seeking to partner with waste management

companies to provide a facility that would treat both North East Lincolnshire’s residual MSW and suitable

commercial/industrial waste generated in North East Lincolnshire. It is our understanding that there will be

no available capacity to treat waste from North Lincolnshire Council.

To the west, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council has been party to a longstanding and joint waste

management arrangement with the other South Yorkshire metropolitan authorities of Barnsley and

Rotherham. Each of these three authorities has separately prepared waste management strategies, and

together produced a Joint Strategic Waste Development Plan Document.

This led to the formation of the BDR waste partnership which has procured, under PFI, a contract for the

treatment of their residual waste. Currently public consultation is taking place on proposals for a new waste

recycling centre on land at Bolton Road between Bolton-on-Dearne and Manvers. The proposals follow the

selection by the BDR Waste Partnership of 3SE – a partnership between Shanks Group PLC and Scottish

& Southern Energy – as its preferred partner. The proposed technology is an MBT facility to be used up to

2026. The facility will be producing SRF which will be burnt in the Ferrybridge power station. Again there is

no capacity available for the treatment of municipal waste from North Lincolnshire.

To the south, Lincolnshire County Council is the waste disposal authority for the constituent District

Councils that collect waste on behalf of their respective residents. They announced in June 2008 that they

plan to build an EfW facility to the south of Lincoln with a capacity of 150,000 tonnes per year. This facility

is programmed to be operational by 2015, and is currently under construction. As with the other projects

mentioned above there is no capacity from these for treating waste from North Lincolnshire, and the

options for joint working on residual waste is severely limited.

Informal discussions have been held from time to time with each of the authorities named above about

possible opportunities for collaborative working on waste. To date an agreement has been reached on the

shared provision and use, by Lincolnshire County Council, of two of the Council’s Household Recycling

Centres adjacent to the southern boundary of North Lincolnshire and a procurement alliance (PANNEL)

has been agreed with North East Lincolnshire Council. The necessary procurement, by the Council, of a

replacement residual waste treatment service contract presents a potential opportunity to expand on these

existing, limited, joint working arrangements. A number of prospective partners are evident and these


69


include not only neighbouring local authorities, but a number of private sector organisations within North

Lincolnshire and the local Primary Care Trust, each of whom have similar waste management and/or

energy needs.

5.3 Waste reduction/re-use

Waste reduction is at the top of the waste hierarchy and is pivotal to the development of sustainable waste

management practices. However, historically it has not been at the top of the waste agenda as the primary

focus has been on recycling and disposal.

Waste reduction refers to the minimisation of waste at source, which means not producing waste in the first

place. In some countries, householders are charged to dispose of their waste by weight or volume.

However, so-called ‘pay-as-you-throw’ schemes can be difficult to implement and are unlikely to be popular

with a large proportion of the public. The Council may be required to consider such a scheme if waste

growth cannot be controlled voluntarily, but recognises that the findings from the public consultation

indicate that there is currently little public support for this type of initiative.

Finding ways to minimise the amount of waste that is produced is a cost-effective way of protecting the

environment. Waste minimisation is a pro-active response as it reduces the amount of waste that which is

produced and also reduces the costs for collecting and managing the waste.

Examples of Government initiatives to reduce packaging waste are:

� The Courtauld Commitment – this is an agreement between the Waste and Resources Action

Programme (WRAP) and major grocery organisations, which will lead to new packaging solutions and

technologies which reduce the amount of packaging that ends up in the household bin. The agreement

is a powerful vehicle for change and will result in real reductions in packaging and food waste, and thirty

major retailers, brands and suppliers have joined the Courtauld Commitment since it was launched in

July 2005.

� Plastic bags - 13 billion carrier bags which are distributed in the UK each year, and each adult receives

on average nearly 300 disposable bags every year. In February 2007, a voluntary agreement was

announced with UK retailers to reduce the overall environmental impact of carrier bags by 25% by the

end of 2008. 22 major retailers and six trade associations signed up to the agreement. However, as this

has not resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of bags distributed, the Government will bring

forward legislation in the Climate Change Bill, which will require retailers to impose a minimum charge

on single-use carrier bags, originally planned for the end of 2009. This will happen if sufficient progress

is not made on a voluntary basis.

There have been a number of programmes to develop national waste awareness and minimisation

campaigns, an example being the ‘Recycle Now’ initiatives. The main initiatives for reducing waste are:

� Reducing food waste

� Home Composting

� Re-use schemes

� Encouraging behaviour change with regard to consumption

The Council is continuing to encourage the uptake of home-composting and other initiatives through the

use of the Council’s website and the local media. The Council has become a member of the ‘Waste

Information Network’ which is an initiative set up to share information amongst local authorities in order to


70


increase the efficiency of their waste management service. This is done through a combination of

information sharing, joint procurement framework arrangements and mentoring.

5.3.1 Food waste

Approximately 6.7 million tonnes of food, or nearly one third of all the food we buy, is thrown away by UK

households every year. Some of the waste is made up of things like peelings, cores and bones, but the

majority is, or once was, perfectly good food which could have been eaten. The wasted food costs the

average family £420 a year, and also has serious environmental implications. For instance, if all of the

waste food was eaten, the carbon dioxide impact would be the equivalent of taking 1 in 5 cars off the road.

The "Love Food, Hate Waste" campaign aims to raise awareness of the need to reduce the amount of food

that we throw away, and how doing this will benefit us as consumers and the environment. It provides

handy tips, advice and recipes for leftovers to help everyone waste less food. This is an example of an

initiative which will be further encouraged in the future to help us manage this important resource.

5.3.2 Home composting

Suitable garden and vegetable waste can be composted at home, and can save money by reducing the

need to buy fertilisers and peat-based composts. The Council, initially in partnership with the Waste

Resource Action Programme (WRAP), operated a subsidised home composting scheme in which residents

could purchase home composters for a fraction of the normal retail cost. To date 20,000 of these have

been delivered to homes in North Lincolnshire. The Council continues to encourage home composting, but

without the aid of 3rd

party funding.

Further information on home composting can be found at: http://www.recyclenow.com/home/composting/

5.3.3 Re-use schemes

Unwanted items, such as furniture, household appliances and toys, can be passed onto friends or relatives,

sold, or offered to other people through the use of websites such as freecycle (www.freecycle.org). They

can also be passed on to local charity shops. The Council is continuing discussions with a number of ‘third

sector’ voluntary organisations in an attempt to build capacity within this sector and to explore potential

partnership working. Throughout the UK there are many examples of this approach mainly involving the

operational delivery of collection and re-use schemes for furniture and other bulky household items.

5.3.4 Behaviour change

There are many ways in which changes in consumption behaviour can reduce waste (and some of these

also offer the potential to save money). For example:

� Hire equipment such as DIY tools that will only be used occasionally, or consider sharing them with

friends, relatives or neighbours;

� Reduce the use of disposable products such as plastic cups and disposable razors;

� Buy longer life products, such as rechargeable batteries;

� Choose products that have as little packaging as possible; for example, loose fruit and vegetables;

� Use reusable bags rather than the plastic bags provided by retailers;

� Reduce the amount of junk mail that is received by contacting the Mailing Preference Service; and

� Use reusable cotton nappies rather than disposable nappies, and, if possible, use a nappy washing

service.


71


This is one of the most challenging aspects of delivering a waste management system in the long term, as

it is very difficult to predict future trends in waste packaging for instance, which in turn will affect the wastes

that people produce. An example of this is how waxed cartons e.g. Tetrapak were invented in the late

60s/early 70s and displaced much in the way of glass packaging. However it created a whole new waste

stream. A similar new packaging material that has been developed in the recent past is the type of

metallised plastic used in crisp wrappers and increasingly in cereal packets. Again, this is a new waste

stream, and like waxed cartons it is a compound material that is difficult to recycle.

These examples show one way in which behavioural change can cause challenges to the management of

our wastes. Another is sheer quantity of materials that we produce. As mentioned earlier, the residents of

North Lincolnshire produce an above average quantity of waste per person and this needs to be addressed

to keep costs down and reduce carbon footprint.

The principal way in which behavioural change is managed is by the use of communications and

engagement with the community. This can take a number of forms, such as leafleting, the Council website

and the local newspaper. As the latter is now printed less frequently, other ways must be found to publicise

activities.

The Council will be looking to form new groups and develop new activities that will help get the message

across that recycling and waste minimisation are important and need to be constantly improved.

5.3.5 Downsizing residual waste containers

In order to support its waste minimisation programme, North Lincolnshire Council has adopted measures

that include the non-collection of excess or side waste and a ‘flat lid’ policy. The Council has also

introduced differential charging for new and replacement residual waste bins. This provides households

with the opportunity to ‘downsize’ their standard 240 litre capacity residual waste container, free of charge,

for a smaller 140 litre version. From April 2008, all new occupiers of homes, both existing and new-build,

will be issued with a 140 litre residual waste container as standard.

North Lincolnshire Council will continue to promote its waste minimisation initiatives. Further information on

these activities can be found on the recycling section of North Lincolnshire Council’s web site, which will

become more important as time goes on in connecting with the population.

5.4 Improving recycling

The national publicity/education campaign aimed at increasing the number of people who participate in

recycling schemes is the “Recycle Now” campaign. This was launched in September 2004 by WRAP to

replace the ‘Rethink Rubbish’ campaign. The ‘Recycle Now’ campaign has a distinctive logo, and its

website provides both information for the public and resources which local authorities can use and adapt to

compliment their existing waste promotion campaigns. North Lincolnshire Council has adopted the new

logo that is now widely used in all relevant promotional/campaign material. See logo below:


72


The Council recognise that the introduction of the alternate week collection scheme raised a number of

concerns for householders. One of the main concerns is the limited space in the residual waste container,

and the main reason for this is the volume required for disposal of both plastic bottles and cardboard.

Consequently, in September 2007, the Council introduced a scheme to separately collect both plastic

bottles and cardboard for recycling.

The Council will also further increase household waste recycling through a combination of measures

including the following:

� Optimising existing kerbside box and bin collections to encourage the highest levels of householder

participation and to maximise yields of material recovered. This will include the provision of tailored

service solutions for individual households to match their specific needs with the requirements of this

Strategy;

� Revising the collection rounds to integrate with the commercial collections service.

� Continuing to improve and enhance the network of HRCs through a programme of investment in

security and management of commercial waste arisings.

� Developing the recycling of WEEE, in compliance with Government's legislation, at the eight HRCs in

order to help meet the new targets set by the EU.

� Incentivising materials capture through the municipal waste recycling service contract.

� Further promoting and practically assisting the recycling of waste from schools.

� Assessing opportunities to improve recycling opportunities at high-rise flats and other ‘hard to reach’

properties.

The Council has set a revised target to recycle a minimum of 60% of household waste by 2019/20, and

anticipates that this target will be achieved if the measures described above are implemented and the

alternate week collection regime is maintained in its current form with augmentation by a new organic

waste treatment arrangement. This will enable the collection of food waste, either separately or together

with the collected green wastes. This recovered material must be treated in an ABPR compliant process

e.g. Anaerobic digestion (AD) or in-vessel composting (IVC).

5.5 Requirements for new capacity

The areas where additional waste handling/treatment capacity could be required in the short to medium

term in order to implement the strategy are:

� Capacity to handle additional recyclables;

� Capacity to treat residual municipal waste (with or without food waste);

� Capacity to manage similar, non-municipal, waste streams arising locally; and

� Additional landfill capacity.


73


5.5.1 Recycling

The currently available capacity for both dry recyclable materials and green waste is sufficient to handle the

predicted tonnages of these materials collected by the Council for the duration of this strategy period. In

order, however, for North Lincolnshire to meet and maintain its recycling target rate of 60%, additional

treatment capacity may be required.

The level of recycling would increase if additional food/kitchen waste was collected from households for

composting. However, whilst garden waste can be composted at existing facilities, the requirements of the

Animal By-Product Regulations would require the additional food/kitchen waste to be composted in

specialised ‘in-vessel’ composting facilities or digested anaerobically. This means that if additional

food/kitchen waste was to be collected for composting, new treatment facilities would have to be

constructed in the North Lincolnshire area.

An opportunity possibly exists to construct such a facility on the site of the existing Lower Trent Composting

Plant (LTCP). This would necessitate an amendment to the existing planning permission and

environmental permit. The approval of the State Veterinary Service (now Animal Health) would also be

required. If this was deemed not to be an appropriate location or insufficient capacity exists on site, then a

separate site would be required. A suitable location for such a site needs to be identified within the Local

Development Framework.

5.5.2 Waste treatment

5.5.2.1 Residual Waste

The contract with SITA for residual waste disposal expired in 2011. This has been replaced by an interim

contract with Biffa to support the ongoing process of procuring a permanent solution for treating residual

waste. A new residual waste management contract, which integrates with the existing contracts for

recycling and the proposed changes to the organics system, is required.

