Municipal Solid Waste Management Capacities in Europe Desktop Study

Transcription

1 ETC/SCP Working Paper No 8/2014 Municipal Solid Waste Management Capacities in Europe Desktop Study Prepared by/compiled by: Henning Wilts, Nadja von Gries, Wuppertal Institute June 2014 EEA project manager: Almut Reichel

2 Executive summary Scope and objective of the study The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the current municipal solid waste (MSW) management capacities in Europe. It looks at missing capacities as well as at possible over-capacities both of which seem to pose relevant risks for the path from a waste disposal system towards a circular economy. In this context, available data as well as gaps in data for waste treatment capacities for municipal solid waste in Europe are identified, the relevance of imports and exports of waste for incineration is analysed and the specific situation of material recycling for specific waste streams is assessed. Despite the risks of under- and over-capacities as described above, so far there has not been sufficient research on the topic of waste management capacities. Taking into account the availability and quality of publicly available data, this report can neither give a complete overview of how much non-msw is incinerated in plants originally dedicated to MSW, nor is it possible to define how much MSW is incinerated as refused-derived fuel (RDF) or in co-incineration plants, making it extremely difficult to finally assess the appropriateness of existing capacities. Therefore the partial analysis in this report can only be a starting point in the assessment of the total European waste incineration market. Municipal waste incineration and mechanical-biological treatment This report provides an overview of existing municipal waste incineration plants and their capacities within the European Union. In this study the focus lies with waste incineration plants, which are technically and legally suitable to treat mixed municipal solid waste 1 without any pre-treatments. Accordingly, this study covers only Waste-to-Energy Plants as well as the municipal solid waste treatment in incinerators without R1 standard, but excludes co-incineration plants as well as RDF plants due to lack of data. In total, 448 incineration plants have been identified with a total incineration capacity of tonnes in The following figure shows the spatial distribution of all 448 waste incineration plants in the EEA countries. Every single plant is marked with a spot on the map. The specific tonnage per year is marked with circles in varying sizes depending on the capacity. Lastly, the varying incineration capacities of each country per year and inhabitant are shown in different blue tints. 1 Household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste according to the European Waste Catalogue II Waste Management Capacities

3 The figure above sets into relation the MSW incineration capacity per capita and country with the MSW generation. Most of the countries have an incineration capacity of less than a quarter of their generated MSW. Seven of the 32 countries analysed have an incineration capacity exceeding their annual MSW generation by 50 %. In two of these countries even the total amount of annually generated MSW would not be enough to fill all incineration plants. The analysis of mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) capacities shows the vastly different approaches to managing waste in Europe. While some countries, especially Italy, Estonia, Spain, Germany and Austria have built MBT plants to manage part of their MSW, the majority of the 32 countries analysed in this report does not use this technology at all. Exports/ Imports When assessing waste treatment capacities one has to take into account the imports and exports of waste for incineration. This practice of managing waste has significantly increased over the last years (Fischer, 2012), making the picture even more complex, especially considering the lack of highquality data. To create a useful picture of the waste flows for incineration, the following figure shows the gross waste imports and exports for incineration in relation to the respective incineration capacity per country in However, the situation varies largely over time, and the picture might change considerably in the future with new capacities entering the market. In addition, data is lacking for exports and imports of RDF from municipal waste. If we assume that 50 % of residues arising from industrial waste disposal that are reported to be traded for incineration in another country is from Waste Management Capacities III

4 municipal sources (and RDF exported for incineration will mainly be reported in this category), the picture changes dramatically. However, data about the amount of waste from municipal sources in this waste stream is not available, contributing to a high uncertainty of the analysis. Conclusions The data presented in this report gives indications for regional over-capacities for waste incineration in Europe. However, additional investments to further increase regional waste incineration capacity could alleviate the need for waste landfills. These regional over-capacities might act as an incentive to use (usually capital intensive) waste incineration plants at full capacity and at the same time demotivate further recycling efforts. Especially the competition for commercial waste seems to lead to low price levels for thermal treatment. In several EU Member States this competition has led to a number of insolvencies in the medium-sized recycling industry, since at lower incineration prices more materials will be energy recovered rather than fed to material recovery facilities 2 (Henkes, 2010). Despite this situation, according to a survey made by CEWEP (Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants) in 2010, the incineration capacity in Europe is foreseen to grow with 13 million tons until 2020 through the construction of 48 new incinerators and the increase of the capacity of some of the existing facilities (Jofra Sora, 2013) partly of course in countries that so far lack sufficient treatment capacities. 2 The recently published European Greenbook on Plastic Waste describes this phenomenon as the vacuum cleaner effect (European Commission, 2013) IV Waste Management Capacities

5 Contents Executive summary... II List of Figures... 4 List of Maps... 5 List of Tables Introduction Objective, scope and structure of the study Relevance of waste management capacities for a circular economy Data availability Incineration and MBT capacities Methodology and data quality assessment Waste incineration capacities in Europe Methodology and overview of plants and their capacities referring to the scope of the study Analysis of results Assessment of data quality MBT capacities in Europe Methodology and overview of plants and their capacities referring to the scope of the study Analysis of results Assessment of data quality Import and export of waste for incineration Methodology and data quality assessment Flows of waste for incineration in Europe Development over time Material recycling Methodology and selection of waste streams Assessment of data availability Assessment of over- and under-capacities Conclusions References Annex 1 Incineration capacity in 2010: statistical data from EUROSTAT Annex 2 Incineration capacity: data availability Annex 3 Incineration capacities and their location in Europe in Annex 4 Incineration capacity in 2010: name, location, reference year and source Waste Management Capacities 1

6 Annex 5 Incineration capacity in 2010: maps Annex 6 Y18 imports and exports in Annex 7 Y46 exports and imports Annex 8 Itemized imports and exports in 2004 and Waste Management Capacities

7 Waste Management Capacities 3

8 List of Figures Figure 1.1 MSW treatment operations and object of investigation... 7 Figure 2.1 MBT capacities Figure 2.2 MBT capacity per capita Figure 2.3 MBT capacity in relation to MSW generation Figure 2.4 Incineration and MBT capacity in relation to MSW generation Figure 3.1 Data situation and scope of the study Figure 3.2 Gross imports and exports per incineration capacity in Figure 3.3 Y46 and 50 % of Y18 imports and exports for D10 and R Figure 3.4 Imports of waste collected from households (Y46) for incineration Figure 3.5 Exports of waste collected from households (Y46) for incineration Figure 3.6 Net imports and exports of waste collected from households Figure 3.7 Net imports and exports per capita of waste collected from households Figure 4.1 Grades of paper for recycling Figure 4.2 CEPI data for trade flows of paper for recycling Figure 5.1 MBT and incineration capacities in relation to MSW generation Waste Management Capacities

9 List of Maps Map 2.1 Incineration capacity for mixed MSW per capita and country as well as specific plant size 19 Map 2.2 Incineration capacity per MSW generation Map 3.1 The largest Y46 waste flows for incineration in Map 3.2 Largest Y46 waste flows for incineration in Map A5.1 Incineration plants in Southern Europe Map A5.2 Incineration plants in Western Europe Map A5.3 Incineration plants in Central Europe Map A5.4 Incineration plants in Northern Europe Waste Management Capacities 5

10 List of Tables Table 2.1 Applicability of data sources Table 2.2 Country-specific number and capacity of incineration plants for mixed MSW Table 2.3 Incineration capacity in relation to MSW generation Table 2.4 MBT capacities Table 2.5 MBT capacity per capita and MSW generation Table 2.6 Data quality for MBT capacities Table 3.1 Gross imports and exports in Waste Management Capacities

11 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective, scope and structure of the study The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the current municipal solid waste management situation in Europe with regard to waste treatment capacities. In this context available data as well as gaps in data for waste treatment capacities for municipal solid waste in Europe are identified, the relevance of imports and exports of waste for incineration is analysed and the specific situation of material recycling for specific waste streams is assessed. Within this task a complete overview is given of existing incineration plants for household waste and their capacities within the European Union. This includes the specific number of plants and their capacities per country. The results are visualized in a way that gives a useful impression of the status quo in Europe. The following figure depicts the specific objectives of this report and the key question that it tries to tackle. The blue highlighted treatment operations are the focus of this study. The grey marked treatment operations are outside the scope of this study. The multitude of treatment options for MSW as well as the number of links between the treatment operations indicate the importance of a clear classification of the object of investigation and at the same time the potential difficulties for data research. Figure 1.1 MSW treatment operations and object of investigation Source: Compiled by the authors Waste Management Capacities 7

12 The study aims to answer the following questions: Municipal waste incineration: Which information about the number of plants and their capacities is available? Where are specific problems in data allocation? What kind of information gaps have to be filled? Which information provides the analysis of waste exported and imported for incineration? Mechanical-Biological-Treatment and similar concepts: Which countries operate MBT plants and what are the country-specific MBT capacities? How can the current data situation be assessed? Material Recovery: What kind of data on material recovery capacities is available? What roles do over- and under capacities play in material recovery as well as other waste management sectors (e.g. incineration). Especially the availability of statistical data for material recovery capacities in the EU is extremely poor. In contrast e.g. to incineration plants these plants are often rather small and the operators are not obliged to publish plant-specific capacity data. Based on a literature review and expert interviews with European waste associations this report assesses the availability of treatment capacities for plastic packaging, glass and paper. 1.2 Relevance of waste management capacities for a circular economy According to the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011), the EU should achieve a state where waste is managed as a resource by On the path to a circular economy which feeds waste back into the economy as a raw material, much higher priority needs to be given to recycling. In 2010 in the European Union 2.5 billion tons of waste was generated, 101 million tons of which is hazardous (Eurostat, 2012c; Eurostat, 2012d). On average only 45 % of the solid waste is recovered (excluding energy recovery), the rest of which goes to disposal or incineration (Eurostat, 2012b; Eurostat, 2012c). In some Member States more than 80 % of the waste is recycled, indicating the possibilities of using waste as one of the EU s key resources. With regard to municipal waste, 19 of 32 countries in Europe landfilled more than 50 % of their waste and 16 of 32 countries recycle more than 25 % in 2010 (EEA, 2013a). A variety of good practice examples prove that improving waste management allows countries to make better use of existing resources while also creating new markets and jobs. Moreover, improved waste management can reduce dependence on the import of raw materials. As the demand of several raw materials is expected to dramatically increase in the coming years, the worldwide market for recycling and re-use technologies will offer increasing opportunities 3. Higher recycling rates will reduce the pressure on demand for primary raw materials, help to utilise valuable materials which would otherwise be wasted and thus indirectly reduce the environmental impact from the extraction and processing of virgin materials. Achieving a European circular economy requires nothing less than a radical transition of the waste management sector that for many years has focused on the reliable and cheap disposal of waste and on reducing environmental pressures from disposal. Only recently is waste no longer seen as something to get rid of, but as a potential secondary resource. Against this background, technical infrastructure systems for waste management like plants for sorting and recycling of waste can be seen as key catalyst for sustainable development (Monstadt, 2009). In many ways they determine direction and magnitude of material flows and thus on the one hand cause environmental pressures and on the 3 Developing and maintaining high European standards for waste management can support the development of a "European Industry of excellence" in that domain. The Commission study "Implementing EU legislation for green growth" (Bio Intelligence Service 2011b) concludes that full implementation of EU waste legislation would save 72 billion a year, increase the annual turnover of the EU waste management and recycling sector by 42 billion and create over 400,000 jobs by Waste Management Capacities

13 other hand help to solve urgent problems caused by the increasing use of resources in Europe (Monstadt et al., 2012). Nevertheless, technical infrastructure systems and their impacts on consumption patterns or eco-innovation trajectories are often overseen, they are the forgotten, the background, the frozen in place. (Star 1999: 379). The goal of the EU to become a circular economy especially sets new requirements for the planning of these infrastructure systems. Based on the principle of proximity 4, Art. 16 of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) requires the establishment of an integrated and appropriate network of waste treatment facilities: The network shall enable waste to be disposed of or waste referred to in paragraph 1 to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health, (WFD Art ). However, the revised directive opens the door to a European waste market since it states that this network "shall be designed to enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal as well as in the recovery of waste" (Art. 16), and to "enable Member States to move towards that aim individually, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialized installations for certain types of waste". Risks of over- and under-capacities Against this background, this report focuses on the availability of waste treatment capacities in Europe for municipal waste. It looks at missing capacities as well as at over-capacities both seem to pose relevant barriers for the path from waste disposal towards a circular economy as described above. Obviously the lack of proper treatment infrastructure and sufficient capacity for the municipal waste generated is a crucial barrier for environmentally sound waste management and therefore the WFD obligates all Member States to develop waste management plans that prove that these capacities are in place and covered by the waste management planning. Nevertheless, a study published by the European Commission in 2012 states that for five Member States under-capacities most likely exist with regard to the requirements set in the WFD (BG, CY, GR, MT and apparently some regions in IT) (BiPRO, 2012). Waste infrastructures are extremely capital-intensive and usually need quite some time to be built up. In the future, waste will become more relevant as a source for materials, also beyond the materials currently recycled. For example, especially post-consumer recycling capacities (and sometimes even technologies) are missing for certain rare metals such as silver, indium, rhenium and tungsten which are present in various waste streams (Bio Intelligence Service, 2011a). But also over-capacities especially for waste incineration and mechanical-biological treatment - have to be taken into account as this has potential impacts on the recycling market and on waste treatment prices (Jofra Sora, 2013). On a global level the thermal recovery of MSW is growing continuously. Between 2007 and 2013, nearly 300 new incineration plants were constructed, the technical capacities increased by 25 % up to more than 250 million tons per year (Döing/Loenicker 2013). With regard to Europe, the recently published European Greenbook on Plastic Waste describes a vacuum cleaner effect (European Commission, 2013) in favour of waste to energy as one of the most relevant barriers for material recycling that from a resource efficiency point of view would be clearly superior in contrast to waste incineration. 4 This principle of proximity can be attributed to the primary law principle of origin (Article 174, paragraph 2 EC). The principle of origin indicates that pollution should be addressed at the source and therefore as close as possible to their point of origin. In this way, the dissemination of environmental damage should be counteracted (Wilts, 2013). Waste Management Capacities 9

