Title of report / PI Performance 2016/17

Report for

/ Project Integra StrategicBoard
Date / 22June 2017
Approval required / Yes
1 / Purpose of the Report
1.1 / To provide Members with waste management performance monitoring data for 2016-17. Please note that the statistics presented here are provisional and should not be taken as final figures.
1.2 / To present data and provide some commentary on recent trends in waste arisings and performance indicators in PI.
1.3 / To present the results from the main operations of the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF) during 2016/17 including contamination monitoring.
2 / Executive Summary
2.1 / In 2016-17, PI saw an increase in recycling rates, a decrease in waste sent to landfill, a decrease in residual waste and no change in total household waste.
2.2 / Tonnages of Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR) sent to market increased by 0.36%.
2.3 / The average DMR contamination level was calculated to be 11.22% (increasing from 9.44% in 2015/16). Capture of DMR increased from 74% to 76%.
2.4 / It is too early to say if these trends have been replicated nationally, but comparisons will be made as soon as data is available. PI still has one of the best levels of performance in the UK when it comes to diversion from landfill – for example in 14-15, Hampshire was the 7th best English shire county.
2.5 / PI has continued to lobby central government over the issue of Incinerator Bottom Ash and its omission from recycling rates. If IBA recycling were to be included in recycling rates, the PI recycling rate would increase to by 10 percentage points.
3 / Introduction
3.1 / Waste management performance in local authorities is still generally measured and compared via three now defunct NIs:
For all authorities:
  • NI 191 – KG of residual waste per household
  • NI 192 – percentage of household waste reused, recycled and composted
For authorities with responsibility for waste disposal:
NI 193 – percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill
3.2 / Table 1 below shows the changes in key household waste streams observed between 14-15 and 16-17. Section 5 onwards focuses on key elements of this. The data is combined for all PI authorities.
Table 1: Summary tonnage and NI data for PI, 2014-2017
2014/15 / 2015/16 / 2016/17 / % Change 15/16-16/17
Tonnes / Recycled / Kerbside & Banks / 161,986 / 167,677 / 178,760 / 6.6
HWRCs / 110,482 / 119,751 / 124,995 / 4.4
Total / 272,468 / 287,428 / 303,755 / 5.7
Residual / Incinerated - Kerbside / 396,076 / 379,141 / 377,902 / -0.3
Incinerated - HWRC Combustible / 18,713 / 30,362 / 36,033 / 18.7
Incinerated - HWRC Wood / 39,001 / 39,772 / 28,654 / -28.0
Landfilled / 52,347 / 60,208 / 50,125 / -16.7
Total / 506,137 / 509,483 / 492,713 / -3.3
Household / Total Household Waste / 778,605 / 796,912 / 796,468 / -0.1
KG / NI 191 - Residual Waste Per Household / 660.31 / 662.86 / 638.30 / -3.29
% / NI 192 - Household waste reused and composted / 34.99% / 36.05% / 38.14% / 2.09
NI 193 - Municipal waste landfilled / 6.72% / 7.67% / 6.48% / -1.19
3.3 / PI partners will have been aware that since 2011-12, recycling rates have plateaued or reduced, but there has been a slight increase in recycling rates in 2015-16 and 2016-17.
3.4 / Data available at a national level will not be available until later in 2016. The latest full-year data available for the UK applies to 2015 (calendar year) when the UK saw a slight reduction in recycling rate from 44.9% to 44.3%. This continues the national trend of a stagnant (and now reducing) recycling rate.
3.5 / Another key measure of performance for PI partners is contamination of DMR. This, and other measures, are calculated through a sampling programme at the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF), set up by Project Integra in March 2006 and located within the grounds of the Alton Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The findings of this analysis influence interpretation of changes in recycling rate and other measures, so is dealt with first in this report.
4 / MAF Analysis
4.1 / Contamination
4.1.1 / The aim was to sample everyDMR collection round once for each weekday that it operated.The results are shown in table 2 below.
Table 2: Round sampling success, 2016-17
Authority / No. rounds sampled 2016/17 / No. rounds targeted 2016/17 / Percentage of targeted rounds sampled
2015/16 / 2016/17
BDBC / 71 / 72 / 100% / 98.61%
EBC* / 66 / 66 / 98% / 100.00%
EHDC / 36 / 40 / 95% / 90.00%
FBC* / 43 / 44 / 100% / 97.73%
GBC / 25 / 27 / 100% / 92.59%
HBC / 35 / 36 / 100% / 97.22%
HDC / 40 / 40 / 93% / 100.00%
NFDC* / 49 / 51 / 100% / 96.08%
PCC / 50 / 50 / 96% / 100.00%
RBC / 30 / 30 / 100% / 100.00%
SCC / 80 / 87 / 98% / 91.95%
TVBC / 55 / 55 / 100% / 100.00%
WCC / 43 / 44 / 98% / 97.73%
ALL / 623 / 642 / 98% / 97.04%
*these councils also had their mixed household and commercial waste collection rounds sampled
4.1.2 / Where targeted rounds were missed the WCA was contacted, and where possible the programme was amended to rebook the rounds.
4.1.3 / Results from the contamination programme, Authority requests and any random sampling were sent out each month. As part of the steps agreed during the Resource Capture and Treatment Review (RCTR) to reduce MRF rejects, MAF sample record sheets were sent to the relevant Authority as soon as possible after receipt. These sheets highlight any obvious and significant amounts of contamination delivered into the infrastructure.
4.1.4 / Veolia have also implemented an inspection regime to gauge the quality of DMR loads at the point of delivery by the WCAs. Veolia are developing a dashboard to enable the results of the inspections to be shared with the WCAs on a regular basis.
4.1.5 / In agreement with partners, notifications which are sent to districts to advise when a sampled load’s contamination rate exceeded 10% have ceased, due to the advances being seen in the 2 points above.
4.1.6 / Contamination monitoring sampling took place throughout the year avoiding where possible periods around Bank Holidays.Results for authorities collectively and individually are shown in Appendix I and II:
  • The average contamination level was calculated to be 11.22% (increasing from 9.44% in 2015/16);
  • Authorities continue their normal pattern of tracking above or below the average rate, but generally the level of contamination as reported by the MAF has markedly risen across all authorities.