The Council conducted a “soft market testing” exercise with potential contractors for a residual waste

treatment plant in October 2006 and again in January 2009. The aim of this was to assess how competitive

the bidding process for this new facility would be. The exercise identified a number of planning issues

regarding the development of the LDF that will need to be considered. There were also concerns that

because the amount of waste produced in North Lincolnshire is relatively small, when compared to that

produced by other WDAs, bidders may be more likely to concentrate on larger, more attractive, contracts.

An Outline Business Case (OBC) for the procurement of capacity for residual waste treatment has been

produced. This highlighted the need to begin this procurement as quickly as possible.

From the assessment of options conducted during the formulation of this latest strategy review, the highest

scoring option for residual waste treatment is a local MBT facility. However, the rules and procedures for

procuring a new waste disposal contract mean that whilst North Lincolnshire Council can specify that the

successful contractor must meet North Lincolnshire’s landfill allowance targets, and that the treatment plant

must not compromise any future action that North Lincolnshire Council may take to further increase

recycling or composting, the risks involved in specifying the type of technology are most suited to a more

open approach such as through competitive dialogue.


74


It should also be noted that whilst the EOA process has identified the best option for the environment, the

studies have shown that in terms of the quantities of CO2 saved, as shown in the WRATE analysis, a

number of other technologies were very close. The figures show that options for MBT, EfW locally and ATT

locally are all ‘good’ options and all have considerable benefits to the environment compared with the

current regime.

Of the other factors that were considered, such as deliverability and technical considerations, these issues

can be overcome to a large extent through the procurement process, particularly if the funding of the

project allows a degree of risk to be adopted, or if the Council has a stake in the facility through part or full

ownership.

An important issue, that may limit the scope for new facilities, lies in the quantity of waste produced. The

amount needing to be disposed of is around 47,000 tonnes per annum rising to around 69,000 tonnes in 25

years time. This is generally on the small side for most technologies based upon incineration such as EfW,

and also for ATT technologies where the optimum size is currently considered to be 80,000 tonnes per

annum. One of the key factors will therefore be the source of the 3rd

party waste that is used to top up the

facility.

Identifying possible sites for the construction of waste treatment facilities is a key feature of the Local

Development Planning process. The Council recognises that obtaining planning permission for a waste

treatment facility may present a challenge. Some issues, such as traffic flow (both for delivery of material to

the site and transport of both products to markets and reject streams to landfill) are likely to be similar for

any type of plant, but there will be different issues for different types of plants, such as emissions from a

combustion facility, odour from compost plants, and visual impacts (particularly from the chimney

associated with any combustion facility). Consequently, the process for obtaining planning permission will

include public consultation.

North Lincolnshire is an ideal place to locate a waste management facility, as there is an abundance of

brown-field sites, together with well developed power transmission infrastructure and transport links.

Two notable projects have obtained planning permission in recent years. One of these was an MBT

proposal on a site provided by the Council on the Normanby Enterprise Park, as a part of a recent

procurement project with a capacity of 69,000 tonnes. The other was a private company looking to develop

an ATT technology with a capacity of 96,000 tonnes. There are other initiatives mooted, and a considerable

scope for other facilities on the South Humber bank strategic development area and various industrial sites

within the Scunthorpe area.

5.5.2.2 Organic Waste

North Lincolnshire Council receives around 25,000 tonnes of green garden and food wastes every year.

Currently, 18,000 tonnes of this is collected separately both at the kerbside and through the network of

Household Recycling Centres (HRC). The balance, an estimated 7,000 tonnes of food waste, is collected

along with the residual waste. Consideration is currently being given to the relative merits, or otherwise, of

recovering the food waste. This could be achieved either as part of the existing greenwaste collections or

as a stand alone food waste only collection scheme. Recovery of food wastes by either of these two routes

will require a new service contract and/or a new ABPR compliant treatment facility to be procured.

As discussed before, there are considerable benefits to using AD for the processing of food wastes,

through the generation of electricity mainly, but also the production of a soil improver/ fertiliser which may


75


find a local agricultural market. The alternative of IVC also represents a good alternative to the current

arrangement as the technology is well established, comparatively simple and well proven.

The preferred option for the treatment of the organic wastes is AD. The problem lies in the sizing of the

plant and the cost implications of collecting and treating this element of the Council’s waste stream. For

commercial reasons, the ideal size for an AD plant is around 40,000 tonnes per annum. The contractors

also prefer to have a waste input that is all food wastes generally as this gives the greatest amount of

biogas possible which increases the revenues and reduces the gate fee.

It is only feasible to collect approximately 6,000 to 8000 tonnes of municipal food waste from North

Lincolnshire; the balance would be green and garden waste which is less desirable for AD. This indicates

that a plant of an overall capacity of around 12,000 – 15,000 tonnes may be feasible, but this will result in a

higher gate fee. This assumes that the plant was dedicated solely to North Lincolnshire waste.

If it were to be a ‘merchant’ facility treating wastes from a variety of sources, this would make the plant

much more viable and recent studies conducted confirm this. Further assessments will be undertaken to

find ways in which an AD solution for organic waste can be procured, through partnerships, joint ownership

or by part financing the project and having equity (a share) of the plant.

5.5.3 Landfill capacity

There is sufficient capacity at the Roxby landfill site to take all of North Lincolnshire’s residual municipal

waste until the end of the interim waste disposal contract in 2013/14 and any extension. The full lifespan of

this site is not known. This will be dependant upon input rates, and currently the site also receives waste

from a number of private sector waste collection companies.

For the remaining landfill sites in the Borough an important factor that may reduce landfill capacity in the

area is the duration of planning consents. It is our understanding that these will need to be renewed in the

near future for several local sites, effectively reducing the available capacity.

This pressure along with the large amount of waste coming into the Borough means that although landfill

capacity is significantly greater than in other similar sized areas, the availability cannot be guaranteed. Due

to the need to move towards a ‘zero waste’ system it is intended that landfill in future will generally only be

needed for small quantities of residues left over after treatment in the new facilities which will be procured.

5.6 Further consultation

A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the waste strategy will be conducted. This is currently

being prepared in tandem with this document. It will include consultation through public engagement with

all stakeholders, including internal stakeholders such as the elected representatives, who are consulted at

all stages of the process.

The provision of any new waste treatment facilities will require additional consultation with all stakeholders

as part of the process for obtaining planning permission for such facilities. This process has already been

undertaken by the private companies mentioned above in respect of the residual waste facilities that have

planning permission. It demonstrates that planning permission is very much achievable in North

Lincolnshire for waste facilities.


76


5.7 Impact of the waste strategy on our carbon footprint

Methane emissions from biodegradable waste in landfills account for 40% of all UK methane emissions and

3% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions (methane is 25 times as damaging a greenhouse gas as carbon

dioxide). Consequently, any measure that reduces the amount of waste that is landfilled will reduce the

carbon dioxide emissions associated with waste management activities.

The recycling of materials saves the energy and emission that would otherwise be required to extract raw

materials. In the UK, the recycling of paper, glass, plastics, aluminium and steel is estimated to save more

than 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year through avoided primary material production (this is

equivalent to annual use of 5 million cars or 14% of UK transport sector emissions). Table 5.1 shows the

carbon benefits of diverting waste from landfill in terms of the kilograms of carbon dioxide saved per tonne

of material recycled.

Table 5.1: Carbon benefits of diverting waste from landfill

Material kg carbon dioxide saved per tonne material recycled8

Paper 1,400

Kitchen waste 223

Garden waste 78

Plastic 1,022

Ferrous metal 1,350

Aluminium 11,036

Glass 584

Paper and food/garden waste are biodegradable, and produce methane if they are landfilled. Therefore, the

savings in carbon dioxide emissions due to recycling are due to both avoiding the need to landfill the waste

and the savings achieved through recycling. Plastic, metal and glass are not biodegradable, and do not

produce any methane if they are landfilled. Therefore, there are no additional savings in carbon dioxide

resulting from the avoidance of landfill gas emissions with respect to these materials.

The amount of waste that is landfilled can be further reduced by treating waste which is not suitable for

recycling in order to reduce its biodegradable content.

Table 5.2 shows the net greenhouse gas impacts (in terms of savings per tonne of waste diverted from

landfill), of a variety of waste treatment technologies. The figures include the impact of avoiding landfilling –

i.e. they are the net carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that result from shifting waste from landfill into

energy from waste technologies. They also include the carbon dioxide impacts of transporting waste to the

facility, and the carbon dioxide impacts offset through avoiding alternative generation of electricity or heat.

_________________________

8 Source – Table A30 in Annex A, England Waste Strategy 2007


77


Table 5.2: Net greenhouse gas impacts of waste treatment technologies

Treatment process kg carbon dioxide saved per tonne treated9

Energy from waste (EfW) 232

Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plant producing a refuse derived fuel

570

Anaerobic digestion (AD) 430

Gasification 524

The reductions for MBT, AD and Gasification include materials separated for recycling, but markets for

these may not be available

Although the Government is not generally expressing a preference for one type of technology over another,

it has expressed a preference for recovering energy from waste that cannot be reused or recycled. It has

also expressed the view that any given technology is (where applicable) more beneficial if both heat and

electricity can be recovered. Particular attention should therefore be given to siting plant to maximise

opportunities for CHP.

Waste management activities will also generate carbon dioxide emissions due to the transport impact of

collecting and delivering waste and recyclables to suitable facilities. However, these transport impacts will

have a minimal effect on overall carbon dioxide emissions when compared with the reduction in waste that

is landfilled.

The overall impact of the England Waste Strategy 2007 was expected to be an annual net reduction in

global greenhouse gas emissions from waste management of at least 9.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide

equivalent per year compared to 2006. This is equivalent to annual use of around 3 million cars.

The carbon savings from the technologies modelled in the EOA assessment are shown in the table below

and are calculated from the WRATE studies data for the whole service. It shows that there are major

savings in the amount of carbon that is produced by adopting one of the leading technologies in the study.

This may be as much as approximately 27,000 tonnes of C02 per annum.

Table 5.3 Calculated Carbon Savings

EfW (R) MBT(C) ATT MBT(EfW)

Climate change: GWP 100a (kg CO2-Eq)

23,965,817 26,821,808 17,577,003 25,645,057

5.8 Overall conclusions

The current waste management system has been effective in raising recycling rates to a level which

compares well with other authorities, in terms of both performance and the cost to the householder. The

service has a high level of expressed satisfaction amongst local residents.

There is no intention of making any substantial changes to the kerbside collection service. Instead,

opportunities of providing a more effective collection service through enhanced communications and

behavioural change campaigns will be examined.

_________________________

9 Source – Table E1 in Annex E, England Waste Strategy 2007


78


The high level of waste that is received per capita is an issue that needs to be addressed through general

communications, and through review of the HRC service. Minimisation of wastes deposited at HRCs will be

achieved through initiatives aimed at reducing the abuse of the system by opening HRCs to traders, but at

the same time implementing better security and monitoring of their use.

There is an intention to expand and enhance the collection of recyclable materials from commercial

premises by integrating the current collection infrastructure with the commercial collection service.

In order to tackle the medium-term objective of moving to a ‘zero waste’ waste management system, a new

residual and organic waste management contracts is to be procured, ideally based on building waste

facilities within the Borough.

In order to have high level of flexibility in delivering the Council’s new waste management facilities, the

approach has to be attractive to the market. As a result of the relatively small amount of municipal waste

available it is likely that additional incentives will need to be provided to commercial organisations to make

the projects deliverable.

Bearing this in mind and the conclusion that it would be preferable to have a shorter contract length than is

currently standard practice, there may be a need to provide some of the funding of the plant. The best way

to do this is through ‘prudential borrowing’ which is a government approved way of raising funds. This

essentially is a framework applying to Authorities that allows them to borrow in accordance with the

Prudential Code, which has been developed as a professional code of practice to support Authorities in

making their decisions.

Prudential borrowing will also provide an easier route for prospective contractors as it will reduce the

amount of money that they have to raise. It would also have benefits such as reducing the gate fee and is

the best way of reducing the length of the contract. It means that the Council will have a stake in whatever

plant is procured. This will ensure that there is a greater say over how the plant is managed and run.

This would mean the Council pays towards the capital and therefore take on greater risk, but also a greater

share of the rewards. The generation of electricity is particularly attractive to the Council in providing long-

term returns on their investment.

The Council used to collect food waste together with the green waste collection. However, this had to be

stopped as catering and animal wastes have to be processed via IVC or AD due to their Animal By-

Products Regulations (ABPR) categorisation. This has meant that their overall recycling/composting rate

has decreased. The Council is therefore looking to procure a treatment facility to treat separately collected

food waste. Ideally this would be an AD plant, in order to provide an integrated approach with the long-term

carbon strategy and to get the maximum value from the waste through energy recovery.

The affect of diverting food waste from the residual waste stream on the treatment technology procured for

treatment of residual waste will have to be taken into consideration. If the type of treatment facility for

residual waste decided upon is an MBT plant, this will be in direct competition for the food waste in the

residual stream. Therefore, it is important an integrated approach is taken and that flexibility in both

solutions is provided.