14 1.3 Data availability Despite these risks of under- or over-capacities as described above, so far the level of information about the current utilization of waste management capacities and the absolute available treatment capacities are more than deficient. In particular, the differentiation of the capacity divided by type of waste poses a challenge. While the treated waste is subdivided in the statistics by type of waste, the total plant capacity is not usually documented by the different waste inputs (identifying the share of municipal solid waste and non-municipal solid waste for the plants could be problematic). Moreover, it is often unclear whether approved or usable capacities are stated. Nevertheless this report can draw up on a variety of studies and sources that give information on specific treatment capacities or waste streams although so far they do not add up to a coherent picture. Below, the main sources for data on waste treatment capacities as well as exports and imports in Europe are described. Incineration Statistical data from Eurostat: Eurostat reports number and capacity of recovery and disposal facilities by NUTS 2 regions since 2008 (see Annex 1). These figures do not relate specifically to municipal solid waste but include every waste incineration plant, including specific plants for medical waste or industrial RDF plants. With regard to the capacities as well as waste flows, Eurostat data referring to waste incineration is subdivided by the treatment type D10 (incineration without energy recovery) and R1 (incineration with energy recovery). CEWEP County Reports: The CEWEP County Reports give an overview on waste management plants, especially incineration, in Europe. The data is classified by plant type: Waste-to-Energy- Plants and RDF Plants. While information about the number of the respective plants is available, the capacities of the plants are only partially stated. In addition, each country s capacity development is reported. The reference years of the data vary between 2006 and Waste-to-Energy State-of-the-Art-Report provided by ISWA (International Solid Waste Association), 2012: For about half of the EU-27 countries data for 2011 from an ISWA state-ofthe-art report on waste to energy plants is available. The data refers to all waste-to-energy plants whose capacity exceeds 15 tons per day or tons per year. The statistical data shows the number of plants in each country and the percentage of plants for which further technical data is needed. On the basis of these plants with supplied data an average capacity per plant was calculated for each country. Additionally the number of plants divided by country is identified. Annex 2 gives the result of a screening of available data from Eurostat and ISWA 2012 for the current incineration capacities as well as number of plants subdivided by waste fraction and type of plant. Screening of Waste Management Performance of EU Member States provided by BiPRO: A report of BiPRO (2012) for the European Commission provides further information about data as well as data gaps on incineration capacity. In the report, the waste management performance of all EU Member States is screened. Mostly no specific data has been documented, but there are country-specific references, whether any information can be found in the Waste Management Plans (WMP) of the countries. National Waste Management Plans: In Article 28 of the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) it is stated, that the waste management plan shall contain [ ] sufficient information [ ] on the capacity of future disposal or major recovery installations. Thus the EU Member States are obliged to develop waste management plans that contain data on waste treatment capacities. For some countries site-specific data on municipal solid waste incineration plants is given (e.g. in Germany or in Sweden). European Reference Model on Waste: information collected for the development of the European Reference Model on Waste within the ETC/SCP, currently under development, to some extent also includes data on existing and planned waste treatment capacities. Some of the infor- 10 Waste Management Capacities

15 mation has already been taken into account. However, the reference model and its full documentation will only be fully available later in Exports/ imports of waste for incineration In order to properly assess waste treatment capacities in relation to the amount of waste that has to be treated, import and export of waste for have to be taken into account. For ex- and imports for incineration, the following data are available: Basel Convention/Eurostat: According to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal the contract parties shall transmit, before the end of each calendar year, a report on the previous calendar year containing information on waste imports and exports as specified under Article 13, paragraph 3. Inter alia the report should also include information on the category and disposal method of waste exported and imported. Regarding the classification of the types of waste listed in Annex 1, Y18 ( residues arising from industrial waste disposal operations ) and Y46 ( wastes collected from households ) are decisive in terms of notifiable MSW. Since the category Y18 includes other waste among the residues from the treatment of municipal solid waste, it is not possible to generate data that allows a differentiation. Information on this could only be gathered at an aggregated level. The parties are reporting this data to the Basel Convention Secretariat and to Eurostat. EEA Reports and ETC/SCP working papers: Waste without borders in the EU, EEA Report 1/2009, Transboundary shipments of waste in the European Union. Reflections on data, environmental impacts and drivers, ETC Working Paper 2/2012 and Data availability on transboundary shipments of waste based on the European Waste List, ETC/SCP Working Paper 3/2009. The latter working paper includes additional data on transboundary movements of waste that has been collected by the ETC/SCP from EEA member countries. These reports describe the existent regulation of waste shipments in the EU, assess the quality of available data sources and use data provided by countries on waste shipments according to the European list of waste to quantify shipments for waste incineration. Mechanical-Biological-Treatment European Compost Network (ECN) Country Reports: The data collection of the ECN gives a review of composting, anaerobic digestion and biological-mechanical treatment in the EU member countries. The informative value of the respective County Reports differs enormously. Only a few of the countries indicated how many MBT plants there are, what capacity they have and which waste is treated in them. CEWEP County Reports: The Country Reports of CEWEP present capacities data about MBT capacities (current and planned). But only for a few countries the earmarked data array is filled. Compost Production and Use in the EU provided by Orbit e.v.: For analysing the MBT capacities a study on behalf of the Commission s DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) helps to get a general idea. The study has been prepared by Orbit e.v. to obtain information about the compost production and use in the EU. In order to analyse the compost production potential an overview about the common organic waste treatment options in the EU Member States was developed. With the aid of this overview the countries with MBT capacities could be pre-selected for further analysis. EEA Country Reports: The ETC/SCP undertook for the EEA a review of achievements in 32 European countries with regard to managing municipal solid waste. These country reports give an overview of the MSW management in the EU Member States. Similar to the Orbit/JRC study they contain conclusions about the presence of MBT technologies, but only rarely details are given about plant capacities. Waste Management Capacities 11

16 Material Recovery Project TransWaste funded by Central Europe: In the context of the Central Europe Program of the European Regions Development Fund, the country-specific waste treatment for a small number of EU Member States was investigated. Information about the material recovery capacity in the desired form (for WEEE, paper, glass and plastic packaging) is only available for one country and mostly no quantitative data could be generated. Overall, this data collection reflects the generally poor data situation with regard to capacity for material recycling. Statistical data from Eurostat: The waste statistics database of Eurostat provides a broad data base to the material streams: glass, paper and plastic packaging. The information is structured by treated waste amount and treatment options (material recycling, incineration (R1), etc.). However, there is no information on plant capacities and no information if these materials are from municipal or other sources. JRC End of waste criteria reports: The Commission is establishing end-of-waste criteria for a number of specific recyclables. Since 2008, the Joint Research Centre (JRC/IPTS) has prepared a series of technical studies proposing end-of-waste criteria on these materials. The studies are the result of intense consultations with experts in a technical working group, and consist of thorough techno-economic-environmental assessments that help verify when a recyclable waste material is safe for the environment and has a high enough quality to merit being released from the waste regime. Thus they also look at the availability of recycling capacities. 12 Waste Management Capacities

17 2 Incineration and MBT capacities 2.1 Methodology and data quality assessment In this chapter an overview is given of existing municipal waste incineration and mechanicalbiological treatment plants and their capacities. While for incineration plants the specific plant number and their capacity is analysed, for MBT plants the aggregated national MBT capacities for MSW are examined. Considering available data on incineration and MBT capacities, imports and exports of waste for incineration, and material recycling, 2010 has been selected as base year, in order to use the most complete data. The object and frame of the investigation is further clarified in box 2.1. Box 2.1 Specification of the investigated technologies Incineration Plants: In all thermal processes in waste treatment, the waste is subjected for a predetermined amount of time to an elevated temperature (Kranert et al. 2010). The majority of the thermal processes are incineration techniques (ibid.). Basically, such an incineration process consists of a major thermal process, heat use and a mostly multi-stage flue gas cleaning (ibid.). In the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) the incineration of municipal solid waste is classified as waste management operation with (R1) or without (D10) energy recovery according to the energy efficiency criteria. Scope: In this study the focus lies with waste incineration plants, which are technically and legally suitable to treat mixed municipal solid waste 5 without any pre-treatments. Accordingly this study covers only Waste-to-Energy Plants as well as the municipal solid waste treatment in incinerators without R1 standard, but excludes co-incineration plants such as cement kiln and refuse-derived-fuel plants. Mechanical-Biological Treatment Plants: Mechanical-biological waste treatment is used for the pre-treatment of municipal solid waste (Kranert et al. 2010). A MBT plant is a plant with a mechanical treatment part mostly in combination with a biological treatment part for the treatment of the organic fraction (ibid.). The MBT waste treatment includes different process concepts. Basically, a distinction is made between classical MBA concepts (material stream separation with subsequent rotting or fermentation) and stabilization concepts (mechanical biological or mechanical-physical). Depending on the plant s technological concept, some of the MBT outputs might be incinerated in Waste-to- Energy plants or RDF plants. Scope: Since these plants are used solely for the treatment of municipal solid waste, any MBTs are considered in this study. In doing so, the study does not consider other pre-treatment concepts such as physical-mechanical treatment plants. The following table shows which of the data sources described in chapter 1 contain relevant data for these two technologies. 5 Household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste according to the European Waste Catalogue Waste Management Capacities 13

18 14 Waste Management Capacities

19 Table 2.1 Applicability of data sources Incineration MBT CEWEP Country Reports: Because of the aggregated data level in the CEWEP Country Reports as well as the focus on waste-to-energy plants, this data is not primarily used in the context of incineration plants, but is applied for rechecking the gathered data. Regarding the MBT capacities, for a few countries the required data is available and used. EEA Country Reports: The country reports of the EEA are also irrelevant for incineration capacities because of the aggregated data level, but can be partially used for the assessment if incineration plants are available. For MBT capacities the EEA country reports are a relevant data source. Environmental Agencies, webpages from plant operators and other internet sources: Various data sources were used in the context of country-specific desktop researches for incineration and MBT capacities. National Waste Management Plans: The NWMPs provide more or less detailed information about the capacities, depending on the country. Overall capacities are often available. The focus of documentation is a secure waste disposal, wherefore specific plant capacities are not documented in detail. However the NWMPs are a relevant data source. EUROSTAT: The Eurostat data cannot be used for incineration plant numbers and capacities since the data documentation refers to all types of waste, not just MSW. Eurostat data can be used, however, to obtain data on the well documented MSW waste generation for each country, which is needed for our analysis in Chapter 2.2. European Compost Network (ECN) Country Reports: The ECN Country reports provide a small part of the required MBT capacities. Waste-to-Energy State-of-the-Art-Report provided by ISWA: Data from the ISWA report is occasionally used, if no capacity data in tonnes per year is available. To convert the capacity data from tonnes per hour into tonnes per year average, 7500 operating hours per year were assumed. Compost Production and Use in the EU provided by Orbit e.v.: This report provides information about the existence or non-existence of MBTs in some countries. Screening of Waste Management Performance of EU Member States provided by BiPRO: This report is primarily used as a source of further analysis. Source: compiled by the authors Our capacity analysis follows these 3 steps: 1. Methodology and overview of plants and their capacities referring to the scope of the study; 2. Analysis of results; 3. Assessment of data quality. 2.2 Waste incineration capacities in Europe Methodology and overview of plants and their capacities referring to the scope of the study Based on the country-specific information about data availability and references in the reports and studies described above, our capacity research started with a screening of the respective Waste Management Plans of the countries. If in the WMPs no concrete plant data was available, in the majority Waste Management Capacities 15