4.1.7 / The results will be used to calculate individual Authority’s share of MRF residues and thus to calculate income and performance figures for Authorities for DMR collected in the year 2017/18.
4.1.8 / The contamination programme for 2017/18 has been set following consultation with the Authorities to ensure that all DMR rounds are identified and targeted at the correct sites.
4.2 / MRF Reject and Residue
4.2.1 / It is noted that the level of contamination suggested by the results of the MAF sampling does not directly correspond with the actual level of residues (residue rate) resulting from the MRF process. Please see appendix III for further information on the sources of MRF residue, and the differences between MAF contamination rate and MRF residue rate.
4.2.2 / MRF Residue is made up:
  • “Reject” – non-target items which are rejected from the stream, mostly by manual means, and mostly at an early stage in the process
  • “Process Residue” - material which travels through the sorting facility without being separated into a clean waste stream and which is sent for disposal.

4.2.3 / The table below contains the residue rate from the MRFs since 2012/13. The MRF residue rate decreased slightly in 2016/17, in contrast to the MAF contamination rate.
There are many possible factors contributing to this, including:
  • Secondary sorting of MRF process residue – i.e. where capacity allows, running the process residue back through the MRF to extract as much value as possible
  • Changes in market requirements for quality material, meaning the balance between quantity and quality has shifted.
Table 3: MRF Residue rate, process residue and reject, 2012 - 2017
2012/13 / 2013/14 / 2014/15 / 2015/16 / 2016/17
MRF Residue Rate / 13.87% / 15.73% / 16.55% / 17.60% / 15.94%
Of Which:
Process Residue / 12.45% / 10.33% / 10.06% / 9.86% / 9.32%
Reject / 1.42% / 5.40% / 6.50% / 7.74% / 6.62%
4.2.4 / Sampling of both elements of “MRF Residue” continued in 2016-17. Sampling of reject material indicated that 20% of material rejected at Alton was DMR, whilst the figure is 22.58% for Portsmouth. Much of this material will have been bagged and therefore unsuitable for processing.
4.2.5 / Sampling of process residue identifies any DMR found within it. The result of this analysis from the last four years is shown below.
Figure 1: % of MRF process residue which is saleable DMR