In the absence of locally available merchant capacity, the Council has tried to procure an AD facility in the

past. However, it was considered too expensive for the relatively small quantity of food waste it was going

to treat. If the Council wishes to procure a facility, it is likely the most affordable solution will be to join with


79


neighbouring authorities and procure a larger facility to treat their collective food waste. This is more likely

to provide greater value for money through economies of scale. Alternatively the prudential borrowing route

could be applied to the procurement of an organic waste treatment plant as with a residual treatment plant

as outlined above.


80


In order to ensure that the strategy is implemented, there is clearly a need for all activities to be co-

ordinated and monitored. North Lincolnshire Council will, through its performance management system and

service planning linked to the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committees, monitor waste activities and ensure that

the strategy is delivered.

The Council will also undertake a range of consultation measures, as the strategy is implemented.

The studies in the preceding chapters, together with the Action Plan provided below give an analysis of the

current waste management system and the measures that the Council plan to take in order to meet future

waste policy objectives.

The actions have been colour coded according to their prioritisation as outlined below;

• High Priority

• Medium Priority

• Low Priority

6.1 Short term action plan (April 2012 – March 2017)

• 1) Procurement of Residual Waste Service

There is a need to procure a sustainable approach to dealing with the Council’s residual waste, which is

currently landfilled. Although the LATS system has been abolished there is still a need to secure a solution

which allows the Council to gain revenues and other benefits, such as carbon reduction. This will, also

‘future proof’ the Council against any changes to the landfill tax regime.

• 2) Procurement of Organic Waste Treatment Service

There is a need to procure a sustainable approach to dealing with the Council’s organic waste. Currently,

the green waste element of this waste stream is windrow composted, but a substantial tonnage of food

waste is landfilled within the residual waste element. Although the LATS system has been abolished there

is still a need to secure a solution which allows the Council to gain revenues and other benefits, such as

carbon reduction. This will, also ‘future proof’ the Council against any changes to the landfill tax regime.

• 3) Procurement of a Municipal Waste Recycling Service

This is ongoing. The new service will commence in November 2012. The specification includes for the

provision of logistical support to the HRC network and brokering of all recovered commodities. Both the

Council and its contracting partner will be incentivised to maximise householder participation and material

capture rates for the installed kerbside and bring recycling schemes which will remain unchanged.

• 4) Waste Collection Round Optimisation

This is ongoing. Reconfiguration of established waste and recycling collection rounds is necessary to

provide an equitable workload for the collection resource and maximise operational efficiency. The new

6. Action Plan


81


rounds will also acknowledge expressed customer concerns and factor in future anticipated growth in the

number of households. Household and commercial waste collections will be integrated as far as is practical

to do so. This will enhance vehicle utilisation and provide opportunities for businesses to access the same

recycling services as those enjoyed by residents. The marginal cost of providing separate commercial

recycling collections will be significantly reduced. This will improve the competitiveness of the service and

encourage take up. Implementation of the revised collection rounds will coincide with commencement of

the replacement Municipal Waste Recycling service

• 5) Commercial Waste Recycling

Despite high levels of recycling of the household waste stream, the recovery of value from commercial

waste produced locally is limited. The Council now offers separate collection of recyclable materials from

those commercial waste producers with whom it has accounts. Take up of this service is low. Many more

businesses operating locally have no formal contracts in place and little or no information is available

regarding their waste outputs in terms of volume or composition. Performance data relating to the operation

of the Household Recycling Centre (HRC) network supports the view that small and medium sized

enterprises (SME) currently consign waste via this route without the Councils prior knowledge or consent.

Working with partners, including the Environment Agency and Trade Associations, the Council is keen to

manage this unregulated business and actively encourage the take up of this service but in an open and

lawful manner and at a reduced cost to the public purse. .

• 6) Household Waste Recycling Centre Improvements

The level of HRC provision remains amongst the highest within local government. The network is highly

valued by local residents but individual sites are under utilised. The infrastructure is also in need of

improvement if the sites are to remain fit for purpose. The Council has resolved to bring the operational

management of the network back into direct control and has allocated funds through the capital programme

for much needed improvement. This will include the installation of technology, including automatic number

plate recognition (ANPR), which will enable the capture of management information and aid the regulation

of site users. Proposals include permitting the use of the network by commercial organisations based

locally and providing reuse opportunities for third sector partners.

• 7) Waste Reduction Strategies

Practical waste reduction measures include Home Composting and the Mail Preference Service. The

continued operation of alternate weekly collections of residual waste and the implementation of policies in

respect of side waste, raised lids and container provision have all conspired to encourage more resource

recovery and a reduction in landfilling. Despite this, the amount of waste collected and received per capita

remains 20% above the UK average. A significant proportion of this is believed to be commercial waste

similar in composition and consigned as household waste through the HRC network. The Council will

continue to promote any and all measures that move the management of waste up the hierarchy and

awaits, with interest, the first National Waste Prevention Plan expected in 2013.

• 8) Education Campaigns

Encouragement of sustainable waste management through schools has always been a key element of the

ongoing campaign to raise awareness and positively influence behaviours. This will continue. Targeted

campaigns such as Love Food, Hate Waste have also been used to discourage wasteful behaviour and

encourage more reuse and recycling. Practical interventions such as access control measures on HRC’s

have been and continue to be used effectively to alert the commercial sector to their legal obligations with

regard to waste management. This will be further enhanced by proposals to legitimise the use of HRC’s by


82


businesses based locally. Transformation of the way in which the Council communicates and engages with

service users is also ongoing. The use of social media to deliver and receive key service messages and the

use of digital technology to provide improved access to services and information is imminent.

• 9) Woodfuel Programme

The Council is currently researching opportunities to utilise the waste wood it routinely receives at the

network of HRC’s plus that generated by its woodland management activity. Specifically, the Council is

keen to explore the use of this material as a fuel in the wood burning boilers now installed within a number

of school and leisure facilities locally.

• 10) Third Sector Programme

Capacity within voluntary and community groups (the Third Sector) operating locally is limited. A number of

these are currently involved in the localised delivery of waste collection and reuse schemes e.g. furniture.

In recent years attempts have been made to increase capacity within the sector to enable them to become

more involved in larger scale initiatives throughout the whole of North Lincolnshire. This work will continue.

• 11) Waste Reduction - Ongoing Campaigns

The Council’s ongoing programme of practical waste reduction measures and policies will continue to be

used to ensure that the need for the public to minimise the amount of waste generated is addressed. This

will continue to be done by the Council’s Waste Management team using all available media, and through

engagement with the community as a whole.

• 12) Tailored Collections

The current programme of permitting the exchange of residual waste capacity for additional recycling

capacity will continue and will be actively promoted. This has been identified as being vital in sustaining the

capture of dry recyclables and organic wastes.

• 13) Customer Survey

Subject to the adoption of a Corporate system for continuously capturing and assessing the extent of

expressed satisfaction with waste management and other Council service delivery e.g. Govmetric, an

annual survey will be conducted. The information obtained will inform the annual service review and other

policy drivers.

• 14) Annual Service Review

An annual service review will be carried out of the installed waste management systems and policies to

confirm their fit for purpose status. This will focus on the performance of the kerbside collection systems,

the interface with the residual and organic waste treatment systems and the effectiveness or otherwise of

adopted policies around container provision and servicing. Emphasis will also be given to peripheral waste

services e.g. assisted collections, bulky items collections, clinical waste collections, HRC access permits

and the eligibility criteria for these.

• 15) Joint Working Initiatives


83


The concept of joint working with neighbouring authorities will continue to be explored and will include

education and other campaigns, service delivery and benchmarking. Other initiatives include the possibility

of joint procurement projects and the provision of Recycling Credits to third parties.

• 16) Waste Composition Analysis

The periodic, detailed analysis of the residual and other elements of the municipal waste stream is

essential for strategy and policy development. In certain circumstances, it may also be a contractual

requirement and will inform discussions around performance and future service development. Any and all

waste compositional analyses will rigidly adhere to HM Government guidelines on data protection..

• 17) Impact Assessment

In accordance with the Council’s policy instrument, the impact of any and all proposed waste service

amendments will be assessed. This will include assessing the carbon impacts and the effect, if any this

may have on footprinting studies. This will allow the improvements that have been made to be

demonstrated to a wide selection of stakeholders.


84


Table 6.1: Short-term action plan (2012 – March 2017)

Priority Action Projected Start Year

Timescale (if applicable)

Activities Impact

1) Procurement of Residual Waste Service

2012 2yrs EU procurement project based upon the restricted procedure or competitive dialogue depending upon

chosen technology.

Aim is to help this to develop a ‘zero waste’ waste management system, and to divert as much

residual waste from landfill as we can.

2) Procurement of Organic Waste Service

2012 2yrs EU procurement project based upon the restricted procedure or competitive dialogue depending upon

chosen technology.

Aim is to maximise the value gained from organic waste as a resource for the generation of energy.

3) Procurement of Municipal Waste Recycling Service

2012 1 yr EU procurement project based upon the restricted procedure or competitive dialogue depending upon

chosen technology.

Aim is to improve participation and capture rates for recyclable materials and maximise income

without disrupting services.

4) Waste Collection Round Optimisation

2012 1 yr Use of bespoke software to reorganise waste collection rounds and provide most efficient

solution.

More equitable distribution of workload, improved customer experience, most efficient use of

transport and room for future expansion.

5) Commercial Waste Recycling

2012 2 yrs Provide increased opportunity for SME’s and other businesses to actively participate in recycling.

Encourage more sustainable waste management within business sector, increased compliance and

enhanced community leadership role for NLC.

6) Household Recycling Centre Improvements

2012 3 yrs Physical and operational improvements to HRC network and service delivery.

Maintain sites fit for purpose. Better customer experience, increased recycling performance, use

of sites by SME’s and better regulated business.

7) Waste Reduction Strategies 2012 Ongoing Practical measures to counter increased waste growth and positively influence lifestyle changes.

Waste outputs on a per household and per capita basis decline, capture rates for recyclable

materials improve, reduced cost base.

8) Education and Campaigns 2012 Ongoing Work with schools and other stakeholders to raise awareness of waste hierarchy and encourage more

sustainable waste management.

Maintain and improve recycling performance, increased landfill diversion.

9) Woodfuel Programme 2012 2 yrs Research opportunity for ‘closed loop’ recycling of waste wood into wood fuel for use locally.

Supply wood fuel to NLC owned and operated wood fuel boilers e.g. The Pods.

10) Third Sector Programme 2012 2 yrs Build capacity within the voluntary & community sectors to enable delivery of furniture, etc., re-use

schemes.

Encourage social enterprise, improve reuse of materials, increased landfill diversion, improve

bulky items collection service.

11) Waste Reduction – Ongoing Campaigns

2012

Ongoing Active campaigning in support of local and national policy objectives to reduce waste and encourage

recycling, etc.

Reduce the volumes of waste requiring to be managed, influence positive lifestyle changes,

reduce waste management costs.


85


Priority Action Projected Start Year


Activities Impact

12) Tailored Collections 2012 Ongoing Continue to provide bespoke recycling opportunities for individual households within broad

framework.

Practically encourages more recycling and reduces waste to landfill.

13) Customer Survey 2012 Ongoing Use of corporate and service based media to capture customer feedback on waste management

service delivery, policy and strategy.

Assist in shaping service delivery.

14) Annual Service Review 2012 Ongoing Produce and publish non statutory annual waste management plan.

Inform service users and review service delivery.

15) Joint Working Initiatives 2013 Ongoing Consider local, sub-region and regional opportunities for joint working on waste.

Identify potential synergies and share best practice. Benchmarking opportunity. Improved

working relationships.

16) Waste Composition Analysis

2013 Bi-annual Physical and chemical analysis of residual and other waste streams.

To inform waste management policy and strategy.

17) Impact Assessment 2012 To coincide with service

amendments

Complete Integrated Impact Assessment for changes in policy and/or amendments to service

delivery.

Provide greater understanding of broader social, economic and environmental impacts of proposed

service developments or reductions.


86


6.2 Medium term action plan (April 2017 – March 2025)

• 1) Re-Procurement of the Municipal Waste Recycling Service

The contract that is currently being procured for this service lasts for an initial period of 7 years with an

option to extend. The re-procurement of this service is therefore an essential aspect of the medium-term

action plan

• 2) Waste Strategy Review

It is important to maintain the Council’s knowledge base regarding its waste management activities. As part

of this it is proposed that a review of the strategy is undertaken. This will analyse performance and seek to

identify ways in which the recycling and organic waste management systems can be improved. This will

enable the Council to focus on the remainder of materials in the residual waste stream, which may have

changed in the intervening years due changes in behaviour and the legislative drivers that operate at the

time

• 3) Detailed waste flow study

As part of the process of ensuring that the Council has the best available data on which to base waste

management decisions, it is proposed that a detailed waste flow study is undertaken. This will be done in

tandem with the strategy review above. It will enable the flow of materials through the Council’s waste

management systems to be studied to enable the prioritisation of the activities needed to increase recycling

rates further and guide the long term strategy with up to date data. The effect of variations in composition

can be assessed for impact on the service as a whole and on specific technologies

• 4) Waste Composition study

It is important to periodically refresh the waste compositional analysis to understand any changes that are

taking place. These may be due to external factors e.g. the design of packaging, over which the Council

has no control, but which may impact on installed collection and treatment systems. It is also useful to

know how established policies of the Council and targeted campaigns impact upon the volume and nature

of waste presented for collection. This may help to identify the materials that may need to be targeted in

order to improve recycling rates.