20 of cases the existence or non-existence of incineration plants was clear. For further data gathering, comprehensive internet research e.g. on national webpages or webpages from plant operators was done and provided the appropriate capacity data. Whenever identified plants did not have information about annual capacity, the ISWA report s tonnes per hour values were used. Because these numbers do not consider plants operating hours, these numbers were converted into annual capacity data, assuming certain operating hours. All the numbers used are mentioned with their source and type of data. The total number of incineration plants, according to the definition in 2.1, in the EEA member countries 6 is 448. This refers to a total incineration capacity of tonnes in These capacities are planned to incinerate mixed MSW but that does not exclude the incineration of other waste if technical possible (e.g. packaging waste). The following table shows the number of plants and capacity for each country. The countries marked with an asterisk (*) have planned or built (additional) capacities after However, due to incomplete data, the analysis of capacities after 2010 is not comprehensive. Table 2.2 Country-specific number and capacity of incineration plants for mixed MSW Country Number of Incineration Plants in 2010 Capacity t in 2010 Country Number of Incineration Plants in 2010 Capacity t in 2010 AT IS BE IT BG 0 0 LI 0 0 CH LT 0 0 CZ LU CY 0 0 LV 0 0 DE MT 0 0 DK NL EE* 0 0 NO ES PL Turkey is missing due to absence of data 16 Waste Management Capacities

21 FI* PT FR RO 0 0 GR 0 0 SE* HR* 0 0 SI 0 0 HU SK IE* 0 0 UK* Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 4 In Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Slovenia and Malta there were no incineration plants in Germany and France have the largest capacities for MSW incineration. Although Germany has a higher capacity than France, France has the largest number of plants (125). In some countries very large waste-to-energy plants are common, while in other countries smaller plants are more common. In Annex 3 a complete overview of the existing municipal waste incineration plants and their capacities within the European Union is given. The data in Annex 4 provides information about the name of the incineration plant, the type of the data and its respective source. While researching incineration capacities in the EU in 2010, information about planned or built capacities after 2010 were found. The list in Box 2.2 provides a tentative list of plants that have been built or are being planned since Box 2.2 Planned or build incineration capacities for mixed MSW after 2010 Estonia: Finland: Iru soojuselektrijaam, in Tallinn, capacity of tonnes per year ( accessed 15/05/2013) Vantaa, capacity of tonnes per year (Hannele Nikander and Tapani Säynätkari/Finnish Environment Institute, 05/03/2014) Oulu, capacity of tonnes per year (Hannele Nikander and Tapani Säynätkari/Finnish Environment Institute, 05/03/2014) Vaasa, capacity of tonnes per year (Hannele Nikander and Tapani Säynätkari/Finnish Environment Institute, 05/03/2014) Croatia: Ireland: Sweden: Rijhimäki 2, capacity of tonnes per year (Hannele Nikander and Tapani Säynätkari/Finnish Environment Institute, 05/03/2014) Zagreb City Council, Zagreb, capacity of tonnes per year ( accessed 15/05/2013) Meath Waste-to-Energy Plant, Duleek, capacity of tonnes per year ( accessed 15/05/2013) Filborna KVV1, Helsingborg, capacity of tonnes per year ( accessed 15/05/2013) Hetvattencentralen i Landskrona, Landskrona, capacity of tonnes per year Waste Management Capacities 17

22 ( accessed 15/05/2013) Nybro Energi AB, Nybro, capacity of tonnes per year ( accessed 15/05/2013) Mälarenergi, Västerås, capacity of tonnes per year ( accessed 15/05/2013) United Kingdom: Cheshire, Runcorn, capacity of tonnes per year ( incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf, accessed 15/05/2013) Viridor, Ardley, capacity of tonnes per year ( incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf, accessed 15/05/2013) Viridor, Devon, capacity of tonnes per year ( incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf, accessed 15/05/2013) SITA Cornwall, Cornwall, capacity of tonnes per year ( incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf, accessed 15/05/2013) Analysis of results The data are then analysed and visualised, providing an illustration of the incineration capacities in Europe. For this purpose, the capacity data were normalized with the number of inhabitants in one figure and in another figure with the country-specific MSW generation, in order to compare the countries with each other. The following figure shows the spatial distribution of all 448 waste incineration plants in the EEA countries. Every single plant is marked with a spot; the specific tonnage per year is marked with circles in varying sizes depending on the capacity. The threshold ( Tonnes/Year) for the different circles sizes was determined by the average value of the capacity of all European plants. More detailed illustrations can be found in Annex 5. The incineration capacity tonnage of the entire country per year and inhabitant is marked in different blue tints. Thus a comprehensive overview is given to interpret the status quo of waste incineration capacities in Europe. 18 Waste Management Capacities

23 Map 2.1 Incineration capacity for mixed MSW per capita and country as well as specific plant size Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 4 The figure shows the differences in MSW incineration capacity per capita across the EEA member countries: Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and United Kingdom have an incineration capacity for MSW of less than 100 kg per capita and with it the smallest capacity in comparison to the rest of the EEA member countries. Portugal has a similar capacity of between 100 and 200 kg per capita. France with the highest number of plants and Germany with the highest absolute capacity, are in the middle with capacities between 200 and 300 kg per capita, together with Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg. Denmark has the highest per capita incineration capacity with over 550 kg per capita, followed by the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland with a capacity between 300 and 550 kg per capita. The remaining countries did not have any MSW incineration capacity in Waste Management Capacities 19

24 Another way to analyse the countries incineration capacity is to compare capacities to MSW generation. Table 2.3 shows the relation between incineration capacities and which share of the generated MSW they are theoretically able to incinerate. The results are depicted in Map 2.2. Table 2.3 Incineration capacity in relation to MSW generation Country MSW Generation in 2010 t Incineration Capacity in relation to MSW Generation % Country MSW Generation in 2010 t Incineration Capacity in relation to MSW Generation % AT IS BE IT BG LI - - CH LT CZ LU CY LV DE MT DK NL EE* NO ES PL ,3 FI* PT FR RO GR SE* HR* SI HU SK IE* UK* Note: The countries marked with an asterisk (*) have planned or built (additional) capacities since Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 3 and Eurostat 2012a 20 Waste Management Capacities

25 Map 2.2 Incineration capacity per MSW generation Source: compiled by the authors according to data in Table 2.3 Most of the countries have an incineration capacity of less than a quarter of their generated MSW. This can be an indication of either high recycling rates or large parts of waste going to landfills. Some countries in this group use MBT as an alternative route to treat mixed MSW (section 2.3). However, these countries could also be exporting waste to countries with larger capacities (imports and exports are discussed in chapter 3). The data for MSW incineration in Eurostat 2012a show that in the EU-27 as a whole 21 % of MSW generated in 2010 was incinerated by treatment types D10 and R1. Since energy recovery operations (R1) not only cover waste-to-energy plants but also include waste treatment of refuse derived fuel plants (in which only the part of MSW with high calorific value is incinerated 7 ), the actual amount of incinerated mixed MSW is probably even lower. That means that the countries with a much higher share of incineration capacities than the average percentage of MSW incinerated might have partly more capacities, than they in fact need for MSW and might fill these capacities with non-municipal waste or with imports. Especially Sweden and Denmark have more 7 That fact requires a pre-treatment of the mixed MSW, for which reason such plants are not in the scope of this study. Waste Management Capacities 21

26 capacity than their whole generated MSW amount, parts of which are treated in other waste management operations (e.g. material recovery). In cases of high capacities compared with generated MSW, the risk of competing with recycling needs to be managed Assessment of data quality The analysis provides a country-by-country picture of incineration plants and their capacities. For two incineration plants in France capacity data could only be generated for tonnes per hour and not for tonnes per year. In these cases average operating hours were assumed (e.g hours per year) to extrapolate the yearly capacities. Concerning Iceland, only the country specific instead of the plant specific capacity was available; here it is assumed that the amount is evenly distributed among the 8 plants. A key weakness for the interpretation of the available data is the fact that even though the considered plants are dedicated plants for incineration of mixed MSW, such capacities can also be filled with other types of waste. This represents a clear risk factor in data quality because the chosen focus on MSW and D10 and R1 operations does not give a full picture for waste streams that are fed into incineration and therefore makes it very difficult to assess the appropriateness of existing capacities. Therefore especially refuse derived fuel plants and co-incineration plants would also have to be considered. However, the available data does neither give a complete overview of how much non-msw is incinerated in plants originally dedicated to MSW, nor is it possible to define how much MSW is incinerated in RDF plants or in co-incineration plants. In both cases the amounts are of course limited because of quality requirements (especially with regard to the calorific value) for the input. Therefore, the partial analysis in this report can only be a starting point in the assessment of the total European waste incineration market. Additionally, certain factors may influence plants capacities, leading to variations in capacities. The incineration capacity of a waste incineration plant is influenced by many factors such as heating values, optimized operations control systems or the mechanical pre-treatment of wastes [ ]. In the literature, waste incineration plants are described either in general terms of the structure and function of individual plant components or through discussions of selected technical details or problems. Hardly any detailed facts, however, are found regarding several plant sites and local changes that may occur in the course of time (Richers, 2010). Such influencing factors (see Box 2.3) have to be considered in the interpretation of the data. Box 2.3 Factors influencing waste incineration capacity Large-scale waste incineration plants are usually planned to have a certain incineration capacity. This capacity is determined by the waste volumes requiring incineration and the heat that is released during incineration; the combustion chamber and kettle of the incineration plant are adjusted to the resulting heat and flue gas quantity (Richers, 2010). If heating temperatures are increased, waste throughput has to be reduced to avoid thermal overload. As such, waste volumes and incineration capacity may fluctuate over time. (ibid.). Possible reasons for varying heating temperatures can be changes within the waste production of a disposal area or improved sorting of waste; particularly the separation of secondary fuels and the separate incineration of waste wood and bulky waste. Technical changes may also influence annual incineration capacities. Those include the addition of new or replacement of old kettles, improvement in control engineering or of the operational control system enabled by technical progress and the annual operating time which can be influenced by improved corrosion protection. Moreover, legal aspects can be influential. Emission limit values and approval under emission control 22 Waste Management Capacities

27 law can be bound to limitations in maximum incineration capacity. 2.3 MBT capacities in Europe Methodology and overview of plants and their capacities referring to the scope of the study The aggregated national MBT capacities for MSW are analysed by means of a comprehensive research. For each country various sources were consulted (see chapter 2.1) to ascertain the quality of the available data. The various sources used for this data are referenced in this report. In the following table the country-specific capacities can be found. For Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Latvia, The Netherlands and Slovenia no or no sufficient data source could be found. In Croatia MBT plants are currently under construction (marked with an asterisk in the table, capacity in brackets). Table 2.4 MBT capacities Country Capacity Country Capacity t in 2010 t in 2010 AT IS 0 BE IT BG LI - CH - LT 0 CZ 0 LU CY LV - DE MT DK 0 NL - EE NO 0 ES PL FI 0 PT FR RO 0 GR SE 0 HR* 0 ( ) SI - HU SK 0 Waste Management Capacities 23

28 IE 0 UK Source: Compiled by the authors according to sources in Table 2.6 While in 16 of the 32 countries MBT plants exist, in a further 11 countries this technology has not been established yet. For the 5 remaining countries no reliable data could be identified Analysis of results Similar to the incineration capacities, Figure 2.1 shows each country s MBT capacity in absolute terms. Italy, with tonnes in 2010, has by far the highest MBT capacity in Europe, followed by Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. First, the capacities are sorted by size to get an idea of the scope of MBT capacities. Figure 2.1 MBT capacities Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Table 2.4 In order to get an idea of how each country s MBT capacities relate to their number of inhabitants and MSW flow, the MBT capacity per MSW generation and per capita is shown in the following table and figures. Table 2.5 MBT capacity per capita and MSW generation Country MBT Capacity kg per capita in 2010 MBT Capacity in relation to MSW Generation in 2010 Country MBT Capacity kg per capita in 2010 MBT Capacity in relation to MSW Generation in 2010 % % 24 Waste Management Capacities

29 AT IS 0 0 BE 20 4 IT BG 17 4 LI - - CH - - LT 0 0 CZ 0 0 LU 56 9 CY LV - - DE MT DK 0 0 NL - - EE NO 0 0 ES PL 11 3 FI 0 0 PT 38 7 FR 12 2 RO 0 0 GR 48 9 SE 0 0 HR* SI - - HU 2 0,5 SK 0 0 IE 0 0 UK 43 8 Note: In Croatia a MBT plant (marked with an asterisk) is currently under construction Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Table 2.4 and Eurostat 2012a Waste Management Capacities 25

30 Figure 2.2 MBT capacity per capita Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Table 2.5 Figure 2.3 MBT capacity in relation to MSW generation Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Table Waste Management Capacities

