A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in 2012

Transcription

1 Final report A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in 2012 A report on the structure of the UK organics treatment/recycling sector and the markets for its outputs Project code: RAK Research date: Feb-April 2013 Date: August 2013

2 WRAP s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficient way. Find out more at Written by: James Horne, Peter Scholes, Esther Areikin (Urban Mines Ltd) Ben Brown (Walker Resource Management) Front cover photography: AD plant under construction, courtesy of ADBA WRAP and Urban Mines Ltd believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP s Terms & Conditions on its website:

3 Executive summary The purpose of this study is to quantify the processing of organic wastes in the UK via a survey of key facilities those involved in composting, anaerobic digestion (AD) and mechanical & biological treatment (MBT). This survey was carried out between January and April of 2013, collecting data on the state of the sector in This report summarises the methodology employed and the results obtained from the survey. Background A survey of the organics processing industry has been undertaken since the mid-1990s, originally by The Composting Association (with WRAP support in later years) and more recently by WRAP with the support of the Association for Organics Recycling (AfOR 1 ), the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA), the Renewable Energy Association (REA) and the Environmental Services Association (ESA). The additional sector bodies have been included in recognition of the diverse range of technologies now operating in the organics treatment sector and to enable a representation of the wider industry, in particular of AD. The results of earlier surveys underpinned the annual State of the Composting and Biological Waste Treatment Industry report produced by AfOR. The 2010 and 2009 surveys can be found on the WRAP website and previous reports can be found on the ORG website. While this survey has been repeated annually since the mid 1990 s, it is important to recognise that there have been differences in delivery methodology between surveys and this needs to be taken into account when comparing data from individual surveys or looking for trends. Attempts to survey exempt sites in previous years suggested that what was achievable was of questionable value. In addition, the permitting regime in England and Wales has changed, leaving fewer, smaller exempt sites. For these reasons, exempt sites were not surveyed this year. Methodology This research focuses on the calendar year 2012 and follows on from the 2010 survey, which was delivered in 2012 by the same project team. The surveys of 2009 and 2010 (delivered in 2011 and 2012) used an approach which relied on regulatory returns for input data which only become available months after the year in question. This year, rather than have this significant time lag between the survey and the year in question, the survey for 2012 was started soon after the end of the calendar year, and respondents were asked to provide input tonnage figures. The survey used questionnaires to capture the required information. Separate questionnaires were used for permitted composting, AD and MBT, developed from those used in A database of composting and MBT sites to be contacted to participate in the survey was produced using information provided by the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency 1 In 2013 REA and AfOR merged and AfOR is now represented by the Organics Recycling Group (ORG) within REA. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

4 (NIEA), and from those sites surveyed in 2010 who had agreed for their information to be carried forward. The data covered only permitted sites. For AD, the survey attempted to interview all sites operational during 2012, based on the data collected for the Official AD Information Portal map (available at but excluding waste water treatment facilities. The population base for this year s AD survey was therefore broader than that used for the 2010 survey. Composting and MBT sites were contacted by telephone and the survey conducted by organic recycling consultants who were able to sense check the data as it was received. Data was inputted into an online questionnaire system at the time of the interview. Those operators who ran multiple sites were given the option of a face to face survey interview. AD sites were contacted by a team from the company which sources the data underlying the Information Portal map and interviewed by telephone, wherever possible. For 2012, with data from a total of 336 operating sites, the survey achieved a 74.3% participation rate. This compared to 308 sites, and a 50.3% participation rate in As a result, the data collected in 2012 is believed to be the most robust picture of the UK organics treatment industry produced. After quality checks, the collected data were analysed by waste management process and nation, using the following methods: Grossing of the collected quantitative data was carried out to take account of those companies which did not take part in the survey either through choice or because they could not be contacted. The stratified grossing methodology used for composting and MBT sites was the same as that used in 2010, and is an accepted method utilised in many past surveys of this type (e.g. commercial & industrial waste surveys delivered by Defra and the Environment Agency) and is explained in full detail in Appendix 3. A separate method was used for AD sites in an attempt to address some of the issues that arose with the 2010 survey, where grossing from a very small base led to some anomalous results. This method is also explained in Appendix 3. The data collected is summarised in the report and the detailed data is provided in Appendix 5. Distribution plots were produced to represent the spread of responses to questions such as selling prices of outputs, to indicate precision. In the cases of composting and MBT, the same survey and grossing methodology was used as in 2010, so results can be directly compared, although it must be noted that there has been a change to the permitting system for England and Wales since 2010, such that some sites which were operating under an exemption in 2010 were operating under a permit in For AD the inclusion criteria were broader than in 2010, and the grossing methodology was different, so the results are not strictly comparable. UK Organics Treatment On the basis of the grossing carried out, the survey estimates 7.54 million tonnes of organic waste input into composting and AD organic waste treatment facilities, plus 2.51 million tonnes of mixed waste input to those MBT facilities which produce an organic output, in 2012, as shown in Table 1. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

5 Table 1: UK Organics Treatment 2012 (input in tonnes) England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales UK Total Compost (inc IVC) 5,080, , , ,000 5,850,000 AD (Commercial, R&D and on-farm) 1,280,000 10, ,000 10,000 1,430,000 AD (Industrial) 250,000 (1) 0 0 (1) 10, ,000 (1) Sub-total 6,610, , , ,000 7,540,000 MBT (2) 2,360, , ,510,000 Total 8,970, , , ,000 10,050,000 These calculated figures have been rounded to nearest 10,000 tonnes. As a result some totals appear not to be the sum of the figures to which they relate. (1) the Industrial AD input data excludes sites co-located with drinks manufacturers which process large volumes of liquid and which discharge the treated water to sewer. It is estimated that these amount to an additional 6 million tonnes of throughput, of which approximately 2.5 million tonnes are processed in Scotland and the remainder in England. (2) MBT figures presented as mixed input waste stream Composting continues to be the treatment which processed the majority of organic waste. In reading the figures, it is important to understand the following changes which have taken place in the organics treatment industry: The exemptions previously allowed under the permitting system for England and Wales have been significantly changed, leading to an increase in the number of permitted composting sites. Four sites which were classified as composting in 2010 have been reclassified (by their operators) as MBT, leading to an increase in material processed through MBT as well as a decrease in material composted (this only affects Scotland). The 2012 survey of AD sites not only achieved a better response rate than the 2010 survey, it also included sites not previously included: those which are purely farmfed, and industrial sites processing large quantities. There were new operational sites for all the facility types surveyed, particularly AD and MBT. After adjusting for the difference in sample from the last survey, in that the 2012 population includes some sites which were exempt in 2010, the figures suggest that composting input volumes have increased from 5.44 million to 5.64 million tonnes (2012 throughput excluding those sites which were exempt in 2010) i.e. by 4% between 2010 and For this survey, the sample of AD sites used was different from that used in 2010, and therefore it is not possible to directly compare 2012 and 2010 results. However, what is clear is that during 2011 and 2012, 34 new sites reported starting operations. These sites generated a reported throughput of 430,000 tonnes in 2012, and brought an additional 590,000 tonnes of reported operating capacity on line, mostly of commercial and farm based facilities. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

6 Similarly, an increase in the number of MBT facilities between 2010 and 2012, plus the reclassification of 4 Scottish IVC facilities as MBT by the operator, have supported a near doubling in MBT inputs, from 1.28 million tonnes in 2010 to 2.51 million tonnes in The results of this survey were validated by comparison to organic waste collection data from Defra s WasteDataFlow (WDF) municipal waste reporting system, which is generally recognised as a source of robust waste collection data. Unfortunately WDF data was only available for the financial year (Scotland calendar year 2011) and it is anticipated that this data will therefore underestimate the collection volumes for However, there was good agreement of this data with the 2012 survey figures, within the +10.8% precision of the data generated by the survey. This is explained in more detail in Appendix 3. Composting Telephone or face to face interviews were conducted with operators of 252 composting sites, compared to 173 surveyed in 2010 and 155 in To estimate the size of the total UK and individual national inputs and outputs, the data from these 252 sites was applied to the whole population of the 323 operational sites in the UK. There were 291 operational composting sites in the UK in 2010, therefore the 2012 figure represents an 11% increase. The inputs to permitted UK composting sites in 2012 is estimated to be 5.85 million tonnes compared with 5.44 million tonnes in 2010; this is a 7% increase. Some sites that were permitted in 2012 were exempt in 2010; if these sites are removed from the 2012 figures the inputs for 2012 total 5.64 million tonnes, which is a 4% increase in inputs. This latter figure is likely to represent the underlying growth in the sector. The output from the sites in 2012 was an estimated 3.47 million tonnes (3.35 million tonnes if previously exempt sites are removed) compared to 2.82 million tonnes in 2010, a 23% increase. This disproportionate increase in the weight of outputs could have been caused by the exceptionally wet weather in 2012, which led to higher water content of the compost produced and/or stored in the open air (meaning it had a greater density); some sites also reported carrying over inputs from The survey results also show: A UK total composting capacity of 7.48 million tonnes (7.09 million tonnes when sites that were exempt in 2010 are removed), suggesting a 78% capacity utilisation (the equivalent figures for 2010 were 7.01 million tonnes and 77%); and A total UK employment in composting of 1,370 full time equivalents (1,290 without previously exempt sites v. 1,260 in 2010). The organic waste input to the sites from local authority sources increased to 5.2 million tonnes from 4.8 million tonnes in 2010, although this represents the same proportion, 88%, of all inputs. There was also a small increase in commercial waste inputs to 700,000 tonnes in 2012 from 655,000 tonnes in The majority of inputs to sites was of separated green/garden waste at 63% of total inputs. Mixed food and green waste was 26% of inputs with separated food waste at 5% and other material providing 6%; (examples of materials entered as other are sewage sludge, wood, liquids, manure and sanitised material from other composting sites). This detail was not collected in The majority of organic waste that was processed at composting sites in 2012 was done using open air windrow (OAW). This remains the most cost effective way of treating organic waste that is not animal by-product (ABP) within the UK regulatory and planning framework. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

7 The survey results show that 67% of sites operating in-vessel composting (IVC) facilities also utilised another technology and that of these sites 74% operated these in series with the IVC system, 23% in parallel to and 3% in parallel and in series. In addition it was noted: OAW was used at 81% of sites surveyed, with 57% of sites employing solely OAW and 24% using it in series with or parallel to another technology, which, in most cases, was IVC; Stand-alone OAW (this includes sites where other technologies were operated in parallel as well as sites where OAW was the sole technology) accounted for 68% of facilities and received 54% of the inputs in This is a significant reduction in inputs, from 66% in 2010, despite only a 2% drop in the proportion of facilities; IVC was used at 22% of sites surveyed, with 8% of sites employing solely IVC and 15% operating it in series or in parallel to another technology. Windrow under cover, aerated static pile and continuous block composting were used at 11% of sites accounting for 2.5% of inputs. 5% of sites operated technologies classed as other e.g. deep clamp and thermophilic aerobic digestion, and processed 4% of total UK inputs. Agriculture remains the largest market for compost products: 68% of all compost produced is reported as being supplied to agricultural markets. This compares with 67% in The distribution of outputs across all compost markets remains, on the whole, similar to The notable exception is for landfill restoration where the market has decreased significantly. This reduction is partly attributable to the competition from compost like output (CLO) produced at MBT plants. In addition, changes to the regulations in Scotland (relating to what can be counted towards LA recycling rates) have resulted in a reduction in compost being used for landfill restoration since The mean price has decreased for nearly all markets between 2010 and 2012, only landscaping/landscape development and other have shown an increase. In the case of the other markets, respondents to the survey noted that they sold the compost as a low volume, bagged product to the local market and this enabled a high price per tonne to be achieved. Reported prices varied considerably, with large differences in the minimum and maximum prices across almost all markets. The overall market value has grown to 11.4m, an increase of 2.2m (24%) between 2010 and 2012, with much of this growth attributable to the overall increase in outputs. Of the surveyed composting sites in 2012, 128 stated they produced outputs with PAS 100 certification and 124 did not, almost a 50:50 split. Where sites produced outputs with PAS 100 certification only a single site stated that they did not intend to maintain the certification. (The total number of registered processes at the end of March 2013 was 168.) Of the surveyed input tonnages, sites producing PAS 100 certified outputs accounted for around 3.2 million tonnes, while sites not producing certified outputs accounted for around 1.2 million tonnes. Therefore, while the number of surveyed sites producing and not producing outputs with PAS 100 certification is very similar, those producing certified outputs received almost three times as much of the total inputs as those without. The survey results also show that, on the whole, PAS 100 certified compost had a higher value than noncertified compost in 2012, as was the case in A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

8 Respondents to the survey were asked the extent to which specified issues affected their operation and given the opportunity to nominate other issues or opportunities. Regulation and competition for feedstocks continue to be seen as issues, while opportunities mainly centre on the positive impact of government policy and the level of demand for compost. Contamination in feedstocks is more of a polarised issue: 43% said it affected them a little or not at all, while 33% noted that contamination affected them greatly. Elsewhere in the survey, 58% of respondents stated that contamination of feedstocks was at less than 1% and 38% at between 1% and 5%, with just 2% reporting contamination levels of greater than 10%. Anaerobic Digestion Grossing up from the figures provided by surveyed sites, and excluding industrial sites which treat large volumes of liquid and discharge treated water to sewer, leads to a UK estimate of 1.68 million tonnes of throughput and 2.07 million tonnes of operating capacity, implying an 82% utilisation in These figures cover both waste fed and farm fed sites. It is estimated that the industrial sites co-located with drinks manufacturers, that process large volumes of liquid and discharge their treated water to sewer, amount to an additional 6 million tonnes throughput in As the sample for the 2012 survey was significantly different from that used in 2010, and the methodology for grossing changed, it is not possible to compare throughputs and capacities directly. However, 34 sites surveyed in 2012 reported coming on-line in 2011 and Of these 16 were farm based, 12 commercial, 5 industrial (of which 1 was an industrial facility which discharged treated water to sewer) and 1 demonstration facility. This brought on stream (excluding the single facility discharging treated water to sewer) an additional reported 500,000 tonnes of operational capacity (260,000t in 2011 and 240,000t in 2012) which processed a reported 370,000 tonnes of feedstock in The significant increase in AD throughput in 2012 compared to 2010 can be explained by a number of factors: the total number of operational sites identified was significantly higher in 2012; of those sites surveyed in 2012, 34 had started operations since 2010; increases in feedstock supply including domestic food waste; and 7 of the sites surveyed in 2012 were exempt from permitting in 2010, and therefore would not have been included in the reported throughput figures. Of the 61 sites which were surveyed, 56 provided feedstock type and source data, reporting 3.65 million tonnes of liquid and 0.79 million tonnes of other input materials. This includes 3.49 million tonnes of inputs associated with the large industrial facilities that send treated water to sewer. The inputs reported by the rest of UK AD sites were made up of 41% separated solid food and 17% liquids, with agricultural materials such as purpose grown energy crops and manures accounting for 38% (%s by weight, 4% was other material). In terms of non-agricultural input material, and excluding the industrial facilities which discharge treated water to sewer, the majority (56% by weight) came from food & drink manufacturers and processors, with 30% from local authority food waste collections and 10% from supermarkets & retail. Considering non-agricultural inputs by AD facility type shows commercial facilities sourcing feedstock essentially from local authority collections and A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

9 food manufacturers, industrial facilities almost exclusively from food processors and manufacturers, and on-farm facilities from agriculture (wastes) and supermarkets. Aggregating the responses from surveyed sites produced a surveyed UK digestate output in 2012 of 430,000 tonnes of whole digestate (15% of total), 40,000 tonnes of fibre (1.5% of total) and 2.34 million tonnes of liquor (83% of total by weight) of which 2.09 million tonnes was discharged to sewer by large industrial facilities. Grossing for sites not supplying output data and excluding those sites discharging treated water to sewer gave an estimate of 1.44 million tonnes of all outputs i.e million tonnes whole digestate, 0.08 million tonnes fibre and 0.49 million tonnes liquor. For whole digestate the uses varied depending upon site type. For instance, for on-farm facilities the majority of whole digestate was used on site by the operator s business (64% of total), with the rest provided free of charge to off-site users. Conversely, for industrial sites all whole digestate was supplied to users off site, 41% of which the operator had to pay the user to remove. For commercial sites, 72% was used off-site with 28% used by the operator s own business (5 sites). The majority of separated fibre (60%) was used on site by the operating business, almost all of which were on-farm facilities. However a significant amount (33%) was landfilled, by commercial and industrial sites. For liquor, the majority was disposed of via the sewer (89%, 2.01 million tonnes reported, all from industrial sites). The majority of the remaining volume (190,000 tonnes surveyed) was used on the operator s own site, 70% of which were on-farm facilities. Operators were asked where the digestate that they produced in 2012 that was used (i.e. not disposed of to landfill or sewers), was applied. Of the tonnage reported, 90% went to agriculture (mostly whole digestate and liquor), 9% to field-grown horticulture (mostly liquor) and 2% to land restoration (mostly fibre). Most operators surveyed cited commercial confidentiality as a reason for not giving digestate selling prices. Only a small number of sites responded, all in England. Because of the low response, care should be taken in interpreting these figures. For agricultural use, respondents quoted an average cost to the operator of 0.44 per tonne ie. operators paying users to take the material. For fibre this cost was 3.58 per tonne, and liquor 0.83 per tonne. Many who were not prepared to provide prices also reported they were supplying material free of charge or having to pay for it to be used. A total of 28 sites reported biogas yield. This amounted to 88 million m 3 from the sites which responded, averaging 3.1 million m 3 per site. Average yield per tonne of input material 2 was m 3, compared to 182.5m 3 observed in % of respondents reported their sites used biogas for on-site combined heat and power (CHP) including electricity generation, 4% for heat to an external user, 3% gas to grid (2 sites). One of the sites surveyed flared excess biogas, but only 10% of its total biogas output. For heat, 3 sites surveyed reported 100% export. The majority reported no export of heat, citing parasitic use and exhaustion to atmosphere. 2 The Wales Centre of Excellence for Anaerobic Digestion quotes a typical range of m 3 biogas per tonne of waste input for AD operations. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

10 In last year s survey no sites reported PAS 110 certification but this year there were 17% of the surveyed sites who did, with all of them intending to maintain it. Of those not certified, 28% said they intended to obtain certification, with many of the others saying that they did not need certification. (The total number of registered processes by April 2013 was 10.) When asked about specific issues, the majority of respondents saw storage of digestates as having a great or some effect on their business while the majority felt relatively unaffected by competition for feedstock or markets for digestates. However, when responses were studied by facility type, both competition for feedstock and markets for digestates were seen as more significant factors for commercial facility operators, with 48% and 35% respectively citing some or great impact on their business. When asked for other significant threats or opportunities, respondents cited lack of knowledge of the AD industry, low prices/profitability and regulation as threats and developments such as use of heat for greenhouses, micro AD and interest from food waste producers as opportunities. Overall, contamination of feedstocks was not cited as an issue, with most respondents reporting less than 1%. However, commercial sites, which take input mainly from local authority collections and food manufacturers, did see this as an issue, with 1 in 4 of commercial sites reporting reject levels between 6% and 10% and 1 in 6 reporting reject levels over 10%. Mechanical Biological Treatment Including the 4 Scottish IVC sites which have been re-categorised by the operators as MBT, the population of active MBT sites grew by 13 to 30 between 2010 and As a result, the survey has recorded a substantially increased throughput of 2.52 million tonnes for UK MBT plants, producing 1.69 million tonnes of various outputs. Feedstock sources were reported as almost exclusively from municipal sources (98%) with only a small volume coming from non-municipal sources. MBT plants produce a number of outputs depending upon their input material and process design. Operators were asked to quantify their outputs in terms of 4 main output types ie: Dry recyclates i.e. separated materials for recycling, reported 11% of total outputs by weight Organic stream e.g. compost like output (CLO), reported 22% of total outputs Solid recovered fuel (SRF)/Refuse derived fuel (RDF) stream, reported 51% of total outputs Inerts/aggregates/other outputs reported 16% of total outputs The weight loss between inputs and outputs varied depending upon the processing technology used, with aerobic biodrying facilities reporting on average a 49% weight loss of moisture, aerobic IVC of 23% again due to moisture loss, and anaerobic digestion 32% due to moisture and biogas loss, and rejects sent to landfill. Of those sites surveyed, 38% also reported generating biogas in In terms of end destinations for the key outputs, for the organic output stream (CLO) it was reported that 82% by weight was used in restoration and remediation (with all sites reporting this was a cost to the operator or supplied free of charge), and 17% was landfilled (at cost to the operator). No CLO was reported to have been used in energy recovery. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

11 For the RDF stream, 41% was supplied as fuel into the UK market and 30% exported, with the balance landfilled. This compares to 80% supplied into the UK market in 2010, showing the growth in RDF exports from MBT plants. In all cases, operators reported that this was at their cost. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