• 5) Joint Working initiatives

The potential for joint working with other authorities will continue to be evaluated as part of an ongoing

process that will ensure that all of the possibilities for this are identified.


87


Table 6.2: Medium-term action plan (April 2017 – March 2025)

Priority Action Projected start Year


Activities Estimated Impact

1) Re-Procurement of the Municipal Waste Recycling Service

2019/20 1 yr EU restricted procurement procedure Best value in obtaining the delivery of the kerbside collection service

2) Waste Strategy review 2017/18 4 months Detailed appraisal of the waste management system

Ongoing improvement monitoring and development of KPIs

3) Detailed waste flow study 2017/18 4 months Study the flow of materials through the Council’s waste management systems

Inform the Waste Strategy. The effect of variations in composition

can be assessed for impact on the service as a whole and on specific

technologies

4) Waste Composition study 2017/18 4 months To establish whether further gains can be realised and which waste streams may need to be further targeted and

from which type of producer

Inform the Waste Strategy. Increased landfill diversion,

increased revenue from recyclables.

5) Joint Working initiatives

2017 Ongoing Ongoing Initiatives to encourage joint working in the field of waste

communications


88


6.3 Long term action plan (April 2025 onwards)

• 1) Re-procurement the Residual waste Contract

If the current residual procurement results in a contract of approximately 15 years in duration, this will need

to be re-procured during the life-span of the long-term action plan. Depending on the nature of the original

procurement this may be for an operator rather than design and build contract, and should therefore be of a

shorter duration than previous procurements

• 2) Re-procurement the Organic Waste Contract

Similarly for the organic treatment service, if the current residual procurement results in a contract of

approximately 15 years in duration, this will need to be re-procured during the life-span of the long-term

action plan. As before

• 3) Joint Working

The requirement to re-procure the two main elements of waste service delivery presents yet another

opportunity to align the activity within North Lincolnshire with that of neighbouring authorities. Consideration

should be given to any opportunity that may be afforded. 5) Waste Strategy Review

• 4) Waste Strategy Review

It is important to maintain the Council’s knowledge base regarding its waste management activities. As part

of this it is proposed that a review of the strategy is undertaken. This will analyse the performance of the

system and seek to identify ways in which the recycling and organic waste management systems can be

improved. This will enable the Council to focus on the remainder of materials in the residual waste stream,

which may have changed in the intervening years due changes in behaviour and the legislative drivers that

operate at the time


89


Table 6.3: Long-term action plan (April 2025 onwards)

Priority Action

Projected Start Year

Timescale if applicable)

Activities Estimated Impact

1) Re-procurement of the Residual waste Contract

2027/28 2 yrs EU procurement via restricted procedure most likely

Increased value for money from the residual service is the aim of this

2) Re-procurement of the Organic Waste Contract

2027/28 2 yrs EU procurement via restricted procedure most likely

Increased value for money is the aim of this.

3) Joint Working 2025 2 yrs To gauge opportunities for collaborative working on waste with neighbouring authorities and other

potential partners

Greater efficiency of service, economies of scale and improved working relationships within the sub region.

4) Strategy review 2026 4months Detailed appraisal of the entire system

Ongoing monitoring, service improvement and development, enhanced performance.


90


Appendix A. Glossary ___________________________________________________________________________ 91

Appendix B. Legislation and Planning _______________________________________________________________ 95

Appendix C. Roles and Responsibilities ____________________________________________________________ 103

Appendix D. Small WEEE Leaflet _________________________________________________________________ 106

Appendix E. Carbon Management Plan ____________________________________________________________ 107

Appendix F. Options Analysis ____________________________________________________________________ 108

Appendix G. Sources of Further Information _________________________________________________________ 130

Appendix H. Study Data and Models _______________________________________________________________ 133

Appendices


91


A.1. Glossary of terms

Term Explanation

Animal By-Products Animal wastes and by-products not intended for human consumption

Biodegradable Waste Any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as; food and garden waste; and paper and cardboard.

Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW)

Biodegradable waste element of municipal solid waste.

Commercial Waste Waste from individual traders, wholesalers, catering establishments, shops and offices, etc.

Comingled A mixture of recyclable materials stored together in the same container

Composting Processing of organic materials to allow their nutrients to be put back onto the land as a soil improver.

Defra The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have responsibility for national waste policy.

Energy from Waste (EfW) facility The combustion of waste under controlled conditions in which the heat released is recovered to provide hot water and steam, which is usually used for electricity generation.

Environmental Options Assessment (EOA)

An assessment that is conducted to identify the best waste management technique for a particular region.

Gasification Heating waste in a low-oxygen atmosphere at high temperatures to generate a fuel gas. This technology was used to produce gas from coal; however it is a relatively new application in relation to treating waste.

Green Waste Garden waste which is suitable for composting.

Greenhouse gas Those gas compounds in the atmosphere that reflect heat back to earth rather then letting it escape freely into space. A number of gases are involved, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, water vapour and some of the chlorofluorocarbons.

Household Waste All waste from household collection rounds, including bulky waste collections, and separated materials for recycling and composting, waste from street sweeping, schools waste, waste from litter and dog fouling bins, waste brought to recycling points and waste deposited at civic amenity sites.

Halons Halogenated organic compounds such as HCFCs

Household Recycling Centres (HRC)

Facilities provided by the Council, for residents to bring items for disposal, including bulky items, green waste, recyclables and general refuse. Sometimes called Civic Amenity Sites, or simply the “Tip”.

Industrial Waste Waste arising from factories and industrial plants.

Landfill A site for the controlled disposal of solid waste through burial on land or excavated voids such as disused quarries.

Landfill Directive A Directive on waste management from the European Commission which aims to prevent, or reduce as far as possible, the negative effects on both the environment and human health caused by landfilling of wastes.

Landfill Allowance The weight of BMW that can be landfilled.

Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS)

A scheme which allows Unitary Authorities and Waste Disposal Authorities to trade landfill allowances in order to meet their landfill allowances.

Appendix A. Glossary


92


Term Explanation

Landfill Tax A tax payable for each tonne of waste sent to landfill, introduced to encourage more sustainable means of waste management through recognising the hidden financial effects of the environmental impact of landfill.

Local Authority Locally elected body with statutory responsibilities for delivering services

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

A term for mechanical sorting/separation techniques, which is used in conjunction with biological treatment processes, such as composting.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Waste from households and other waste that, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from households.

National Performance Indicator Statutory statistical measure used to monitor service performance

Open Windrows Windrow composting consists of forming the mixture of raw materials (green waste) into long narrow piles, which are turned and re-mixed on a regular basis.

Pre-Treatment The prior sorting, chemical or biological processing of waste to reduce its volume, or reduce its hazardous nature, or facilitate its handling, or enhance its recovery

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) A solid, liquid or gaseous fuel derived from waste, which typically can be used as a fuel product by a third party user.

Recovery Recovery of energy from waste, through incineration, anaerobic digestion or other end treatment technologies allowing some of the energy value to be retrieved from the material through the generation of heat and/or power.

Recycling Creating new products from waste materials. It has three elements, the collection and processing of the materials, making the materials into a new product and the purchase of products with recycled material contents.

Reduction Not creating waste in the first place.

Reuse Using materials again, or many times, without reprocessing.

Renewables Fuels or materials that do not rely on sources of fossil carbon such as gas or coal

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

A directive implemented in England and Wales in July 2004. It provides a process of evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy, plan, strategy or programme.

Stakeholder Anyone who has an interest or involvement in waste management in North Lincolnshire.

Sustainability Meeting the needs of the present without damaging the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Syngas A synthetic gas made by reacting carbon dioxide and steam at high temperature

Unitary Authority A Local Authority which is responsible for both collecting and disposing of MSW (North Lincolnshire is a Unitary Authority),

wastedataflow The system for reporting waste statistics in the UK

Waste Collection Authority (WCA) A District or Borough Council which has responsibility for collecting municipal solid waste.

Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) A Local Authority (usually a County Council) which is responsible for disposing of MSW


93


A.2. Acronyms

Abbreviation Term in Full

ABP Animal By-Products

AD Anaerobic Digestion

AH Animal Health

ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition

ATT Advanced Thermal Treatment

BCS Battery Compliance Scheme

BMW Biodegradable Municipal Waste

BPEO Best Practicable Environmental Option

BVPI Best Value Performance Indicator

CCG Close Coupled Gasification

CCS Carbon capture and storage

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CoD Certificate of Destruction

CPF Carbon price floor

CRR Campaign for Real Recycling

CRT Cathode Ray Tube

DCF Designated Collection Facility

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

Defra Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DPD Development Plan Document

EA Environment Agency

EC European Commission

EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment

EfW Energy from Waste

EOA Environmental Options Assessment

EU European Union

FIT CfD Feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIB Green Investment Bank

GWP Global Warming Potential

HRC Household Recycling Centre

IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

IVC In Vessel Composting

LACMW Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste

LACW Local Authority Collected Waste

LATS Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

LDA Large Domestic Appliances

LDF Local Development Framework

LTCP Lower Trent Composting Plant

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

MEP Member of the European Parliament


94


Abbreviation Term in Full

MHT Mechanical Heat Treatment

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MWMS Municipal Waste Management Strategy

NAWDO National Association of Waste Disposal Officers

NI National Indicator

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

OBC Outline Business Case

ODS Ozone Depleting Substances

PAS Publically Acceptable Standards

PCS Producer Compliance Scheme

PFI Private Finance Initiative

PPC Pollution Prevention Control

PPG Planning Policy Guidance

PPS Planning Policy Statements

RDA Regional Development Agency

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

RHI Renewable Heat Incentive

ROC Renewable Obligations Certificate

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy

TEEP Technically, Economically or Environmentally Practicable

SDA Small Domestic Appliances

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SME Small to Medium Enterprise

SPA Special Protection Area

SRF Solid Recovered Fuel

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

WCA Waste Collection Authority

WDA Waste Disposal Authority

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WET Waste Emissions Trading

WFD Waste Framework Directive

WID Waste Incineration Directive

WML Waste Management Licence

WRAP Waste Resources Action Programme

WRATE Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment


95


B.1. Definition of waste

Guidance Note Published by Defra

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/la-definition/

Previously the term ‘Municipal Waste’, as used in the UK, was used in waste policies and nationally

reported data to refer to waste collected by local authorities. In fact, the definition of municipal waste as

described in the Landfill Directive includes both household waste and that from other sources which is

similar in nature and composition. This definition includes a significant proportion of waste generated by

businesses and not collected by Local Authorities. In 2010, negotiations with the EU Commission and

consultation with the waste community redefined national targets and the effects of this change in relation

to the EU Landfill Directive targets. The review of waste policies will clarify any consequences for the

Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

To remove ambiguity, in the future, references to ‘municipal waste’ will refer to the new definition. Therefore

there is a need to define a new term to describe the data collected by WasteDataFlow. The agreed

terminology arises from Defra’s response to the 2010 consultation on meeting the EU Landfill Diversion

Targets in England.

B.1.1. Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste

Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste (LACMW) refers to the previous ‘municipal’ element of the waste

collected by local authorities. That is household waste and business waste where collected by the local

authority and which is similar in nature and composition as required by the Landfill Directive. This is the

definition that will be used for LATS allowances.

B.1.2. Local Authority Collected Waste

Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) is all waste collected by the local authority. This is a slightly

broader concept than LACMW as it would include both this and non municipal fractions such as

construction and demolition waste. LACW is the definition that will be used in statistical publications, which

previously referred to municipal waste.

B.1.3. WasteDataFlow Statistics

From 2011, statistical releases and outputs from WasteDataFlow will be branded as Local Authority

Collected Waste. This reflects the coverage of the data collected. Previous outputs may be found which are

described as ‘municipal waste’ but will purely reflect the old description – the data will not have changed

and will only cover LA activity. We expect it will take some time for the new terminology to become

established.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/local-authorities/landfill-scheme/

Appendix B. Legislation and Planning


96


B.2. Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

B.2.1. Introduction

The landfilling of waste, especially biodegradable waste, can pollute the environment and produce

greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.

The UK and other EU countries have agreed to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going

to landfill to prevent or reduce as far as possible any damage to the environment caused by landfilling such

as the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil, air and the production of greenhouse gases which

contribute to climate change.

The basis of this agreement is the EU Landfill Directive which sets challenging targets for the UK and other

EU countries to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) sent to landfill. The Landfill

Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) was set up to assign targets to individual authorities and determine a

mechanism by which allowances could be traded with the aim of providing a cost effective way for the

country to achieve landfill diversion targets.

To enable England to meet its share of the UK target, waste disposal authorities in England were given

individual targets and the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) was introduced to enable local

authorities to trade allowances in a cost effective way.