31 If the capacities are normalised against the population or the generated amount of MSW, the picture of MBT capacities change compared to the absolute values. Italy, Germany, Spain are indeed still above the average, but the order and magnitude have completely changed. Estonia has, in relation to both reference values, a very high treatment capacity. Reading the two graphs side by side helps put the absolute MBT capacity of Italy, Malta and Estonia into perspective. When looking at the aggregated capacities of MBT and MSW waste incineration in the different countries it becomes clear that incineration and mechanical-biological treatment are two different concepts used to treat MSW. As shown in Figure 2.4, some countries like Sweden and Denmark completely focus on waste incineration. Other countries like Estonia, Cyprus or Italy have chosen a treatment path based on MBT. Also mixed strategies can be found e.g. in the case of Austria or Germany. Figure 2.4 Incineration and MBT capacity in relation to MSW generation Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Table 2.3 and Table Assessment of data quality The following table provides information about scope of the data, its source, and whether some additional calculations were made. The last column shows our assessment of the validity and quality of the data. Dark green indicates a good data quality, whereas light green indicates data where reference years other than 2010 have been taken into account. For the remaining data separate comments on its quality is provided. Table 2.6 Data quality for MBT capacities Country Capacity t in 2010 State of the data / Comments Source Assessment of data quality AT Federal Waste Management Plan 2011 cited from EEA Country Paper 2013 BE Average value of 300,000 (fnade, 2007) /2010_98256_ pdf, assessed 30 May 2013; Value is questionable, since an average value of the different values is Waste Management Capacities 27

32 and 150,000 (CEWEP, 2008) CEWEP Country Report 2010 assumed BG EEA Country Paper 2013 CH - - EEA Country Paper 2013 No sufficient data source available CZ CZ, NRC, 2012 cited from EEA Country Paper 2013 CY rojects/443/en/ta_larnaca.pdf, assessed 17 October 2013 DE ASA 2010, cited from _file/300/ pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 DK CEWEP Country Report 2010 EE EEA Country Paper 2013 ES Read from figure, ECOPROG 2011 cited from _file/300/ pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 FI CEWEP Country Report 2010 FR Average value of 585,000 (BIPE, 2009) and 950,000 (Müller, 2011) BIPE Enviroscope 2009, cited from CEWEP Country Report 2010 France; Müller et al. 2011, cited from _file/300/ pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 Value is questionable, since an average value of the different values is assumed GR EEA Country Paper 2013 HR 0 ( ) 2010 (2013) EEA Country Paper 2013 Mission report of 22 nd August 2013 to the EEA of the meeting on 13th May 2013 in Zagreb with the Croatian Ministry of Environment about the development of The European Reference model on MSW management HU CEWEP Country Report 2010 IE ts/epa_nwr_2010_web.pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 IS Icelandic EPA, 2012 cited from EEA Country Paper 2013 No explicit information about MBTs, so it can be assumed that there is no plant available IT Average value of Müller et al. 2011, cited from Value is questionable, since an average value of 28 Waste Management Capacities

33 (Müller, 2011) and (CEWEP, 2008) _file/300/ pdf, assessed 30 May 2013; CEWEP Country Report 2010 the different values is assumed LI No sufficient data source available LT EEA Country Paper 2013 LU urg.html, assessed 30 May 2013 LV normativie_akti/?doc=14572, assessed 30 May 2013 No sufficient data source available MT _news]=5&chash=a b88298ef b8f, assessed 17 October in.aspx, assessed 17 October 2013 NL - ads/01%20beleidskader/versie% %20%281e%20wijziging%29/beleidsk ader-00-compleet_ pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 No sufficient data source available NO Avfall Norge, 2010 cited from EEA Country Paper 2013 PL Poland/Local%20Assets/Documents/Raport y,%20badania,%20rankingi/pl_report_w aste%20management%20in%20poland. pdf, assessed 17 October 2013 PT EEA Country Paper 2013 RO EEA Country Paper 2013 SE EEA Country Paper 2013 SI - p.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ varstvo_okolja/operativni_programi/op_o dpadki_biorazgradljivi.pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 No sufficient data source available SK EEA Country Paper 2013 UK only data for England (2010) system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ /pb13890-treatment-solid-waste.pdf.pdf, Capacity might be higher, because Wales and North Ireland may also have MBT capacities. Waste Management Capacities 29

34 Wales do have an integrated recovery plant that includes an MBT plant, but no data is available assessed 30 May ategic-waste-management-assessmentfor-wales-2011-final-copy.pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 MBT in capacity report for Scotland (2011) not mentioned, probably no MBT available MBT in report for North Ireland mentioned, but not if already available a/waste_site_information/waste_sites c apacity.aspx, assessed 30 May ce_management.pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 In Gibraltar (2011) is no MBT plant plan_2011.pdf, assessed 30 May 2013 Source: Compiled by the authors according to sources in the table itself While evaluating the data, it has emerged that for some countries different sources reveal different capacities (in that case the average of the different data was calculated and used for the analysis in this report) and the data on MBT capacities for Belgium, France and Italy is less reliable than the data for other countries. For Switzerland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovenia and Wales as well as Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom no information about MBT capacities was found. 30 Waste Management Capacities

35 3 Import and export of waste for incineration In order to properly assess waste treatment capacities one has to take into account the import and export of waste for incineration, a practice which has significantly increased over the last few years (Fischer, 2012). This makes the picture much more complex, especially when it comes to the availability and quality of data describing this particular waste flow. The available data did not allow an analysis of import and export of municipal waste for treatment in MBT or for recycling, and neither does it allow for analysis of import and export of refuse-derived fuel derived from MSW. 3.1 Methodology and data quality assessment In order to analyse import and export waste flows, this report uses data provided by Eurostat. Eurostat performs quality-checking of the data, including checking of compatibility of what is reported as import by Member State 1 and the corresponding export by Member State 2 (Fischer 2012). On that account the Eurostat data is preferred to the data which is reported by countries to the Basel Convention Secretariat. Eurostat provides data showing the category and disposal method of waste exported and imported per country. Regarding the classification of the types of waste listed in Annex 1, two categories are relevant for this study: Y18 residues arising from industrial waste disposal operations, and Y46 wastes collected from households. Waste classified as Y18 covers both waste from municipal sources and from other sources, and no information is available for the share of municipal waste derived residues. However, waste classified as Y18 is often labelled as hazardous waste (based on a screening of national reporting of this waste category). It was therefore decided to analyse in the first place waste classified as Y46 for this report. The figures shown in this chapter therefore tend to underestimate the exports and imports of municipal waste. However, in order to get an idea of the consequences if shares of Y18 are considered (in addition to Y46), the end of chapter 3.2 shows some estimates. If individual waste flows are declared with several Y-codes, including Y18 or Y46, these amounts are also considered in this study. The aggregated Y codes, which include many different waste types (in the same Y-code) are one of the main reasons why the quality of data on waste shipments within or out of the European Union has to be classified as poor (Fischer et al. 2012a). In addition, it is an unsatisfying situation that the Y- codes used in the Basel Convention Statistics do not correspond adequately to the waste streams actually shipped. This makes it extremely difficult to know which process has generated the waste and what kind of treatment is needed: Therefore, more than one third of the notified waste cannot be classified owing to suitable codes not existing. In addition Y-codes are often too general to describe exactly what kind of waste is being shipped. (Fischer et al., 2012a). The European Topic Center on Sustainable Consumption and Production has conducted several projects on availability and quality of data on transboundary shipments of waste (ETC/SCP 2012, Fischer et al., 2012a) and concluded that the use of the codes described in the European Waste List (EWL) would provide a much better overview of the shipments and would also provide a better basis for an evaluation of the environmental and economic consequences of the shipments. Recently, some EU member states started to report data on waste shipments to Eurostat, providing information on the EWL codes in addition to the Y-codes, and this data is now available at Eurostat s data centre on waste. Waste Management Capacities 31

36 Beside the waste classification also the clarification of the terms of the different incineration concepts is important for the following incineration capacity analysis based on the imports and exports of waste for incineration. The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) distinguishes between waste recovery operations and disposal operations. Following this definition, a MSW incinerator could be classified as either a recovery operation (R1 - used principally to generate fuel or other means to generate energy) or a disposal operation (D10 - incineration on land). This differentiation of plants (R1, D10) does not only include incinerators for mixed MSW, but also others like RDF plants which are not in the scope of this study. These classifications with respect to the waste flows (Y18, Y46) as well as to the operating options (R and D operations) have to be carefully considered in the capacity investigation. For this purpose the following figure illustrates the data situation and the analytical framework for analysing imports and exports in this study. As mentioned above there are basically two possible methods by which MSW incineration can occur: D10 and R1. These treatment options can be subdivided into different types of plants, as shown in the last part of the figure. In the context of this study the waste streams for incineration in household waste incineration plants are identified. Against this background, the waste streams Y46 and Y18 come into consideration. Other MSW e.g. fractionated plastic waste treated in RDF plants could unfortunately not be included in this study because of lack of data. Waste streams declared as Y18 and exported/imported for incineration are either MSW which is treated in incinerators for household waste or in any other incinerators. But waste labelled as Y18 might also be other waste not from municipal sources that is treated in one of these two incineration options. Differentiating these waste streams by type of incineration operation is not possible. This has therefore inevitable impact on data quality. In contrast, Y46 in principle consists of mixed MSW from households, which is therefore usually treated in aforementioned two incineration operations. However, all in all it has to be considered that the understanding of the Y-Codes and the declaration practice differ from Member State to Member State. This creates a significant amount of uncertainty for any data describing the import and export of waste. Figure 3.1 Data situation and scope of the study Source: Compiled by the authors 3.2 Flows of waste for incineration in Europe In order to depict the export and import waste flows, the absolute imports (in Table 3.1, lilac marked) and exports (in Table 3.1, blue marked) are used as starting points for the data analysis and are basis for the figures. The data in this table refers to the incineration capacities per country and aims to give an indication of which part of the capacities is filled with imports or how much waste is exported in 32 Waste Management Capacities

37 relation to the country specific capacity. It should be considered that exports and imports for the R1 operation also can include waste for refuse-derived-fuel plants. In addition, the MSW amounts that were exported or imported for the purpose of deposit into or onto land (e.g. landfill) (D1 operation, according to Basel Convention) are shown. To show what parts of the waste streams undergo a different type of processing, the amounts that have been treated by other disposal (Other D) or recovery (Other R) operations have been included. The following table shows this data for the year 2010 with the most recent available data. Nevertheless this is a snapshot and as discussed in chapter 3.3 the figures vary significantly over time. Table 3.1 Gross imports and exports in 2010 Y46, 2010 Country Capacity Absolute Imports and Exports Import and Export per Capacity D10+R1 D1 Other D Other R D10+R1 t/a t % AT BE BG 0 CH CZ CY 0 DE DK EE 0 ES FI Waste Management Capacities 33

38 FR GR HR 0 HU IE IS IT LI 0 LT 0 LU LV 0 MT 0 62 NL NO PL PT RO 0 SE SI 0 34 Waste Management Capacities

39 SK UK Export Import Source: Compiled by the authors according to Eurostat 2013 The values for waste disposal show that none of the countries imports and exports at the same time. Germany, Finland and Italy import waste for the D1 operation, while Sweden exports. Concerning the waste streams of all treatment options for waste labelled as Y46, the following picture emerges: Austria, Germany and Spain were solely importers in In contrast to this, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece 8, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Malta have solely exported. Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK have both exported and imported MSW. The remaining countries did not report or do not have any imports or exports. The following figure illustrates for each country the waste imports and exports for incineration in relation to the respective incineration capacity available in the country. 8 The amount refers to several Y-codes and not exclusively to Y46. As already described in chapter 3.1 sometimes individual waste flows are declared with several Y-codes. In these cases the amounts are anyhow considered. Waste Management Capacities 35

40 Figure 3.2 Gross imports and exports per incineration capacity in 2010 Note: CY and IE do not have any incineration capacities, but imports and exports Source: Compiled by the authors according to Table 3.1 The above figure shows the absolute exported and imported MSW flows for incineration (R1+D10) in United Kingdom s, France s and Italy s MSW exports constituted less than 1 % of their incineration capacity.finland had a higher amount of exports in relation to its incineration capacity, with 2.5 %. Austria and the Netherlands filled up their incineration capacities with imports. However, the amount was less than 1 % of their available capacity. Sweden had the highest share of imported MSW for incineration in its incineration capacity (over 4 %). For Germany the imports of MSW for incineration are higher than the exports. It seems that incineration capacities were filled up with MSW from other countries. Ireland did not have an incineration plant in 2010 and exported waste for incineration. Cyprus imported waste for incineration even though it had no incineration capacity. The whole amount consists of waste for incineration with energy recovery (Eurostat), which also can include refuse derived fuel. But refuse derived fuel plants are not included in the incineration capacities compiled in this report. As such, it can be assumed that these imported wastes were probably incinerated in such a refuse derived fuel or co-incineration plant. The remaining countries do not declare any imports or exports of waste for incineration with a D10 or R1 classification. As described in Chapter 3.1, the waste stream Y18 is not included in the calculations and illustrations above, because it is unclear which share actually goes to the incinerators under discussion. However, to get an idea of the possible results if only half of the Y18 is considered (in addition to Y46), Figure 3.3 shows the relation between MSW incineration capacities and imports/exports, assuming that half of the waste exported/imported is declared as Y18. The table in Annex 6 shows the respective shares of the Y18 and Y46 in the imports and exports illustrated in Figure Waste Management Capacities