12 Contents 1. Introduction Purpose of the study Scope of the work Background Context Methodology Introduction Diagrammatic representation of the results Comments on methodology and lessons learned Results Permitted Composting Survey Performance and Participation Data Precision Results Summary Survey Response Analysis and Summary Conclusions Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Survey Performance and Participation Survey Response Analysis and Commentary Conclusions Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Survey Performance and Participation Survey Response Analysis and Commentary Conclusions Appendices Appendix 1 - Glossary Appendix 2 Survey Methodology Appendix 3 - Grossing Methodology Appendix 4 - Lessons Learned Appendix 5 - Responses to Survey Questions by Site Type and Country A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

13 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all of those companies that took part in this survey for their time and contribution. The authors would also like to thank the members of the Steering Group for their valuable input and support, including: Trade Bodies David Collins, Renewable Energy Association (REA) Jeremy Jacobs, Organics Recycling Group, REA Emily Nichols, REA Kiara Zennaro, REA Ciaran Burns, REA Jordan Marshall, Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA) Annika Herter, ADBA Matt Hindle, ADBA Jakob Rindegren, Environmental Services Association (ESA) Toni Waters, ESA Regulatory Bodies Andrea Purdy, Environment Agency (EA) Adrian Gregory, Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) Julie Laing, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Government Bodies Sean Ryan, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) Stuart Greig, Scottish Government Aoife O'Sullivan, Welsh Government Adrian Jones, Welsh Government Owen Lyttle, Department of Environment Northern Ireland (DOENI) Wendy Cooke, DOENI Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) Tricia Scott Maggie Newton Nina Sweet David Tompkins Ian Wardle Lance Jones, WRAP Cymru Ian Garner, WRAP Northern Ireland Louise McGregor, Zero Waste Scotland Alison McKinnie, Zero Waste Scotland A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

14 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the study The purpose of this in depth survey is to generate estimates of organic waste processed in the UK, the capacity of the UK organics processing/recycling infrastructure, and the nature, volume and value of the markets available for the outputs Scope of the work WRAP and other public bodies require information and data on the UK organics treatment sector (which covers a range of organic waste treatment processes operating across the UK), to assist in directing support resources and in developing policy. In particular, data is required on biological treatment techniques, such as composting and anaerobic digestion (AD) and residual waste processing through mechanical biological treatment (MBT). WRAP undertakes this work because the data collected in the survey is widely used by industry bodies, WRAP itself and bodies distributing industry funding to monitor inputs, outputs and markets. Repeated annually since the mid-1990s, this report has come to be regarded as the definitive data on the sector. This study involved using a range of sources of data, including data from the regulatory agencies (EA, NIEA & SEPA) and sample surveys of processors of organic waste. The results of the survey build on those from previous years, and include information and data from composting, AD and MBT facilities. The results will help WRAP inform its work and assess the extent to which it is meeting its objectives with respect to developing both capacity and markets for the outputs. Within this report the term organic waste has been assumed to refer to waste of animal or plant origin which, for recovery purposes, can be decomposed by micro-organisms, or other larger soil-borne organisms or enzymes. There are some overlaps here with definitions of bio-waste and biodegradable waste used in current legislation Background A survey of the organics processing industry has been undertaken since the mid-1990s, originally by The Composting Association (with funding from the Environment Agency and WRAP support in later years) and more recently by WRAP with the support of the Association for Organics Recycling (AfOR) 3, the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA), the Renewable Energy Association (REA) and the Environmental Services Association (ESA). The additional sector bodies have been included in recognition of the diverse range of technologies now operating in the organics treatment sector and to enable a representation of the wider industry, in particular AD. The results of earlier surveys underpinned the annual State of the Composting and Biological Waste Treatment Industry report produced by AfOR. The 2009 and 2010 surveys can be found on the WRAP website and previous reports can be found on the ORG website. 3 In 2013 REA and AfOR merged and AfOR is now represented by the Organics Recycling Group (ORG) within REA. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

15 1.4. Context The UK Government made a commitment to work towards a zero waste economy in the Coalition Programme for Government, published in May It is estimated that in the UK over 10 million tonnes of organic material had been going to landfill. A key focus for WRAP, in support of the Government s objectives, is the reduction in organic waste sent to landfill and an increase in the amount of this waste stream that is recycled. WRAP s work in this area takes two forms: supporting growth in organics treatment infrastructure and developing the markets for the recycled materials (compost and digestate). In particular, WRAP s organics programme is working with Defra to implement their Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan 4, which recognises the role of AD in both diverting organic waste from landfill and generating energy. The Scottish Government launched Scotland's first Zero Waste Plan in June 2010, setting out the Scottish Government's vision for a zero waste society: a Scotland where all waste is seen as a resource; waste is minimised; valuable resources are not disposed of in landfills, and most waste is sorted and recycled, leaving only limited amounts to be treated. May 2012 saw the passing of the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 which represent the most significant development in recycling that Scotland has ever seen and are designed to help us realise the true value of resources we currently throw away. This has the potential to boost Scotland s economy and create green jobs in the process. The new Regulations will also play a key role in helping Scotland reach its ambitious target of 70% recycling of all waste by In the context of organic waste, the role for Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS) is to provide practical help and support to enable a sustainable and profitable organics treatment industry. It does this through its support to organics treatment facilities to improve their efficiencies and the quality of their compost, digestate and biogas output products; work to improve market confidence in compost and digestate products; work with all sectors to encourage greater uptake of AD. The Welsh Government has set ambitious targets to achieve zero waste by In the context of organic waste, WRAP Cymru is working in partnership to develop Wales' infrastructure for recycling and reprocessing its waste and to increase the diversion of biodegradable waste into quality products such as compost and digestate and create demand for these products. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland works with WRAP NI to provide support to the organics treatment industry. A recast Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy is due for publication in To increase the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill, the Waste Strategy aims to address policy areas such as the introduction of a statutory 60% recycling target for local authority collected municipal waste and a landfill restriction for food waste. 4 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

16 2. Methodology 2.1 Introduction The data for this report was collected via a structured telephone survey and face-to-face interviews of multi-site operators. The survey used questionnaires to capture data pertaining to the organics treatment industry. Separate questionnaires were developed for permitted composting, anaerobic digestion (AD) and mechanical biological treatment (MBT 5 ). A database of sites to be contacted to participate in the survey was produced using the Organic Recycling Site Register (ORSR) database produced from the 2010 survey, plus information provided by the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). To this was added information made available by the project steering group and from other databases held by WRAP. For AD, the survey attempted to interview all sites operational during 2012, based on the data collected for the Official AD Information Portal map (available at but excluding waste water treatment facilities. For AD sites, a telephone survey was carried out by BDS Marketing Research Ltd, contacting individual sites and recording responses electronically during the call. For composting and MBT, two different approaches to engaging with sites were used. Single sites were contacted by telephone and the survey conducted by organic recycling consultants who were able to sense check the data as it was received. Data was inputted into an online questionnaire system at the time of the interview. To make surveying of businesses who operated a number of sites more efficient, those who operated more than 4 sites were offered face-toface survey interviews. Exempt sites were not surveyed this year, following the recommendations made after the previous survey. The survey was widely marketed through steering group members. In particular ADBA, ORG, ESA and REA publicised the work with their members. In addition, news releases were prepared and these were distributed by WRAP. The aim of marketing the work was to heighten awareness of the survey in the industry so that when approached to take part individuals already had some knowledge of the research. A page was also established on the WRAP website with information on the survey; this provided details of the work and also served to validate the research for any contacts that required it. This research focuses on the calendar year 2012 and follows on from the 2010 survey, which was delivered in One of the recommendations of the 2010 survey was to carry out the annual survey in a timely manner as soon as the calendar year is finished, rather than wait for regulatory returns data which becomes available around 11 months after the end of the year in question. This means that those operators interviewed for the 2012 survey were asked for input data. The methodology used for this data collection is explained in detail in Appendix 2. 5 For the purposes of this report an MBT plant is one that processes waste using mechanical sorting and biological treatment and produces a discernible organic product as a result - compost, digestate or a biomass rich refuse derived fuel (RDF). MBT does not include autoclave. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

17 2.2 Diagrammatic representation of the results The compiled data has been brought together in Sankey flow diagrams. These give a graphical representation of the flows of the organic material for each process type, from collection to final market application running top to bottom in the direction of the arrows. Figure 1: Example Sankey diagram layout Note: the diagram above is for example only and the individual labels are not intended to be legible; the Sankey diagrams shown later in the report are larger scale and labels are intended to be read. The width of the boxes in these Sankey diagrams is proportional to the quantity of material in tonnes. Similarly the width of arrows between process stages represents the tonnage flow (for each arrow, quantities are also given in figures). In other Sankey diagrams in this report other units (MWh and m 3 ) are also used. 2.3 Comments on methodology and lessons learned A number of observations on the methodology were recorded by the project team during the delivery of this research. The aim of these is to aid the continuous improvement of the methodology. A discussion of these is contained in Appendix 4. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

18 3. Results This section outlines the results of the analysis of the survey responses, providing narrative where this is required to explain or enhance the results. A total of 336 survey responses have been collected from permitted sites, comprising 252 composting sites, 61 AD sites and 23 MBT sites. This compares with 202 responses from permitted and 90 from exempt sites in 2010 (173 permitted composting, 19 permitted AD, 10 MBT, 86 exempt composting and 4 exempt AD). Attempts to survey exempt sites in previous years suggested that what was achievable was of questionable value. In addition, the permitting regime in England and Wales has changed, leaving fewer, smaller exempt sites. For these reasons, exempt sites were not surveyed this year. When applied to the raw data collected in the survey, the grossing methodology calculates estimates that are presented to the nearest tonne. These estimated figures are provided in the charts and tables of the report but rounded figures are given in the narrative, to aid reading. The reader should consider all figures in light of the data precision reported in Section below. 3.1 Permitted Composting Survey Performance and Participation The 2010 data to which comparisons are made in this section refer to permitted sites only, they do not include those that were operating under an exemption in During the telephone survey of UK composting sites, successful contact was made with 325 sites from an initial list of 368. From these sites, 252 completed surveys were achieved, compared to 173 surveyed in 2010 and 155 in 2009 (i.e. a 45% increase in responses compared to 2010 and 61% increase compared to 2009). Of the 325 sites where contact was made, 45 were not operating in 2012 and 28 chose not to take part. Considerable attempts were made to contact the remaining 43 sites, but for a number of reasons surveys were not collected from these sites (e.g. key contact not available, telephone not answered). It is worth noting at this point that for the purposes of this report, where there is reference to: Site - this is the physical composting location and may house more than one facility and more than one process. Facility - it is a single stand-alone process or combination of processes operating in series. Process - it is an individual composting technology e.g. IVC or aerated static pile Figure 2 illustrates this. Therefore, the survey collected responses from 252 sites operating 264 different facilities and 300 separate processes. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

19 from one or both of processes 1 and 2 from one or both of processes 1 and 2 Figure 2:Distinguishing between sites, facilities and processes Site 1 Single process, single stand alone facility Process 1 Site 2 In series, single facility, two processes Process 1 Process 2 Site 3 In parallel, two stand alone facilities and two processes Process 1 Process 2 Data on the quantity of organic material processed was collated for 264 facilities. Regulatory data covering site inputs for 2012 was not available at the time of the research so only data from the survey was used to estimate input, capacity and output figures for For the previous survey, covering 2010, site input data from the 173 composting sites surveyed was supplemented by regulatory data for a further 29 sites, meaning data from 202 sites was used. The breakdown of participation rates per country is summarised in Table 2 following. This table shows an increase in the participation rate in the survey of 16 percentage points, to 77%. Table 2: UK Composting site survey participation rates England Scotland Wales N. Ireland UK 2010 Change Sites listed (1) Not operational/not relevant (2) Refused Sites Surveyed % No conclusive contact (3) Active Population % % of Active Population Surveyed 76% 90% 81% 100% 78% 59% (1) This is the contact database developed using the ORSR contact database (developed in delivery of the 2010 survey) and data provided by EA, SEPA & NIEA. (2) These are sites that responded that they were not operating in 2012 or have yet to commence composting (3) These are sites where no contact was made with any individual able to answer the survey either because the appropriate individual was constantly unavailable or because there was no answer to calls to the site. The figure for the number of permitted sites known to be operational in 2012 (323) is an 11% increase on the number known to be operating in 2010 (291). The change in the A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

20 permitting system in England and Wales, which saw a number of previously exempt sites move to permits, appears to have had an impact on this increase. The number of formerly exempt sites identified in this survey (57) is higher than the population increase. If these sites are not included in the figures for 2012 the number of active sites reduces to 266, which indicates a downward trend in the number of active sites between 2010 and of the sites surveyed had become operational since the end of The greater incidence of sites responding that are recorded as not operational is discussed further in the methodology in Appendix 2. To estimate the size of the total UK and individual national inputs and outputs, the data from these 252 sites was applied to the whole population of the 323 operational sites in the UK, using the methodology summarised in Appendix 3. This grossing of survey data has been undertaken using the same methodology as for the 2010 survey and was performed following extensive quality checks of the raw collected data. Table 3 provides estimated inputs and outputs produced as well as the market size estimates. The 2012 figures have been presented in two forms: all sites surveyed and excluding sites which are known to have been operating under an exemption in The second set of data is more appropriate for comparison with the figures from the 2010 survey. This is an attempt to allow for an increase in composting which may be attributable to the change in the permitting system in However, the permitting system only changed in England and Wales while the numbers of previously exempt sites includes some in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which indicates that there is a background level of switching from exempt to permitted operation. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

21 Table 3: Size of the UK and National Composting Sector 2012 Total surveyed inputs (tonnes) Grossed inputs (tonnes) Surveyed site capacity (tonnes) (1) Grossed site capacity (tonnes) (1) Total compost output surveyed (tonnes) Grossed compost output (tonnes) Total employees surveyed England Scotland Wales N Ireland All sites 3,693, , , ,200 4,374,296 Excl. ex exempt 3,538, , , ,200 4,174,377 UK 2010 Change 3,861,319 All sites 5,083, , , ,200 5,850,257 +7% Excl. ex 5,444,091 4,918, , , ,200 5,640,462 +4% exempt All sites 4,623, , , ,000 5,529,801 Excl. ex exempt 4,323, , , ,000 5,177,752 All sites 6,148, , , ,000 7,476,919 4,178,049 +7% Excl. ex 7,014,914 exempt 6,086, , , ,000 7,091,588 +1% All sites 2,141, ,731 74,958 94,500 2,501,725 Excl. ex exempt 2,047, ,127 66,258 87,500 2,384,016 1,773,929 All sites 3,057, , ,406 94,500 3,469, % 2,817,517 Excl. ex 2,956, ,018 95,706 87,500 3,346, % exempt All sites ,035 Excl. ex exempt Grossed All sites 1, ,368 +9% employees Excl. ex 1,255 1, ,286 +2% exempt (1) Operators were asked for the practical operational capacity of their site N.B. rows labeled Excl. ex exempt contain data which exclude those sites surveyed in 2012 that are known to have been exempt in 2010, for comparison with 2010 data Data Precision The method for calculating data precision is explained in Appendix 3. For the 2012 survey the 90% confidence level on UK wide input data is % i.e. we are 90% confident that the quantity of material input is between 5,218,429 tonnes and 6,482,085 tonnes. Precision is similar for capacity and output figures at UK level Results Summary These results show: A UK market size (total throughput) for all permitted sites of 5.85 million tonnes, up by 7% compared to the 2010 survey, with compost outputs of 3.47 million tonnes, up by 23% compared to the 2010 survey. This disproportionate increase in the weight of A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

22 outputs could have been caused by the exceptionally wet weather in 2012, which led to higher water content of the compost produced and/or stored in the open air (meaning it had a greater density); some sites also reported carrying over inputs from 2011; When those sites that were exempt in 2010 are discounted to enable a more like-for-like comparison, the UK market size is estimated at 5.64 million tonnes, up by 4% compared to the 2010 survey, with compost outputs of 3.35 million tonnes, up by 19%; A UK total composting capacity of 7.48 million tonnes (7.09 million tonnes when sites that were exempt in 2010 are removed, 1% up on 2010), suggesting a 78% capacity utilisation (this was 77% in 2010); A total UK employment in composting of 1,370 full time equivalents (1,290 without previously exempt sites) which is an increase of 2% compared to 2010; and The average annual input per site in 2012 was 20,000 tonnes (excluding formerly exempt sites) compared with 19,000 tonnes per site in Including sites which were formerly exempt reduces the overall average to 17,000 tonnes per site, indicating that the formerly exempt sites are generally smaller (the average annual inputs for formerly exempt sites were just 6,000 tonnes per site in 2012) Survey Response Analysis and Summary The responses for each individual survey question asked are presented in Appendix 5. The interpretation of this extensive dataset follows. Supply Chain Flow As described in Section 2.2, Sankey diagrams are a useful tool for visually presenting complex data. The figure overleaf is the Sankey diagram for composting flows. When the inputs for each type of facility are grossed it has an effect on the proportion of the different feedstocks. Grossed figures are used in the Sankey diagram whereas survey results are noted elsewhere in the report. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

23 Figure 3: UK Composting 2012 supply chain flow A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

24 Waste feedstock sources Further to the detail in the Sankey diagram, the survey results noted: The input waste was predominantly from sources outside the site at which the plant is located and outside the site s own business group (i.e. it was from external third party sources), with 96%, by weight, recorded as such. Just 3% was from the site at which the plant is located and 1% from other sites within the same business group. The 2010 survey recorded 85% of inputs as being from external third party sources; The proportion of feedstocks received from local authority sources was 88%, by weight, of the total input to sites, the same proportion as in However, the total quantity received from local authority sources increased to 5.2 million tonnes in 2012 from 4.8 million tonnes in 2010 in line with the overall increase in UK inputs. There was a small increase in commercial (non-municipal) waste inputs to 700,000 tonnes in 2012 from 655,000 tonnes in This data is summarised in Table 4 below. Table 4: Source of material input to sites (Grossed figures, UK, 2012) Quantity Source (tonnes) Proportion Local Authority 5,150,720 88% Agriculture 2,237 <0.5% Supermarkets/retail 60,672 1% Hospitality 5,999 <0.5% Food manufacturers/processors 3,999 <0.5% Other 626,630 11% Total 5,850,257 (1) Material sourced from the plant at which the site is located is included in the other figure. The majority of inputs to sites was of separated green/garden waste at 63% of total inputs. Mixed food and green waste was 26% of inputs with separated food waste at 5% and other material providing 6%; (examples of materials entered as other are sewage sludge, wood, liquids, manure and sanitised material from other composting sites. There was a large amount of sewage sludge entered into five sites where this was mixed with wood and green waste). This detail was not collected in A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

25 Figure 4: Type of material input to sites proportioned by weight (% of total, UK, 2012) Examining input waste type by source of that material (as summarised in Figure 5) shows that local authorities and agriculture supplied mainly green/garden waste to composting sites and supermarkets & retail, hospitality and food manufacturers & processors supplied mainly food waste. Inputs categorised as other featured sewage sludge, wood chip and mixed green and cardboard waste as noted above. Figure 5: Source of the categories of input waste (% of total input per material source, UK, 2012) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

26 Facility type and inputs Survey results showed that 61% of separated food waste and 99% of mixed food and green waste was processed at sites with an in-vessel composting (IVC) facility. 38% of separated food waste was processed at sites recorded as other - mostly thermophilic aerobic digestion (TAD) facilities. 78% of separated green/garden waste was processed at sites containing only an open air windrow (OAW) facility. Other inputs were also mainly processed at OAW sites (82%) with the majority of this being sewage sludge and wood. These results are summarised in Table 5. Table 5: Proportion of input material to each type of facility (% of total weight, UK, 2012) Separated Food Separated Green/Garden Mixed Food & Green Other IVC with another technology in series (1) 36% 8% 47% 9% IVC 25% 7% 52% 5% Open Air Windrow <0.5% 78% 1% 82% Windrow Under Cover 0% 1% 0% <0.5% Aerated Static Pile 0% 1% 0% 4% Continuous Block 0% 2% 0% 0% Other (2) 38% 31% <0.5% <0.5% NB. Columns do not add up to 100% due to rounding. All sites provided data for this question. (1) These are sites where IVC is part of an in series system. Where sites have more than one facility but these run in parallel, data relating to each facility is recorded separately under the respective heading. (2) These are all the processes classified as other that operate as stand alone or in series. Contamination Respondents were asked to estimate the level of contamination they typically found per tonne of feedstock, with contamination being defined as items which are not biodegradable. The results are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Estimated levels of contamination in feedstock reported by surveyed sites (UK, 2012) Contamination level Responses Proportion Less than 1% % 1-5% % 6-10% 5 2% Greater than 10% 4 2% Total responses 262 The four sites that reported contamination levels of greater than 10% received materials solely from local authority sources. Process types and inputs The majority (54%) of organic waste that was processed at composting sites in 2012 was done so using OAW. This remains the most cost effective way of treating non-animal byproduct (ABP) organic waste within the UK regulatory and planning framework. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