B.2.1.1. Latest News – Ending of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

The Waste Review has announced the ending of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) after the

2012/13 scheme year in England.

Defra has taken this decision after a careful analysis of the range of policies needed to enable England to

meet landfill diversion targets in 2013 and 2020. This analysis, along with responses to the consultation on

meeting landfill diversion targets launched in March 2010, has shown that LATS is no longer the major

driver for diverting waste. The Landfill Tax is now much more of an incentive for local authorities to reduce

the waste they send to landfill.

LATS has proven effective in influencing local authorities to take action to divert biodegradable waste from

landfill. This has been through a combination of waste prevention measures, increasing recycling and

composting, and investing in waste treatment facilities. Defra has already announced that England has met

the 2010 EU Landfill Diversion Target, and is making good progress towards meeting the 2013 and 2020

targets. But it is to end LATS after the 2012/13 scheme year, and rely instead on existing measures such

as the Landfill Tax to deliver reductions in the amount of waste sent to landfill. This approach is consistent

with the direction of the Government’s wider review of waste policies, removes unnecessary burdens on

those affected, and removes a potential barrier for small businesses to manage their waste in a more

environmentally friendly way.

Ending LATS does not mean that diverting waste from landfill is any less of a priority, just that the means of

driving this have changed. Waste still needs to be diverted from landfill to ensure that environmental

benefits, and the Landfill Diversion Targets, are achieved. Local authorities should bear in mind that the

requirements of LATS remain in place and will be enforced until the end of the 2012/13 scheme year.


97


B.2.1.2. Key facts and figures

Under the EU Landfill Directive, the UK is obligated to reduce the amount of BMW sent to landfill based on

the amount of this material landfilled in 1995 to 75% by 2010, to 50% by 2013 and to 35% by 2020. The

definition of municipal waste recently changed and the tonnage of the new targets is given below:

Table B.1: Landfill Diversion Targets (‘000 tonnes)

2010 2013 2020

England 21,773 14,515 10,161

Scotland 2,697 1,798 1,258

Wales 1,378 919 643

Northern Ireland 919 612 429

UK 26,766 17,844 12,491

Following discussions with the European Union, Defra has changed the definition of municipal waste, and

now includes some Commercial and Industrial waste as well as most of the existing local authority

collected waste.

B.2.2. LATS Registers

The Electronic Register of Landfill Allowances has been developed by Defra to record all allowances

allocated to each waste disposal authority and to facilitate the banking, borrowing and trading of

allowances. The Register is available at http://lats.defra.gov.uk

Defra has also created a public landfill allowance register and a register of financial penalties.

B.2.3. Relevant legislation and regulations

The Landfill Directive is implemented in England by the Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act (2003)

and the Regulations made under it. The WET Act provides the framework for a Landfill Allowance Trading

Scheme designed to implement Article 5(2) of the Landfill Directive.

The Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) set targets for EU Member States to reduce the amount of

biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. These targets were transposed into legislation by the WET

Act. Until recently, municipal waste covered by the WET Act has been defined as waste collected under

arrangements made by local authorities. The UK has now agreed with the European Commission that this

approach is too narrowly focused, and that we should include more commercial waste collected by the

private sector.

This new interpretation means that the UK’s landfill diversion targets need to be revised, and new terms are

needed for the purposes of landfill allowance schemes. The Landfill (Maximum Landfill Amount)

Regulations 2011 sets the revised national targets. The WET Act 2003 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

specify the part of the new interpretation of “municipal waste” that is covered by the Landfill Allowance

Trading Scheme and similar schemes in the devolved administrations. These two pieces of legislation do

not require members of the public, businesses or local authorities to change their behaviours.

The Regulations are:


98


� The Landfill Allowance and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 came into force on 1 April

2005. These Regulations provide detail for the operation of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme in

England;

� The Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004. These Regulations

amend the definition of the scheme year to 1 April-31 March and divide the UK’s Landfill Directive

targets between the four constituent countries;

� The Landfill (Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2011 came into force on 1 October 2011. These

Regulations set national targets reflecting the new interpretation of ‘municipal waste’;

� The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 came into

force on 9 May 2005. These Regulations reduce the LATS financial penalty from £200 per tonne to

£150 per tonne; and

� The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (Amendment) Regulations 2011 came into force on 21

November 2011. These Regulations reflect the new interpretation of the term ‘municipal waste’ and

introduce the term “local authority collected municipal waste”.

B.3. Environmental permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) regulations

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations SI 2010/675 provides a consolidated system

for environmental permits and exemptions for industrial activities, mobile plant, waste operations, mining

waste operations, water discharge activities, groundwater activities and radioactive substances activities. It

also sets out the powers, functions and duties of the regulators.

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 are expected to come

into force in April 2012. The proposed regulations will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and

Wales) Regulations 2010 to:

� Allow the EA to issue fines and use other civil penalties for environmental permitting offences as an

alternative to prosecution;

� Make it possible to keep an environmental permit in force when a sole permit holder dies;

� Make it easier to transfer a permit where the current operator cannot be found;

� Transfer responsibility from the EA to local authorities to regulate dust, odour etc from traffic travelling to

and from landfill sites;

� Remove from regulation waste-derived fuels that are no longer classed as waste before they are

burned;

� Make amendments to waste descriptions and codes for exempt waste operations;

� Clarify environmental permitting and marine licensing for waste activities in the marine environment;

� Facilitate the development of AD plants by certain AD activities being regulated by the EA as a waste

operation that needs an environmental permit, rather than by Integrated Pollution Prevention and

Control (IPPC) Directive requirements; and

� Implement two articles of the EU Directive 2009/31 on carbon capture and storage (CCS).

B.3.1. Trans-frontier Shipment of Waste Regulations

The Trans-frontier Shipment of Waste Regulations (1994) sets out rules for shipping waste, including within

the EC and importing and exporting to and from countries outside the EC. The regulations have been

amended by the Trans-frontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 SI 1711 and Trans-frontier Shipment

of Waste (Amendment) Regulations 2008 SI 9 which amends 2007/1711 by introducing new penalties for

failing to provide proper documentation when exporting waste for recovery.


99


New provisions within the revised Waste Framework Directive may result in more stringent controls and

more restrictive controls once its requirements are in force.

These Regulations will affect the Council if, for example, SRF/RDF is transported outside of the UK.

B.3.2. Site Waste Management Plans Regulations

Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 the Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP)

Regulations came into force in April 2008. These require contractors of construction projects with a value

above £300,000 to prepare a written site waste management plan for the management and disposal of

waste created during construction, demolition or excavation work and to comply with such plans. The

requirement is for construction projects above £300,000 to prepare plans to manage waste before work

begins on site and to implement them during the work.

These plans, referred to as Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs), aim to:

� Improve resource efficiency within the construction sector;

� Reduce wastage of construction materials;

� Improve regulatory compliance, particularly with existing waste regulatory systems, for example the

Duty of Care regime;

� Encourage reuse and recycling that reduces demand for primary materials; and

� Reduce the illegal disposal of waste.

The regulations include all methods of construction, including civil engineering, modifications to existing

constructions, site preparation, on-site pre-fabrication and work relating to utilities. There are additional

requirements if the cost of the project is greater than £500,000.

SWMPs need to detail the amount and type of waste that will be produced on a construction site and how it

will be reused, recycled or disposed of. The plan must be updated during the construction process. The

client and principal contractor will be responsible for the SWMP and they must ensure sub-contractors

employed on the site are aware of and comply with the key waste management controls.

B.4. Recent changes to other relevant legislation and policies

B.4.1. Localism Act

The Localism Act came into force on 15th November 2011 and contains a wide range of measures to

devolve more powers to Councils and neighbourhoods and give local communities greater control over

local decisions like housing and planning.

The Act includes provisions to strip Councils of their ability to fine residents for throwing away excessive

amounts of refuse as well as charging extra tariffs for taking away household waste. The Act also abolishes

the Infrastructure Planning Commission, handing their powers over infrastructure projects to Ministers. A

new general power of competence will give Councils the power to do anything they wish to find efficiencies

so long as they do not break any other laws, alongside a community right to bid and right to challenge so

locals can have the opportunity to run valued local assets and have more of a say in how their local

services are run.


100


B.4.1.1. Weekly Collection Support Scheme

Fundamental to delivering localism are the Government’s policies on housing support, planning and on

waste and recycling. This prompted the decision by the Government to create a Weekly Collection Support

Scheme which makes up to £250million available to support local authorities in delivering weekly

collections of household waste and recycling. The fund is open to bids from English local authorities that

wish to introduce, reinstate or retain weekly collections of household waste and to improve recycling

services for their residents. The details of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s

(DCLG) Scheme were announced on 3rd

February 2012 in the form of a prospectus for local authority

applicants.

This is relevant to North Lincolnshire Council if they decide to move from their alternate weekly collection

scheme.

B.4.2. Electricity Market Reform

In July 2011, the Government announced proposals for electricity market reform in an Energy White Paper

as well its Renewable Energy Road Map to put in place the regulatory drivers for secure, affordable and

low-carbon energy. EfW is affected by some of these proposals.

The Government proposed the introduction of long-term contracts in the form of feed-in tariffs with

contracts for difference (FIT CfD) in early 2014 in order to provide stable financial incentives to invest in all

forms of low-carbon electricity generation. The intention is that the proposed FIT system will be more

attractive to investors than the existing renewables obligation. Under these new long-term contracts the low

carbon generator will receive guaranteed revenue from the contractor buying energy off of them. New

Projects can choose between Renewable Obligations Certificate (ROC) support (and be grandfathered) or

FIT CfD up until 2017, and thereafter all new projects will be based on FIT CfD. However, the Government

has not detailed what “low carbon” technologies will qualify for FIT CfD and although there may be a direct

carry-through from the renewable obligations (under which EfW with Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

qualifies for support) this has not been confirmed. The aim will be to provide long-term certainty for

investors in renewables, therefore, lowering the cost of capital and as a result reducing costs to consumers.

Another proposal is the introduction of a carbon price floor (CPF) which is due to start 1 April 2013 and

which is designed to reduce investor uncertainty by putting a fair price on carbon and providing a stronger

incentive to invest in low carbon generation now. The CPF will be implemented by means of a reduction in

the exemption from the climate change levy that currently exists for the supply of fossil fuels used for

electricity generation.

In terms of financing the Government is in the process of creating a green investment bank (GIB) to

encourage the participation of alternative sources of funding initially for projects in the wind, energy

efficiency and waste sectors. It is expected to be investing in low-carbon projects by April 2012.

The Renewable Energy Road Map outlined key actions of potential funding for “innovation” in EfW projects

and the publication of a UK Bioenergy Strategy later in 2011. The Renewable Energy Road Map has also

provided strong support for eight types of renewable energy, including biomass electricity and biomass

heat in which EfW and AD can play a crucial role.

All the measures are intended to encourage EfW, as the measures should make EfW projects more

bankable by reducing investors’ uncertainty over the energy revenue generated by plants.


101


However, the general tone suggests that the Government is more concerned with supporting innovative

and small scale operations rather than making life easier for large scale mass burn EfW.

B.4.3. Renewable Heat Incentive

The 2010 Energy Act provides the enabling powers for the introduction of a RHI in Great Britain which is to

be introduced from 2011/12. The RHI is intended to make financial support available for individuals,

communities and businesses that choose to substitute fossil fuel for heating with renewable fuels. The

incentive is designed to promote the generation of renewable heat through a range of technologies from

the domestic to the commercial scale. The technologies eligible include biomass boilers; renewable CHP;

use of biogas and bio-liquids; injection and bio-methane into the natural gas grid.

The incentive involves a guaranteed payment being paid over a 20 year period for every kilowatt hour of

renewable heat generated and is expected to benefit a range of waste to energy technologies such as AD,

waste wood biomass and EfW incineration. Currently there is no provision for landfill gas being included

but, subject to affordability and ongoing work on tariffs, this could be added in future.

In the proposals, in the majority of cases, the RHI can only be claimed against solid biomass in waste for

municipal waste streams, raising the potential for EfW plants which accept a small amount of illegible waste

to be excluded from RHI support. Most waste plants would expect to take a variety of sources municipal

and otherwise as well as non-waste biomass when available. Guidance is not entirely clear about what

wastes will clarify as municipal and there needs to be clarity as to which feedstocks will be eligible under

the scheme otherwise lenders investing in new EfW projects capable of taking advantage of the RHI will be

nervous about funding.

B.5. Future changes to legislation

B.5.1. Proposed Controlled Waste Regulations

Defra and the Welsh Assembly are proposing to replace the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992, which

lists different types of household waste that local authorities can charge to collect but not to dispose of.

This is a barrier to achieving the Government’s plan for a zero waste economy.

New controlled waste regulations for England and Wales may come into force in April 2012.

The Government wants organisations to pay the full costs of their waste disposal and the proposed

regulations will be of interest to local authorities, managers of premises who currently pay a waste

collection charge (such as prisons, hospitals and universities) and private waste contractors. The

regulations will not make any changes to charges for waste collection from domestic properties.