41 Figure 3.3 Y46 and 50 % of Y18 imports and exports for D10 and R1 Note: CY, IE, GR, LT and SI do not have any incineration capacities, but imports and exports Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 6 The figure shows that the picture of the absolute imports and exports per incineration capacity changes drastically if we assume that 50 % of the waste flows declared as Y18 are also sent to the MSW incineration plants. These differences are especially distinctive for Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden; Austria and the Netherlands turn from net importers to net exporters. Considering the in this way revised values, Sweden imports more than two times the MSW for incineration generated in Sweden. As the specific share of the Y18 in the MSW flow for incineration is unknown, however, the figure shows the significance of including the import and export MSW flows per incineration capacity in determining national waste management over- and under-capacities. 3.3 Development over time In order to get an idea of how waste management strategies of the specific countries may change over time, the development of import and export flows were analysed. For instance, a decrease of exports may be an indication that a country has new incineration capacities or is recycling more of its waste. However, change in declaration (e.g. from Y46 to Y18 or vice versa) could also contribute to the observed changes. Detailed data for the years 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 is shown in Annex 7. The 2010 data is already given in chapter 3.2. In the next step the development over time of imports and exports in Europe is shown for the period As mentioned before these figures indicate that imports and exports react very sensitively to changed market situations and the picture drawn in the previous figures might look very different for 2011, 2012 and 2013 as well. Waste Management Capacities 37

42 For example recent reports for the UK (AMEC 2013) show that in 2012 almost 868,000 tonnes of RDF/SRF was exported to other European Countries from the UK and Ireland. The most popular destinations for RDF export were Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden whereas SRF was predominantly exported to cement kilns in Estonia and Latvia. 85% of RDF/SRF exports were from England in 2012 with an initial increase between 2010 and Especially the introduction or increase of landfill taxes might lead to an additional increase of MSW exports for incineration in Europe (AMEC 2013, p. 5). Figure 3.4 Imports of waste collected from households (Y46) for incineration Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 7 Figure 3.4 shows that especially Germany and Sweden imported high amounts of waste for incineration over the years, but amounts vary largely over time. With regard to exports, Figure 3.5 shows that the largest waste flows were exported from the Netherlands, Germany and Norway. But again, the amounts change enormously over time, something which is particularly significant for the countries with large exports. When comparing the sum of the imports and exports per year it becomes clear that there are huge differences. For instance, in 2010 the total amount of imports is tonnes, whereas the total amount of exports is tonnes; this is a difference of tonnes. The further detailed breakdown of the relevant import and export data available at Eurostat (2013) shows that no waste is imported from countries outside the EU and tonnes are exported to non-european countries. Considering these numbers, the data gap gets even worse with a difference in the amounts between the imports and exports with tonnes in Obviously there are enormous data inconsistencies as already mentioned in chapter Waste Management Capacities

43 Figure 3.5 Exports of waste collected from households (Y46) for incineration Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 7 In addition, both figures show that countries from Eastern Europe are not involved in the import and export of MSW for incineration until However, this situation might change with the creation of additional incineration capacities in the coming years. The next figure gives an impression of the net imports and exports. Waste Management Capacities 39

44 Figure 3.6 Net imports and exports of waste collected from households Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 7 If the waste flows are normalized with the population, the distinctive fluctuations decrease (see Figure 3.7). Imports and exports range between +/- 20 kg per capita, with a few exceptions. 40 Waste Management Capacities

45 Figure 3.7 Net imports and exports per capita of waste collected from households Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 7 In map 3.1 and map 3.2 the major imports and exports are broken down into the country-specificflows for the years 2004 and The largest imports and exports were determined by using the average import or export of the importing/exporting countries as threshold. All values above this threshold were considered 9. In the table in Annex 8 these major imports and exports are itemized into waste flows per country (major import to one country divided by country of origin, major export of one country divided by country of destination) and presented. 9 Relevant countries in 2010: Germany, France, Sweden; Relevant countries in 2004: Austria, Germany, Netherlands Waste Management Capacities 41

46 The following figures show the problem of data inconsistency described in chapter 3.1: The Netherlands exported to Germany in 2004, but at the same time, this waste is not registered as import by Germany. Differing use of waste codes might be the reason for this inconsistency. The following two figures show the most important imports and exports flows of waste for incineration in 2004 and The figures highlight that these exports refer only to a limited number of countries, none of the Eastern European EEA members and in 2004 from the southern European countries only Italy has reported relevant exports. Germany, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands are responsible for most of the import and export. Map 3.1 The largest Y46 waste flows for incineration in 2004 Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 8, based on reported exports and imports 42 Waste Management Capacities

47 Map 3.2 Largest Y46 waste flows for incineration in 2010 Source: Compiled by the authors according to Annex 8, based on reported exports and imports When comparing waste flows in 2004 with those in 2010, two things stand out. First of all, it becomes clear that in Sweden waste incineration capacities have an increased importance for the waste incineration market. SecondlyGermany has a mixture of imports and exports. The export of waste for incineration from France to Morocco seems to indicate that for specific countries also capacities outside of the European Union might have to be taken into account for future assessments of total waste treatment capacities. Waste Management Capacities 43

48 4 Material recycling The general availability of statistical data for material recovery capacities in the EU is extremely poor. In contrast e.g. to incineration plants these plants are often rather small and the operators are not obliged to publish plant-specific capacity data. The Eurostat database provides a variety of figures for different material streams, e.g. glass, paper and plastic packaging. The information is structured with regard to amounts of treated waste and treatment options (material recycling, incineration (R1), etc.). However, there is no information on plant capacities. Only a very small number of studies exist that deal with material recovery capacities. In the context of the Central Europe Program, the country-specific waste treatment for a small number of European Member States was investigated. Information about the material recovery capacity for WEEE, paper, glass and plastic packaging is only available for one country and mostly no quantitative data could be generated. Overall, this data collection reflects the generally poor data situation with regard to capacity for material recycling (TransWaste, 2011). A study by the United Nations University deals among other things with treatment capacity of WEEE. Overall, the available information is described as deficient, but a rough qualitative assessment of capacities has been made (Huisman et al., 2007). Given the huge increase of WEEE treated in recent years and regarding the year of the study (2007), this data cannot be used to assess the current situation. 4.1 Methodology and selection of waste streams In order to identify additional data sources and to do a first assessment of European treatment capacities, expert interviews with European waste associations were conducted for this project. An interview guideline has been developed and discussed with the EEA (see box 4.1). The interview partners have explicitly not been asked to deliver any data, but for a subjective assessment of data availability and appropriateness of the existing capacities (existence of under- or over-capacities). Box 4.1 Planned waste incineration capacity Availability of information What kind of information regarding treatment capacities are you aware of for your specific waste stream? Are there any sources for aggregated (on national or EU level) or site specific capacities? For collection, separation or treatment facilities? Are there any sources regarding the origins of input into these facilities? Would it be possible to differentiate between municipal or commercial/industrial waste? Does your association collect such information? Do you publish them? Assessment over- or under-capacities From your point of view are there relevant over- or under-capacities in your market? What has caused these over-/ under-capacities? Are you affected by over- or under-capacities in other waste management sectors, e.g. incineration? What do you expect for the capacity development within the next five years? What might be specific bottlenecks for the fulfilment of EU targets in your sector (collection, 44 Waste Management Capacities

49 separation, treatment)? The selection of interview partners focused on the following waste streams: plastics, glass, and paper/cardboard. The following list shows the interview partners, the association they represent, their specific function and the date of the interview: Peter Sundt, Secretary General, European Association Of Plastics Recycling & Recovery Organisations (EPRO), 08/08/2013. Adeline Farrelly, Secretary General, The European Container Glass Federation (FEVE), 12/08/2013. Jori Ringman-Beck, Director Recycling, Product, Environment, Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI), 14/08/ Assessment of data availability In the following, data availability for the different waste streams is assessed based on the expert interviews. Wherever additional sources were used, they are explicitly mentioned. Paper and cardboard For paper and cardboard, the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) publishes annual statistics on the performance of the European Pulp and Paper Industry but the available data is not specific for municipal waste. Nevertheless CEPI also has information on capacities of recycling mills differentiating between municipal or commercial waste. The data referring to the circulation within the paper industry is quite well documented, except for paper which is recycled outside the paper industry (e.g. companies making insulation material from used paper). These amounts and capacities are not sufficiently covered. But they have some estimation of what amounts of paper are recycled outside the paper industry. Therefore, all in all, the information availability is good, especially with regard to the utilisation of recycled paper that allows differentiating between different qualities of secondary resources as shown in the following figure. Figure 4.1 Grades of paper for recycling Waste Management Capacities 45

50 Source: CEPI 2012 Glass A quite different picture results for the data availability in the sectors for glass and plastics recycling. FEVE, the association of European manufactures of glass containers, has no information on capacities for collection, separation and recycling facilities for glass. FEVE is very much interested in the topic of recycling, due to potential raw materials and energy savings, but also because using recycled glass is much cheaper and reduces production costs. Nevertheless FEVE does not compile any statistics on treatment capacities. Plastics EPRO has no information on capacities for collection, separation and recycling facilities for plastics. With a view to the competition between the countries, the discussion of capacities is a very sensitive issue and therefore not discussed within EPRO. The recent focus of discussions within EPRO is inter alia the identification of best practices in collection, sorting and recycling. 4.3 Assessment of over- and under-capacities Given the limited availability of treatment capacity figures, the assessment of over- or undercapacities is of course challenging and also within the sector mainly based on experiences and expert judgement. Some indications can be drawn from price developments especially for waste as input material. Plastics According to EPRO, in principle there are currently no over- or under-capacities in plastics recycling, but the market is very imbalanced and in many cases the recycling rate could have been much higher. In the view of EPRO one of the key issues are relevant over-capacities for incineration in the northern countries of Europe, including Germany. EPRO observes that in cases where municipalities control plastic waste streams (including packaging waste) and also run their own incineration plant (e.g. Norway), they are not willing to send their fuel to other systems. So in the opinion of EPRO wasteto-energy has significant effects and consequences on other systems and especially for the assessment of over- or under-capacities for plastics recycling. In general the market for plastic recycling can be described as extremely competitive and rather short-term strategies prevail. Investments in recycling plants fall short if there are uncertainties about future waste flows. In former years waste owners normally had agreements with recyclers for 5 to 7 years. Nowadays a new trend is that producers themselves (e.g. in the case of PET bottles) invest in sorting and treatment plants in order to ensure a cheap and continuous supply of recycled waste material for their production processes. Capacity assessments for plastic waste are also influenced by export opportunities. From EPRO s point of view the Chinese environmental regulations in terms of waste treatment that have recently become more ambitious, are a great opportunity for the recycling market in Europe, because the export of waste from Europe to China for cheap, low quality treatment gets more and more difficult. This might lead to higher revenues and a boost for the plastic recycling in Europe. In this context EPRO expects a treatment capacity bottleneck for plastic films that are right now exported to China. In general, the bottleneck for the fulfilment of EU targets on plastic recycling does not seem to be the availability of technical structures but rather the management of different waste streams can be seen as a challenge. Generally, private actors can adjust recycling capacities to market requirements but collection and sorting are often not linked to targets and objectives of a circular economy in Europe. The Green Paper on a European Strategy on Plastic waste, published by the European Commission in 2013, mentions the lack of alternatives as one reason for the fact that about 50 % of all plastic waste 46 Waste Management Capacities

51 generated in the EU is still landfilled (European Commission, 2013). For other mainly northern European countries the Green paper describes the risk of a vacuum cleaner effect of over-capacities for waste incineration. Paper and cardboard According to CEPI the European paper recycling market shows relevant over-capacities for waste paper treatment. There is no coordination of the capacities, and no barrier to entry the market, which is the reason for the over-capacities. In contrast to the treatment phase, the collection of waste paper is clearly not yet sufficiently developed. Also different types of collection schemes (separate collection of paper or joint collection of dry recyclables and the subsequent separation) show very different efficiencies in recovering high quality input for the production of recycled paper. The JRC technical proposals for end-of-waste criteria for waste paper describes how despite improvements in sorting technologies the type of collection schemes (sorted or non-sorted at source) determines the further use of collected waste paper ( waste [ ] sorted mechanically [ ] is only suited for applications that tolerate a certain degree of cross-contamination (Villanueva et al. 2011)). According to CEPI many of the sorting facilities are also running incineration plants next door, so that the sorting residues are incinerated consequently the sorters have only limited interest in increasing the efficiency of separation. Internal estimations of CEPI show that until 2020 about 5 million tons of paper (10 % of the collected amounts of used paper) will be lost for paper recycling due to co-mingled collection of recyclables, another 5 million tons of paper will be lost because of increasing over-capacities in incineration and 20 million tons might be lost because of energy recovery of waste paper as renewable energy. Like in the case of plastics, also the significant export of waste paper is a relevant issue for the assessment of treatment capacities (see Figure 4.2). In the mid-1990s, Western Europe turned from being a net importer of waste paper into a net exporter (Villanueva et al. 2011). In general the recycling capacities are not a bottleneck (there is still an overcapacity), but the uncertain supply hampers the investment of paper mills into advanced recycling technologies. Figure 4.2 CEPI data for trade flows of paper for recycling Source: CEPI 2012 Waste Management Capacities 47