4.2.6 / This shows a overall reduction in DMR found within process residue. During 16/17, the sampling methodology was changed slightly so that only material fit for market was recorded as lost DMR. This may have contributed to the much improved result at Portsmouth MRF. The data indicates that around 11% of process residue, equating to around 1,000 tonnes, was saleable DMR.
4.3 / Residual Waste Analysis and Capture Rate
4.3.1 / The composition of household residual waste was examined in order to:
  • Continue building up a picture of the composition of residual waste across the partnership.
  • Calculate capture rates for kerbside collected recyclables.

4.3.2 / To increase confidence in the accuracy of these sampling results, the number of samples was significantly increased from 50 in 2014-15 to 207 in 2016-17. In 2017-18 residual sampling will be taken throughout the year (including the weeks after Bank Holidays and the post Xmas period) in proportion to WCA inputs of residual waste.
4.3.3 / The capture rate is the proportion of a material present in the overall waste stream that is recovered for recycling. It is possible to use the residual waste sampling data to establish capture rates for DMR recovered through the MRF process. However, these results do need to be treated with caution due to:
  • The relatively small number of residual waste samples taken
  • The inherent difficulties with identifying some – particularly fibre based – materials within residual waste, as they are mixed with putrescible waste and compacted before being sampled.

4.3.4 / Overall capture rate for DMR was 76.38%, up from 73.79% in 2015-16. Changes in capture rates are affected by a multitude of factors, including:
  • Efficacy of MRF processes
  • Contamination within inputs
  • Changes in tonnages of DMR collected
  • Changes over time in the mix of presented DMR
  • Changes over time in the amount of DMR estimated to be contained in residual waste

4.3.5 / Between 2011 and 2017, there has been a 7.50% reduction in the tonnage of DMR available for collection. Some materials (e.g. news/mags) have significantly decreased, whereas others (e.g. cardboard) have increased. Some of the changes in materials seen over time are illustrated in the table below. All materials have seen significant changes since 2011.
Table 4: changes in tonnages of DMR available for capture, 2011-17
2011-12 / 2016-17 / % change 11-17
News / Mags / 41,666 / 26,967 / -35.28
Mixed paper / 52,085 / 45,467 / -12.71
Cardboard / 5,839 / 12,864 / 120.31
Plastic bottles / 10,302 / 13,466 / 30.71
Alu cans & aerosols* / 2,187 / 3,110 / 42.20
Steel cans & aerosols* / 6,840 / 8,123 / 18.76
Total / 118,919 / 109,997 / -7.50
4.3.6 / Using these figures it is possible to gauge the value of recyclable material in the waste stream (based on estimated £102.74 per tonne for 2016/17) This suggests a figure £11.3 million of which £2.67 million is currently not captured. The Authorities share of this would be £1.335 million. Whilst 100% capture is an unrealistic aim these figures indicate the significant scope and benefits from increasing capture of recyclable materials – particularly high value ones.
5 / Tonnage and NI analysis, 2016-17
5.1 / Kerbside and Bank recycling tonnages
5.1.1 / Total kerbside and bring bank material rose by 5.7%. This increase is mostly due to:
  • A 12.4% increase in kerbside collected garden waste tonnages – several WCAs have introduced wheeled bins as a garden waste container, which has seen garden waste scheme subscriptions and tonnages increase.
  • A 1.74% increase in glass tonnages – this was a general increase seen from all authorities.
  • A large increase in recycled material resulting from the recycling of mechanical street sweepings:
  • In 16-17 and previous years, this tonnage has been included in the overall PI recycling rate, but it has not been possible to allocate this street sweepings tonnage back to individual WCAs.
  • However, as of 1 April 2017, it will be possible for WCAs to include the tonnage in recycling rates and record it as such via the Waste Data Flow reporting system. HCC will liaise with WCAs on the best way to progress this.
  • This will deliver a boost to individual WCA recycling rates.