The main proposals include:

� Giving local authorities the power to charge for the disposal as well as collection of waste from non-

domestic properties;

� Reclassifying waste from certain properties as commercial and not household waste;

� Retaining local authorities’ discretion to decide when to charge depending on local circumstances;

� Providing free disposal to charity shops and reuse organisations;

� Retaining local authorities’ duty to collect waste from certain organisations for public health protection;

and

� Restructuring the controlled waste regulations to make them easier to use.


102


B.5.2. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe

On 20th September 2011 the EU unveiled measures to ensure waste is managed as a resource by 2020 –

the commitment made in a Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe which defines medium and long term

Europe wide objectives on resource efficiency and how the Commission plans to achieve them.

In the document the Commission calls for higher priority to be given to reuse and recycling in order to

ensure that, by 2020 all waste is managed as a resource that can then be fed back into the economy as a

raw material.

It makes a number of commitments including:

� by 2013/14 stimulating the secondary materials market and demand for recyclables through economic

incentives and developing end of waste criteria;

� Reviewing existing targets for prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and landfill diversion targets in

2014 to move towards an economy based on reuse and recycling;

� In 2012 consider the introduction of minimum recycled material rates, reusability criteria and extended

producer responsibility for key products;

� In 2013/14 to explore the potential to align legislation on various waste streams to improve coherence;

� Continue both EU wide and international work to eradicate illegal waste shipments;

� Making sure in 2012/13 that public funding from the EU budget prioritises activities higher up the newly

statutory waste hierarchy; and

� Facilitating the exchange of best practice on waste between EU member states and to take steps in

2013/14 to combat more effectively breaches of EU waste rules

The statement on reviewing targets confirms the Commission’s earlier plans to review targets for packaging

waste recycling and the goals set in the Waste Framework Directive in 2014, as well as indicating

legislation such as the Landfill Directive could also be reviewed.

Following the publication of the roadmap the Commission plans to prepare appropriate policy and

legislative measures to implement it which will then have implications on revisions being required to the

appropriate UK legislation.


103


C.1. European Union

The main role of the Environment Directorate is to initiate and define new environmental legislation, which

includes policies on waste management, and to ensure that the measures which have been agreed are

actually put into practice in the Member States.

C.2. National government

The Government, through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the

Department for Local Government and Communities (DLGC) - [formerly known as the Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister], has a number of roles to play in establishing more sustainable waste management across

England and Wales. In addition to their role of encouraging voluntary action, introducing, monitoring and

amending various legislative and economic instruments to encourage and enforce the safer and more

sustainable management of the waste we all generate, they also have a role in raising waste awareness

across all sectors of society, in encouraging the various stakeholder groups to talk (and listen) to each

other with the aim of establishing waste management partnerships.

Defra has lead responsibility for waste policy and strategy while DLGC leads on planning policy issues.

C.3. Waste collection and disposal authorities

Where two tiers of local government still exists e.g. Lincolnshire County, the Government expects both tiers

to work together to achieve the following:

� Effective working relationships that will deliver a comprehensive Joint Municipal Waste Management

Strategy that includes clear objectives and timescales for action;

� Put in place effective arrangements to reduce waste and maximise recycling and recovery. These

should achieve the statutory performance for waste;

� Raise awareness of the costs of dealing with waste and the role that individuals can play in reducing

waste;

� Involve local people in decisions on waste and work with community schemes to promote reuse and

recycling; and

� Form consortia and other arrangements that will gain improved terms with re-processors and other

outlets for recyclable materials.

Where single tier local government (Unitary) e.g. North Lincolnshire Council, or Metropolitan Authorities are

concerned the Government still wishes to see joint working where it is appropriate to do so.

C.4. Waste planning authorities

The Government wants Waste Planning Authorities to look to achieve a number of goals when carrying out

their responsibilities of identifying suitable sites for waste facilities. The most significant of these are:

� To help to deliver sustainable development by driving waste up the waste hierarchy;

� To provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste;

� To enable timely and sufficient provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of

communities;

� To help implement the National Waste Strategy and supporting targets;

� To support and complement other guidance and legal controls relating to waste management;

Appendix C. Roles and Responsibilities


104


� To secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the

environment;

� To reflect the interests and concerns of communities;

� To reflect the needs of Waste Collection Authorities, Waste Disposal Authorities and business and to

encourage competitiveness;

� To ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste management; and

� To protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste facilities.

C.5. Environment agency

The Environment Agency’s primary role in relation to waste is to ensure that waste management activities

do not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. The Agency also has an advisory and

information gathering role. The most significant actions that the Government want the Agency to achieve in

relation to improving waste management practices are to:

� Develop life-cycle techniques to help waste managers determine Best Practicable Environmental

Option(BPEO);

� Use the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) legislation to bring about a reduction in

waste produced by industry and to ensure waste is used as a resource wherever practicable;

� Improve information on wastes accepted at waste management facilities in terms of type and source of

waste; and

� Repeat the survey of industrial and commercial waste to improve information on waste.

The area occupied by North Lincolnshire currently falls within both the Anglian and Midland Regions of the

Agency for regulatory purposes. However, data relating to the management of wastes arising within North

Lincolnshire forms part of the Strategic Waste Management Assessment conducted by the North East

Region.

C.6. Animal health

Animal Health (AH) (formerly the State Veterinary Service) is the responsible authority for the regulation of

the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, and subsequent amendments. These regulations apply to

municipal waste for any process where waste identified as catering waste is treated. The definition of

catering waste includes wastes from domestic kitchens and as a result organic wastes, separately collected

for biological treatment, have the potential to be included in the definition. Catering wastes require specific

treatment conditions including cleaning regimes, minimum times and temperatures and enclosure if the

waste is to be used on land. AH is responsible for authorising the processes that have to comply with these

regulations.

C.7. The community sector

The strengths of the community sector are in its ability to be innovative and its commitment to change. The

Government wants community groups to call on these strengths in order to:

� Be fully involved in local authority efforts to build partnerships for more sustainable waste management;

� Develop partnerships with local authorities in line with published guidance; and

� Continue to motivate public involvement and participation in recycling and composting schemes.

In order to conduct an Environmental Options Assessment (EOA) on future waste management in North

Lincolnshire, seven scenarios for various options for waste management were evaluated and assessed on

a range of criteria based on environmental, socio-economic and operational issues. Combining these


105


assessments and applying weighting factors to reflect the relative importance of each criterion enabled

overall scores for each scenario to be determined.

The results show that diversion of waste away from landfill and recovering value from the waste is the best

option. Scenario 4 (pyrolysis/gasification) and scenario 2a (small EfW) facility) have been identified as the

best options for achieving these aims. However, the technologies for pyrolysis/gasification are still being

developed and there are known issues regarding public acceptance of an EfW facility. Whilst the scoring

has reflected these issues, deliverability is a key issue for any waste management project. Consequently, if

these solutions cannot be delivered, other options that can provide diversion away from landfill and recover

value from waste material will be considered in North Lincolnshire.

The waste management solution may not necessarily be one of the scenarios which has been assessed as

the modelled scenarios merely enable the key policies and issues to be considered. As well as the issues

regarding implementation of either a pyrolysis/gasification or EfW facility, there are also issues regarding

markets for the products that the MBT and autoclave scenarios will produce, and there will be difficulties in

delivering the required waste minimisation and intensive recycling required by the high recycling scenario.

Consequently, all of the issues identified by this report will need to be further considered during the

procurement process for both recycling and residual treatment technologies.


106


Appendix D. Small WEEE Leaflet


107


Appendix E. Carbon Management Plan


108


F.1. EOA assessment

F.1.1. Introduction

The methodology used in the draft waste strategy document has been updated, as new information not

available at the time that the draft strategy was written is available to us. The scenarios chosen have been

based closely upon the experience gained in the last 4 years through the procurement projects, the due

diligence and soft market testing. These are detailed below. Since the draft document was written the

WISARD model has been replaced by WRATE, which is more sophisticated and transparent than

WISARD. It has also been updated to version 2, including updated technologies data, incorporated in the

modelling. The data from these can be filtered for a number of sustainability indicators and assessment

criteria, which have been fed into the assessment process.

F.1.2. Overall Methodology

The overall methodology adopted is the use of weighted matrix analysis to assess each of the options for a

range of criteria which are given an individual score. The sum of these score gives the overall score.

Because the different factors vary in importance to the Council the various criteria have been given

weightings relative to each other. As is standard practice in this type of multi criteria analysis, the

weightings are normalised so that they add up to 100%.

The scores for each criterion are then multiplied by each appropriate weighting to give an overall ‘weighted’

score. These are then compared on the final results table and graphs to give an overall assessment of the

best environmental option

F.1.3. F.1.3. Scenarios

The scenarios identified are listed below. These are based upon the local market conditions at the time of

writing and are based upon the plants that are in existence or proposed within the region, and also outside

of the region in the case of the large EfW plant.

Table F.1: Scenarios analysed in the options assessment

Name Definition Costs

1 Do nothing Business as usual (BAU) - all materials currently landfill continue to be

landfilled with growth rate proportional to the population growth predicted for

the authority

Includes gate fee, transport and landfill tax

2 Regional EfW Plant available in neighbouring area within the region

Gate fee (transport and disposal included in gate fee)

3 Autoclave Outside N Lincs

Autoclave with LF of fibre produced Gate fee (transport and disposal included in gate fee)

4 MBT in N Lincs Facility built in central location, providing a fuel for a cement kiln,

which can be located within the County or elsewhere.


5 Large EfW Merchant facility outside of the County at maximum practicable distance

Includes gate fee and transport (disposal included in gate fee).

Appendix F. Options Analysis


109


Name Definition Costs

6 ATT in N Lincs Pyrolysis/ Gasification plant built within the county with central location. Capacity in the region of 80,000

tonnes per annum


7 MHT outside N Lincs Residual waste transported to mechanical heat treatment facility

within maximum radius of 50 miles (from centre of the County).

Includes gate fee and transport (disposal included in gate fee).

These are technologies that have either been proposed through the procurement or options that have been

considered at some stage in the past through independent studies or contacts with neighbouring councils.

They represent the full range of viable technologies that are available at the present time or the near future.

The distances that may be travelled in conveying waste has bee used to help build up the assessment and

the WRATE models (see below).

In the assessment the options are score on a 1 to 10 basis on each of the criteria outlined below. These

have been altered slightly since the draft document to account for the changes in the demands of the SEA

process and to integrate more closely with this; however the overall changes are small. Where a particular

issue has been shown to be of greater importance since the draft strategy was written a greater weighting

has been given. The issues surrounding deliverability have been given a higher weighting, for example.

Table F.2: BEO assessment criteria (based upon current SEA requirements)


1. To ensure prudent use of land and resources

Resource depletion avoided burden in 1m year timescale (WRATE) 4.8%

Landtake (Ha) 2.4%

2. To reduce greenhouse gasses Emissions of Greenhouse gases (WRATE) 11.8%

3. To minimise air quality impacts

Human toxicity (WRATE) 5.6%

Air acidification (WRATE) 2.6%

Ozone depletion (WRATE) 3.7%

Odour issues (WRATE) 2.7%

Dust problems (WRATE) 2.8%

4. To conserve landscapes and townscapes Visual and landscape impacts 4.5%

5. To protect local amenity Noise 3.6%

Litter and vermin 2.0%

6. To minimise adverse effects on water quality

Eutrophication (WRATE) 2.6%

Aquatic ecotoxicology (WRATE) 3.4%

7. To minimise local transport impacts Transport impact (WRATE GHG) 5.1%

8. To provide employment opportunities Number of jobs created (includes transport) 2.4%

9. To provide opportunities for local education and participation

Potential for participation in recycling/ composting and waste minimisation 4.0%

10. To minimise costs of waste management Overall costs (£M) 9.4%

11. To ensure reliability of delivery

Maturity of technology including markets for products and bankability 4.2%

Technical delivery of the facility including planning/ permitting 6.7%


110



12. To conform with waste policy

Waste minimisation 5.0%

Percentage of materials recovered (%) 5.2%

Percentage of materials recycled/ composted (%) 5.5%

Total 100.0%

All of the scoring where indicated have been done on the basis of the WRATE analysis, which breaks down

the impacts into considerable detail. Others are part of a subjective judgement or have been the result of

the costs modelling outlined below.

The scoring is on the basis of best = 10, worst = 0 with the others scoring a percentage of the two scores.

The weightings are then applied, and the results calculated form the sum of the individual scores for each

criterion.

F.1.4. Results

The results are shown below. They show that the MBT option scores well compared to the other scenarios

modelled.

Table F.3: Final weighted scores

Scenario LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT MHT (RdF)

Environmental 0.10 0.38 0.32 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.38

Socio-economic 0.028315 0.07446 0.069133 0.158 0 0.149168 0.0383244

Operational 0 0.170633 0.0528 0.211339 0.170633 0.177694 0.1239245

Total Score 0.131207 0.62 0.439198 0.865275 0.428437 0.662247 0.5444439

F.1.5. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was carried out by varying the two criteria with the largest weightings, i.e. criteria 2

and 10 (greenhouse gas emissions and costs) by zero and double their weighting, the results are shown

below.