52 Glass According to FEVE there are currently no over- or under-capacities in glass recycling. All glass that is collected is normally recycled within the region of the collection. Only pre-treated glass cullets are transported over longer distances in order to satisfy the need of European manufacturers for different coloured glass. In the view of FEVE the fact of the regional treatment shows that there are no undercapacities. In addition, glass treatment is in principle not affected by other waste management sectors, which would lead to over- or under-capacities in glass treatment. Regarding possible bottlenecks for the fulfilment of EU targets, the separate collection of different coloured glass can be seen as a bottleneck: The recycling of non-separated waste glass leads to significantly higher reprocessing costs to achieve the same quality as mono-material collection, if at all achievable. According to the JRC study on end-of-waste criteria for waste glass, insufficient separation also causes higher glass loss during processing (typically % is wasted in material recovery facilities, compared to 1 % for monomaterial processing (Rodriguez Vieitez et al. 2011)). From the point of view of FEVE it is at the moment not the available capacities, but the quality of the separation that influences the degree of recycling. 48 Waste Management Capacities

53 5 Conclusions The results of this desktop study to analyse waste treatment capacities in the EEA member countries show that e.g. in comparison to waste flows only fragmented data exist for municipal waste treatment capacities. Despite the key role of waste infrastructures for becoming a circular economy, a continuous and consistent reporting of waste treatment capacities on a European level is lacking. This report can only be seen as a starting point because it focuses only on municipal waste and thus does not take into account commercial waste. The analysis also revealed that it is very difficult to analyse capacities for municipal waste only: Treatment capacities are used for different types of waste and waste from various sources. This especially applies for incineration and recycling. Waste Incineration and MBT The by far best information is available for waste incineration plants and their capacities. In this study, capacity data could be identified for 448 waste incineration plants. The analysis of incineration capacity per capita or in relation to MSW generation shows the enormous differences between the different Member States ranging from 0 to more than 550 kg per capita of incineration capacity. The relation between waste incineration capacity and MSW generation already gives some clear indications for possible over-capacities: In seven of the 32 countries analysed in this study, the incineration capacities exceed 50 % of the annual waste generation, in two of them even the complete amount of annually generated municipal waste is not enough to fill all incineration plants (see Figure 5.1). These capacities might be used to incinerate waste from non-municipal sources and by using imports, and there are uncertainties around the calculation of capacities. However, capacities far exceeding the amount of generated municipal waste indicate a potential competition between filling incineration capacities and achieving the 50% recycling target of the 2008 Waste Framework Directive, as well as the objectives of the EU s 7 th Environmental Action Programme to further move towards a circular economy, to limit energy recovery to non-recyclable material and to reduce the generation of waste. Waste Management Capacities 49

54 Figure 5.1 MBT and incineration capacities in relation to MSW generation Source: Compiled by the authors according to Table 2.3 and Table 2.5 In general the figures presented in this report might allow drawing the preliminary conclusion that in Europe significant regional over capacities for waste incineration exist, but on the total aggregated level additional investments in waste incineration capacity might be useful to divert additional waste streams from landfilling. These regional over-capacities can act as an incentive to use such capital intensive waste incineration plants at full capacity and at the same time demotivate further recycling efforts. Especially the competition for commercial waste seems to lead to low price levels for energy recovery. In several Member States this leads to a spate of insolvencies in the medium-sized recycling industry, since at lower incineration prices more materials will be energy recovered rather than fed to material recovery facilities. However, according to a survey made by CEWEP (Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants) in 2010, the total incineration capacity in Europe is foreseen to grow with around 13 million tons up to 2020 through the construction of 48 new incinerators and the increase of the capacity of some of the existing facilities (Jafra Sora, 2013) partly of course in countries that so far lack sufficient treatment capacity. The analysis of MBT capacities shows the significant differences in waste management strategies in Europe. Some countries, for example Italy, Estonia, Spain, Germany and Austria, use MBT plants, but the majority of the 32 countries analysed in this report does not use MBT plants at all. Also in countries with MBT-based treatment strategies risks of over-capacities and negative effects on further material recycling and waste prevention will have to be taken into account (Döing/ Loenicker 2013). 50 Waste Management Capacities

55 Exports and Imports for Waste Incineration In general, imports and exports of municipal waste for incineration can give an indication of regional over- and under-capacities. On the first sight, the comparison with waste incineration capacities seems to indicate that waste tourism or vacuum cleaner effects of incineration over-capacities at least for mixed MSW is of only limited significance. However, the import/export data for waste collected from households (Y46) used for this analysis might not tell the full story. The inconsistencies between reported exports and imports of this waste stream seriously hamper the analysis. In most of the years, reported imports and exports do not match. Part of this might be explained by imports and exports out of Europe, but the extent of the differences reported exports exceeding reported imports by a factor of more than 3 in 2006 and 2009, and vice versa in 2010 clearly indicate that these data are unreliable. Annual changes for imports or exports of more than 100 % or above from year to year also indicate data inconsistencies and difficulties in the reporting by the Member States. It seems that relevant amounts of waste are declared differently in different years or that waste streams might not be labelled correctly and in different ways from country to country. Nevertheless, there are several waste flows that can clearly be linked to differences in waste treatment capacities in relation to waste generation e.g. the high imports of waste for incineration of Sweden. Sweden s MSW incineration capacity exceeds the generated amount of MSW (as described in chapter 3). The data analysis also shows that imports/ exports vary significantly over time and react very sensitively on changed market situations, e.g. introduction or increase of landfill taxes in member states (Fischer et al. 2012b). Another key uncertainty is how much municipal waste or RDF from municipal sources is exported and imported labelled as Y18. If it is assumed that 50 % of Y18 waste imported or exported for incineration is from municipal sources (and this assumption is arbitrary as no data is available on the share of municipal waste derived waste within Y18), the picture changes dramatically. Under this assumption, Sweden would have filled more than 10 % of the national incineration capacity with imported waste in 2010, and the Netherlands would be by far the most important exporter of waste for incineration. Material recycling The assessment of data availability for material recovery treatment capacities shows that this extremely fragmented market and in many cases even the European waste associations have only very limited information on treatment capacities of their own members. The pulp and paper sector seems to be an exemption but also CEPI does not publish any specific data on capacities. Especially the extremely competitive market for plastics recycling highlights that treatment capacity figures are often closely linked to business secrets and management strategies and therefore the companies are often very careful in the publication of such figures. Thus the analysis of data availability for material recycling shows on the one hand clear differences between different waste streams, on the other hand a general challenge that these sectors are dominated by private companies without reporting obligations e.g. for national waste management plans and especially that the much smaller average plant size and thus a much higher number of plants compared to waste incineration plants make an assessment of over- or under-capacities much more complex. The expert interviews indicated that an isolated assessment of over- or under-capacities in these markets is extremely difficult and more or less useless. Especially paper and plastics are closely linked to the waste incineration sector and depending on the market situation and especially prices for incineration, waste streams are steered into incineration or material recycling. This is a clearly market driven development where the recovery is more indirectly influenced by capacities via price levels for incineration and recycling. Against this background also exports of separately collected waste especially from EU-15 Member States - seem to be caused more by economic considerations than by lack of treatment infrastructure. Waste Management Capacities 51

56 The assessment also requires differentiating between the specific steps of the recycling chain: Especially the separate collection of paper or plastics highly influenced by the municipalities and waste regulations seem to be a bottleneck for increased recycling. Recent developments like the Chinese green fence for low quality plastics waste might lead to short-term bottlenecks in treatment capacities but it seems that market incentives should be sufficient to attract private investors. Against this background the preliminary conclusion could be drawn that attempts to turn waste into a resource should not focus on specific material recycling capacities but especially on closing the loophole of landfilling and balancing demand and supply in the market for waste incineration. The market seems to be able to react on needs for treatment capacities for recovery operations in sufficient short times but will only do so when stable or predictable legal framework conditions and political targets lead these investments into the right direction. Given the limited scope on mixed MSW this study can only be seen as a starting point for an overall assessment of waste treatment capacities and their influence on a circular economy. For a full picture also other treatment options like co-incineration or RDF technologies would to be taken into account. In order to assess impacts of over- or under-capacities, next steps could be to look into the correlation of these figures with gate fees for waste incineration in order to assess the incentive structure for waste recycling or waste prevention (see for example Wilts 2013 for an analysis of waste incineration fees in Germany and their consequences for waste sorting as precondition for high quality recycling). From a policy perspective there seems to be a need for innovative planning procedures that might help to avoid over-capacities in incineration by an integrated assessment of recycling and prevention potentials. In the field of material recycling the traditional push model of simply offering standard qualities to the general market seem to need a transformation towards more pull models with tailor made qualities of secondary resources specifically designed for the needs of industries or specific companies. This will require new approaches of recycling chain management and a better coordination between sorting, recycling and production processes. 52 Waste Management Capacities

57 References AMEC, 2013, Research into SRF and RDF Exports to Other EU Countries, Final Technical Report, UK. Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W., 2011, Compost production and use in the EU, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Sevilla. Basel Convention, 2011, National reporting archives ( px) assessed 07 October BIO Intelligence Service, 2011a, Study on coherence of waste legislation, Final report prepared for the European Commission, DG ENV. BIO Intelligence Service, 2011b, Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth, Final Report prepared for European Commission DG ENV BiPRO, 2012, Screening of waste management performance of EU Member States, Report submitted under the EC project Support to Member States in improving waste management based on assessment of Member States performance, Report prepared for the European Commission, DG ENV. CEPI, 2012, Annual Statistics. European Pulp and Paper Industry ( 0Report% pdf) assessed 10 October CEWEP, 2010, Country Report on Waste Management ( assessed 07 October Döing, M., Loenicker, J., 2013, Markt für thermische Abfallverwertung wächst unterschiedlich Müll und Abfall 12/2013, EC, 2011a. European Commission, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM(2011) 571 final, Brussels, ECN (European Compost Network), 2013, Country reports, ( assessed 07 October European Environment Agency, 2013a, Managing municipal solid waste a review of achievements in 32 European countries, EEA Report No 2/2013, Copenhagen. European Environment Agency, 2013b, Municipal waste management Country Reports ( assessed 07 October European Commission, 2013, Green Paper. On a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment, COM (2013) 123 final. Eurostat, 2012a, Environmental Data Centre on Waste. Key Waste Streams Municipal Waste ( assessed 11 September Eurostat, 2012b, Environmental Data Centre on Waste. Management Recovery Waste Management Capacities 53

58 ( t/recovery_excluding_energy_recovery) assessed 20 December Eurostat, 2012c, Environmental Data Centre on Waste. Management Generation ( assessed 20 December Eurostat, 2012d, Environmental Data Centre on Waste. Key Waste Streams Hazardous Waste ( assessed 20 December Eurostat, 2012e, Environmental Data Centre on Waste. Management Incineration ( t/incineration) assessed 13 January Eurostat, 2013, Environmental Data Centre on Waste. Transboundary Waste shipments ( assessed 13 September Fischer, C., 2012, Transboundary shipments of waste - Data checks and data based on the European Waste List (EWL) ( oundary_shipments_data_based_on_ewl_-_christian_fischer_european_topic_center.pdf) assessed 06 October Fischer, C., Junker, H., Mazzanti, M., Paleari, S., Wuttke, J. and Zoboli, R., 2012a, Transboundary shipments of waste in the European Union - Reflections on data, environmental impacts and drivers, ETC/SCP Working Paper 2/2012. Fischer, C., Lehner, M. and McKinnon, D.L., 2012b, Overview of the use of landfill taxes in Europe, ETC/SCP Working Paper 1/2012. Henkes, W. (2010), Kirchturmdenken Recycling Magazin 8, Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Maurer, C., Ogilvie, S., Poll, J., Delgado, C., Artim, E., Szlezak, J. and Stevels, A. (2007), 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Final Report, United Nations University. ISWA, 2012, Waste-to-Energy State-of-the-Art-Report Statistics 6th Edition, Copenhagen. Jafra Sora, M., 2013, Incineration Overcapacity and Waste Shipping in Europe: The End of the Proximity Principle? ( assessed 06 October Monstadt, J., 2009, Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: insights from technology and urban studies Environment and Planning 41(8), Monstadt, J., Schmidt, M. and Wilts, H., 2012, Regionale Zusammenarbeit in der Ver- und Entsorgung des Rhein-Main-Gebiets, In: Monstadt, J. et al. (Hrsg.): Die diskutierte Region: Probleme und Planungsansätze der Metropolregion Rhein-Main. Campus Verlag. Frankfurt/New York, Richers, U., 2010, Abfallverbrennung in Deutschland Entwicklungen und Kapazitäten, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, KIT Scientific Report Waste Management Capacities

59 Rodriguez Vieitez, E., Eder, P., Villanueva, A., and Saveyn, H., 2011, End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass Cullet: Technical Proposals, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Sevilla. TransWaste, 2011, Deliverable Data Evaluation. Funded by Central Europe ( n_output_3.2.2_final.pdf) assessed 06 October Villanueva, A. and Eder, P., 2011, End-of-Waste Criteria for Waste Paper: Technical Proposals, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Sevilla. Wilts, H.,2013, Abfallwirtschaftsplanung lokal bis global, Raumplanung 166, Reference checked: Henning Wilts, 07 November 2013 Waste Management Capacities 55