5.1.2 / Tonnages of household DMR sent to market increased slightly (0.36%) in 15-16. However this was due to a reduced MRF residue rate rather than a increase in collected tonnage. The recent trend in DMR tonnage is shown below. The rate of decrease in both tonnages delivered and tonnages recycled has slowed in recent years. This decrease should be considered in light of the reducing amount of material available and changes in capture rates, as discussed in section 4 of this report.
Figure 2: Recent trend in household DMR tonnages collected in PI

5.2 / HWRC recycling tonnages
5.2.1 / Tonnages of collected at HWRCs increased by 4.4% between 15-16 and 16-17.
5.2.2 / The most significant contributing factors to this were a movement of wood from an energy recovery outlet into a recycling outlet, and an increase in green waste tonnages.
5.3 / Residual waste incinerated and sent to landfill
5.3.1 / Overall waste tonnages sent for energy recovery or to landfill reduced by 3% in 16-17 compared to 15-16. This can partially be explained by the movement of wood from energy recovery into a recycling outlet, as well as the recycling of street sweepings.
5.3.2 / During 16-17, tonnage to landfill decreased by 16.7%. However it should still be noted that MRF residue comprises 30% of the material sent to landfill. MRF residues are either sent to ERF or to landfill, but in the event of capacity issues at the ERF, the residue is diverted to landfill because it is not a waste stream which is well suited to the ERF process. Processing this waste via landfill causes significant additional cost for the WDAs. It is worthwhile highlighting the link here to two PI workstreams:
  1. Reduction of contamination – if the quality of MRF inputs is improved, there will be less MRF residue
  2. Waste Prevention – if overall household residual waste reduces, this frees capacity at the ERFs and reduces the need for landfill.

5.4 / National Indicators
5.4.1 / Recent trends in NI191 are reported on more fully in the PI Waste Prevention plan update and so are not covered here.
5.4.2 / NI 192 (recycling rate) increased by 2.09 percentage points. Figure 3 below highlights the recent trend in NI192, and figure 4 shows changes for each district between 15-16 and 16-17.
Figure 3: NI192 in PI, 2000-17

Figure 4: NI192 across PI partners

5.4.3 /

NI 193 (% municipal waste sent to landfill) reduced by 1.19 percentage points. Figure 5 below highlights the recent trend in NI193.Landfill diversion in Hampshire remains one of the best levels of performance in the UK.

Figure 5: NI193 in PI, 2007-17

6 / The future of performance reporting, indicators and targets
6.1 / EU Target and review
6.1.1 / EU Member States are required to recycle or reuse 50% of their household waste by 2020, as set out in the revised Waste Framework Directive. Based on current progress, it is not likely that the UK will meet this target.
6.1.2 / The European Commission revealed its initial proposals for a new “Circular Economy Package” in 2015, which included new Member State targets to recycle 60% by 2025 and 65% by 2030. The legislative package that will confirm these targets and other measure is likely to be agreed within the EU this year. The impact of this upon the UK will depend on whether it is transferred to UK law before or after the exit from the EU. Until that is known, the UK is fully partaking in negotiations surrounding the legislation.
6.2 / Incinerator Bottom Ash
6.2.1 / Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is the residue that falls through the grate after the energy has been recovered from the waste. It contains glass, brick, rubble, sand, grit, metal, stone, ceramics and ash. Metal is removed from the ash at the EfW facilities, and the ash is taken to a sorting facility. There it is separated into various size fractions with any remaining metals in the ash extracted and sent for further processing. The finished product is known as Incinerator Bottom Ash. Aggregate (IBAA) and is ready to be used in building and civil engineering projects. Despite several consultations and guidance issued to the contrary, recycling rates (NI192) do not allow for inclusion of this recycled material.
6.2.2 / In response to both confusion over different recycling rates and the anomaly of IBA exclusion, PI has made several approaches to central Government in recent years, including attending meetings with Ministers (most recently in January 2017). At this latest meeting, Defra confirmed that the UK’s position in terms of the negotiations described in 6.1.2 is a pro-IBAA one, i.e. the UK is pushing for it to be included in future recycling rate calculations.
6.2.3 / Figure 5 below shows a comparison between PI recycling rates calculated on the basis of NI192 and what that figure would be if we were also able to add metal and/or IBAA recovery.
Figure 5: Changes in NI192 after IBA inclusion