27 IVC technology covers a myriad of systems largely designed to meet the requirements of the ABPR. The higher capital cost of enclosing composting systems means that many operators opt to complete some of the process using other technologies. The survey results show that 67% of sites that operated an IVC facility also operated at least one other type of facility at the same site. Of these sites 74% operated the facilities in series with the IVC system, 23% operated them in parallel to and 3% both in parallel and in series (i.e. at sites where there were three or more facilities). Further analysis of IVC sites shows that: Sites where IVC operated independently of other processes received 19% of total UK composting inputs compared with 7% of inputs in 2010; and Sites where IVC operated in series with another process accounted for 20% of total UK composting inputs. In 2010 IVC facilities operating in series received 27% of inputs. Where IVC was operated in series with another process, the process was OAW in 64% of cases, aerated static pile in 23% and windrow under cover in 13%. The survey showed that there were 300 processes operating at the 252 sites, i.e. that 19% of sites were using more than one process. Figure 6 shows the breakdown of processes surveyed for This shows the dominance of IVC and OAW processes, which accounted for 87% of all processes used. Figure 6: Proportion of each type of process surveyed (% of total processes) Figure 7 shows how sites with more than one process operate these processes. The results are very similar to those for IVC processes quoted above because, of the sites operating more than one process, IVC is present at 81% of them and, therefore, has a major influence on the overall results. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

28 Figure 7: How sites with more than one type of process operate these processes In 2010 there was an even split between sites operating processes in series and those operating in parallel and no sites reported doing both. The difference between 2012 and 2010 is likely to be attributable to a slight change in the way the question was asked in 2012, with more emphasis placed on ascertaining how processes on the same site related to each other. The survey results show that those sites that reported operating parallel processes were, on the whole, processing food waste and mixed food and green waste in the IVC or TAD part of the operation and processing separated green waste in the OAW part. Composting process types are explained in the Glossary Appendix 1. Figure 8 compares the inputs to the different types of facility between 2012 and A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

29 Figure 8: Comparison between 2012 and 2010 input quantities for each type of facility The drop in inputs to OAW sites is likely to be a result of the wet weather experienced during the summer of 2012 that affected plant growth, which in turn reduced the amount of green waste produced, which is largely processed at OAW sites. Waste received at IVC facilities overall (operating in series or independently) rose by over 500,000 tonnes between 2010 and Facilities recorded as other, operating in series or stand alone, received an estimated 230,000 tonnes of organic waste in 2012, up almost 200,000 tonnes on Three TAD facilities accounted for 130,000 tonnes of this (all of these facilities were stand-alone). A single site containing a TAD system was surveyed for 2010 but this operated in parallel with an OAW system and inputs were recorded at whole site level and could not be split down for comparison. Site Throughput Survey responses showed that 83% of sites processed 30,000 tonnes or less of organic waste in The distribution of input tonnages per site is summarised in Figure 9 below. Of the 54 sites in the 2012 survey which had been operating under an exemption in 2010, 42 processed no more than 5,000 tonnes. As a result, 35% of the composting sites in this year s survey processed up to 5,000 tonnes compared to 15% of the permitted sites surveyed in A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

30 Figure 9: Input per composting site, as % of all responses (ranges in tonnes x 1,000) Site Capacity Sites were asked what their practical annual operational capacity was in This took into account the regulatory capacity i.e. permitted and planning, but is essentially a record of the amount of input material the site could physically handle in The answers have been subjected to the same grossing method as used for the input quantities. This results in an estimated annual capacity (as opposed to permitted capacity) of 7.48 million tonnes at composting sites in the UK in 2012, which compares with 7.09 million tonnes of capacity in This suggests that there was spare capacity of 22% (23% in 2010) or approximately 1.63 million tonnes (also 1.63 million tonnes in 2010). NB. Capacity was only provided at site level and not for the different facilities operating in parallel. Therefore, all sites containing IVC have been combined in the table below, as have all sites containing other technologies. Table 7: Capacity and utilisation at composting sites in the UK, 2012 Facility Capacity (tonnes) Utilisation Spare Capacity (tonnes) IVC 2,697,294 85% 402,769 Open Air Windrow 4,158,953 76% 981,201 Windrow Under Cover 37,048 82% 6,797 Aerated Static Pile 74,942 72% 20,815 Continuous Block 68,282 90% 6,748 Other 440,401 53% 208,332 Total 7,476,919 78% 1,626,662 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

31 Pre-processing When waste is received at a composting site it is subjected to pre-processing to prepare the material for composting. This pre-processing can involve the removal of contaminants such as plastics but is mainly used to alter the state of the organic material to aid the composting process. Only 3% of sites reported that they did not conduct any kind of pre-processing (4% in 2010), with most sites involved in more than a single type of pre-processing Table 8 below illustrates pre-processing activity. Table 8: Proportion of sites undertaking pre-processing activities Type of pre-processing Proportion of sites involved Shredding 87% 92% Hand picking 55% 55% Blending/Mixing 13% 28% Screening 14% 26% De-packaging 2% 1% Pulping 0% 0% Other 4% 4% Where the answer was other, sites reported performing visual inspections and using magnets to remove metal contaminants. The proportion of sites performing the two main pre-processing activities is very similar in 2012 and However, there have been significant reductions in the proportion of sites performing Blending/Mixing and Screening. The reduction in Blending/Mixing could be attributable to sites ceasing the practice of mixing wood chip with waste liquids prior to composting in OAW systems. The reduction in screening may be attributable to attempts by composting operations to reduce odours and emissions, although this was not explored in this survey. Composting Period Sites were asked for their composting period, covering the sanitisation, stabilisation and maturation stages. Based upon the survey responses, the average composting period was 11.4 weeks compared with 12 weeks for For IVC processes the average was 9.3 weeks and for OAW process it was 12.2 weeks. The most common composting period noted by respondents was 12 weeks. It should be noted that the range of this data set is 0.4 weeks (i.e. 3 days - a TAD process) to 52 weeks (there is a single entry for 52 weeks, the next longest period to this is 36 weeks 6, both of these processes are OAW receiving below average inputs of materials per annum). Figure 10 shows that the vast majority of surveyed sites had a composting period of between 5 and 15 weeks, with only a small proportion with a composting period greater than 20 weeks. This of course can vary at some sites depending upon the time of year, the weather, the feedstock and the free capacity available. 6 If the outliers are removed from the data i.e. responses of less than a week and of 52 weeks, the average composting period reduces to 11.3 weeks, therefore the effect of these figures on the overall average is minimal. If just the figure of 52 weeks is removed the average reduces to 11.2 weeks, again very minimal. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

32 Figure 10: Composting Period - distribution of responses per surveyed site Composting period can also be shown by facility type as illustrated in Figure 11. Figure 11: Composting Period - distribution of responses per surveyed site by facility type Compost Outputs The material produced at composting sites is sent for use in numerous end markets. The total estimated output from composting sites in the UK was 3.47 million tonnes for all permitted sites in Excluding those sites that were exempt in 2010, for comparability with the 2010 survey, the 2012 output would have been 3.35 million tonnes compared to 2.82 million tonnes in 2010, i.e. a 23% increase between the two years. This increase in outputs of 23% compares with a smaller increase in inputs of 7%. The 2010 survey returned an inputs to outputs ratio of 44% whereas for the 2012 survey the ratio was A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

33 60%. Both these figures are in the region of what might be expected as an input:output ratio from composting sites, and the increase in 2012 could be attributable to greater moisture content in the compost, particularly at open air sites, caused by the extreme wet weather. A small number of respondents volunteered the fact that they had carried over some stock of compost from 2011, which would also affect the input:output ratio, but it is not known how many sites this might relate to. The estimated grossed quantity of compost going to each end market is shown in Figure 12 for each processing type; the total quantity of each end market is also shown in this table. Agriculture remains the largest market for compost products: 68% of all compost produced is reported as being supplied to agricultural markets. This compares with 67% reported in the 2010 survey. End markets for compost outputs are summarised in Table 9. As can also be observed in Table 9, the distribution of outputs across the markets remains, on the whole, similar to The notable exception is for landfill restoration where the market has decreased significantly. This may relate to the increased number of MBT plants, which are limited to providing their compost like output (CLO) into this market, as well as a change to the regulations in Scotland that have diverted compost away from this market 7. The other category contains material sent to AD plants, compost that is bagged in small quantities and sold locally, topsoil and compost being stored on site. Figure 12: End Markets for Compost Output, as % of total UK market by weight, If LAs send food waste or garden waste to sites which then sell/use the compost for landfill daily cover then it will not count towards the LA s recycling rates. (If it is used for final restoration, it is does count.) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

34 Table 9: Estimated market destination of compost by process type, UK 2012 (tonnes, grossed) IVC with another process in series Agriculture & field horticulture Horticulture/ growing media Landscaping/ landscape development Turf Landfill restoration Fuel for energy recovery Other 411, ,387 18,758 11,227 19,168-10, ,597 IVC 416,269 86,686 91,255 22,591 4,529 15,061 9, ,975 Open Air Windrow 1,308, , ,322 2,875 89,444 23,139 83,777 1,894,039 Windrow Under Cover 13, ,643 15,335 Aerated Static Pile 22,646-1, ,149 28,435 Continuous Block 69,858-8, ,084 Other 113, ,875-1,935-88, ,461 Total market 2,354, , ,391 36, ,076 38, ,102 3,469, market share 68% 12% 9% 1% 3% 1% 6% 2010 total market 1,886, , ,187 14, ,110 10, ,361 2,817, market share 67% 10% 10% 1% 8% 0.4% 4% Total N.B. The categories used for the 2010 survey were: Agriculture; Horticulture Professional; Horticulture Amateur; Landscaping; Sports Turf; Landfill Restoration; Fuel for energy; and Other. To align these categories better with those used for the 2012 survey Horticulture Professional and Horticulture Amateur have been combined in the table above. As noted earlier the other category contains material sent to AD plants, compost that is bagged in small quantities and sold to a local market, topsoil and compost being stored on site. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

35 The proportion of outputs from each type of facility going to each end market is shown in Figure 13. Figure 13: Markets for outputs per facility type NB. Unless stated the facilities are stand-alone except for the Other process which includes other processes operated in series and as stand-alone. Sales prices The survey asked participants what their average sales price was in 2012 for compost sold into various end markets. The figures listed in Table 10 show the ex-works sales prices i.e. the financial transaction is an at the gate exchange which excludes costs for transport and any spreading of material. The negative prices represent the site paying to have the material taken away. The mean price has decreased for nearly all markets between 2010 and 2012, only landscaping/landscape development and other have shown an increase. In the case of the other market, respondents to the survey noted that they sold the compost as a low volume, bagged product to the local market and this enabled a high price per tonne to be achieved. Reported prices varied considerably, with there being large differences in the minimum and maximum prices across almost all markets, as illustrated in Figure 14. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

36 Table 10: Analysis of sales price by end-use market, 2012 v Ex Works Prices in /t Agriculture & field horticulture Horticulture/ growing media (3) Landscaping/ landscape development Landfill restoration Fuel for energy recovery Base Max Price Min Price (1) Mean Price Mode (2) 2010 Max/Min 2010 Mean/Mode / / / / / / 0 Turf Other 36 No mode 20/ /none / / / /none (4) / / 0 (1) Negative prices indicate fee charged by end user to take the compost away. (2) The mode is the data point (or points) that occur most frequently in a dataset. In 2012 and in 2010 the most common sale price for composts in all categories was 0. (3) This was separated into two different markets for the 2010 survey: Horticulture Professional and Horticulture Amateur. Two instances of bagged compost were recorded under Horticulture Amateur for 2010, six instances were recorded under Other for (4) High prices here reflect sales of compost in small bags. The distribution of reported prices per tonne, per end use market is illustrated in Figure 14. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

37 Figure 14: Maximum, Minimum and Mean Compost Sales prices (in /t) by end use application, 2012 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

38 The value of the end markets has also been calculated as shown in Table 11 below. Table 11: Compost market values 2012 Mean Price/ Tonne Tonnes Value 2010 Value Difference 2010 to 2012 Agriculture & field horticulture ,354, m 2.3m - 0.5m Horticulture/ growing media , m 3m + 0.5m Landscaping/ landscape development , m 2.7m + 0.5m Turf , m 0.2m Same Landfill restoration , m 0.4m - 0.3m Fuel for energy recovery , m 0.1m Same Other , m 0.5m + 2m Total 3,469, m 9.2m + 2.2m The overall market value calculated in this way has shown a marked increase of 2.2m (24%) between 2010 and 2012, with much of this growth attributable to the fact that the quantity of output is 23% higher in The increase in the amount going to other markets (described on page 31, above) had a significant effect and was caused mainly by three times more sites (36) reporting providing compost to other markets than for 2010 (12 sites). There have been reductions in the value of the agricultural and landfill restoration markets. The former is strictly due to the lowering of the mean price per tonne from 1.21/tonne to 0.75/tonne because the market size, in terms of the volume of compost being sold into it, increased by 25%. Anecdotal evidence suggests that much of the compost destined for the agricultural market had to be stockpiled during periods of wet weather in 2012 when farmers could not access their fields with vehicles, meaning supplies of this material became high and drove down the price. The reduction in the value of the landfill restoration market is attributable to both a reduction in the mean price per tonne and a halving of the market size. This is likely to have been caused by the competition from compost like output (CLO) produced at MBT plants which this survey has shown to be being supplied to this market at a cost to the MBT plant. The increase in the value of the market for landscaping can be attributed to both a growth in volume of compost sold in to the market and an increase in the mean price per tonne. While the mean price per tonne for compost sold into the horticulture market has decreased, there has been sufficient increase in the volume of compost sold to result in an overall increase in the market size. PAS 100 Of the surveyed composting sites, 128 stated they were currently producing compost certified to PAS 100 and 124 that they were not, almost a 50:50 split. Respondents that stated they were producing compost certified to PAS 100 were also asked if the certification applied to all or part of the outputs: 116 sites (92%) stated that all of the site s outputs were PAS 100 certified, whereas 10 sites (8%) stated that the certification applied to only part of their outputs. Where it applied to only part of their outputs, sites noted that it applied only to the 0-10mm or that it applied to everything apart from oversize. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

39 Certification data show that there were 168 registered PAS 100 processes at the end of March 2013, which compares with 115 registered in Where sites were producing compost with PAS 100 certification only a single site stated that they did not intend to maintain the certification. Of the 124 sites that were not producing compost certified to PAS 100, 38% noted that they intend to obtain certification and 62% that they did not. Where respondents noted that they did not intend to obtain certification the main reasons for this were: It is too costly; Some inputs to the site e.g. sewage sludge do not qualify; and It is not required because the compost is used on land owned by the composter. Of the surveyed input tonnages, sites producing PAS 100 certified outputs accounted for around 3.2 million tonnes, while sites not producing any certified outputs accounted for around 1.2 million tonnes. Of the sites not producing any PAS 100 certified outputs, 77% received inputs of 10,000 tonnes or less in 2012, while for sites producing PAS 100 certified outputs just 23% received 10,000 tonnes or less and 48% received 20,000 tonnes or more. Therefore, while the number of surveyed sites that are and are not producing PAS 100 certified outputs is very similar, those producing certified outputs accounted for three times the throughput. Price data for sites that produced PAS 100 certified outputs was compared with price data for sites not producing any outputs with the certification, producing the results shown in Table 12. Table 12: Impact of certification on compost prices (median, minimum and maximum prices, UK, 2012) Market PAS 100 certified Not certified median Min Max respons respons median Min Max es es Agriculture & field horticulture Horticulture/ growing media Landscaping/ landscape development Turf No sales Landfill restoration Fuel for energy recovery No sales Other Note: a negative figure indicates a cost to the producer. The results noted above suggest that, in the main, certification does produce a premium in selling price. However the variability in prices obtained suggests they are dependent on local market conditions. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

40 Site employees Sites contacted were asked for the total number of employees involved in the composting operation, as full time equivalents (FTE). The collected data identified 1,035 staff employed at the sites surveyed. Grossing these figures for the UK market as a whole (i.e. compensating for those sites where employee data was not collected) gave a UK total employment figure of 1,370 (1,260 FTE employees in 2010). Analysing individual site data (as summarised in Figure 15) showed that most composting sites employed between 1 and 5 FTE employees (83% of the sites surveyed) with a small number employing greater than 50. Figure 15: Employment bands for UK composting sites, as % of all responses (as full time equivalents) Business Issues Respondents to the survey were asked the extent to which a number of business issues affected their operation, those business issues being: Competition for feedstocks; Markets for outputs; Contamination in feedstocks; and Regulatory environment. The results of this are shown in Figure 16. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

41 Figure 16: The extent to which specified business issues affect composting operations Therefore 48% of respondents saw the regulatory environment as greatly impacting on their business. Conversely, 61% thought that markets for outputs had little or no impact on their business. Contamination in feedstocks was reported to greatly affect 33% of sites that responded to this question. This is in slight contrast to the answers noted on page 24, which states that contamination levels were less than 1% of inputs at 58% of sites and between 1% and 5% of inputs at 38% of sites. However, these responses did not note whether contamination levels of less than 5% still represent an issue to the site. Further analysis of the responses shown in Figure 16 reveals that 31% of sites with contamination levels of less than 1% and 33% of sites with contamination levels between 1% and 5% consider that contamination affects them greatly. Sites were also asked for their opinions on the current threats and opportunities to their businesses. The opportunities mainly centre on the positive impact of government policy and the demand for compost, whereas threats focus on the cost and effort involved in meeting regulatory requirements and increased competition for feedstocks from larger composting sites and from AD. A summarised listing of the responses given is shown in Appendix 5 and the summary below reflects the topics most often raised. Respondents nominated the following as offering potential opportunities to their business: Government policy peat reduction / focus on food waste/end of waste making PAS compulsory, Zero Waste Scotland/zero waste to landfill; Plenty of demand for compost/end market opportunities; Specific uses (Biomass for oversize, on-site use, local markets) AD; PAS 100; More farmers interested in using compost; A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

42 Positive public attitude/educating people to understand value of compost; and Increasing size of operations (provides economies of scale). Respondents perceived the following as problematic for their business: Cost/effort required to meet regulatory requirements; Competition for feedstocks from large companies/ad (affecting gate fees, processing); Regulators were felt to have a lack of knowledge and understanding/lack of flexibility to deal with different types/sizes of operation; PAS 100 is seen as complicated/onerous/expensive, not viable for small operators; There was a feeling that regulation was not applied consistently to all sites; and Issues relating to odour/cost of odour control/regulation on bioaerosols Conclusions The survey results show that the quantity of material composted at permitted sites increased by 7%, between 2010 and 2012, to 5.85 million tonnes, although a proportion of this increase can be attributed to the change in the permitting system in the intervening period. The quantity of Local Authority material composted at permitted sites increased by a similar amount (8%). Open Air Windrow (OAW) remains the most common process used, at 81% of sites. However, nearly 40% of the material processed was treated by IVC, partly due to the use of IVC in combination with OAW. The tonnage of compost produced increased more significantly (by 23%) which is likely to be related to the exceptionally wet weather in 2012, which led to higher water content of the compost produced and/or stored in the open air. Agriculture remains the largest market for compost products: 68% of all compost produced is reported as being supplied to agricultural markets (67% in 2010). The distribution of outputs across the compost markets is generally similar to 2010, with the exception of landfill restoration where the market has decreased significantly. This reduction is partly attributable to the competition from compost like output (CLO) produced at MBT plants, but in Scotland there have been changes to what a local authority can count as recycling which have affected the use of compost for landfill restoration. Although the mean price for compost in nearly all markets has decreased between 2010 and 2012, the overall market value has shown an increase of 2.2m (24%) mostly due to the increase in the tonnage of compost produced. Attitudes to PAS 100 certification are positive, with over half of the sites surveyed currently operating a certified process and all but one of these intending to maintain its certification. Furthermore, compost sold by sites operating to PAS 100 is generally achieving a higher price than compost from other sites. The findings of this survey can be regarded as robust, since the number responding is the highest achieved to date. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

43 3.2 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) The following section describes the results of the AD part of the survey. This involved interviews with operators of industrial, commercial and farm based AD plants listed in the Official AD Information Portal map but excluding AD facilities used for waste water treatment. The sample for 2012 was significantly different from that surveyed in 2010, and the methodology for grossing changed. In addition the 2010 results were uncertain due to the small population and even smaller number of responses, particularly to some questions. Therefore it is not possible to compare results from the two surveys directly, particularly throughputs and capacities Survey Performance and Participation The telephone survey of UK AD sites successfully contacted 79 from an original list of 99 sites. It delivered 61 completed surveys, compared to 19 surveys from a population of 48 in Of those 79 sites contacted only 6 chose not to take part, compared to 12 in Considerable attempts were made to contact the remaining sites, but for a number of reasons surveys were not collected from these sites (such as key contact not available, telephone not answered etc.). Participation rates are summarised in Table 13. In 2010, returns data from EA, SEPA, NIEA meant that 2010 input figures for 37 UK sites were collected. For 2012, regulatory returns data were not available so each site was asked for 2012 input data and 55 sites responded. Table 13: UK Anaerobic digestion site survey 2012 participation rates Outcome No of Sites Survey undertaken 61 No contact established 3 No response 17 Not operational in Not relevant (1) 9 Refused 6 Grand Total 99 (1) These are 3 AD facilities on MBT sites, which only took input from the neighbouring MBT facility, and 6 sites which do not operate on a continuous basis. Based upon the responses from the sites surveyed, the distribution of operational AD sites in 2012 can be summarised as shown in Table 14. These populations were used as the basis for grossing surveyed input, capacity and output figures to produce a picture of the UK industry as a whole. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