60 Annex 1 Incineration capacity in 2010: statistical data from EUROSTAT Table A1.1 Eurostat data for incineration capacities, all types of waste Country Energy recovery t per year in 2010 Incineration without energy recovery t per year in 2010 European Union (27 countries) European Union (25 countries) European Union (15 countries) Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany (including former GDR from 1991) Estonia Ireland : : Greece Spain France : Italy : : Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal : 0 56 Waste Management Capacities

61 Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Source: Eurostat 2012e Waste Management Capacities 57

62 Annex 2 Incineration capacity: data availability Table A2.1 Available data in Eurostat 2013 and ISWA 2012 EUROSTAT: data for 2010 ISWA: data for 2011 Waste Fraction All Waste fractions Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Plant Type Energy Recovery (R1) Disposal (D10) Waste-to-Energy Available Data Plant Capacities Number of plants Plant Capacities Number of plants Average plant capacity, number of plants Belgium X X X X X Bulgaria X X X X Czech Republic X X X X X Denmark X X X X X Germany X X X X X Estonia X X X X Ireland X X X Greece X X X X Spain X X X X X France X X X Italy X X X Cyprus X X X X Latvia X X X X Lithuania X X X X Luxembourg X X X X 58 Waste Management Capacities

63 Hungary X X X X X Malta X X X X Netherlands X X X X X Austria X X X X X Poland X X X X Portugal X X X X Romania X X X X Slovenia X X X X Slovakia X X X X Finland X X X Sweden X X X X X United Kingdom X X X X Note: The availability of data is provided with a cross and the grey marker indicates the absence of data. Source: Compiled by the authors according to data from Eurostat 2012e and ISWA Waste Management Capacities 59

64 Annex 3 Incineration capacities and their location in Europe in 2010 Table A3.1 Incineration capacities and their location in Europe City Capacity t/a City Capacity t/a Austria Spain Italy City Capacity t/a Wien Andorra de la Vella Arezzo Wien Barcelona Bergamo Wien Barcelona (Mataró) Bolzano Wels Bilbao Brescia Zwentendorf Cantabria (Meruelo) Busto Arsizio (VA) Arnoldstein Girona Castelnuovo Garfagnana (LU) Zistersdorf Madrid Colleferro (Roma) Wien Melilla Como Lenzing Palma de Mallorca Coriano (RN) Niklasdorf San Román Corteolona (PV) Linz Tarragona Cremona Belgium Finland Dalmine (BG) 16,6600 Gent Desio (MI) Kotka Harelbeke Ferrara Doel Riihimäki Forli Gioia Tauro (Reggio Calabria) Wilrijk, Antwerpen Turku Granarolo Emilia Brügge (BO) Eeklo France Livorno Ostende Amilly Macchiareddu (CA) Roeselare Angers Macomer (NU) Knokke-Heist Antibes Massafra (TA) Houthalen- Helchteren (Limburg) Argenteuil Melfi (PZ) Froyennes Arrabloy Mergozzo (VB) Nivelles Bayet Messina Marcinelle Bègles Milano Herstal, Lüttich Bellegarde sur valserine Milano (Acerra) Neder-overheembeek, Brüssel Bourg-Saint-Maurice Milano Switzerland Benesse-Maremne Modena Buchs AG Besançon Montale/Agliana (PT) Oftringen Bessières Ospedaletto (PI) Turgi Blois Padova Bern Bourgoin Jallieu Parona (PV) Thun Bourogne Piacenza Biel Brest Pietrasanta /LU) Basel Briec Poggibonsi (SI) Fribourg Saint-Pantaleon-de- Larche Potenza Cheneviers Calce Ravenna Niederurnen, Linthgebiet Carhaix Reggio Emilia Waste Management Capacities

65 Trimmis Luzern Colombier Cenon La Chaux-de-Fonds Chambéry Roma Pozzilli Carriéres sous Poissy Carriéres sur Seine (Yvelines) Rufina/Pontassieve (FI) San Vittore del Lazio (FR) Zuchwil Chateaudun Schio Bazenheid Chaumont Sesto S Giovanni (MI) Buchs SG Chavanod Terni (außer Betrieb) St Gallen Colmar Tolentino/Pollenza (MC) Thurgau Colombelles Trezzo sull Giubiasco Concarneau Trieste Lausanne Confort Meilars Valmedrara (LC) Gamsen Coueron Venezia Monthey Créteil Vercelli Uvrier Dijon Luxembourg Dietikon Douchy les Mines Leudelange Hinwil Dunkerque Netherlands Horgen Echillais Alkmaar Winterthur Fos-sur-mer (Marseille) Amsterdam Zürich Fourchambault Beuningen Zürich Grand Quevilly Delfzijl Czech Republic Guerville Dordrecht Brno Guichainville Duiven Liberec Halluin Harlingen Prag Henin-Beaumont Moerdijk Germany Issy-Les-Molineaux Roosendaal Berlin La Couronne Rotterdam Böblingen La Rochelle Norway Breisgau- Hochschwarzwald La Tronche Averøy Göppingen La Veuve Bergen Stuttgart Labeuvrière Frederikstad Ulm Lasse Frederikstad Mannheim Le Fayet Hamar Augsburg Le Mans Lenvik Bamberg Le Passage Oslo (Haraldrud) Altöttingen Lescar Oslo (Klemetsrud) Coburg Limoges Rakkestad Ingolstadt Livet-et-Gavet Sandnes Kempten Lons-le-Saunier Sarpsborg Landshut Ludres Rakkestad München Lunel-Viel Sarpsborg Neu-Ulm Lyon 7ème Spjelkavik Nürnberg Mainvilliers Trondheim Rosenheim Marignier Ål Schwandorf Massy Poland Würzburg Maubeuge Warschau Fürstenfeldbruck Messanges Portugal Waste Management Capacities 61

66 Schweinfurt Metz Moreira da Maia Bremen Montauban Madeira Bremerhaven Montbéliard São João da Talha, Lisboa Frankfurt Montereau Fault Yonne Sweden Kassel Monthyon Avesta Darmstadt Mourenx Boden Offenbach Nantes (Loire Atlantique) Bollnäs Hamburg Nice Borlänge Hamburg Nîmes Eda Hamburg Noidans le Ferroux Eksjö Ludwigslust Noyelles-sous-lens Finspång Grafschaft Bentheim Ouarville Göteborg Hameln-Pyrmont Paris (Ivry-sur- Seine) Halmstad Helmstedt Pithiviers Hässleholm Emsland Planguenoual (Côtes d'armor) Jönköping Hannover Plouharnel Karlskoga Wesel Pluzunet Karlstad Bielefeld Poitiers Kil Essen Pontarlier Kiruna Hagen Pontcharra Kumla Hamm Pontivy Köping Recklinghausen Pontmain (Mayenne) Lidköping Märkischer Kreis Pontex-les-Forges Linköping Köln Rambervillers Ljungby Krefeld Reims Malmö Oberhausen Rennes Mora Solingen Rillieux La Pape Norrköping Wuppertal Rosiers d'egletons Stockholm Düsseldorf Rungis Stockholm Leverkusen Saint Jean de Folleville Sundsvall Bonn Saint Ouen Södertälje Aachen Saint-ouen-l'aumone Uddevalla Mainz St Pierre d'oléron Umea Ludwigshafen Saint Saulve Uppsala Pirmasens St Thibault des Vignes Västervik Kiel Salaise-sur-Saine Slovakia Ostholstein Saran Bratislava Pinneberg Sarcelles Kosice Stormarn Sausheim (Haut Rhin) United Kingdom Regionalverband Schweighouse-sur Saarbrücken Moder (Bas Rhin) Billingham Neunkirchen Sens Birmingham Bautzen Sète Bolton Saalekreis Strasbourg Chineham Magdeburg Surgères Colnbrook Salzlandkreis Taden Coventry Burgenlandkreis Thiverval-Grignon Douglas (Isle of Man) Schmalkalden- Meiningen Thonon Les Bains Cedex Dudley Waste Management Capacities

67 Erfurt Tignes Dumfries Denmark Toulon Dundee Vejen Toulouse East Sussex Esbjerg Tronville en Barrois Grimsby Eystur (Faröer- Inseln) Vaux-le-Penil Huddersfield Frederikshavn Vedène London Glostrup Vernou-en-Sologne Belvedere (London Borough of Bexley) Grenaa Vert le Grand London Haderslev Villefranche sur Allington, Maidstone Sâone Hammel Villejust Marchwood, Southhampton Hjørring Villers Saint Paul Nottingham Hobro Vitré Portsmouth Holstebro Fort-de-france (Martinique) Runcorn Horsens Saint Barthelemy (Guadeloupe) Sheffield Hørsholm Hungary Shetland Islands Kolding Budapest St Helier Jersey Kopenhagen Iceland Stoke on Trent Nykøbing F Kirkjubæjarklaustri Wolverhampton Næstved Kirkjubæjarklaustri Isles of Scilly Odense Svinafell Ardley, Oxfordshire Roskilde Húsavík Devon Rønne Vestmannaeyjum Cornwall Skagen Talknafjoerdur Cornwall Skanderborg Isafjoerdur Slagelse Reykjanes Svendborg Sønderborg Thisted Torshavn (Faröer- Inseln) Aalborg Århus Aars Herning Source: compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 4 Waste Management Capacities 63

68 Annex 4 Incineration capacity in 2010: name, location, reference year and source Table A4.1 Incineration plants and their capacity Land and Name of the Plant Austria Müllverbrennungsanlage Spittelau City Capacity t/a Year Source Wien /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Müllverbrennungsanlage Flötzersteig Wien /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Müllverbrennungsanlage Pfaffenau Wien /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Müllverbrennungsanlage WAV Wels /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Müllverbrennungsanlage Dürnrohr Zwentendorf /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Kärntner Restmüllverbrennung Arnoldstein /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Müllverbrennungsanlage Zistersdorf Zistersdorf /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Wirbelschichtofen 4 - Simmeringer Haide Wien /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Reststoffverwertung Lenzing Lenzing /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf 64 Waste Management Capacities

69 Thermische Reststoffverwertung (ENAGES) Niklasdorf /bawp/bawp_2011_teil_1corr_ /BAWP_2011_Teil_1corr_ %5B1% 5D.pdf Reststoffheizkraftwerk Linz Linz /linzstrom/kraftwerke/linzmitterhkw/centerwind ow;jsessionid=757be0ae b C13.node1?plaginit=1&action=1 Belgium IVAGO Gent pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1701 IMOG Harelbeke pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1702 INDAVER Doel pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1703 ISVAG Wilrijk, Antwerpen pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1704 IVBO Brügge pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1705 IVM Eeklo pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1706 IVOO Ostende pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1707 MIROM ROESELARE Roeselare pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1708 DALKIA BIONERGA Knokke- Heist Houthalen- Helchteren (Limburg) pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1710 Thumaide Froyennes pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1712 Virginal Nivelles pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1713 Pont de Loup Marcinelle pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1714 Herstal Herstal, Lüttich pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1715 Neder-over-heembeek Brüssel pid/176?actionreq=actionpubdetail&fileitem= 1717 Switzerland Waste Management Capacities 65

70 kva Buchs Buchs AG d=2845 Erzo Oftringen Oftringen d=2860 KVA Turgi Turgi d=2865 EWB Bern Bern d=2843 AVAG Thun d=2862 Müve Biel Biel d=2844 IWB Basel d=2841 saidef Fribourg d=2850 SIG Cheneviers d=2847 KVA Niederurnen, Linthgebiet d=2856 gevag Trimmis d=2864 real Luzern Luzern d=2857 vadec Colombier d=2848 vadec La Chauxde-Fonds d=2853 KEBAG Zuchwil d=2868 ZAB Bazenheid d=2842 VfA Energie aus Abfall Buchs SG d=2846 Entsorgung St. Gallen St. Gallen d=2861 Verband KVA Thurgau Thurgau d=2863 Azienda cantonale dei rifiuti (ACR) Giubiasco =852 Tridel Lausanne Oberwallis Gamsen d=2859 SATOM Monthey d=2858 UTO Uvrier d=2866 Limeco Dietikon d=2855 KEZO Hinwil d=2851 KVA Horgen Horgen d=2852 Stadtwerke Winterthur Winterthur d= Waste Management Capacities

71 ERZ KHKW Hagenholz Zürich d=2849 Fernwärme Zürich AG Zürich d=2925 Czeck Republic SAKO Brno, a.s. Brno sysnet.cz/projects/env.web/zamest.nsf/5eafc 5e970f63e14c1256c c48/4d44a8a4a2 8f03a6c1256afc0045b098/$FILE/PWaste%20- %20final%20report%20volume%202%20eng. doc TERMIZO Liberec Liberec &ln=de Spalovna Malešice Prag sysnet.cz/projects/env.web/zamest.nsf/5eafc 5e970f63e14c1256c c48/4d44a8a4a2 8f03a6c1256afc0045b098/$FILE/PWaste%20- %20final%20report%20volume%202%20eng. doc Germany Abfallbehandlungswerk Nord Restmüllheizkraftwerk Böblingen Berlin nt=2307 Böblingen nt=2308 Thermische Restabfallbehandlungs- und Energieerzeugungsanlage Breisgau Breisgau- Hochschw arz-wald nt=2309 Müllheizkraftwerk Göppingen Restmüllheizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Münster Müllheizkraftwerk Ulm- Donautal Müllheizkraftwerk Mannheim Abfallverwertungsanlage Augsburg Göppingen nt=2310 Stuttgart nt=2311 Ulm nt=2312 Mannheim nt=2313 Augsburg nt=2314 Waste Management Capacities 67