The results indicate that the MBT option is still the most favourable when varying these criteria, it does

however show that the order may change with respect to the EfW and ATT options, and that they are

equally favourable when compared to each other, from the stand point of the EOA evaluation


111


Chart F.1: Graph of results for the sensitivity analysis

Sensitivities

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

LF

EfW (R)

Auto

MBT(C)

EfW (90)

ATT

MHT (RdF)

Sco

re

Option

F.1.6. Conclusions

This outcome is different to the modelling previously conducted for the BEO assessment, which showed

ATT as the preferred option.

Chart F.2: Final weighted scores

Weighted Scores

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

LF

EfW

(R

)

Au

to

MB

T(C

)

EfW

(9

0)

AT

T

MH

T (

Rd

F)

Option

Sc

ore

Environmental Socio-economic Operational Total Score

However, the assessment is based upon;

� the WRATE modelling, which has superseded

the WISARD modelling used in the previous

study

� the updated costs modelling

� greater use of empirical data through the use of

the more sophisticated WRATE model and data


112


Also, we have a much better understanding of the deliverability and bankability of the options. However, the

bulk of the scores in MBT’s favour were environmental as well as the socio-economic and more subjective

factors. So we can have some confidence that the outcome would be the same even taking these into

account.

F.2. WRATE analysis

WRATE analysis has been done for the three types of service that the Council provides i.e. the Recycling,

Residual and Organics services.

F.2.1. Recycling Analysis

The recycling service WRATE analysis is based upon the recycling figures reported via wastedataflow. For

the year 2010/2011 and supplied by the Council. The composition breakdown is based upon these figures

together with the overall tonnages to give the dataset contained within the WRATE report pdf file that

accompanies this document.

Chart F.3: Recycling service results

The first set of results is for the recycling service. This is illustrative to show the benefits of recycling, and

provides data for the assessment of the whole service below.


113


The results are shown in the tables below in normalised (per person) and ‘characterised’ - using physical

units

Table F.4: Normalised results

Impact Assessment Unit LF Rec

1 climate change: GWP 100a Eur.Person.Eq 483 -1,495

2 acidification potential: average European Eur.Person.Eq 15 -1,390

3 eutrophication potential: generic Eur.Person.Eq 31 -260

4 freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP

infinite Eur.Person.Eq 71 -3,902

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite Eur.Person.Eq 0 -3,125

6 resources: depletion of abiotic resources Eur.Person.Eq -519 -4,021

Table F.5: Characterised results

Impact Assessment Unit LF Rec

1 climate change: GWP 100a kg CO2-Eq 6,245,847 -19,320,022

2 acidification potential: average European kg SO2-Eq 1,057 -99,446

3 eutrophication potential: generic kg PO4-Eq 1,029 -8,697

4 freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP

infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq 92,960 -5,145,484

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq 8,461 -61,757,307

6 resources: depletion of abiotic resources kg antimony-Eq -20,038 -155,385

F.3. Residual waste treatment comparison

A similar exercise has been done for the residual scenarios discussed above in the BEO assessment

above. In addition to the 7 options assessed in the BEO assessment, the option of MBT plus EfW has been

assessed on request by the Council to establish the benefits or otherwise of this option compared to the

BEO MBT followed by SRF combustion in a cement kiln.

F.3.1.1. Data

The data used to build up the model consist of the results of the mass flow modelling undertaken to

underpin all of the studies which provided the tonnages, together with the composition studies mentioned in

section 3 of the main document which have provided the composition data. The .pdf ‘project report’ for the

study accompanies this document, and shows all of the data and assumptions used.

The overall comparison shows the scores for each of the six criteria that WRATE assesses, together with

some of these extracted and shown separately below.


114


Chart F.4: Graph of combined results for residual waste

The data shows that overall in terms of Global warming potential and resource depletion that MBT(C) is the

best scoring option of those considered in the studies, including MBT (EfW).

Again the data is presented below in normalised and characterised forms.


115

vii. North Lincolnshire Council viii.


Impact Assessment Unit LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT MHT (RdF) MBT(EfW)

1 climate change: GWP 100a Eur.Person.Eq 787 -517 137 -730 -390 -41 -596 -642

2 acidification potential: average European

Eur.Person.Eq 22 -129 -558 -775 33 -119 -802 -547

3 eutrophication potential: generic

Eur.Person.Eq 350 145 -12 276 213 -11 250 -4

4 freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP infinite

Eur.Person.Eq 93 -1,625 -1,885 -2,830 -1,535 -152 -1,928 -2,989

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite Eur.Person.Eq -3 -1,069 -1,603 -2,192 -1,168 -94 -1,541 -2,158

6 resources: depletion of abiotic resources

Eur.Person.Eq -922 -5,128 -810 -12,319 -5,019 -4,049 -10,502 -5,035



1 climate change: GWP 100a kg CO2-Eq 10,173,526 -6,680,227 1,770,512 -9,430,200 -5,039,699 -528,234 -7,702,564 -8,296,975


kg SO2-Eq 1,595 -9,261 -39,924 -55,435 2,343 -8,482 -57,340 -39,127

3 eutrophication potential: generic

kg PO4-Eq 11,703 4,853 -396 9,217 7,132 -350 8,362 -130


kg 1,4-DCB-Eq 122,537 -2,143,000 -2,486,018 -3,732,068 -2,023,397 -200,433 -2,542,295 -3,940,838

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq -50,095 -21,131,700 -31,674,425 -43,319,657 -23,078,283 -1,851,673 -30,463,094 -42,645,125


kg antimony-Eq -35,640 -198,140 -31,308 -476,028 -193,958 -156,476 -405,835 -194,567

F.3.2. Energy Recovery Comparison

The energy recovery from the scenarios is shown in the chart and table below.


116


Chart F.5: Comparative energy recovery by treatment technology

Table F.8: Table of energy recovery comparison

Project Headline Indicators

LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT MHT (RdF) MBT(EfW)

Energy Recovered [MJ] 23,811,621 1.38E+08 324754 4.36E+08 1.7E+08 85,104,245 3.67E+08 1.32E+08

F.3.3. Conclusion

From this assessment MBT(C) scores more highly than the other options which generate electricity, including MBT (EfW). This is because of the efficiency of the

boiler which in CHP, even with district heating this rarely rises above 60%, whereas the fuel used in the cement kiln option is used directly. However in a

comparison of electricity generated MBT (C) would have a zero score compared with the electricity generating options.

F.3.4. Global Warming Potential

The chart and tables for GWP (100) are shown below.


117


Chart F.6: Comparison of global warming potential by treatment technology

Table F.9: Table of results for global warming potential

Impact Assessments

Unit LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT MHT (RdF) MBT(EfW)

climate change: GWP 100a

kg CO2-Eq 10,565,295 10,173,526 -6,680,227 1,770,512 -9,430,200 -50,396,99 -528,234 -7,702,564

F.3.5. Resource Depletion

The chart and tables for resource depletion are shown below.


118


Chart F.7: Comparison of resource depletion by treatment technology

Table F.10: Table of results for resource depletion

Impact Assessments Unit LF EfW (R) Auto MBT(C) EfW (90) ATT MHT (RdF) MBT(EfW)

resources: depletion of abiotic resources kg antimony-Eq -35640 -198140 -31308 -476028 -193958 -156476 -405835 -194567

F.3.6. Conclusions

The greater efficiency of the MBT(C) option in converting waste to product shows up as a higher score in the WRATE analysis, for both GWP (100) and

resource depletion.


119


F.4. Organic waste treatment comparison

Chart F.8: Comparison of multiple impacts by treatment technology

A WRATE study has also been conducted of the

options for treating organic wastes

These are:

� business as usual (BAU) (i.e. windrow of green with

food in residual)

� Wet anaerobic digestion

� Dry anaerobic digestion

� In-Vessel Composting

These are compared with the ‘do-nothing’ option of

landfilling all of the green waste. This is illustrative to

show the benefits the technical options and will be used

within the strategy document itself to show how the

system of organic waste management has improved

over time, and the further benefits that can be gained.


120



Impact Assessment Unit AD(W) IVC AD(D) BAU LF

1 climate change: GWP 100a Eur.Person.Eq -312 52.9 -181 23.8 472

2 acidification potential: average European Eur.Person.Eq 254 79.4 159 7.42 24.6

3 eutrophication potential: generic Eur.Person.Eq 123 124 191 219 540

4 freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP infinite Eur.Person.Eq 15.5 89.8 124 29.4 -8.75

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite Eur.Person.Eq -7.01 76.3 55.4 80.1 -1.99

6 resources: depletion of abiotic resources Eur.Person.Eq -853 177 -420 -38.3 -541


Impact Assessment Unit AD(W) IVC AD(D) BAU LF

1 climate change: GWP 100a kg CO2-Eq -4035849 683486 -2336971 307938 6105850

2 acidification potential: average European kg SO2-Eq 18149 5680 11373 531 1757

3 eutrophication potential: generic kg PO4-Eq 4124 4138 6375 7312 18031

4 freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity: FAETP infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq 20476 118379 163401 38804 -11539

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq -138472 1508796 1094801 1582921 -39348

6 resources: depletion of abiotic resources kg antimony-Eq -32954 6831 -16249 -1481 -20895


121


H.4.2. Global Warming Comparison for Organics

The GWP (100) data has been extracted for greater clarity.

Table F.13: Table for organics global warming comparison

Impact Assessments Unit AD(W) IVC AD(D) BAU LF

climate change: GWP 100a kg CO2-Eq -4035849 683486 -2336971 307938 6105850

F.4.1. Conclusions

The data shows that the current service is a considerable improvement over ‘do nothing’. IVC would result in a slightly higher global warming impact compared

with business as usual (BAU). Most desirable would be either of the two AD options. The possibility of generating electricity therefore adds considerably to the

overall performance of the system.

F.5. Whole service impacts

The whole service impacts have been calculated on the ‘business as usual’ basis and also for the ‘wet AD’ scenario together with the calculated impact of the

recycling service together with the various residual options.


122


Table F.14: Business as Usual (BAU) organics


1 climate change: GWP 100a kg CO2-Eq -8838558 -2.6E+07 -1.7E+07 -2.8E+07 -2.4E+07 -2E+07 -2.7E+07 -2.7E+07


kg SO2-Eq -97320 -108176 -138839 -154350 -96572 -107397 -156255 -138042

3 eutrophication potential: generic kg PO4-Eq 10318 3468 -1781 7832 5747 -1735 6977 -1515


kg 1,4-DCB-Eq -4984143 -7249680 -7592698 -8838748 -7130077 -5307113 -7648975 -9047518

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq -60224481 -8.1E+07 -9.2E+07 -1E+08 -8.3E+07 -6.2E+07 -9.1E+07 -1E+08


kg antimony-Eq -8838558 -2.6E+07 -1.7E+07 -2.8E+07 -2.4E+07 -2E+07 -2.7E+07 -2.7E+07

Table F.15: Whole service and wet AD


1 climate change: GWP 100a kg CO2-Eq -13182345 -3E+07 -2.2E+07 -3.3E+07 -2.8E+07 -2.4E+07 -3.1E+07 -3.2E+07


kg SO2-Eq -79702 -90558 -121221 -136732 -78954 -89779 -138637 -120424

3 eutrophication potential: generic kg PO4-Eq 7130 280 -4969 4644 2559 -4923 3789 -4703


kg 1,4-DCB-Eq -5002471 -7268008 -7611026 -8857076 -7148405 -5325441 -7667303 -9065846

5 human toxicity: HTP infinite kg 1,4-DCB-Eq -61945874 -8.3E+07 -9.4E+07 -1.1E+08 -8.5E+07 -6.4E+07 -9.2E+07 -1E+08


kg antimony-Eq -13182345 -3E+07 -2.2E+07 -3.3E+07 -2.8E+07 -2.4E+07 -3.1E+07 -3.2E+07

This data is illustrative and will give an indication of the potential of the fully rolled out ‘best environmental option’. This data could form the basis of bench-

marking for any future service, possibly.


123


F.6. Costs analysis

F.6.1. Gate fees

A cost model has been built up based upon an analysis of the mass flows and the costs per tonne for the

three main services. The costs for the landfill of residual waste and the costs per tonne of the recycling

service were provided by the Council. The gate fees used for the various technical options are shown

below. These are based upon our knowledge of the local market. Market intelligence and a survey of gate

fees nationally conducted by WRAP.