44 Table 14: UK Operational AD Sites Classification 8 England Scotland Wales N. Ireland Total Commercial Demonstration Industrial Industrial with discharge to sewer On-farm Total Sites Surveyed To estimate the size of the total UK and individual national inputs, capacities and outputs, the data from these 61 sites was used to fill the gaps in the data from the remaining 26, using the methodology summarised in Appendix 3. Note that this methodology differs from that employed in 2010, and the range of types of facility included in the survey also differs. As a result, only limited comparisons between the 2012 and 2010 data can be made. The industrial AD site classification includes facilities located on the same sites as drinks manufacturers, breweries and distilleries which process large volumes of liquid and discharge treated water to sewer. Surveys were completed for 5 of these sites from a UK population of 11. These industrial sites were least likely to participate in the survey and even those that did were unable to provide answers to many of the questions. As these sites process typically in excess of 500,000 tonnes per annum and do not produce a digestate for supply to users, they have a considerable impact on grossed throughputs but no impact on the digestate end market. Therefore for clarity, these facilities have been excluded from the grossing calculations. However, those remaining industrial sites which in general process smaller volumes and do produce a digestate for market, have been included in the following grossing calculations. Table 15 shows the market size estimates from grossing inputs and outputs. Because of the small number of sites in Wales and Northern Ireland, data from these nations is not shown, to avoid identification of individual sites. 8 Definitions used for this study: Commercial sites which accept waste from off-site, on a commercial basis (i.e. for a gate fee). May be a farm based enterprise Industrial sites which process their own wastes, typically on a large scale, such as food and drink manufacturers. On-farm sites which are both located on a farm and process only material generated on-farm (including energy crops) Demonstration demonstration/r&d sites. May contract in waste but not on a large scale A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

45 Table 15: Size of the UK and National AD sector 2012 (1) England Scotland UK Total (3) Input - Surveyed (tonnes) 841,908 76, ,256 Input - Grossed (tonnes) 1,526, ,684 1,687,092 Capacity - Surveyed (tonnes) (2) 846,158 52, ,006 Capacity - Grossed (tonnes) 1,829, ,831 2,070,712 Digestate - Surveyed (tonnes) 695,081 69, ,173 Digestate - Grossed (tonnes) 1,310, ,330 1,441,860 Employees - Surveyed (FTE) Employees - Grossed (FTE) (1) Input, capacity, digestate and employment data exclude industrial sites co-located with drinks manufacturers, breweries and distilleries which process large volumes of liquid and discharge treated water to sewer. It is estimated that these facilities amounted to an additional 6 million tonnes of throughput in (2) Plant operators were asked for the practical operational capacity of their site, which can differ significantly from the permitted capacity. Fewer sites supplied this information than supplied input/output figures. (3) UK figures are for all 4 nations. Welsh and NI data suppressed to avoid disclosing data on individual sites The UK throughput and capacity totals split by site type and nation are shown in Table 16 and Table 17. Table 16: Size of the UK and National AD inputs in 2012 Classification England Scotland UK Total (2) Commercial 657, , ,913 Demonstration 3,365 7,365 Industrial (1) 248, ,122 On-farm 617,405 1, ,692 Total 1,526, ,684 1,687,092 (1) Excludes industrial sites processing large volume of liquid and discharging treated water to sewer (2) UK figures are for all 4 nations. Table 17: Size of the UK and National AD operational capacity in 2012 Classification England Scotland UK Total (2) Commercial 783, , ,750 Demonstration 3,365 11,365 Industrial (2) 350, ,645 On-farm 692,440 1, ,952 Total 1,829, ,831 2,070,712 (1) Excludes industrial sites processing large volume of liquid and discharging treated water to sewer (2) UK figures are for all 4 nations. As the sample for 2012 was significantly different from that surveyed in 2010, and the methodology for grossing changed, it is not possible to compare throughputs and capacities A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

46 directly. However, 34 sites surveyed in 2012 reported coming on-line in 2011 and Of these 16 were farm based, 12 commercial, 5 industrial (of which 1 was an industrial facility which discharged treated water to sewer) and 1 demonstration facility. This brought on stream (excluding the single facility discharging treated water to sewer) an additional reported 500,000 tonnes of operational capacity (260,000t in 2011 and 240,000t in 2012) which processed a reported 370,000 tonnes of feedstock in Grossing up the operators estimates of throughput and the practical operating capacity of the surveyed sites leads to an estimate for UK throughput (excluding industrial facilities processing large volumes of liquids and discharging treated water to sewer) of 1.69 million tonnes and available capacity of 2.07 million tonnes, implying an 82% utilisation in The significant difference between the AD throughput calculated here for 2012 and the estimate of 1.15 million tonnes reported for 2010 can be explained by a number of factors: the total number of operational sites identified was significantly higher in 2012; of those sites surveyed in 2012, 34 had started operations since increases in feedstock supply including domestic food waste. 7 of the sites surveyed in 2012 were exempt from permitting in 2010, and therefore would not have been included in the 2010 throughput figures Survey Response Analysis and Commentary The responses for each individual survey question asked are presented in Appendix 5. The interpretation of this extensive dataset follows. Supply Chain Flow As described in Section 2.2, Sankey diagrams are a useful tool for visually presenting complex data. The figure overleaf is the Sankey diagram for AD flows, excluding industrial sites co-located with drinks manufacturers which process large volumes of liquid and discharge the treated water to sewer. When the inputs for each type of facility are grossed it has an effect on the proportion of the different feedstocks. Grossed figures are used in the Sankey diagram whereas survey results are noted elsewhere in the report. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

47 Figure 17: UK Anaerobic Digestion 2012 supply chain flow NB. No biogas is shown in the diagram as being sent directly to the grid because although this was reported as an outlet in the survey, figures on the quantity were not provided. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

48 Process and Technology The survey collected data on the process types and technology being used in UK anaerobic digestion facilities. These figures include data collected from the 5 surveyed industrial facilities that process large volumes of liquid and discharge treated water to sewer, excluded from the throughput grossing. These are reported separately where they have a significant impact on the overall AD industry picture. Process 65% of the surveyed sites ran a single stage process compared to 35% two stage, where a single stage system is defined as one which utilises just one sealed reactor and a two stage system utilises two. In England the proportion running single stage was slightly more (67% single stage, 33% two stage), in Scotland slightly less (63% single stage, 37% two stage). The number of process stages by site classification varied as summarised in Table 18 below, showing a higher than average prevalence of two stage processes in commercial facilities. Table 18: Single v Two stage process, by AD site classification, UK 2012 Single Stage Two Stage Commercial 52% 48% Demonstration 75% 25% Industrial 83% 17% Industrial discharge to sewer 80% 20% On-Farm 70% 30% Most facilities (88% overall, 90% in England, 88% in Scotland) ran a continuous process, with 10% (4 sites in England and 1 in Scotland) batch and 2% (a single site) both 9. By site classification, responses show batch processing prevalent in commercial and industrial sites (but not industrial sites discharging treated water to sewer) in particular. Table 19: Continuous v Batch process, by AD site classification (as % number of sites per classification), UK 2012 Continuous Batch Both Commercial 80% 16% 4% Demonstration 100% 0% Industrial 86% 14% Industrial discharge to sewer 100% 0% On-Farm 95% 5% 9 Continuous processing is a system where waste can be continually added and removed without stopping the system; with a batch system, the process has to be stopped to allow more waste to be introduced. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

49 Most facilities ran a wet process 10 with only 2 facilities (one on-farm site in England, one commercial site in Scotland) reporting using a dry process, and 1 on-farm facility in England using both. Operating Conditions The majority (85%) of facilities reported using a mesophilic process 11 with 9 facilities (including 5 plants in England, 3 in Scotland) reporting using thermophilic. The summary by site classification is given in the table below: Table 20: Mesophilic v Thermophilic AD process, by AD site classification (as % number of sites per classification), UK 2012 Mesophilic Thermophilic Commercial 88% 12% (3 sites) Demonstration 100% 0% Industrial 100% 0% Industrial discharge to sewer 60% 40% (2 sites) On-Farm 80% 20% (4 sites) Reported hydraulic retention time, i.e. the number of days that material is held in the anaerobic digester, averaged at 43.1 days although responses varied considerably. The distribution of responses is given in Figure 18 below. Figure 18: UK Anaerobic Digestion Hydraulic Retention Time (Days, as number of responses) 10 Wet processes utilise 5-15% dry matter in the digester, dry processes over 15% dry matter in the digester. 11 Mesophilic anaerobic digestion operates at temperatures between 20 C and about 40, typically 37 C. Thermophilic digesters operates at temperatures above 50 C. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

50 Considering retention time by process type and conditions, from the data received it appears that the number of process stages has the most noticeable impact on hydraulic retention time (increasing from an average of 41 days for single stage to 50 days for two stages). An impact depending upon whether the process is wet (av. 44 days) or dry (34 days) was also noted but as the latter figure is based upon data from just 2 sites, this cannot be considered as a robust conclusion. Table 21: Average hydraulic retention time v process conditions, UK 2012 Process Parameter Options Average retention time (Days) Number of process stages Single Stage 41 Two Stage 50 Continuous or batch Continuous 44 operation Batch 41 Dry Matter content Wet 44 Dry 34 (2 sites) Process Temperature Mesophilic 43 Thermophilic 45 Pasteurisation Of 61 plants responding to the survey, 27 (44%) reported using pasteurisation, 44% pre and 56% post digestion. Reviewing how the application of pasteurisation corresponds to the use of individual feedstocks, from those facilities which reported input tonnages (see later notes on feedstock types) survey responses show the widespread use of pasteurisation for facilities taking separated solid foods and liquids (87% of input and 91% of input respectively), but that pasteurisation was not used when processing purpose grown crops. Table 22: Use of pasteurisation v. input material, as % of total input UK 2012 Purpose Grown Crops Manures Separated Solid Food (*) Liquids (*) Pasteurised 2% 32% 87% 91% Not Pasteurised 98% 68% 13% 9% (*) excludes industrial facilities where treated water is discharged to sewer, none of which apply pasteurisation. Pre-Processing When waste is received at an AD facility it is subjected to pre-processing to prepare the material before it is added to the digester. Of the 51 sites that responded to this question, the majority reported using mixing and blending (59%) and shredding (43%). Only 16% reported hand picking, 25% depackaging. Other reported methods included macerating (3 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

51 facilities), ph correction (2 facilities) and harvester cuts 12 (2 facilities). The proportions using each method are summarised in Figure 19 below. Figure 19: Pre-processing - % of respondents (multiple responses possible), UK 2012 Breaking down responses by site classification shows mixing and blending used by the majority of respondents, apart from on-farm facilities (27% of responses). Screening was applied from 20% of respondents for on-farm facilities to 40% for industrial facilities discharging treated water to sewer, with hand picking applied at commercial, industrial and on-farm sites. Table 23: Pre-processing by site classification - % of respondents (multiple responses possible), UK 2012 Screening Shredding Hand picking Depackaging Pulping Blending / mixing Commercial 33% 28% 11% 22% 17% 61% Demonstration 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% Industrial 25% 75% 13% 38% 13% 63% Industrial - discharge to sewer 40% 60% 0% 40% 20% 80% On-Farm 20% 17% 13% 10% 13% 27% Comparing pre-processing to feedstock source, for the reported input tonnage from food processing manufacturers, 31% was screened, 35% shredded, 32% de-packaged and 47% blended/mixed. For local authority sources material, 21% was screened, 43% shredded and 47% blended/mixed. 12 The two sites reporting harvester cuts as a pre-processing operation use only crops for their AD and the pre-processing used is that at harvest time the harvester chops the crop into small pieces (about 10mm long) which is then used as feedstock for the digesters. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

52 Feedstock Operators were asked to quantify their feedstock inputs by material type, and to identify the sources as % of each type. In this respect, the data on feedstocks collected in 2012 was more detailed than in the 2010 survey, however, only 56 sites provided this level of detail. Separating out the 3.49 million tonnes of inputs associated with the industrial facilities that process large volumes of liquid and send treated water to sewer, for the rest of UK AD sites separated solid food accounted for 41% by weight of all the input specified, and liquids 17%. Agricultural materials such as purpose grown energy crops and manures accounted for 38% of inputs in total. This is summarised in Figure 20. Figure 20: Feedstock type as % total reported, UK 2012 (Excludes feedstock for industrial facilities that discharge treated water to sewer) Considering feedstock sources by AD facility type shows a significant variation in feedstock between facility types, with commercial sites mainly using separated food waste and liquids, on-farm sites purpose grown crops and manures, and industrial sites liquids and solid food. Surveyed tonnages per facility type are given in the following table, followed by % input per AD site type: Table 24: Feedstock types per AD facility type (reported tonnages), UK 2012 Purpose Grown Crops Manures Separated Solid Food Liquids Mixed food & green Other Commercial 10,700 48, ,450 95, ,603 Demonstration 2, ,000 Industrial 57,000 58,220 Industrial 3,487,500 discharge to sewer On-farm 189, ,185 2,388 3,580 5, Total 200, , ,853 3,645,150 5,188 35,053 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

53 Figure 21: Feedstock type as % total reported, UK 2012 For waste types other than energy crops and manures, operators were asked to identify sources of these materials. By reported weight, and excluding the industrial facilities which process large volumes of liquid and discharge the treated water to sewer, the majority of the non-agricultural input material came from food & drink manufacturers and processors (330,000 tonnes reported, 56% of total). Supermarkets & retail accounted for 60,000 tonnes (10% of total) of mostly food waste (50,000 tonnes). A reported 170,000 tonnes (30% of total) came from local authority food waste collections. Sources of the non-agricultural input materials are summarised in the following figure: A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

54 Figure 22: Sources of non-agricultural feedstocks as % total reported, UK 2012 (Excludes feedstock for industrial facilities that discharge treated water to sewer) In addition, Figure 23 summarises the source of the reported inputs as % of total material type. Figure 23: Source of different categories of input to AD (reported tonnes total input per material source, UK, 2012) (Excludes feedstock for industrial facilities that discharge treated water to sewer) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

55 The Other materials category includes glycerol, grass cuttings and packaging (paper & cardboard). Considering non-agricultural inputs by AD facility type shows commercial facilities sourcing feedstock essentially from local authority collections and food manufacturers, industrial facilities almost exclusively from food processors and manufacturers, and on-farm facilities from agriculture (wastes) and supermarkets. Reported sources are summarised in the table below: Table 25: Feedstock sources per AD facility type (reported tonnages), UK 2012 Local authority collections Agriculture Supermarkets/ retail Hospitality Food manufacturers/ processors Other Commercial 137,935 58,555 5, ,130 4,850 Demonstration 45 Industrial 35,000 77,280 Industrial discharge to sewer 3,427,500 60,000 On-farm 5,000 1,492 5,036 Total 172,935 5,000 60,047 5,980 3,754,910 69,931 Figure 24: Source of different categories of input to AD (% of total input per material source, UK, 2012) Respondents were also asked if their inputs were sourced on or off site. Of the sites responding, 57% of sourced feedstock by weight came from the same site as the AD operation (mainly industrial sites (83% sourced on-site) and farms (94% sourced on site)). In addition, 2% came from the same site as the facility but from another business (mainly farms sites), and 41% from off site (mainly commercial operations (89% sourced off-site)). Of course for industrial sites which discharge treated water to sewer, all of their input came from on-site sources. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

56 Figure 25: Feedstock source per AD facility type (average reported %), UK 2012 Contamination Operators were asked what level of reject material they typically found in their feedstock. This was defined as the non-biodegradable material that came in with the organic feedstocks and that the operator would have had to dispose of. The level of rejected material is likely to vary considerably from load to load but since they will have had to dispose of it as waste, operators were expected to have records to refer to. The responses from all types of site showed most reporting less than 1%. However, rejection would be less relevant for, for instance, industrial sites taking on-site generated inputs. Analysing responses by site type shows that for commercial sites in particular, higher levels of reject are an issue, with 25% of commercial site respondents reporting reject levels of 6-10%, and 17% reporting rejects over 10%. These results are summarised in Figure 25. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

57 Figure 26: Typical levels of rejects, all AD site classifications and commercial sites, UK 2012 (as % responses) Outputs Sites were asked to report on their production of biogas and digestate and how these are utilised. Biogas A total of 28 sites reported biogas yield. This amounted to 88 million m 3 from the sites which responded, averaging 3.1 million m 3 per site. This compares to 2 million m 3 per site from 13 sites in Average yield per tonne of input material 13 was m 3, compared to 182.5m 3 observed in 2010 (Average for commercial sites was 173 m 3, for on-farm sites 128 m 3 ). Many more sites in 2012 reported on their use of biogas (56) than their biogas yield. 92% of respondents reported that their sites used biogas for on-site combined heat and power (CHP) including electricity generation, 4% for heat to an external user, 3% gas to grid (2 sites). One site flared excess biogas, but only 10% of its total biogas output. This compares to 2010 when the vast majority (98%) of biogas was used for combined heat & power (CHP) with the small remainder used for heat only (on-site boiler), and no sites reported gas to grid. Biogas production by site type is summarised in the table below, showing the majority used for on-site CHP across site types: 13 The Wales Centre of Excellence for Anaerobic Digestion quotes a typical range of m 3 biogas per tonne of waste input for AD operations. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

58 Figure 27: Biogas production per AD site classification, % of usage at responding sites UK 2012 Respondents were also asked how much of their heat they exported, and if this was less than 100% what the reminder was used for. A total of 56 sites responded, of which only 3 reported 100% export. The majority (48) reported no export of heat, citing parasitic use and exhaustion to atmosphere. The remainder reported export levels between 10% and 60%. Digestate Aggregating the 53 responses from surveyed sites produced a surveyed UK digestate output in 2012 of 430,000 tonnes of whole digestate (15% of total), 40,000 tonnes of fibre (2% of total) and 2.34 million tonnes of liquor (83% of total by weight) of which 2.09 million tonnes was discharged to sewer by large industrial facilities. Grossing for sites not supplying output data but excluding those industrial facilities that discharge their treated water to sewer, gave an estimate of 1.44 million tonnes of all outputs i.e million tonnes whole digestate, 0.08 million tonnes fibre and 0.49 million tonnes liquor. Processing Of a total of 60 sites responding, 27 sites (45%) reported that they processed their digestate further after digestion. Of these 27, 21 used some form of separation (2 with composting, 1 with screening), 3 screening alone, 1 composting alone and one each used separation with cavity air flotation and solar & thermal processing. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

59 Table 26: processing of digestate by AD site classification, % of responding sites UK 2012 % Processing Processing Technique Digestate Commercial 58% 6 sites separated 4 screened (1 with separation) 2 composting (1 with separation) 1 screened & evaporated (with separation) 1 solar & thermal drying Demonstration 25% Separated (single site) Industrial 28% 1 site separated 1 Cavity air flotation Industrial 20% Screened and aerobically processed discharge to sewer (single site) (with separation) On-Farm 45% 8 sites separated 1 site composting with separation Method of separation 3 sites centrifuge 4 press 1 gravity screen 1 foam screen Not reported 1 site press 1 centrifuge Centrifuged 7 sites press 2 sites centrifuge The 21 who used separation were asked the method used for separating fibre and liquor: 12 respondents used a press, 7 used a centrifuge, 1 a foam screen separator and 1 a gravity screen. No further (tertiary) treatment of either the fibre or liquor following separation was reported by 88% of those answering this question; of the three respondents that did employ a tertiary treatment, 1 used ultra-filtration & reverse osmosis, 1 pelleted the fibre and 1 employed evaporation (all 3 commercial sites). Of the 21 sites that reported separating fibre, an average weight of 2,000 tonnes per site was reported. For liquor, the site average was 53,000 tonnes (20 sites). Only 8% of respondents denitrified their liquor, half of these by placing in aerator tanks. End Use of Products Respondents reported the following destinations for their products by site classification: For whole digestate (total surveyed quantity 430,000 tonnes), the destinations varied depending upon the facility type. For instance, for on-farm facilities the majority of whole digestate was used on site by the operator s business (64% of total), with the rest provided free of charge to off-site users. Conversely, for industrial sites all whole digestate was supplied to users off site, 41% of which the operator had to pay the user to remove. For commercial sites, 72% was used off-site with 28% used by the operator s own business (5 sites). This compares to 2010 when 38% of whole digestate was used on-site, 22% was sold, 22% was supplied to the end user free of charge and 10% was paid to be taken away. Destinations for whole digestate are summarised in the table below: A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