7 / Recommendations
7.1 / That the latest performance trends are noted, in the context of current and future PI Action Plans.
7.2 / That the MAF programme for 2016/17 includes:
  • The sampling of every DMR round for contamination
  • Residual waste analysis to be done each month of the year in proportion to each Authority’s inputs
  • Authority requests if they can be accommodated within the Contamination Monitoring, Waste Prevention and Residual sampling programmes
  • Continued analysis of MRF rejects and residues

Officer contact details

Name

/ Chris Noble, Head of PI
E-mail /

1

Appendix I: Graph – Contamination Monitoring - Comparison of Authorities Contamination Rates 2006/07-2016/17

Appendix II: Graphs - Contamination Monitoring - Comparison of individual Authority Contamination Rates 2006/07-2016/17 with the PI average rate

Appendix III – explanatory information regarding contamination, reject and residue rates

Not all material that enters the PI MRFs is target material (i.e. paper, card, cans, plastic bottles). There is also non-target material that residents have incorrectly placed into recycling bins – these items have to be rejected from the stream, mostly by manual means. In addition, at the end of the sorting process there will be “process residue” – material which has not been separated into a clean waste stream and which is sent for disposal. Together these “reject” and “process residue” streams make up “MRF Residue.” This is highlighted in the diagram below.

Source of MRF residue:

The MRF residue rate is the proportion of MRF inputs that are not sent to market as a recyclable product. The residue rate is a different measure to the contamination rate.

In order to measure performance and allocate income from sale of material, it is necessary to sample inputs to the MRF from each WCA in order to gauge the level of non-target material being delivered within DMR. Samples are taken from the point at which a WCA delivers DMR (i.e. it could be a waste transfer station or at the MRF itself if a WCA is delivering material directly). The analysis, carried out through the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF) calculates a contamination rate for each authority. Table 4 below highlights key differences between the contamination rate and MRF residue rate, and explains how the residue rate will inevitably be higher than the contamination rate.

Contamination Rate / MRF Residue Rate
Definition / An estimation of the amount of non-target material in MRF inputs. The rate calculated by sampling a small proportion of MRF inputs from each WCA in the MAF. Samples taken at WCA delivery point. / This is the % of all MRF inputs that are not subsequently sent to market as a recyclable product. The rate is based on actual tonnages rather than sampling.
Accuracy / Provides a snapshot of the tonnage that the MRFs process. Of the 98,659 tonnes of DMR delivered by the Authorities during 2013/14, 93 (0.09%) tonnes was analysed by the MAF. / Based on actual tonnages and is there likely to be a more accurate measure of the quality of inputs.
Bulky items / Does not fully take into account all bulky items presented within a DMR load (plastic chairs, black bags, textiles etc) which are removed before the sample is taken. / Includes bulky items that are extracted at the earliest opportunity in the MRF.
Operating times / Sampling avoids periods around Bank Holidays when loads generally contain more contamination. / Is representative of residue all year round.
Inclusions / Seeks non-target material only. / As well as non-targeted material rejected, the residue rate will include some targeted material (i.e. DMR that was not successfully separated by the MRF) within the process residue.

1