Table F.16: Table of gate fees used

Gate fees/ tonne

Transport distance Cost/tonne/ mile (round trip)


Landfill (exc tax) £12 0.0 0.28 £12

EfW (regional) £97 29.4 0.28 £105

EfW (90) £97 90.0 0.28 £122

Autoclave £90 46.4 0.28 £103

ATT £102 0.0 0.28 £102

MBT £100 0.0 0.28 £100

MHT (RDF) £105 46.9 0.28 £118

Green treatment £26 0.0 0.28 £26

Food AD £45 0.0 0.28 £45

Recycling £44 0.0 0.28 £44

F.6.2. Cost of technologies without food collection

The results of the analysis for the service with no changes to the management of organic wastes are:

Table F.17: Total waste management costs for ‘BAU’ option

Scenario 2014/15 2019/20 2029/30

Landfill £5,918,938 £6,048,914 £6,328,673

Landfill (High) £5,918,938 £7,975,183 £8,344,032

EfW (R) £6,590,520 £6,831,773 £7,420,108

Autoclave £6,512,974 £6,808,387 £7,553,267

MBT £6,295,913 £6,434,168 £6,731,745

EfW (90) £7,453,190 £7,904,390 £9,081,275

ATT £5,918,938 £6,530,481 £6,832,513

MHT (RDF) £7,227,224 £7,539,965 £8,323,316

The cost comparison at the beginning of the strategy reflects the different timescales over which a facility

can be delivered. Post abandonment of LATS this results in a cost saving in the early years of the contract

as there is no penalty for missing LATS targets.

Chart F.9: Cost comparison by treatment technology in 2014/15


124


Cost Comparison (2014/15)

£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

Landfill

EfW

(R)

Aut

ocla

veM

BT

EfW

(90)

ATT

MHT (R

DF)

Option

Co

st

(£)

The costs profile at 2029/30 is basically the same after the 6th year of the study, due to the delivery of

plants such as the ATT. This also has the effect of slightly lowering the whole project cost for this option

artificially.

Chart F.10: Cost comparison by treatment technology in 2029/30

Cost Comparison 2029/30

£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

£9,000,000

£10,000,000

Land

fill

EfW

(R)

Aut

ocla

veM

BT

EfW

(90)

ATT

MHT (R

DF)

Option

Co

st


125


This graph in comparison with the previous graph shows the effect of the increased landfill tax rate

scenario.

Chart F.11: Cost comparison by treatment technology in 2029/30 – High tax case


£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

£9,000,000

£10,000,000

Land

fill

EfW

(R)

Aut

ocla

veM

BT

EfW

(90)

ATT

MHT (R

DF)

Option

Co

st

F.6.3. Cost of technologies with food collection

The costs of introducing food waste collection have been integrated into the model for comparison

purposes, and are based upon studies done by the Council on the feasibility of introducing weekly

commingled food and green waste collection.

Table F.18: Overall costs of technology options with food collection (£ million)

Scenario 2014/15 2019/20 2029/30

Landfill £5,918,938 £6,564,191 £6,828,630

Landfill (High) £5,918,938 £8,209,846 £8,550,336

EfW (R) £6,575,233 £7,212,423 £7,739,424

Autoclave £6,497,924 £7,192,536 £7,852,679

MBT £6,281,526 £6,874,310 £7,153,959

EfW (90) £7,435,268 £8,124,549 £9,152,279

ATT £5,918,938 £6,956,212 £7,239,664

MHT (RDF) £7,209,993 £7,814,651 £8,507,620

As above, cost comparison at the beginning of the strategy reflects the different timescales over which a

facility can be delivered. Post abandonment of LATS, this results in a cost saving in the early years of the

contract as there is no penalty for missing LATS targets.


126


Chart F.12: Graph of costs 2014/2015


£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

Land

fill

EfW

Autoc

lave

MBT

EfW (9

0)ATT

MHT (R

DF)

Option

Co

st

Similarly, the costs profile at 2029/30 is basically the same after the 6th year of the study, due to the

delivery of plants such as the ATT. This also has the effect of slightly lowering the whole project cost for

this option artificially.

Chart F.13: Graph of costs 2029/30


£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

£9,000,000

£10,000,000

Land

fill

EfW

Aut

ocla

veM

BT

EfW

(90)

ATT

MHT (R

DF)

Option

Co

st

This graph in comparison with the previous graph shows the effect of the increased landfill tax rate

scenario.


127


Chart F.14: Graph of costs 2029/30 – High tax case


£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

£9,000,000

£10,000,000

Land

fill

EfW

Aut

ocla

veM

BT

EfW

(90)

ATT

MHT (R

DF)

Option

Co

st

F.6.4. Conclusions

From the study it can be concluded that MBT(C) is competitive on price. It cannot be said the outcome of

this study will always be the same as the gate fees for the ATT, EfW and MHT options are based on MI and

literature only and therefore can show a considerable variation either way, as these fees are usually project

specific.

F.6.5. Headline tables for the service with and without food collection

Some headline figures have been calculated for the whole service over the lifespan of the project, together

with an assessment of the additional costs of MBT (EfW) compared to MBT (C).

Table F.19: Without food collection

Low Tax Without Food Total Cost per household Cost per capita

Landfill (Current) £6,328,673 £87.46 £36.31

Landfill (High) £8,344,032 £115.31 £47.87

EfW (R) £7,420,108 £102.55 £42.57

Autoclave £7,553,267 £104.39 £43.33

MBT £6,731,745 £93.03 £38.62

EfW (90) £9,081,275 £125.50 £52.10

ATT £6,832,513 £94.43 £39.20

MHT (RDF) £8,323,316 £115.03 £47.75


128


Table F.20: With food collection

Low Tax With Food Total Cost per household Cost per capita

Landfill (Current) £6,828,630 £94.37 £39.17

Landfill (High) £8,550,336 £118.17 £49.05

EfW (R) £7,739,424 £106.96 £44.40

Autoclave £7,852,679 £108.52 £45.05

MBT £7,153,959 £98.87 £41.04

EfW (90) £9,152,279 £126.48 £52.50

ATT £7,239,664 £100.05 £41.53

MHT (RDF) £8,507,620 £117.58 £48.80

F.6.6. Comparison of Costs of MBT with and without EfW

As apart of the study looking at the merits of MBT with and without EfW as opposed to cement kiln SRF the

additional impact of the EfW gate fee has been calculated.

Table F.21: Comparison of costs

Gate fee Cost

£100 £6,295,913

£110 £6,767,133

£120 £7,238,353

£130 £7,709,572

F.6.7. Conclusion

There is an increased cost of £471,220 per annum or approximately another £9.5 M over the lifespan of the

strategy, for every £10 per tonne additional gate fee incurred above the figure used in the study. This was

based upon the current procurement project where the off-take gate is considered to be below the current

general market rate, so the outcome of a repeat of the current procurement project would in all likelihood

be a similar project technically, but with significantly higher overall costs.

F.7. Overall conclusions

F.7.1. Technical

� The BEO assessment shows that the MBT (cement kiln) option scores highest compared with other

options overall. The environmental studies, together with the deliverability of the technology are key

strengths compared with the other options.

� The WRATE analysis also shows that the MBT (C) option has the highest overall score in key areas

such as Global Warming Potential (GWP), Resource Depletion and in Energy preproduction (note;

energy as opposed to electricity.

� For the overall service including organic treatment and recycling collection, the overall performance of

the system could be enhanced by the use of anaerobic digestion for the treatment of organic wastes.

− The down-side of this is that the previous procurement project showed that AD options offered were

prohibitively expensive. The feasibility study conducted into the option of a regional facility including

3rd

party wastes was marginal in terms of feasibility


129


− The overall small quantity of food waste is the main reason why the costs of AD were previously

prohibitive, as this is only 6,000 – 8,000 tonnes approximately, which lower than the smallest scale of

plant generally considered to be economic at around 12,500 tonnes (it should be noted that this is in

the Welsh market mainly, where funding form the Welsh government is available).

− There would be a need to inject a further impetus into the funding of such an option through the use

for prudential borrowing potentially. However one of the key factors in making a plant ‘bankable’ is

security of supply, and this would be difficult to guarantee without food waste from other authorities,

or another similar source.

− Taking food waste from the wastes going to the MBT currently under procurement may result in

financial penalties to the Council, if this were to be contracted, resulting in the Council having less

flexibility in delivering the ‘best option’ for the overall service.

� In terms of deliverability, the option of IVC for the Council’s organic wastes is the more deliverable

option for several reasons;

− The Council’s waste stream is directly applicable to the technology as the higher proportion of green

waste compared to food waste is suitable for this technology.

− For anaerobic digestion the presence of a high proportion of green waste is nor desirable, plants

under procurement tend to be ‘food waste only’ or ‘food waste plus energy crops’ – if a source of

energy crops could be guaranteed this would possibly make AD viable with the Council’s waste

streams

� In terms of environmental performance IVC offers improvement over the current system, together with a

product (PAS100 compost) which has an established market.

F.7.2. Costs

� The costs study shows that the MBT© option is competitive on overall costs. As noted previously there

is much more certainty over the gate fee for this option than there are for the others, as these are

notional based upon literature and MI values which are not project specific. The overall costs may

therefore be more competitive than indicated in the study, particularly for ATT where there is some

degree of uncertainty.

� The study does not include the costs of procurement.

− This could be considerable, particularly if this has to be repeated as in the case of the organics,

where the preferred option may not be economically viable, even with 3rd

party involvement or

prudential borrowing.

− If the residual contract were to re-procured there is no guarantee that the same gate fees would be

offered.

− There would also be the risk of market failure for certain technologies such as ATT

− This would tend to suggest that a repeat of the residual procurement should be technology specific

and using the restricted procedure rather than competitive dialogue, as the specific of the technology

are sufficiently well known now to enable this route to be followed.

� For organics, IVC is generally considered to have a lower gate fee than for an equivalent AD plant, and

is more likely to achieve the desired ‘break-even gate fee of £43 per tonne to allow food waste to be

collected. Even with IVC this would be difficult, due to the relatively small overall tonnage of material

offered by the Council.


130


This Appendix lists a number of Internet sites that provide further information.

G.1. Policy makers

EU Environment Directorate – European environment policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – UK environment policy http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/index.htm

Defra - Local authority support http://lasupport.defra.gov.uk/

Department for Communities and Local Government – Responsibilities for planning http://www.communities.gov.uk

Regulators

Environment Agency http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk

State Veterinary Service (has responsibilities regarding composting of food waste) http://www.svs.gov.uk

Waste minimisation and awareness

National Resource and Waste Forum - Promotes sustainable resource and waste management. http://www.nrwf.org.uk

Recycle Now Campaign http://www.recyclenow.com

Mailing preference service - Reducing the amount of direct/junk mail received http://www.mpsonline.org.uk

Women’s Environmental Network http://www.wen.org.uk

Real Nappy Campaign http://www.realnappycampaign.com/index.html

Wastewatch http://www.wastewatch.org.uk

G.2. Re-use

Community Recycling Network – the national umbrella organisation for community-based, not-for-profit and

co-operative waste management groups which work in reduction, re-use and recycling.

http://www.crn.org.uk

Remploy – Refurbishment of white goods http://www.remploy.co.uk

CREATE UK – Refurbishment of white goods http://www.createuk.com

Appendix G. Sources of Further Information


131


G.3. Recycling

A list of recycling locations and facilities in North Lincolnshire is available at:

http://www.northlincs.gov.uk/NorthLincs/Environment/recycling/CommunityRecycling Facilities.htm

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) http://www.wrap.org.uk

Paper – Confederation of Paper Industries http://www.paper.org.uk

Glass - British Glass http://www.britglass.org.uk/index.html

Plastic – British Plastics Federation http://www.bpf.co.uk

Steel – Steel Can Recycling Information Bureau (SCRIB) http://www.scrib.org

Aluminium – Aluminium Packaging Recycling Association (Alupro) http://www.alupro.org.uk

Textiles - Salvation Army http://www.satradingco.org

Packaging – Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN) http://www.incpen.org

G.4. Composting

Composting Association http://www.compost.org.

Community Composting Network http://www.communitycompost.org

Treatment of residual waste

Defra – waste implementation programme http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/wip/index.htm

Waste Technology Data Centre http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wtd

Report - Mechanical biological treatment: a guide for decision makers http://www.juniper.co.uk

Waste management companies currently used by North Lincolnshire

SITA North Lincolnshire Limited – operate the Household Recycling Centres, the Lower Trent Composting

Plant and the landfill site currently used to dispose of municipal solid wastes produced in North Lincolnshire

http://www.sita.co.uk

Abitibi Bowater Recycling Europe – operate the kerbside box recycling collection scheme and service the

‘bring’ recycling facilities located throughout North Lincolnshire http://www.abitibiconsolidated.co.uk

Other sources of information

4Ps – Provide procurement Support to Local Authorities http://www.4ps.co.uk


132


Letsrecycle – Articles on recycling http://www.letsrecycle.com

Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC) http://www.larac.org.uk

Green Alliance - an independent charity promoting policies for a better environment. http://www.green-alliance.org.uk

Love Food Hate Waste

Further information and advice on reducing food waste can be found at:

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/


133


H.1. WRATE Report; ‘Recycling’

H.2. WRATE Report ‘Residual Waste Treatment’

H.3. WRATE Report ‘Organic Waste Treatment’

H.4. Excel File ‘Environmental Options Appraisal Workbook’

H.5. Excel File ‘Mass Flows and Costs Studies 2011/12 - 2030’

H.6. Excel File ‘Electricity Revenue Study’

Appendix H. Study Data and Models