60 Table 27: Whole digestate destinations per AD facility type (% of reported tonnages), UK 2012 (percentage is of total digestate by facility type) Commercial Industrial (1) On-Farm Sold - off site 24% 29% 0% Provided F.O.C. - users off site 29% 30% 36% Operator paid user to remove 19% 41% 0% Used by own business 28% 0% 63% Disposed - landfill 0% 0% 0% Disposed - sewers 0% 0% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% Total tonnes (reported) 300,050 48,500 83,386 (1) Excludes industrial sites processing large volumes of liquid and discharging treated water to sewer For fibre and all site types (40,000 tonnes reported), the majority was used on site by the operating business (60%, almost all by on-farm facilities), although a significant amount (33%) was landfilled, produced by commercial (67% of total landfilled) and industrial sites. For liquor, the majority by quantity was disposed of via the sewer (89%, 2.01 million tonnes all from industrial sites). The majority of the remaining volume was used on the operator s own site (190,000 tonnes) of which 70% came from on-farm facilities. Breaking these figures down by output type is summarised in the following figure: Figure 28: Product End Destination by Product Type, UK 2012 (excluding large industrial sites discharging treated water to sewer) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

61 Operators were asked where the digestate that they produced in 2012 that was used (i.e. not disposed of to landfill or sewers), was applied. Of the tonnage reported, 90% went to agriculture (mostly whole digestate and liquor), 9% to field-grown horticulture (mostly liquor) and <0.5% to land restoration (mostly fibre). Application by AD site type is summarised in the table below: Table 28: Digestate applications per AD facility type (% of reported tonnages), UK 2012 Agriculture Field-grown Landscape Landfill horticulture development restoration Commercial 91% 6% 3% Demonstration (R&D) 2% 98% Industrial 98% 1% 2% On-farm 84% 16% Total tonnes (reported) 647,451 61, ,000 Total % 91% 9% <0.5% <0.5% Prices Most operators surveyed cited commercial confidentiality as a reason for not giving digestate selling prices. Only a small number of sites, all in England, responded. Because of the low response, care should be taken in interpreting these figures. For agricultural use, respondents quoted an average cost to the operator of 0.44 per tonne i.e. operators paying users to take the material. For fibre this cost was 3.58 per tonne, and liquor 0.83 per tonne. As shown in Table 27, many respondents reported that they were supplying material free of charge or having to pay for it to be used. Of those respondents who claimed to be selling whole digestate to off-site users, none were willing to disclose selling prices. PAS 110 Respondents were asked for the PAS 110 status of their outputs. Of the 59 sites that responded, 10 said that their current outputs were PAS 110 certified. Of these, 9 reported that PAS 110 certification covered all their outputs and 1 site said that certification covered just the liquid output produced. All responding sites said they would renew their certification. These 10 sites amounted to 270,000 tonnes of reported throughput in 2012, producing 260,000 tonnes of wet digestate (i.e. pre-separation). Certification data show that 10 sites were operating to PAS 110 by April 2013 (zero in 2010). Of those that reported that their outputs were not certified, 13 reported that they intended to obtain PAS 110 certification. These sites amounted to 1.11 million tonnes of reported throughput in 2012, producing 1.05 million tonnes of wet digestate. Because of AD operators unwillingness to disclose selling prices (costs), it is not possible to compare the value of PAS certified digestate to uncertified material. For those who did not intend to obtain PAS 110, the following figure summarises the reasons offered (34 responses). For the majority, PAS 110 is not required as they use the digestate they produce on their own site or business. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

62 Figure 29: Reasons cited for not pursuing PAS 110 certification These results compare to those of the 2010 survey when no sites had been certified to PAS 110 although 56% of sites surveyed were planning to pursue certification to PAS 110. Site employees Sites contacted were asked for the total number of employees involved in the AD operation, as full time equivalents (FTE). The collected survey data identified 228 staff employed at the 56 sites that reported data. Grossing these figures for the UK market as a whole (i.e. compensating for those sites where employee data was not collected) gave a UK total employment figure of 350. Analysing individual site data (as summarised in Figure 15) showed that most AD sites employed between 1 and 5 FTE employees (71% of the sites surveyed) with no sites reporting employing more than 20. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

63 Figure 30: Employment bands for UK AD sites, as % of all responses (as full time equivalents) Business Issues Respondents to the survey were asked the extent to which a number of business issues affected their operation, those issues being: Storage for digestate; Markets for digestate; Making the most of the heat produced; and Competition for feedstocks. The results of this are summarised in Figure 31. Reviewing all responses, competition for feedstock and the market for digestates were not cited as a significant issues with 71% and 76% respectively of the 58 respondents listing them as having little or no impact on their businesses. However, responses varied by facility type. For commercial sites, for instance, only 52% saw competition for feedstock as having little or no impact on their business, with 26% citing some and 22% great impact. Similarly for markets for digestates, 65% of commercial sites saw this issue as having little or no impact on their business, with 13% citing some and 22% great impact. Conversely, 59% of respondents did report that storage for digestate was an issue for their business (i.e. great or some impact). In addition 45% of respondents did rate making the most of the heat produced as an issue for their business. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

64 Figure 31: The extent to which specified business issues affect AD operations, UK 2012 Sites were also asked for their opinions on the current threats and opportunities to their businesses. The opportunities mainly centre on the positive impact of government policy, the potential for greater use of heat and digestate as fertiliser replacement, and innovation through technology development. Conversely threats focus on costs and reducing gate fees, the effort involved in meeting regulatory requirements and increased competition for feedstocks, particularly from commercial operators. A summarised listing of the responses given is shown in Appendix 5 and the summary below reflects the topics most often raised. Respondents nominated the following as offering potential opportunities to their business: Better use of energy/heat output Changing/improving their process Government/EU policy Expansion of the AD sector Increased understanding of AD as an option Increasing size of own operations Nutrient value of digestate (on own land) More/better food waste collections Respondents perceived the following as problematic for their business: Competition for feedstocks / Lack of seed sludge PAS 110 complicated/onerous/expensive Lack of expertise and understanding / immature industry Government policy/legislation Regulation Would like higher incentives Starch bags used by householders for food waste A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

65 Storage issues (seasonal / related to weather) Lack of end markets / can t get a price for digestate Conclusions The survey results show that the quantity of material processed in 2012 by AD sites was 1.68 million tonnes. This figure excludes the throughput of sites co-located with industrial sites, chiefly breweries and distilleries, that process large volumes of liquid and discharge the treated water to sewer, which is estimated at an additional 6 million tonnes throughput. As the sample for the 2012 survey was significantly different from that surveyed in 2010, and the methodology for grossing changed, it is not possible to compare throughputs and capacities directly. However, 34 of the 61 sites surveyed in 2012 reported coming on-line in 2011 and 2012 with a reported operational capacity of 500,000 tonnes. A major factor in the increase in the AD sector is clearly the increased collection of household food waste. Separated solid food accounted for 41% by weight of all the throughput reported, and liquids 17%; agricultural materials such as purpose grown energy crops and manures accounted for 38% of inputs in total; the remainder was an unattributed list of other material. Over half of the non-agricultural input material came from food & drink manufacturers and processors; just under a third came from local authority food waste collections, with supermarkets & retail accounting for around 10%. The outputs from AD are estimated at 1.44 million tonnes of which the majority (0.87 million tonnes) was whole digestate. The uses for whole digestate vary by site type: on-farm facilities used two thirds of it on site in the operator s business and provided one third free of charge to off-site users; industrial sites supplied it all to users off site and in 41% of cases had to pay the user to remove the material. For commercial sites, 72% was used off-site with 28% used by the operator s own business. Where digestate was applied to land (rather than disposed of to sewer), 90% went to agricultural uses. Operators were generally unwilling to provide data on costs/prices. Of the sites surveyed, 28 reported biogas yield, averaging 3.1 million m 3 per site and m 3 per tonne of input material. 92% of respondents reported that their sites used biogas for on-site combined heat and power (CHP). One in six of the sites surveyed reported PAS 110 certification, with all of them intending to maintain it. Of those not certified, 28% said they intended to obtain certification. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

66 3.3 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Survey Performance and Participation The telephone survey of UK MBT sites surveyed 23 out of a UK population of 30 active sites (in 2010, 10 out of 17 sites were surveyed). For the purposes of this report an MBT plant is one that processes waste using mechanical sorting and biological treatment and produces an organic material. This could be a compost, digestate, a compost like output (CLO) or separated organic material (SOM). MBT sites are different from the other technologies surveyed, in that they usually take a mixed or residual waste stream with some organic content, rather than a segregated organic waste stream as used by composting or AD facilities. MBT does not include autoclave processes where these operate on their own. A number of sites have been omitted from the survey because they perform the function of an MBT plant but do not produce an organic output, for instance those operating solely as a pre-treatment for landfilling or only producing refuse derived fuel (RDF) for energy recovery. The breakdown of participation rates per country is summarised in Table 29. Table 29: MBT site survey participation rates (number of sites) England Scotland Northern Wales (1) Ireland UK Total listed sites Sites not operational Not relevant (2) Refused to take part in survey No conclusive contact Number of sites surveyed Total number active sites (1) Figures for Scotland include 4 sites which have been re-classified by the operator as MBT (formerly classified as IVC). (2) The survey did not include sites which did not produce an organic output i.e. sites that prepared material for landfill or produced solely an RDF for energy recovery. The results presented below have been combined in order to protect the confidentiality of the responses from the one site in Northern Ireland. To estimate the size of the total UK inputs and outputs, the data from these 23 sites was applied to the whole of the UK MBT population, using the methodology summarised in Appendix 3. Grossing inputs and outputs produced the following market size estimates for the UK. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

67 Table 30: Size of the UK MBT organics sector 2012 (tonnes) England UK (1) UK (1) Total surveyed input (tonnes) 1,668,890 1,827, ,816 Grossed input (tonnes) 2,356,080 2,515,080 1,282,060 Total surveyed all outputs (tonnes) 1,077,229 1,154,429 Grossed all outputs (tonnes) 1,615,844 1,693,044 Total surveyed organic fraction output (tonnes) 230, ,959 99,800 Grossed organic fraction output (tonnes) 368, , ,400 Total surveyed employees Grossed employees (1) UK is total for all nations. Individual nation data has been suppressed to avoid disclosure of data from individual sites. In summary, for MBT sites operating in 2012: total UK input (i.e. all mixed waste including the organic fraction) was estimated as 2.52 million tonnes v.1.28 million tonnes throughput in 2010; total UK organic fraction output was estimated as 390,000 tonnes v. 270,000 tonnes in 2010; and total UK employment in MBT operation was estimated as 570 full time equivalents. Note that employment figures include all employees on site i.e. includes people not engaged in producing the organic fraction. The decrease in total employment figures since 2010 appears counterintuitive compared to the increased number of facilities, and is likely to be explained by better data in 2012 (in that participation had increased from 58% in 2010 to 76% in 2012). However, average employment per site had reduced between the two surveys, and the six sites which provided employment data for both the 2010 and 2012 surveys, did see a reduction in total employment levels from 324 in 2010 to 217 in Survey Response Analysis and Commentary The analysed responses for each individual survey question asked are presented in Appendix 5. The interpretation of this dataset follows. Supply Chain Flow As described in Section 2.2, Sankey diagrams are a useful tool for visually presenting complex data. The figure overleaf is the Sankey diagram for MBT flows. When the inputs for each type of facility are grossed it has an effect on the proportion of the different feedstocks. Grossed figures are used in the Sankey diagram whereas survey results are noted elsewhere in the report. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

68 Figure 32: UK MBT 2012 supply chain flow *These materials were taken off-site for further processing. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

69 Process Each surveyed operator was asked for the types of system 14 they were using to process organic waste. Responses were as below (as number of sites surveyed and % of total number of sites) from 23 surveyed sites, with 2010 figures given for comparison (from 9 surveyed sites): Table 31: MBT system type for 2012 and Aerobic bio-drying 10 sites (43%) 3 sites (34%) IVC alone 6 sites (26%) 2 sites (22%) Anaerobic digestion alone 4 sites (17%) No sites IVC with anaerobic digestion 2 sites (9%) 2 sites (22%) Thermal treatment No sites 1 site (11%) (*) Other 1 site (4%) 1 site (11%) (*) closed Spring 2011 Although multiple responses were allowed, only two respondents reported using more than one system, both IVC with anaerobic digestion. Feedstock Operators were asked what quantities of materials which included an organic fraction they received from each of four sources in Of those surveyed, 96% of input came from municipal mixed waste sources, 3% from municipal source segregated sources, and 1% each for equivalent streams from non-municipal sources. (The question in 2010 asked specifically what percentage of the organic fraction came from each source and suggested that 22% of the organic fraction came from non-municipal sources.) Outputs MBT plants produce a number of outputs depending upon their input material and process design. Operators were asked to quantify their outputs in terms of the four main categories of output, with the following result: Dry recyclates: reported 11% of total outputs by weight CLO 15 : reported 22% of total outputs SRF/RDF stream: reported 51% of total outputs Inerts/aggregates/other outputs: reported 16% of total outputs In 2010 the survey only asked about the quantities of organic fraction, and CLO and RDF produced. The quantity of total organic fraction in 2010 was 110,000 tonnes. 14 Aerobic IVC composts and stabilises the organic fraction which has the potential to reduce the quantity sent to landfill. Aerobic bio-drying reduces the overall weight of the material in the organic fraction but does not stabilise the material and is used in the process of making RDF. AD is also used alongside aerobic IVC in a dual process so that some of the waste can be composted. 15 CLO was the term used in the questionnaire. Also referred to as separated organic material A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

70 Grossing the collected output tonnage data gave an estimated 1.69 million tonnes in 2012, of which 390,000 tonnes was CLO. Process Losses Respondents were asked to compare their input to output tonnages and explain any differences, and if possible provide a rule of thumb figure for calculating typical losses. The responses varied depending upon the process technology used. Responses can be summarised as presented below, showing significant moisture losses when using aerobic biodrying, plus biogas and rejects losses when operating anaerobic digestion: Process Reported Main Losses Actual Average Weight Loss as % 2012 input Aerobic bio-drying Moisture loss, quoted typical figures between 23% and 50% 49% Aerobic IVC Moisture loss, quoted typical figures between 18% and 30% 23% Anaerobic digestion Moisture and biogas, rejects to landfill. Quoted typical figures water 6%, biogas 6%, rejects to landfill 14% 32% Biogas Production Of those sites surveyed, 38% reported generating biogas in 2012, all using anaerobic digestion processing either alone or in combination with IVC. Markets For CLO and RDF, operators were asked for the quantities applied to each end use and whether this involved a revenue or a cost to the operator. 80% of CLO by weight was reported to have been used in restoration and remediation, with all sites reporting this was a cost to the operator or given away free of charge; 17% was landfilled (at a cost to the operator) and 2% (one operator) was spread to agricultural land, free of charge. No operators reported sending CLO for use in energy recovery. The significant use of CLO in restoration is likely to have contributed to the lower sales and prices for the outputs of compost producers for this application. For the RDF stream, 41% was supplied as fuel into the UK market and 30% exported, with the balance landfilled. In all cases, operators reported that this was at their cost. No questions were asked about the relative costs of the different means of disposal. 80% of the RDF produced by the 10 MBT sites interviewed in 2010 was supplied into the UK market. Business Issues Respondents were also asked to identify what they saw as the threats and opportunities for their MBT business going forward. Respondents nominated the following as offering potential opportunities to their business: Use of CLO as RDF 3 mentions Increasing value of outputs - 2 mentions Technology - 2 mentions A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

71 Respondents perceived the following as problematic for their business: Lack of end market/ permissible end uses 4 mentions Government policy 2 mentions Need standards/code of practice for CLO 2 mentions Composition of inputs 2 mentions Market prices/fluctuations 1 mention Conclusions This year s survey showed a substantially increased throughput at UK MBT plants producing an organic fraction, to 2.51 million tonnes, due to a near doubling of sites included. The survey identified 7 sites which began operations in 2011 and 2012 and four former IVC sites in Scotland now operating as MBT plants. Feedstocks were reported as almost exclusively from municipal sources (98%) with only a small volume coming from non-municipal sources. The estimated output for 2012 of all UK plants producing an organic fraction is 1.69 million tonnes in total, with 22% of this being Compost Like Output (CLO). The weight loss between inputs and outputs varied depending upon the processing technology used, from 23% for IVC to 49% for aerobic biodrying facilities. Of those sites surveyed, 38% also reported generating biogas in In terms of end destinations for the key outputs, 80% by weight of CLO was used in land restoration and remediation, with all sites reporting this was a cost to the operator or supplied free of charge; 17% used in landfill (at cost to the operator) and 2% spread to agricultural land free of charge (one operator). No CLO was reported to have been used in energy recovery. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

72 Appendices Appendix 1 - Glossary ADBA Aerated static pile composting AfOR Anaerobic digestion (AD) Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR) Confidence interval (CI) Continuous block Controlled waste Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association Organic waste is mixed together in one large pile instead of rows. To aerate the pile, layers of loosely piled bulking agents (e.g., wood chips, shredded newspaper) are added so that air can pass from the bottom to the top of the pile. The piles also can be placed over a network of pipes that deliver air into or draw air out of the pile. Association for Organics Recycling (now merged with REA) Process of controlled decomposition of biodegradable materials under managed conditions where free oxygen is absent, at temperatures suitable for naturally occurring mesophilic or thermophilic anaerobic and facultative bacteria species that convert the inputs to biogas and whole digestate. The Animal By-Products Regulations 2005 (SI 2347/2005) provide for the application of EU Regulation in England. This controls the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal of animal by-products in EU member states, including catering wastes. Similar legislation applies in Scotland and Wales. The England Regulations were amended with effect from 2 May 2009 by the Animal By-Products (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2011/1774). Defines the error bands around a statistic. A 90% CI around a sample average indicates that in 9 cases out of 10 the band includes the average for the whole population from which the sample was drawn (assuming the statistical model used to construct the CI is valid). Continuous block composting is an approach used to compost large volumes of material, employing minimal process management: large piles are formed, with new material added at one end and compost harvested at the other. Composting relies largely on passive aeration with turning often achieved through the use of a side turner, or use of a 360 degree excavator which sits on the top of the block and moves the material, which slowly moves the table a windrow s width down the pad at a time, starting from one end. Continuous block composting is commonly used for non-putrescible materials, such as woody green wastes, and may take a number of months to produce a composted product. Controlled wastes are household, commercial and industrial wastes as defined in The Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (as amended). A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

73 EA EWC Code In-vessel composting (IVC) Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) Environment Agency European Waste Catalogue Code A term used to describe a wide range of composting systems where the composting feedstock is contained in a purpose-built structure for the sanitisation phase of composting, allowing a higher degree of process control and environmental protection than OAW. Many IVC sites incorporate an element of windrow composting for maturation of the material following the sanitisation phase. At present, IVC is primarily used for feedstocks that fall under the provision of the ABPR. A generic term for an integration of several processes treating mixed wastes, such as Materials Recovery Facilities, sorting and composting or AD. NIEA NNFCC Ofgem On-farm composting Open air windrow (OAW) ORG Organic waste PAS 100 PAS 110 Permitted/exempt waste operation Northern Ireland Environment Agency National Non-Food Crop Centre (The Bioeconomy Consultants) at the University of York Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets A composting activity that is carried out on a farm. It may be an ancillary process to complement existing agricultural activities, or a stand-alone business that is simply located on designated agricultural land. Mechanically turned windrow located outdoors (in the open air), as opposed to under a cover or in a building. The Organics Recycling Group. A section within the REA which represents the membership of the former AfOR. Waste of animal or plant origin which, for recovery purposes, can be decomposed by micro-organisms, other larger soil-borne organisms or enzymes. Publicly Available Specification 100, which is the British Standards Institution specification for composted material published in 2005 (the relevant edition in effect in 2009) and updated in Publicly Available Specification 110, which is the British Standards Institution specification for whole digestate, separated liquor and separated fibre derived from the AD of source-segregated biodegradable materials, published in February A permitted waste operation is one which is subject to the granting of an Environmental Permit. This is a permit granted by the regulator allowing the operation of a regulated facility subject to certain conditions. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

74 An Exempt waste operation is a waste operation exempt from the need to hold an environmental permit where it meets certain criteria. Exemptions include: T23 - Aerobic composting and associated prior treatment e.g. an allotment association wants to compost their old plants and trimmings. T24 - Anaerobic digestion at premises used for agriculture and burning of resultant biogas eg. anaerobically digest manure and plant tissue waste in a dedicated AD plant to produce a digestate. REA SEPA Source-segregated feedstock Static pile with aeration Thermophilic aerobic digestion (TAD) Unit of mass Unit of volume Unit prefixes Renewable Energy Association Scottish Environment Protection Agency Feedstock kept separate from other waste types so as to reduce contamination and facilitate treatment. It is referred to as separate collection in the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). Form of composting where the materials are turned infrequently and the fresh air is introduced into the pile through a forced aeration system. This may be either through channels in the ground or through a perforated pipe laid within the compost. Aeration may be either positive (pushed through the composting mass) or negative (sucked through the mass). Method of treating slurries or liquid suspensions of organic wastes where the materials are pumped into a tank and air is forced through, encouraging the growth of thermophilic bacteria that then digest the waste. The process is typically shorter than composting or AD. Expressed in metric tonnes (t) = 1,000kg 1kt = 1000 tonnes 1 Mt = 1 million tonnes = 1,000,000 or 10 6 tonnes Expressed in metres cubed (m 3 ), which is equivalent to 1,000 litres. SI units and prefixes have been used: k (kilo) = 1,000 M (mega) = 1,000,000 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

75 Appendix 2 Survey Methodology This research focuses on the calendar year 2012 and follows on from the 2010 survey, which was delivered in 2012 by the same project team. The surveys of 2009 and 2010 (delivered in 2011 and 2012) used an approach which relied on regulatory returns for input data which only become available months after the year in question. This year, rather than have this significant time lag between the survey and the year in question, the survey for 2012 was started soon after the end of the calendar year, and respondents were asked to provide input tonnage figures. Review of previous survey and impact on employed methodology There were considerable changes in the way that the 2010 survey was delivered compared to 2009, which resulted in much better participation rates and more robust data. The 2012 survey therefore used the same core delivery methodology so that the successful results of 2010 could be reproduced and built on, and so that data from 2012 and 2010 could be directly compared. The questionnaires used for this survey were based upon those employed in 2010, although changes were made to streamline them and reduce delivery time, whilst in some areas additional questions were included to broaden the amount of useful data collected. Lessons learned in 2010 were employed in this survey. For instance, multi-site operators for composting and other facilities were offered face-to-face rather than telephone interviews, to replace lengthy discussions on the phone. This improved participation considerably, and helped collect data for a larger population of sites this time around. For AD, the survey was delivered by BDS Marketing Research Limited who have experience of collecting data from the AD sector for updating of the Official AD Information Portal map. For 2012, with data from a total of 336 operating sites, the survey achieved a 74.3% participation rate. This compared to 308 sites, and a 50.3% participation rate in As a result, the data collected in 2012 is believed to be the most robust picture of the UK organics treatment industry produced. Deliverables The key deliverable of this work is the presentation and discussion of the results in this report. In addition, the organics recycling sites register (ORSR) developed during the 2010 survey has been updated. The ORSR will form the basis of the contacts database for future industry surveys and be a useful reference point for those interested in this sector. The ORSR also lists relevant data (e.g. site inputs, technology type, number of employees) that will continue to help in the reporting of trends going forward. The methodology for producing these deliverables is outlined below, and is based upon that employed in the 2010 survey. It is split into sub-sections that describe each stage of the process as follows: development of contacts database; survey approach permitted and exempt sites; questionnaire development; other data sources; and A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

76 data analysis and quality check. Development of contacts database Details of all composting and MBT sites in the UK that held permits or exemptions in 2012 were provided by the relevant government agencies for each nation. England and Wales - Environment Agency (EA); Scotland - Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA); and Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Environment Agency. The information provided varied in its extent. Essentially, each data set gave the operator s name, site address, site process type (e.g. MBT, composting), permit/exemption number and, in most instances, telephone number. This data was supplemented with the details of additional sites surveyed in 2010 from the ORSR, that had not appeared in the permitted site data, and had agreed for their data to be used in this way (33 sites). For the AD survey, the list of AD facilities collated for the Official AD Information Portal map ( was used. The number of sites in the final 2012 population was 513 (368 composting sites, 99 AD and 30 MBT). A proportion of this data turned out to be redundant for instance 61 composting sites contacted did not operate in 2012 (including 9 from the ORSR) ie. 16% of composting sites contacted compared to 6% in This in part can be explained by the increased number of sites contacted in this survey. This compared to a population of 367 (282 composting sites, 58 AD and 26 MBT) compiled for the 2010 survey. During the survey delivery, a number of sites were identified as not operating in The main reason for this was that the lists supplied included sites that had applied for and been granted a permit in 2012 but had not become operational until a later date. When grossing up the composting and MBT results, the proportion of non-operational sites contacted was applied to the sites not contacted so that non-operational sites were accounted for in the final results. This single database contained the population of sites that were to be contacted to take part in the survey and now forms the basis of the updated ORSR. Survey approach Marketing The survey was widely marketed through steering group members. In particular ADBA, AfOR, ESA and REA publicised the work with their members. In addition, news releases were prepared and these were distributed by WRAP. The ESA also helped engage multi-site operators with the survey. The aim of marketing the work was to heighten awareness of the survey in the industry so that when approached to take part individuals already had some knowledge of the research. A page was also established on the WRAP website with information on the survey; this provided details of the work and also served to validate the research for any contacts that required it. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

77 The composting and MBT questionnaires were set up online to enable easy access for surveyors and to allow data to be captured at a single point. The AD questionnaire was reproduced by BDS Marketing Research Ltd as an MS Excel spreadsheet, which was used to collect the survey responses. Site Survey Permitted composting and MBT sites were surveyed in a manner similar to that used in 2010 ie. 1. Sites contacted by telemarketing company and recruited for the survey; 2. Appointment made; 3. sent to contact detailing date and time of appointment and outlining preparation required; 4. Surveyor called at allotted time and undertook survey; and 5. Data quality check performed and site re-contacted if necessary to check any outlying data. This approach enabled the interviewee time to prepare for the survey by gathering relevant data and allowed them to set aside the required amount of time for speaking with the surveyor. A web-based appointment system was developed for managing the telemarketing approach. This allowed calls to be recorded and prioritised, progress against targets to be monitored, and surveyors access to a diary that presented them with all the site details required to conduct the survey. The main difference employed for the 2012 survey was that multi-site operators (e.g. the large waste management companies) were offered a face to face survey interview, in place of a lengthy phone call. Most accepted this approach. Telemarketers and surveyors were given training prior to their involvement in the survey. This provided background on why the survey was undertaken as well as the more technical aspects of data entry and record keeping. All of the composting and MBT sites on the database were targeted for the survey with an estimated 2,000 calls being made to secure the required appointments. Particular focus was given to securing appointments with: i. the major waste management companies (these were approached using a central contact point); ii. companies operating multiple sites; iii. Welsh and Scottish sites (in order to ensure a sound base, given their small populations). In addition, the data capture rate for the less common technologies was monitored closely to ensure a significant proportion of AD and MBT sites were surveyed. The composting and MBT surveyors all had extensive experience of the organics treatment sector and were selected because they would be able to have an informed discussion with the surveyee. In addition, the use of knowledgeable surveyors meant that data sense checks could be carried out as the survey was being conducted. Surveyors contacted the surveyee at the pre-arranged time to conduct the survey, with up to 14 half-hour survey slots being available per surveyor each day. Answers were entered into the online system as the survey was being conducted. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

78 For the AD survey, site operators were contacted directly by the surveyors, and the responses to the survey logged using a structured spreadsheet. Questionnaire development The questionnaire design was based upon the following requirements: to provide the data required for the survey and to resist adding additional nice to have requests for data; to minimise the impact on the interviewee, particularly in terms of the time taken to deliver the survey; and to provide some commonality with the questionnaire used for the last survey, so that key data could be compared. Because of the differences between the key processes being surveyed, (i.e. composting, AD and MBT) separate questionnaires were developed for each treatment method. The cutting back of the length of the questionnaires required the involvement of all members of the steering group. It was initially agreed that reducing the length of the questionnaires was required to improve participation rates. In order to do this, consensus was required on which subject areas of the previous questionnaires should remain and which areas should be removed. Once initial drafts of each questionnaire were formulated they were circulated to WRAP and the steering group and feedback and comments incorporated. Each questionnaire was also field-trialled with a small number of operators so that both surveyor and interviewee could feedback on the questionnaire and its effectiveness in use. Data was recorded electronically during the interview itself. Data confidentiality, analysis & quality checking Data confidentiality In order to ensure the confidentiality of the data provided by respondents, site details were stored separately to survey answers. A unique site identification code links the two datasets. This unique code dataset was only available to those members of the survey team who needed access for data checking and other purposes. Quality checking As noted above, the use of surveyors with good knowledge of organics treatment enabled the data in the permitted survey to be checked at the time of collection, limiting the number of anomalies that would occur. In addition, the surveyor was provided with an area within the survey questionnaire where notes could be made explaining any entries that might look out of place. During data analysis, any items that appeared anomalous were highlighted (these were sense checked against other data collected and against the 2010 survey and other data sources including 2011 returns data) and then checked, if required, directly with the site by phone, they were then corrected where necessary. The high participation rates achieved and the extensive quality checking imposed on the collected data, means the project team has a high level of confidence in the data collected and in the results generated from this data. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

79 Data analysis After quality checks, the collected data was analysed by waste management method and UK nation, using the following methods: Grossing of the collected quantitative data was carried out to take account of those companies which did not take part in the interview. The stratified grossing methodology used for the composting and MBT data is an accepted method used in many past surveys of this type (e.g. commercial & industrial waste surveys delivered by Defra and the Environment Agency) and is explained in detail in Appendix 3. Distribution plots were produced to represent the spread of responses to questions such as selling prices of outputs, to indicate precision. The question by question analysis of the survey results is given in Appendix 5. Key data is further analysed, extrapolated and presented in the body of this report. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

80 Appendix 3 - Grossing Methodology This survey has adopted the same grossing methodologies as the previous 2010 survey for site inputs, capacities, outputs and employee numbers for composting and MBT sites, based on a widely accepted stratified approach. This enables the results for 2010 and 2012 to be directly compared. A different methodology was applied for AD sites for site inputs, capacities and outputs, in light of the issues that arose with the grossing from small bases in the 2010 report. This method was based pon the ratios of capacity to input, and input to outputs. However, for AD employee numbers a stratified grossing methodology similar to that used for the 2010 survey was used. This was because a consistent ratio of throughput or capacity to employee numbers per site was not seen in the survey responses. Details of the grossing methodologies employed are as follows: Grossing for Composting and MBT sites Grossing is required in order to mitigate for those sites which were either not surveyed or which were surveyed but did not provide responses for some questions, in order to calculate national estimates from the survey data. The grossing methodology employed in this survey involves extrapolating survey data to provide an estimate of the total inputs, outputs, capacity and employment for each technology (i.e. composting, AD (only employment) and MBT) at a national level. The grossing up methodology was executed on a category/band basis to take into account the variation within the data since there was significant variation in the data collected. The tonnage categories are sufficiently narrow and the assumption made is that the sample average per site for each category is representative of the population (i.e. total number of sites surveyed and those not surveyed) of that category. To estimate the total capacity, inputs and outputs for composting sites, tonnage categories/bands were created and the number of sites that provided data in each tonnage category was established based on the survey data. Table 32 to Table 36 show the tonnage categories that were created (in this case for grossing inputs) and the number of sites in each band based on the survey data. Similar tonnage bands were used for grossing operating capacities and site outputs. For composting sites, a number of sites which were exempt from permitting in 2010 were permitted in 2012, which meant that 2012 and 2010 data could not be directly compared. To get around this problem, figures were grossed as (i) all composting sites excluding those exempt in 2010 (ii) composting sites exempt in The results were then added to give 2012 totals, and the figures from (i) used to provide comparison to 2010 data. The total inputs, outputs and operating capacity for each of the categories was determined by summing up the data of the sites surveyed in each category. The average per site for each category was then determined using the total number of sites surveyed and total tonnage in each category for only the sites that provided data during the survey. Before grossing up, the number of sites listed was reduced by the number of sites recorded as not operational in 2012 during the survey so that only those sites that were active in 2012 were used in the grossing process. The proportion of sites with data in each category (input, output, capacity) was established based on the total number of sites with data in each category and the overall total number A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

81 of sites surveyed for each nation. This proportion was then applied to the total number of sites without data, for each nation. The overall number of sites in each category (i.e. total sites with and without data) was then determined by summing the number of sites in each category that were surveyed and the estimated number of sites in each category with missing data for each nation. The estimated number of sites in each tonnage category was then multiplied by the average tonnage per site for each category to estimate the total inputs, outputs and operating capacity for each band and hence the overall/grossed up tonnage for each nation. It is worth noting that the grossing process implicitly assumes uniform sampling and so is liable to over emphasise the significance of activities where a higher than average proportion of the total has been surveyed. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

82 Composting Table 32: Composting inputs (excluding sites exempt in 2010) Tonnage categories employed using actual survey for 2012 Input categories (tonnes) Number of sites (with input data) Total Input (tonnes) Average per site (tonnes) England Scotland Wales N.Ireland England Scotland Wales N.Ireland England Scotland Wales N.Ireland <5, ,183 15,702 5,000 2,000 1,973 2,243 2,500 2,000 5,000-10, ,404 5,000 21,825 5,200 7,416 5,000 7,275 5,200 10,001-15, ,391 86,765 10, ,494 12,395 10, ,001-20, ,819 52,051 38, ,096 17,350 19, ,001-25, ,206 45, ,000 23,763 22, ,000 25,001-35, ,451 55,181 56, ,076 27,591 28, ,001-50, ,050 42, ,000 44,878 42, ,000 >50, ,024,483 68, ,299 68, Total ,538, , , ,200 Note: Data for Northern Ireland has been suppressed in this table, to avoid revealing the details of individual sites, but the calculations did include those sites. Table 33: Composting inputs (excluding sites exempt in 2010) grossing tonnages based upon calculated totals for all operational sites in 2012 Input categories (tonnes) Proportion of sites in each category Number of sites in each category (from those without input data) Total Number of operational sites in each category Grossed up input (tonnes) England Scotland Wales N.Ireland England Scotland Wales NI England Scotland Wales N.Ireland England Scotland Wales N.Ireland <5, % % % % ,261 17,665 6,500 2,000 5,000-10, % 4.167% % % ,700 5,625 28,373 5,200 10,001-15, % % % 0.000% ,959 97,611 14, ,001-20, % % % 0.000% ,887 58,557 49, ,001-25, % 8.333% 0.000% % ,462 51, ,000 25,001-35, % 8.333% % 0.000% ,690 62,079 73, ,001-50, % 4.167% 0.000% % ,044 47, ,000 >50, % 4.167% 0.000% 0.000% ,423,967 77, Total 100% 100% 100% 100% ,918, , , ,200 Cf ,673, , ,532 85,568 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

83 Grossing for Anaerobic Digestion The grossing methodology for AD sites was different from the methodology employed in the 2010 survey. In this (2012) survey, the decision was taken to include all AD apart from waste water treatment sites. This not only involved more sites, it involved very different types of sites, ranging from small sites processing under 50 tonnes to industrial-scale operations processing over 800,000 tonnes. In order to achieve a sensible grossing up, the AD sites were categorised by type of facility using the following classifications, based on categories held in the database which underpins the AD Portal map: Commercial sites which accept waste from off-site, on a commercial basis (i.e. for a gate fee). May be a farm based enterprise Industrial sites which process their own wastes, typically on a large scale, such as food and drink manufacturers. On-farm sites which are both located on a farm and process only material generated on-farm (including energy crops) Demonstration demonstration/r&d sites. May contract in waste but not on a large scale To provide estimates of input, operating capacity and digestate where there was no data, ratios were used for calculations to fill any gaps in the survey data. The ratios used are shown in the table below. Where there are blanks, there was survey data for all the sites and so no need for grossing up. In calculating these ratios, sites with a permitted capacity of 74,999 tonnes but significantly different operating capacity were excluded, since it was clear that their permitted capacity reflected waste permitting cost banding rather than facility size. Also sites that were operational for part of 2012 were excluded from the calculation of ratios, although they were included in the estimations of the overall tonnages. Table 34: Ratios input:digestate used for grossing calculations Type Average Ratio (permitted capacity:input) Average Ratio (digestate:input) Commercial Demonstration (R&D) Industrial On-farm To estimate inputs for sites where there was no input data, the average permitted capacity to input (permitted capacity:input) ratio for each facility type was calculated by using data for the surveyed sites that had both permitted capacity and input data. These ratios were then applied to the sites where there was permitted capacity data but no input data depending on type. In one case, operating capacity and digestate were provided but no input data and the input tonnage estimated was greater than the operating capacity, so the operating capacity was used as the input tonnage. To provide an estimate of the overall operating capacity, for sites where there was no operating capacity data, the permitted capacity data was used as the operating capacity. For sites with neither permitted capacity nor operating capacity data, the permitted capacity was estimated using the average permitted capacity:input ratios derived as described above. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

84 To provide an estimate of digestate produced for sites where there was no data, the average input to digestate (input:digestate) ratio for each type was calculated by using surveyed sites that had both input and digestate data. These ratios were then applied to the sites where there was input data but no digestate data depending on type. For the reporting of grossed figures, industrial sites were separated into two categories. Those processing large volumes of liquid and discharging treated water to sewer, not producing a digestate for market. These are typically breweries and distilleries with throughputs >500,000tpa. They were removed from the reported throughput, capacity and output figures (5 sites surveyed of the 11 sites in the population). Those similar to commercial sites with throughputs <100,000 and producing a digestate for market, were reported (7 sites surveyed of the 9 sites in the population). Estimation of precision The sampling error and confidence levels determine how accurate the survey results are. The margin of error gives an idea of the measure of precision of the statistical estimate while the confidence level is an indication of how confident or certain we are about the level of error in the results of the survey. The margin of error was estimated as follows: Estimation of the overall sample means using: x xi / n (1) Where: X is the overall sample mean xi is the sample observation (derived from the survey data) n is the sample size Determination of the sample standard deviation using the survey data: Sd Where: xi x n 1 2 (2) Sd is the standard deviation derived from the survey data Determination of the sample standard error using the survey data: (3) SE Sd n A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

85 Using the above equations and the critical value (α) 16, also known as the z score (derived from the normal distribution tables), the sampling error (or margin of error) of the survey results was computed at three different confidence levels. Validation of the Grossing Methodology To test the validity of the grossing methodology used, grossed results from the 2012 survey were compared to collection data from Defra s WasteDataFlow (WDF) municipal waste reporting system. This dataset is independent of the data collected in the survey, and is generally recognized as an accurate representation of the quantities of individual materials collected by local authorities throughout the UK. Unfortunately, when this comparison was made, WDF data was only available for the financial year (for Scotland calendar year 2011) and therefore cannot be directly compared with the results from the 2012 survey. Since this data had been produced, various initiatives, including that launched in Scotland in 2012, were designed to encourage more local authorities to collect food waste, with: 16 Local Authorities introducing entirely new separated food waste collections 11 Local Authorities either extending their existing separated food waste collection or else adding a separated food waste collection to existing arrangements (mixed food and green) Although this may not all be new collected material, in that it may have already been collected in mixed garden and food waste collections for instance, this would suggest that 2012 municipal collection figures would be higher than those quoted in the comparison below. Comparing WDF organic collection figures with the equivalent inputs derived from composting and AD figures collected by the 2012 survey, gives the following results: Table 35: Comparison of Waste Data Flow collected tonnages ( ) with grossed 2012 survey results (tonnes) WDF total material collected (minus rejects) Grossed survey data (AD & composting) Green garden waste only Waste food only Mixed garden and food waste Wood for composting Other compostable waste Total organic waste 3,004, ,022 1,025,775 65, ,785 4,921,233 3,350, ,000 1,524,850 51,740 5,418,980 Conclusions Although the comparison by waste material type does show some large differences, a considerable amount of material in the WDF results is not categorised. Other compostable 16 It is a factor used to compute the margin of error/sampling error. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

86 waste totalling 568,785 tonnes, could be food waste that has been reported under the wrong category, or garden and card waste mixed, or it may be something else entirely. Comparing total organic waste figures, WDF ( ) and the grossed survey figures (2012) shows a difference of just 497,747 tonnes i.e. 9.2%. Taking into account that the WDF food waste collections for 2012 are likely to be higher than that reported above, and that as reported in section 3.1.2, data precision for the 2012 grossed survey results is +10.8% at 90% confidence, the agreement between the two sources is good, providing confirmation of the validity of the grossing methodologies applied to the survey data. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

87 Appendix 4 - Lessons Learned In delivering this survey, the following lessons have been learned which we suggest be applied to repeat surveys in the future. Maintain the ORSR the Organic Recycling Site Register (ORSR) is the comprehensive contact list of organic treatment sites throughout the UK which has been built from a variety of different sources as part of this work. This was developed for the 2010 survey and applied successfully for the 2012 survey too. We therefore propose that this database continues to be maintained so that it can form the basis of the next and subsequent surveys, and that time is taken during each survey to ensure the contact database is kept accurate and up to date. 77% of respondents taking part in 2012 were happy for their details to be retained. Deliver the survey promptly it has been clear for this survey that delivering the survey as soon as possible after the end of the calendar year, means that operators have the required information close to hand, details are not confused between one year and the next, and the survey report can be published nearer to the period to which it relates. Specifically, not using the input data from regulatory returns did not affect the delivery of the survey. We therefore propose that this timing is repeated for subsequent surveys. Survey Interviews with Multi-Site Operators this survey produced increased participation rates, particularly for the composting and MBT sections of the survey, by offering face-to-face interviews with those companies that operated 4 or more individual sites. Although this added cost to the survey, replacing lengthy telephone surveys by a single survey interview at the interviewee s office, increased participation by being an easier option for the interviewee and improved the quality of the data collected. We therefore propose this approach is used for future surveys. Industrial AD sites discharging to sewer It is clear from this survey that there are a number of large scale AD facilities processing large volumes of liquid and discharging treated water to sewer. These are mostly connected to the drinks manufacturing industry. They process very large volumes of material compared to other AD sites, but as they do not produce a digestate for marketing, they do not compete with the other industrial and commercial AD facilities which make up the core of the survey. Therefore it is suggested for subsequent surveys that a very short questionnaire is used to collect basic data for these facilities, and these sites are separated for reporting from the rest of the AD sector. A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

88 Appendix 5 - Responses to Survey Questions by Site Type and Country The following tables present the summarised raw data from all the questions asked per questionnaire. Note that where tonnages are quoted, these are tonnages reported by respondents (i.e. surveyed tonnages) rather than grossed tonnages data is entered alongside 2010 data where this is possible and direct comparison is relevant. Permitted Composting Data A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

89 1. Numbers of sites surveyed England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Surveys completed Change 2010 to % +16% +8% +50% +45% 2. Was this site operating under an exemption in 2010? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Yes 47 (22%) 3 (10%) 3 (23%) 1 (14%) 54 (20%) 3. How many full time equivalent employees are involved in composting at the site? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Mode Range Max: 75 Min: 0 Max: 35 Min: 0 Max: 26 Min: 1 Max: 30 Min: 1 Max: 9 Min: 1 Max: 17 Min: 2 Max: 6 Min: 2 Max: 3 Min: 2 Max: 75 Min: 0 Max: 35 Min: 0 4. What type(s) of system was the site operating? (Please tick all the options that apply) % s state the proportion of sites containing each particular technology. Some sites have more than a single technology so the % s do not add to 100. England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK IVC A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

90 Number % of responses Windrow open Number % of responses Windrow under cover Number % of responses Aerated static pile Number % of responses Continuous block composting (Table composting) Other Number % of responses England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK 19% 26% 33% 38% 54% 70% 50% 20% 23% 29% % 7 3% 12 6% 6 3% 28 14% % 1 1% 3 2% 2 1% 18 67% 0 0% 2 7% 0 0% 3 11% 23 72% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11 85% 0 0% 1 8% 0 0% 1 8% 7 54% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% % 7 3% 15 6% 6 2% 12 5% % 1 0.4% 3 1% 1 0.4% Other systems mentioned: Rocket Composter TAD Deep clamp 5. IF MORE THAN ONE TYPE: Were they used in series (sequential treatment of the same material) or in parallel (separate treatment of different material)? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK In Series 23 72% 5 45% 3 60% 2 50% 6 100% 3 75% 2 67% 0 0% 34 74% 10 50% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

91 England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK In Parallel 9 28% 6 55% 1 20% 2 50% 0 0% 1 25% 1 33% 1 100% 11 24% Both in series n/a n/a n/a n/a & in parallel 0% 20% 0% 0% 2% 10 50% n/a 6. What was the typical composting period (in weeks)? Average term Range Max: 52 Min: 0.3 England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Max: 40 Min: 1 Max: 36 Min: 5 Max: 24 Min: 6 Max:26 Min: 6 Max: 18 Min: 4.5 Max:12 Min: 8 Max:12 Min: 2 Max: 52 Min: What types of pre-processing of feedstocks did you carry out? (Please select all the options that apply) England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK No pre-processing 3% 3% 3% 4% 0% 8% 0% 25% 3% 4% Screening 14% 27% 10% 24% 15% 17% 17% 0% 14% 26% Pulping (e.g. screw 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% or hydropulper) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Shredding 88% 94% 86% 88% 77% 83% 83% 50% 87% 92% Blending / mixing 13% 28% 17% 32% 15% 25% 0% 0% 13% 28% De-packaging 1% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% Hand picking 55% 53% 66% 64% 31% 58% 50% 50% 55% 55% Other 4% 4% 3% 4% 8% 8% 0% 0% 4% 4% Other types of pre-processing mentioned: Metal removal using magnets Visual inspection Minced (rather than shredded) Sorting Max: 40 Min: 1 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

92 8. Taking into consideration planning, regulatory and physical constraints; what was the maximum working capacity of this site? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK No of Responses Average Site Capacity (tonnes) 22,887 20,422 18,973 16,239 19,366 8,643 27,000 7,232 22,298 19,113 Max: Min: 100, , , , , ,166 1,078 50,000 2,000 24, , ,000 6 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

93 9. Approximately what percentage of your waste feedstock was sourced? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK From the site at which the plant is located Sites Tonnes % by input weight From other sites within the same business (or group) Sites Tonnes % by input weight From external third party sources Sites Tonnes % by input weight ,639 (4%) 18 31,214 (1%) ,929 (9%) ,170 (5%) 2 44 (0.01%) 0 0 0% 3 13,093 (4%) 9 87,107 (25%) answer only 1 answer only ,683 (3%) 18 31,214 (1%) ,237 (8%) ,708 (8%) 206 3,518,843 (95%) 128 1,988,985 (85%) ,260 (100%) ,013 (71%) ,096 (100%) 11 81,116 (100%) 5 92,200 (100%) 4 28,284 (98%) 252 4,149,399 (96%) 165 2,350,399 (85%) Total inputs 3,693,696 2,328, , , ,096 81,116 92,200 28,929 4,324,296 2,790,344 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

94 10. In 2012, approximately what quantity of your waste feedstock was sourced? NB The figures in the first table below do not tally with (are higher than) the figures in the following tables because answers were supplied separately for each and not all sites could provide the detail required for the subsequent tables. Note: In the following tables, the nation refers to the location of the site not the source of the waste. It is known that some waste crosses borders from source to composting site. England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Food (separated) (Tonnes) 237,746 11,293 17, ,796 (6%) (3%) (12%) (0%) (6%) Green/ garden waste (separated) (Tonnes) 2,322,510 (63%) 238,857 (62%) 94,755 (62%) 67,200 (64%) 2,723,322 (62%) Mixed food and green waste (Tonnes) 867,818 (24%) 128,350 (36%) 39,084 (26%) 75,000 (36%) 1,110,252 (25%) Other (Tonnes) 265,622 7, ,926 (7%) (2%) (0.3%) (0%) (6%) Total 3,693, , , ,200 4,374,296 Answers included in other : Sewage sludge Wood Liquids Cardboard Other composting sites after sanitisation Fish waste Potato sludge Manure A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

95 For each type of feedstock processed what proportion came from each of the following sources? Food (Separated) Local authority sources (Tonnes) England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 138,071 (4%) 0 (0%) 17,757 (12%) 0 (0%) All UK 155,828 (4%) Agriculture (Tonnes) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Supermarkets/retail (Tonnes) Hospitality sector (Tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (Tonnes) 29,000 (1%) 1,143 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2,700 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 975(0.03%) 1,300 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Other (Tonnes) 12,500 (0.4%) 1,144 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 30,143 (1%) 2,700 (0.1%) 2,275 (0.1%) 13,644 (0.3%) Total 180,546 6,287 17, ,590 NB (% s relate to the total inputs to the sites for all sources at sites that provided detail under this question i.e. food + green/garden + mixed food & green + other. E.g. food from supermarkets/retail is 1% of total inputs to sites). A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

96 Green/ garden waste (separated) England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Local authority sources (Tonnes) 1,964,088 (58%) 195,487 (58%) 85,937 (57%) 35,200 (43%) 2,280,712 (57%) Agriculture (Tonnes) 1,525 (0.04%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Supermarkets/retail (Tonnes) Hospitality sector (Tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (Tonnes) 11,200 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,525 (0.04%) 11,200 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Other (Tonnes) 188,426 (6%) 20,809 (6%) (6%) 2,000 (2%) 220,053 (6%) Total 2,165, ,307 94,755 37,200 2,,513,489 NB (% s relate to the total inputs to the sites for all sources i.e. food + green/garden + mixed food & green + other. E.g. food from supermarkets/retail is 1% of total inputs to sites). A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

97 Mixed food and green waste England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Local authority sources (Tonnes) 847,648 (25%) 106,279 (32%) 39,084 (26%) 45,000 (55%) 1,038,011 (26%) Agriculture (Tonnes) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Supermarkets/retail (Tonnes) Hospitality sector (Tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (Tonnes) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,388 (0.04%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 200 (0.01%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Other (Tonnes) 0 (0%) 2,071 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,388 (0.03%) 200 (0.01%) 2,071 (0.1%) Total 849, ,350 39,084 45,000 1,041,670 NB (% s relate to the total inputs to the sites for all sources i.e. food + green/garden + mixed food & green + other. E.g. food from supermarkets/retail is 1% of total inputs to sites). A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

98 Other materials (Sewage sludge, Wood, Liquids, Cardboard, etc, as listed above) Local authority sources (Tonnes) England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK 32,221 (1%) 3,000 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 35,221 (1%) Agriculture (Tonnes) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Supermarkets/retail (Tonnes) Hospitality sector (Tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (Tonnes) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 250 (0.2%) 0 (0%) 250 (0.01%) Other (Tonnes) 186,723 (5%) 254 (0.1%) 250 (0.2%) 0 (0%) 187,227 (5%) Total 218,944 3, ,698 NB (% s relate to the total inputs to the sites for all sources i.e. food + green/garden + mixed food & green + other. E.g. food from supermarkets/retail is 1% of total inputs to sites). A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

99 11. Of the NON-MUNICIPAL FOOD WASTE that you processed in 2012, approximately what proportion came from? (proportion of total) England (%) Scotland (%) Wales (%) Northern Ireland (%) All UK (%) Agriculture Average Min / Max / / / / 100 Food manufacturers/ processors Average Min / Max Supermarkets Average Min / Max Hospitality businesses (restaurants etc) Average Min / Max / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / What level of contamination do you typically find, per tonne? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Less than 1% 131 (61%) 13 (45%) 7 (54%) 2 (33%) 153 (59%) Between 1% & 5% 78 (36%) 14 (48%) 5 (38%) 3 (50%) 100 (38%) Between 6% and 10% 2 (1%) 1 (3%) 1 (8%) 1 (17%) 5 (2%) Greater than 10% 3 (1%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (2%) / / / What was the quantity of compost produced? England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK No of Responses Average Tonnage 9,999 11,407 6,525 8,826 5, ,500 8,725 9,471 10,627 Total Survey Tonnage 2,141,536 1,448, , ,812 74,958 71,301 94,500 34,900 2,500,225 1,774, / / / 100 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

100 14. Where was the compost that you produced applied? ( % s refer to the proportion of that nation s compost is applied. (text in brackets is the categorisation of markets used in the2010 survey) Agriculture & Field Horticulture (Agriculture) Horticulture & Growing Media (Horticulture Professional / Horticulture Amateur) Landscape Development (Landscaping) Turf (Sports Turf) Landfill restoration (Land restoration/ daily cover) Fuel for Energy Recovery (Fuel for Energy Recovery) Other (Other) England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK ,505,163 69% 264,841 12% 203,952 9% 26,800 1% 48,935 2% 25,000 1% 1,013,604 70% 173,423 11% 137,589 9% 6,500 0% 58,922 4% 5,800 0% 114,009 60% 15,269 8% 17,400 9% 0 0% 23,613 12% 3,400 2% 105,140 50% 3,660 2% 11,917 6% 2,400 1% 88,500 42% 195 0% 46,758 62% 0 0% 9,000 12% 0 0% 11,500 15% 0 0% 49,791 70% 5,660 8% 8,675 12% 0 0% 2,375 3% 0 0% 54,000 72% 1 answer only 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 31,150 89% 0 0% 3,750 11% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1,719,930 68% 300,110 12% 230,352 9% 26,800 1% 84,048 3% 28,400 1% 1,203,755 67% 182,293 10% 165,911 9% 8,900 0% 149,797 8% 119,398 5% 59,643 4% 16,790 9% 0 0% 8,000 11% 4,800 7% 1 answer only 0 0% 144,688 6% 80,643 4% Total 2,194,089 1,455, , ,812 75,258 71,301 74,500 34,900 2,534,328 1,797,254 5,955 0% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

101 15. Where the outputs produced were applied, what was the AVERAGE EX-WORKS sale price? ( /t) NB Where there is a negative figure given it is because the site pays for the user to take the compost. The number of responses is the number of separate prices provided by sites over the range of markets. Sites were able to provide prices for numerous markets. Average Ex England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Works Sale Price Responses Agriculture & Field Horticulture Highest pt Lowest pt Average pt Horticulture & Growing Media Highest pt Lowest pt Average pt Zero answers answer only Landscape Development Highest pt Lowest pt Average pt Zero answers A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

102 Average Ex England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Turf Highest pt Lowest pt Average pt Zero answers Zero answers Zero answers Landfill restoration Highest pt Lowest pt Average pt Zero answers Fuel for Energy Recovery Highest pt Lowest pt Average pt Other (2012) Other (2010) 1 answer only Zero answers Highest pt: Lowest pt: Average Mostly this was in the form of bagged compost, sold or given away if collected it s sold at 8/m3 unknown discarded waste 2 tonne Cost not specified 1 answer only A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

103 PAS 100 questions were asked in a different way in 2012 therefore comparison with 2010 is not possible here Are you currently producing compost to PAS 100? England Scotland Wales Northern All UK Ireland Yes 98 (47%) 21 (78%) 6 (46%) 4 (67%) 128 (51%) No 109 (53%) 6 (22%) 7 (54%) 2 (33%) 124 (49%) 17. Does the certification apply to all or part of your output? England Scotland Wales Northern All UK Ireland All 87 (90%) 21 (100%) 6 (100%) 3 (100%) 117 (92%) Part 10 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (8%) Where respondents answered Part the parts were: mm only PAS 100 ~15000t If fail PAS 100 then can go to exemption (insurance policy) Not oversize Not when taking wastes not classed as PAS - made 2000 tonnes of non PAS products Oversize moved to another facility 18. Do you intend to maintain your PAS certification? England Scotland Wales Northern All UK Ireland Yes 95 (99%) 21 (100%) 6 (100%) 3 (100%) 125 (99%) No 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

104 19. Do you intend to obtain PAS certification? (asked of those not currently producing compost to PAS 100) England Scotland Wales Northern All UK Ireland Yes 39 (36%) 3 (50%) 4 (57%) 1 answer only 47 (38%) No 70 (64%) 3 (50%) 3 (43%) 1 answer only 77 (62%) Where the answer was No the reasons given were: ENGLAND can't afford to do it under the current rules The process includes Sewage Sludge x10 Cost. Not required at the moment. Feedstock contains Sewage Sludge Expense. Small tonnage certain materials in sludge means metal content is too high Expense of certification Paper and card in collection x3 Too expensive, not required by farmers x 27 Fines from residual waste now included Too expensive for size of operations and planning restrictions for compost use on own land only. internal use too expensive - set up for big companies no intention of selling compost Tonnage too small not intending to sell process too long winded Only used on own land. Do not need hassle of extra paper work. more economical to do deployments and no PAS standard for TAD Use on own land they work towards PAS 110 using in own business and not selling to anyone, cost unjustified Site may well close Will become when required to do so by Councils Plant compost is made commercially for us by external supplier. ceased trading mulch we make that goes to our plants there will be no savings as we are not selling it, plus costs involved in testing etc. SCOTLAND if we produced more than what we need then we will start PAS 100 scale of operation - it is not worth the cost and used only on campus too small A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

105 WALES variation in supplier product Very costly for the amount they produce. Very demanding man hours, but are looking into it. NORTHERN IRELAND Compost only goes to own land so no requirement to try to sell on. 20. For each of the following business issues, please say the extent to which it affects your composting operation? Issue Response England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Total responses to question Don t Know 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Competition Little/None 88 (45%) 12 (44%) 7 (54%) 2 (40%) 109 (45%) Some 52 (27%) 11 (41%) 2 (15%) 2 (40%) 67 (28%) Greatly 55 (28%) 4 (15%) 4 (31%) 1 (20%) 64 (27%) Don t Know 1 (0.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.4%) Markets Little/None 118 (61%) 14 (52%) 11 (85%) 3 (60%) 146 (61%) Some 51 (26%) 9 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 60 (25%) Greatly 23 (12%) 4 (15%) 2 (15%) 2 (40%) 31 (13%) Don t Know 1 (0.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.4%) Contamination Little/None 80 (41%) 14 (52%) 8 (62%) 1 (20%) 103 (43%) in Feedstock Some 41 (21%) 11 (41%) 4 (31%) 1 (20%) 57 (24%) Greatly 73 (37%) 2 (7%) 1 (8%) 3 (60%) 79 (33%) Regulatory Environment Don t Know 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Little/None 49 (25%) 9 (33%) 4 (31%) 2 (40%) 64 (26%) Some 47 (24%) 10 (37%) 2 (15%) 1 (20%) 60 (25%) Greatly 99 (51%) 8 (30%) 7 (54%) 2 (40%) 116 (49%) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

106 Q21. Do you have anything further you would like to add, in terms of issues for your business? Record whether the respondent regards the issue as negative (a threat ) or positive (an opportunity ) Summary of the comments made by respondents ref Opportunities/positives E S W NI UK 1 AD IVC Increasing size of operations (provides economies of scale) Biomass market (for oversize) On-site use Plenty of demand for compost/end market opportunities Local markets EA has been helpful Higher value product/higher quality product Govt. policy peat reduction / focus on food waste/end of waste making PAS compulsory, Zero Waste Scotland/zero waste to landfill Improvement in contamination levels/good feedstock PAS High fertiliser prices More farmers interested in using compost Positive public attitude/educating people to understand value of compost Diversification of feedstocks other ref Threats/negatives E S W NI UK 1 Regulation on Bioaerosols / cost of odour control Inconsistent regulation / not a level playing field Regulators lack of knowledge and understanding/lack of flexibility to deal with different types/sizes of operation A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

107 4 LA budget cuts affecting focus on improving recycling / LA charges to residents deter recycling LA contracts volume limits/ the way LAs collect (mixed green/food, include card) End user demands Anomalies in definitions/what can be composted Cost/effort required to meet regulatory requirements (e.g. cost/relevance of WAMITAB) Business rates/operating costs (fuel) Competition for feedstocks from large companies/ad (affecting gate fees, processing) Quality of feedstocks /contamination Planning restrictions/length of time to get a decision/planners negative attitude Bad weather Changes/increases in legislation/planning Lack of support from trade associations Ability to maintain standard (PAS 100 / QMS) PAS 100 complicated/onerous/expensive, not viable for small operators PAS 100 doesn t allow sewage sludge/ can t be composted Local residents (NIMBYs, odour complaints) Lack of end markets / competition for buyers Other (e.g. Govt./LA focus is on AD/energy, Permitting system is confusing) Normal practice in survey research is to ensure anonymity of responses. However, WRAP is likely to be conducting this survey again in Would you be prepared to let us pass your information to them so that it can be used in planning for that survey and analysing year-on-year England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All UK Responses Yes 93% 97% 96% 100% 100% 91% 100% 75% 94% 96% No 7% 3% 4% 0% 0% 9% 0% 25% 6% 4% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

108 Anaerobic Digestion Sites There is no survey data shown for NI or Wales because there was only a single site operational in NI in 2010 and confidentiality needs to be maintained. Where response rate for Scotland was from a single site, that data has also been suppressed. As a result, in some of the tables, the UK figure is not the sum of the figures shown. Anaerobic Digestion Questionnaire Results Results from the 2012 survey are provided alongside those of the last 2010 survey for comparison. 1. Completed Survey England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales UK Responses Operational Sites % % 73% 100% 50% 70% Responses % % 27% 100% 0% 40% Q1. When did the site become operational? 73 responses Pre Q2. Did this site operate under a permit or an exemption during 2012 England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales UK Responses Permitted Exempt Q3. In 2010 was this site operating under a permit or an exemption? England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales UK Responses Operating in Not operating in 2010/No response Permitted in Exempt in No Response/Don t know A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

109 Q4. How many people are employed on this AD plant (expressed as full time equivalents)? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Total reported Mode 2 No mode 1 Range Average per site Average Q5. Taking into consideration planning, regulatory and physical constraints; what was the maximum working capacity of this site in 2012? Presenting data as number of sites per operational capacity size band (as tonnes per annum): England Scotland UK <5,000 5,000-5,000-5,000- >50,000 <5,000 >50,000 <5,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 >50,000 Commercial Demonstration Industrial On-Farm Average (responses) 36,379 tpa (40) 142,058 tpa (6) 46,840 tpa (50) Average operating capacity as % permitted capacity (where both figures are available ie. 38 sites): 58.2% Q6 What type of AD system was the site using during 2012? Q6a. Was the process single stage or two stages? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Single Stage 32 (65%) 6 (67%) 40 (65%) 65% Two stages 17 (35%) 3 (33%) 22 (35%) 35% Q6b. Was the process continuous or batch? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Continuous 44 (88%) 8 (89%) 55 (87%) 94% Batch 4 (8%) 1 (11%) 6 (9%) 6% Both (*) 2 (4%) 0% 2 (4%) (*) 2 stage facilities A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

110 Q6c. Was the system type wet or dry? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Wet 49 (96%) 8 (89%) 61 (95%) 94% Dry 1 (2%) 1 (11%) 2 (3%) 6% Both (*) 1 (2%) 0% 1 (2% ) (*) two stage facility Q6d. What was the temperature of the system used? England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Thermophilic 6 (12%) 4 (44%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 11 (17%) 29% Mesophilic 44 (88%) 5 (56%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 52 (83%) 71% Q6e. Hydraulic Retention Time (Days) England Scotland UK Responses Average Hydraulic Retention Time (Hours) Question not asked in 2010 survey Q7. Were you using pasteurisation? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Yes 44% 44% 44% 50% No 56% 56% 56% 50% Q7a. Was the pasteurisation pre or post digestion? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Pre 48% 50% 44% 38% Post 52% 50% 56% 63% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

111 Q8. What types of pre-processing of feedstocks was carried out on this site in 2012? England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Screening 40% 20% 67% 33% 37% 55% Shredding 46% 20% 100% 33% 43% 45% Hand picking 11% 30% 0% 33% 16% 0% De-packaging 29% 20% 0% 33% 25% 27% Pulping 17% 20% 0% 67% 20% 0% Blending/Mixing 69% 40% 0% 67% 59% 55% Other 29% 40% 33% 33% 31% 27% None 2% 2% Maceration (2010 only) Not asked % Other: Autoclave (1) Buffer tanks (1) Clamping (1) Extruding (1) Filtering (1) Followed by hydrolysis (1) Harvester cuts (2) Macerating (3) ph balancing (1) ph correction (2) Pumping (1) Feedstock Q10. What proportion of your feedstock came from each of the following sources? (% tonnage) England Scotland UK Responses Purpose grown (energy) crops 5.5% 0.0% 4.5% Manures 3.9% 2.1% 3.6% Separated solid food 9.5% 4.8% 8.9% Liquids 80.6% 91.8% 82.2% Mixed food & green material 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% Other 0.4% 1.3% 0.7% Total - Input (Tonnes) 3,530, ,292 4,435,068 With inputs into industrial sites which discharge treated water to sewer, removed: England Scotland UK Purpose grown (energy) crops 23.1% 0.0% 21.1% Manures 16.2% 23.4% 16.6% Separated solid food 40.0% 54.3% 41.4% Liquids 18.0% 7.7% 16.6% Mixed food & green material 0.6% 0.0% 0.5% Other 2.1% 14.7% 3.7% Total - Input (Tonnes) 842,776 78, ,568 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

112 As % per site (UK level only) Local authority collections Agriculture Supermarkets/ retail Hospitality Food manufacturers/ processors Food - solid (separated) 40.1% 3.1% 6.9% 1.3% 36.8% 8.6% Liquids (milk, brewery waste) 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 86.7% 12.5% Mixed food and green material 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% Other (1) 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 12.5% 62.5% (1) Others include: Glycerol and packaging (paper & cardboard) Calculated tonnages (% per site x input weight per site) UK 30 responses Local authority collections (tonnes) Agriculture (tonnes) Supermarkets/ retail (tonnes) Hospitality (tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (tonnes) Other Other (tonnes) Total (tonnes) Food - solid (separated) 172, ,352 5, ,780 1, ,853 Liquids (milk, brewery waste) ,582,630 62,685 3,646,210 Mixed food and green material 0 5, ,988 Other (1) , , ,753 Total 172,935 5,000 60,047 5,980 3,758,910 65,932 4,068,803 (1) Others include: Glycerol and packaging (paper & cardboard) England - 23 responses Local authority collections (tonnes) Agriculture (tonnes) Supermarkets/ retail (tonnes) Hospitality (tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (tonnes) Other (tonnes) Total (tonnes) Food - solid (separated) 157, ,852 5, ,280 1, ,353 Liquids (milk, brewery waste) ,776,630 62,685 2,840,210 Mixed food and green material 0 5, ,988 Other (Specify) , ,253 Total 157,435 5,000 52,547 5,980 2,909,910 65,932 3,196,803 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

113 Scotland 5 responses Local authority collections (tonnes) Agriculture (tonnes) Supermarkets/ retail (tonnes) Hospitality (tonnes) Food manufacturers/ processors (tonnes) Other (tonnes) Total (tonnes) Food - solid (separated) 15, , , ,500 Liquids (milk, brewery waste) , ,000 Mixed food and green material Other (Specify) , ,500 Total 15, , , ,000 Northern Ireland no responses Wales 1 response A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

114 Q11. What level of reject material do you typically find, per tonne? Note guidance given to the interviewers: reject level is the non-biodegradable material that came in with the organic feedstocks and the site will have had to dispose of. The level of rejected material is likely to vary considerably from load to load. Since they will have had to dispose of it as waste, they should have records. England Scotland UK Responses % 2% 13% 3% Less than 1% 63% 37% 56% 1% - 5% 23% 12% 22% 6% - 10% 6% 25% 10% Over 10% 6% 13% 9% By facility classification (UK): Commercial Demonstration Industrial On-Farm Responses % 4% 5% Less than 1% 25% 75% 82% 75% 1% - 5% 29% 25% 9% 20% 6% - 10% 25% Over 10% 17% 9% Q12. In 2012, approximately what percentage of your feedstock was sourced? England Scotland UK Responses Sourcing at site 59% 41% 57% Sourcing at other sites - same business 3% 0% 2% External sources 38% 59% 41% By site classification: Sourcing at site Sourcing at other sites - same business External sources Commercial 9% 2% 89% Demonstration 75% 25% Industrial 83% 17% Industrial discharge to sewer 100% On-Farm 94% 6% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

115 Outputs Liquid & Solid Q13. What was the quantity of whole digestate produced in 2012 (wet weight)? England Scotland UK No.s in each size <5,000 5,000-5,000-5,000- >50,000 <5,000 >50,000 <5,000 band 50,000 50,000 50,000 >50,000 Commercial Demonstration 3 4 Industrial Industrial discharge to sewer On-Farm Average (responses) 47,890 tpa (43) 108,708 tpa (8) Q14. Is the whole digestate processed further, after digestion? England Scotland UK Responses Yes 46% 50% 45% No 54% 50% 55% Q14a. IF YES, how? 53,500 tpa (54) England Scotland UK Responses Composted 14% 0% 11% Screened 18% 0% 15% Screened and aerobically processed 0% 25% 4% Screened & evaporated 0% 25% 4% Separated 59% 50% 58% Other - Solar & thermal drying 5% 0% 4% Other - Cavity air flotation 4% 0% 4% Q15. How was the digestate separated into fibre and liquor? England Scotland UK Responses Press 63% 25% 57% Centrifuged 25% 75% 33% Foam screen separator 6% 0% 5% Gravity screen 6% 0% 5% Q16. Was there any further (tertiary) treatment of either fibre or liquor following separation? IF YES, What treatment? England Scotland UK Responses No 95% 75% 88% Ultra filtration & reverse osmosis 5% 0% 4% Pelleting fibre 0% 0% 4% Evaporation 0% 25% 4% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

116 Q17a. What was the quantity of separated fibre produced in 2012 (tonnes)? England Scotland UK Responses Total Weight 34,892 9,290 44,481 Weight per responding site 2,180 2,322 2,118 Q17b. And what was the quantity of separated liquor (tonnes)? England Scotland UK Responses Total Weight 188, ,758 1,032,922 Weight per responding site 12, ,689 52,646 Is the liquor de-nitrified? If Yes, how? England Scotland UK Responses No 90% 100% 92% Yes (*) 10% 0% 8% (*) of those responding Yes 50% put in aerator tanks Q19. How much of the digestate that you produced in 2012 went to each of the following destinations? UK responses 53 Whole Fibre Liquor Total Sold - off site (Tonnes) 86, ,550 Provided F.O.C. - users off site (Tonnes) 131,500 1,001 1, ,902 Operator paid user to remove (Tonnes) 78,002 1,969 56, ,172 Used by own business (Tonnes) 135,054 26, , ,950 Disposed - landfill (Tonnes) 0 14, ,180 Disposed - sewers (Tonnes) 0 0 2,090,320 2,090,320 Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 431,936 43,485 2,337,533 2,812,954 As above, but excluding large industrial facilities which discharge treated water to sewer: Whole Fibre Liquor Total Sold - off site (Tonnes) 86, ,550 Provided F.O.C. - users off site (Tonnes) 131,500 1,001 1, ,902 Operator paid user to remove (Tonnes) 78,002 1,969 54, ,672 Used by own business (Tonnes) 135,054 26, , ,950 Disposed - landfill (Tonnes) 0 9, ,500 Disposed - sewers (Tonnes) Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 431,936 38, , ,454 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

117 England 44 responses Whole Fibre Liquor Total Sold - off site (Tonnes) 86, ,550 Provided F.O.C. - users off site (Tonnes) 131,000 1,000 1, ,400 Operator paid user to remove (Tonnes) 78, ,002 Used by own business (Tonnes) 109,821 26, , ,717 Disposed - landfill (Tonnes) 0 9, ,500 Disposed - sewers (Tonnes) 0 0 1,295,000 1,295,000 Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 406,203 36,835 1,486,011 1,929,049 Scotland 6 responses Whole Fibre Liquor Total Sold - off site (Tonnes) Provided F.O.C. - users off site (Tonnes) Operator paid user to remove (Tonnes) Used by own business (Tonnes) 17, ,232 Disposed - landfill (Tonnes) 0 4, ,680 Disposed - sewers (Tonnes) , ,320 Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 17,232 4, , ,234 Q20. Of the digestate that you produced in 2012 that was used (i.e. not disposed of to landfill or sewers), where was it applied? UK 51 responses Whole Fibre Liquor Total Agriculture (Tonnes) 429,807 30, , ,451 Field-grown horticulture (Tonnes) 48 5,581 56,001 61,630 Landscape development (Tonnes) Landfill restoration (Tonnes) 2,000 9,500 1,500 13,000 Fuel for energy recovery (Tonnes) Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 431,855 45, , ,126 England 42 responses Whole Fibre Liquor Total Agriculture (Tonnes) 405,274 23, , ,718 Field-grown horticulture (Tonnes) 48 5,580 56,000 61,628 Landscape dvlpt (Tonnes) Landfill restoration (Tonnes) 0 9,500 1,500 11,000 Fuel for energy recovery (Tonnes) Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 405,322 38, , ,346 Scotland 6 responses Whole Fibre Liquor Total Agriculture (Tonnes) 16,032 7, ,232 Field-grown horticulture (Tonnes) Landscape dvlpt (Tonnes) Landfill restoration (Tonnes) 2, ,000 Fuel for energy recovery (Tonnes) Other - specify (Tonnes) Total 18,032 7, ,234 A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

118 Q21. Where the outputs produced in 2012 were applied, what was the average ex- works sale price for each use? Agriculture ( /Tonne) Field-grown horticulture ( /tonne) Whole Fibre Liquor Whole Fibre Liquor UK Respondents Average Min Max England Average Min Max No pricing data given for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland based facilities. Many quoted commercial confidentiality. Outputs Biogas Q22a. What was the total biogas yield in 2012 (m3)?)? England Scotland UK 2012 UK 2010 Responses Yield (m3) 81,471,995 5,513,822 87,872,817 25,631,765 Yield per site (m3) 3,542,261 1,837,941 3,138,315 1,971,674 Q22b. Of the biogas that you produced in 2012, how much was used for: (as % total biogas output per site) England Scotland UK Responses Biogas used for heat 4.5% 0% 4.0% Biogas used for on-site CHP 91.2% 98.8% 92.3% Biogas used for gas into grid 3.9% 0% 3.2% Other (Flaring) 0.4% 1.3% 0.5% Q22c to Q22e Scotland only A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

119 Q22f. Of all the heat that you generated in 2012, what proportion was exported off site? See below Export % Response 100% 3 (5%) 60% 1 (2%) 50% 3 (5%) 10% 1 (2%) 0% 48 (86%) Total Responses 56 Q22g. IF LESS THAN 100%: What was any remaining heat used for? Reported Export % Comments on remaining heat usage 100% - 60% Balance wasted 50% Used on site (3 responses) i.e. running of factory, used by our sister company next door 10% Used for digesters and dump radiators 0% Used on site or wasted, or combination of the two. Responses included: - Wasted (7 sites) - Used in pasteurisation and heating digesters, balance wasted (reported wastage between 20% and 90%) (13 sites) - Used on site, balance wasted (reported wastage between 50% and 90%) (18 sites) Q23a. Are you currently producing digestate certified to PAS 110 Yes No (No. of responses) England Scotland Northern Ireland 19% 13% - 81% 87% 100% (47) (8) (2) Wales - 100% (2) UK 17% 83% (59 ) For those saying Yes to Q23a Q23b: Do you intend to maintain your PAS certification? Yes No (No. of responses) Q24: Does the certification apply to all or only part of your output? All Part (Liquids) (No. of responses) England 100% - (8) 89% 11% (9) Scotland Northern Ireland 100% - n/a (1) 100% - (1) n/a Wales n/a n/a UK 100% - (9 ) 90% 10% (10) A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

120 For those saying No to Q23a Q23c: Do you intend to obtain PAS certification? Yes No (No. of responses) England 27% 73% (37) Scotland Northern Ireland 50% - 50% 100% (6) (2) Wales - 100% (2) UK 28% 72% (47) Q23d. Why is that? (asked of those not intending to obtain or maintain PAS 110) Summary of responses: England Scotland UK Responses Certification too expensive 11% 25% 14% Not required e.g. digestate used on own land, or operator does not pasteurise 63% 25% 54% No commercial value in markets served 11% 0% 11% Certification too lengthy a process 4% 0% 3% Digestate too contaminated to qualify 0% 25% 6% Operate under an exemption 4% 25% 6% Undecided 4% 0% 3% No digestate produced by site 4% 0% 3% Q25. For each of the following business issues, please say the extent to which it affects your AD operation great effect, some effect, little or no effect? Competition for feedstock England Scotland UK Responses Great 15% 25% 15% Some 15% 0% 14% Little/none 70% 75% 71% Making the most of the heat produced England Scotland UK Responses Great 17% 13% 19% Some 26% 25% 26% Little/none 57% 62% 55% Markets for digestate England Scotland UK Responses Great 17% 12% 15% Some 7% 12% 9% Little/none 76% 76% 76% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

121 Storage for digestate England Scotland UK Responses Great 24% 12% 21% Some 37% 12% 38% Little/none 35% 76% 38% Don t Know 4% 0% 3% Q26. In relation to the effective operation of your AD business are there any other significant threats or opportunities? Summary of the comments made by respondents ref Opportunities/positives/future plans E S W NI UK 1 Better use of energy/heat output Changing/improving process Government/EU policy Expansion of AD sector Improving understanding of AD as an option Increasing size of operations Nutrient value of digestate (on own land) More/better food waste collections Other 4 4 ref Threats/negatives E S W NI UK 6 Competition for feedstocks / Lack of seed sludge PAS 110 complicated/onerous/expensive Lack of expertise and understanding / immature industry Government policy/legislation Regulation Would like higher incentives Starch bags Storage issues (seasonal / related to weather) Lack of end markets / can t get a price for digestate Other Normal practice in survey research is to ensure anonymity of responses. However, WRAP is likely to be conducting this survey again in Would you be prepared to let us pass your information to them so that it can be used to plan for that survey and analysing year-on-year changes? IF YOU ANSWER NO, YOU ANSWERS WILL ONLY BE USED ANONYMOUSLY England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales UK Responses Yes 73% 87% 100% 100% 77% No 27% 13% 0% 0% 23% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

122 MBT Sites Questionnaire Responses These results include all survey responses for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These results have been combined to protect the confidentiality of the responses from the one site in Northern Ireland results have been included for comparison purposes. Note that the figures for Scotland include 4 plants previously assigned by the operator as IVC, and included as such in the 2010 survey. Note also that of the 4 identified MBT plants in Wales, one did not commence operations in 2012, and the rest did not produce an organic output ie. they either prepared material for landfill or produced solely an RDF for energy recovery. Therefore there are no reported Welsh figures in this data. 1. Completed surveys Yes No England 17 7 Scotland 5 0 Northern Ireland 1 0 UK UK Year facility Opened Year Total No Full time equivalent employees Total Average England Scotland 19 4 UK UK What type(s) of system was the site using in 2012 for treating organic waste? Please select all the options that apply. Aerobic biodrying IVC digestion treatment Aerobic Anaerobic Thermal Other England 29% 41% 35% 0% 6% Scotland 100% UK % 35% 26% 0% 4% UK % 29% 14% 7% 14% 5. Do any of these systems process solely material that has not come through the MBT plant? Yes No England 6% (Aerobic IVC) 94% Scotland 0% 100% UK 6% (Aerobic IVC) 94% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

123 6. What quantities of materials which included an organic fraction did you receive from each of the following sources in 2012? (figures as reported tonnages) England Scotland UK Municipal source segregated (tonnes p.a.) 47,500 (3%) 47,500 (3%) Municipal mixed (tonnes p.a.) 1,602,140 (96%) 157,000 (100%) 1,759,140 (96%) Non-municipal source segregated (tonnes p.a.) 10,000 (1%) 10,000 (1%) Non-municipal mixed (tonnes p.a.) 9,250 (1%) 11,250 (1%) Comparison with 2010 The question was asked differently for the 2010 survey, as Please give an approximation of where the organic waste inputs came from in 2010?. % of total Municipal source segregated 6% Municipal mixed 72% Non-municipal source segregated 17% Non-municipal mixed 5% 7. What was the quantity of the separated organic fraction produced by this site in 2012? Total (tonnes) Average (tonnes) England 230,059 15,337 Scotland 18,600 3,720 UK ,959 11,855 UK ,800 24, What was the quantity, in tonnes, of each type of output created through the processing of the mechanically separated organic fraction of the waste treated in 2012? England Scotland UK % total Dry recyclates outputs (tonnes) 125,464 5, , % CLO outputs (tonnes) 230,059 18, , % SRF/RDF outputs (tonnes) 536,414 52, , % Inerts/aggregates/other outputs (tonnes) 185, , % 9. Did the site produce biogas in 2012? Yes No England 38% 62% Scotland 100% UK 27% 73% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

124 10. For the CLO produced in 2012, what were the end uses? England UK 2010 Spread to land restoration/remediation (tonnes) 145,030 (80.7%) 155,930 (82%) 33,000 (100%) Disposal to landfill (tonnes) 33,100 33,100 (18.5%) (17.4%) 0 Fuel for energy recovery (tonnes) Other (tonnes) 1,200 1,200 (0.8%) (0.6%) 0 Total responses Did the end uses for the CLO generate a revenue or a cost or were they free of charge? (as no of respondents) Cost Revenue Free of charge Spread to land restoration/remediation Disposal to landfill Fuel for energy recovery Other For the RDF that you produced in 2012 what were the end uses? England Scotland UK 2010 Fuel for energy recovery UK market (tonnes) 172,500 (35.1%) 52,000 (100%) 224,500 (41.3%) 37,620 (80%) Fuel for energy recovery - exported 163, ,250 7,620 0 (tonnes) (32.2%) (30%) (16%) Disposal to landfill (tonnes) 156, ,300 2,000 0 (31.8%) (28.7%) (4%) Other (tonnes) Responses Did the end uses for the RDF generate a revenue or a cost or were they free of charge? (as no of responses) Cost Revenue Free of charge Fuel for energy recovery UK market Fuel for energy recovery exported Disposal to landfill Other A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

125 14. In relation to the effective operation of your MBT plant, what do you see as the most significant threats or opportunities? Summary of comments made by respondents Opportunities / positives: 10 Municipal waste opportunities in the future. 1 Increasing revenues from RDF/SRF 10 Landfill tax increases. 2 Use of CLO as RDF. 2 It is a new way forward, looking at it to produce a dry compost material which can be burnt for fuel 10 Flexibility of technology to facilitate wider waste streams 1 and increased value from outputs. 2 Currently building CHP plant which will take RDF. CLO will be dried at production site, 10 this can then be burnt in the CHP. In control of MBT out puts, CHP on line Threats / negatives: 1 Changes to regulations preventing use of CLO in restoration. 10 AD unreliable and IVC preferable 1 Lack of end market opportunities for CLO 1 No open markets for mixed waste CLO materials. 2 potential future ban on waste export 3 Biggest challenge is the market off takes fluctuating prices make it very difficult. 4 Currently high prices for metals use hand picking Needs to set standards for CLO Repair costs of broken drying hall cap on landfill tax in Code of practice for CLO We don t let it go to land and the EA lady doesn t understand MBT waste so won t let it go to landfill cover - it is inert, compost, soil, we call it a second grade compost which is analysed and it has no 'nasties' in it 10 Composition of inputs resulting in higher costs on output disposal. Normal practice in survey research is to ensure that anonymity of responses. However, WRAP is likely to be conducting this survey again in Would you be prepared to let us pass your information to them so that it can be used in planning for that survey? Yes No England 94% 6% Scotland 100% 0% UK % 4% UK % 11% A survey of the UK organics recycling industry in

126 Printed on xx% recycled content paper