72 Müllheizkraftwerk Bamberg Müllheizkraftwerk Burgkirchen Bamberg nt=2315 Altöttingen nt=2316 Müllheizkraftwerk Coburg Coburg nt=2317 Müllverwertungsanlage Ingolstadt Müllverbrennungsanlage Kempten Müllverbrennungsanlage Landshut Müllheizkraftwerk München Nord Ingolstadt nt=2318 Kempten nt=2319 Landshut nt=2320 München nt=2321 Müllkraftwerk Weißenhorn Neu-Ulm nt=2322 Müllverbrennungsanlage Nürnberg Müllheizkraftwerk Rosenheim Müllkraftwerk Schwandorf Müllheizkraftwerk Würzburg AHKW Geiselbullach Gemeinschaftskraftwerk Schweinfurt Nürnberg nt=2323 Rosenheim nt=2324 Schwandorf nt=2325 Würzburg nt=2326 Fürstenfeldbruck Schweinfurt nt= nt= Waste Management Capacities

73 Müllheizwerk Bremen Bremen nt=2329 Müllheizkraftwerk Frankfurt am Main Müllheizkraftwerk Bremerhaven Bremerhaven nt=2330 Frankfurt nt=2331 Müllheizkraftwerk Kassel Kassel nt=2332 Müllheizkraftwerk Darmstadt Müllheizkraftwerk Offenbach Müllverbrennungsanlage Stellinger Moor Hamburg Müllverwertung Borsigstraße Müllverwertungsanlage Rugenberger Damm Thermische Abfallverwertungsanlage Ludwigslust Emlichheim Enertec Hameln Darmstadt nt=2333 Offenbach nt=2334 Hamburg nt=2335 Hamburg nt=2336 Hamburg nt=2337 Ludwigslust Grafschaft Bentheim Hameln- Pyrmont nt= nt= nt=2340 Buschhaus Helmstedt nt=2341 Thermische Abfallbehandlungsanlage Salzbergen Emsland nt=2342 Waste Management Capacities 69

74 MVA Hannover Hannover nt=2343 Abfallentsorgungszentrum Asdonkshof Wesel nt=2344 MVA Bielefeld-Herford Bielefeld nt=2345 Müllheizkraftwerk Essen- Karnap Müllverbrennungsanlage Hagen Müllverbrennungsanlage Hamm Herten Müllheizkraftwerk Iserlohn Restmüllverbrennungsanlage Köln Müll- und Klärschlammverbrennungsanlage Krefeld Müllverbrennungsanlage Niederrhein Essen nt=2346 Hagen nt=2347 Hamm nt=2348 Recklinghausen Märkischer Kreis nt= nt=2350 Köln nt=2351 Krefeld nt=2352 Oberhausen nt=2353 Müllheizkraftwerk Solingen Solingen nt=2354 Müllheizkraftwerk Korzert Wuppertal nt=2355 Müllverbrennungsanlage Düsseldorf Düsseldorf nt= Waste Management Capacities

75 Müllheizkraftwerk Leverkusen Müllverwertungsanlage Bonn Leverkusen nt=2357 Bonn nt=2358 MVA Weisweiler Aachen nt=2359 Müllheizkraftwerk Mainz Mainz nt=2360 Müllheizkraftwerk Pirmasens Müllheizkraftwerk Ludwigshafen Ludwigshafen nt=2361 Pirmasens nt=2362 Müllverbrennung Kiel Kiel nt=2363 Müllheizkraftwerk Neustadt Müllheizkraftwerk Tornesch Ostholstein nt=2364 Pinneberg nt=2365 MVA Stapelfeld Stormarn nt=2366 Abfallverwertungsanlage Velsen Thermische Abfallbehandlung Lauta Regionalverband Saarbrücken Abfallheizkraftwerk Neunkirchen Neunkirchen nt= nt=2368 Bautzen nt=2369 Leuna Saalekreis nt=2370 Waste Management Capacities 71

76 Müllheizkraftwerk Rothensee Restabfallverbrennungsanlage Straßfurt Abfallverwertung Zorbau Restabfallbehandlungsanlage Südwestthüringen Restabfallbehandlungsanlage Erfurt-Ost Denmark Magdeburg nt=2371 Salzlandkreis Burgenlandkreis Schmalkal den- Meiningen nt= nt= nt=2374 Erfurt nt=2375 Vejen Kraftvarmeværk Vejen endingsegnet_affald.pdf L90 Affaldsforbrænding Esbjerg endingsegnet_affald.pdf Brennistøðin á Hagaleiti Frederikshavns Affaldskraftvarmeværk A/S Eystur (Faröer- Inseln) Frederikshavn C33E-43F8-8BB2-D3681ABEB294} endingsegnet_affald.pdf I/S Vestforbrænding Glostrup endingsegnet_affald.pdf Grenaa Forbrænding a/s Grenaa endingsegnet_affald.pdf Haderslev Kraftvarmeværk Haderslev endingsegnet_affald.pdf Hammel Fjernvarme A.m.b.a. Hammel endingsegnet_affald.pdf Forbrændingsanlæg AVV Hjørring endingsegnet_affald.pdf I/S Fælles Forbrænding Hobro endingsegnet_affald.pdf Måbjergværket A/S Holstebro endingsegnet_affald.pdf Horsens Kraftvarmeværk A/S Horsens endingsegnet_affald.pdf Nordforbrænding I/S Hørsholm endingsegnet_affald.pdf I/S Amagerforbrænding I/S REFA Kolding endingsegnet_affald.pdf Kolding Forbrændingsanlæg Kopenhagen Nykøbing F endingsegnet_affald.pdf endingsegnet_affald.pdf AffaldPlus Næstved Næstved endingsegnet_affald.pdf 72 Waste Management Capacities

77 Odense Kraftvarmeværk A/S Odense endingsegnet_affald.pdf Roskilde endingsegnet_affald.pdf BOFA I/S Rønne endingsegnet_affald.pdf Skagen Forbrænding Skagen endingsegnet_affald.pdf Renosyd I/S KARA/NOVEREN Roskidle forbrændingsanlæg Skanderborg endingsegnet_affald.pdf AffadPlus Slagelse Slagelse endingsegnet_affald.pdf Svendborg kraftvarmeværk Sønderborg Kraftvarmeværk I/S I/S Kraftvarmeværk Thisted Torshavn Forbrændingsanlæg Svendborg endingsegnet_affald.pdf Sønderborg endingsegnet_affald.pdf Thisted endingsegnet_affald.pdf Torshavn (Faröer- Inseln) Access Reno-Nord I/S Aalborg endingsegnet_affald.pdf Kraftvarmeanlæg Århus Nord Århus endingsegnet_affald.pdf Aars Fjernvarmeværk Aars endingsegnet_affald.pdf Knudmoseværket Herning endingsegnet_affald.pdf Spain Centre de Tractament de Residus d'andorra S.A. Planta Energètica de Sant Adrià del Besòs TRM Barcelona Andorra de la Vella blicaciones/pirineos3.pdf Barcelona (Mataró) b/amants/24j_colomer.pdf Zabalgarbi Bilbao _8771_Presentacio%20curs%20Univ%20J aume%20i%20%28cat%29.pdf Tircantabria Cantabria (Meruelo) Access &f=3&v=959 Trargisa Girona e?p_l_id=5447&folderid=264924&name=dlf E-7049.pdf Tirmadrid Madrid Access 2013 Barcelona /Comprehensive-Waste-Plants Residous de Melilla S.A. Melilla _8771_Presentacio%20curs%20Univ%20J aume%20i%20%28cat%29.pdf Tirme S.A. Palma de Mallorca _8771_Presentacio%20curs%20Univ%20J aume%20i%20%28cat%29.pdf Waste Management Capacities 73

78 Sogama San Román _8771_Presentacio%20curs%20Univ%20J aume%20i%20%28cat%29.pdf SIRUSA Tarragona Access 2013 Finland Kotka Waste-to-Energy Kotka Hannele Nikander and Tapani Säynätkari/Finnish Environment Institute Ekokem Waste Treatment Riihimäki maga- zinebank.nsf/resource/408_automation_s2-3/$file/408_automation_s4-7.pdf Orikedon Jätteenpoltto laitos Turku cdf1d c23ffa7259d06 France Montargis Amilly atique//id/7112/prov/rech/ser/1 UIOM d'angers Angers ISWA WtE State of the Art Report 2135 Antibes Antibes /prov/rech/ser/1 Argenteuil Argenteuil /prov/rech/ser/1 Gien Arrabloy /prov/rech/ser/1 Bayet Bayet /prov/rech/ser/1 Astria (Bègles) Bègles /prov/rech/ser/1 SET Faucigny Genevois (Bellegarde) Benesse Maremne Valezan (Bourg St Maurice) Bellegarde sur valserine Bourg- Saint- Maurice Benesse- Maremne /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/ atique//id/5595/prov/rech/ser/1 Besançon Besançon /prov/rech/ser/1 Econotre (Bessières) Bessières /prov/rech/ser/1 Arcante (Blois) Blois /prov/rech/ser/1 Bourgoin Jallieu Bourgoin Jallieu /prov/rech/ser/1 Uiom de Bourogne Bourogne /prov/rech/ser/1 Brest Brest /prov/rech/ser/1 Briec de l'odet Briec /prov/rech/ser/1 Brive la Gaillarde Saint- Pantaleonde-Larche /prov/rech/ser/1 Uiom de Calce Calce /prov/rech/ser/1 74 Waste Management Capacities

79 Carhaix Carhaix /prov/rech/ser/1 Azalys (Carriéres sous Poissy) Carriéres sur Seine /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 (Yvelines) Bordeaux Cenon Cenon /prov/rech/ser/1 Chambéry Chambéry /prov/rech/ser/1 Chateaudun atique//id/5913/prov/rech/ser/1 Chaumont Chaumont /prov/rech/ser/1 Uiom de Chavanod Chavanod /prov/rech/ser/1 Colmar Colmar /prov/rech/ser/1 Sirac (Caen) Concarneau Carriéres sous Poissy Carriéres sur Seine Chateaudun Colombelles Concarneau /prov/rech/ser/1 CIE (Créteil) Créteil /prov/rech/ser/1 L usine d incinération du Grand Dijon Cve de Douchy-les-mines Dijon Usine d incinération des déchets ménagers du Grand Dijon Douchy les Mines atique//id/5797/prov/rech/ser/1 Cve Dunkerque Dunkerque atique//id/58414/prov/rech/ser/1 Ecopole d'echillais Echillais /prov/rech/ser/1 Uiom de Fos-sur-Mer Uiom de Fourchambault Rouen 2 Grand Quevilly /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Guerville (Valene) Guerville /prov/rech/ser/1 Evreux /prov/rech/ser/1 Cve Antarés Halluin atique//id/5442/prov/rech/ser/1 Hénin-Beaumont Issy-les-Molineaux Angoulême Confort-Meilars (Douarnenez) Confort ISWA WtE State of the Art Report 2012 Meilars Nantes Arc en Ciel Coueron /prov/rech/ser/1 Fos-surmer (Marseille) Fourchambault Guichainville Henin- Beaumont Issy-Les- Molineaux La Couronne atique//id/5460/prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/ E.pdf Waste Management Capacities 75

80 La Rochelle /prov/rech/ser/1 GLa Tronche La Tronche /prov/rech/ser/1 Aureade (La Veuve) La Veuve /prov/rech/ser/1 Labeuvrière La Rochelle Labeuvrière /prov/rech/ser/1 Lasse Sivert Lasse /prov/rech/ser/1 SET Mont-blanc (Passy) Le Fayet /prov/rech/ser/1 Le Mans Le Mans /prov/rech/ser/1 Sogad (Agen) /prov/rech/ser/1 Pau Lescar /prov/rech/ser/1 Limoges Limoges /prov/rech/ser/1 Bourg d'oisans Juratrom (Lons-le-Saunier) Le Passage Livet-et- Gavet Lons-le- Saunier atique//id/5614/prov/rech/ser/ Nancy Energie (Ludres) Ludres /prov/rech/ser/1 Lunel Viel Lunel-Viel /prov/rech/ser/1 Lyon Sud Lyon 7ème /prov/rech/ser/1 Orisane (Chartres) Mainvilliers /prov/rech/ser/1 Cluses/Marignier Marignier /prov/rech/ser/1 Massy Massy /prov/rech/ser/1 Maubeuge Maubeuge atique//id/5445/prov/rech/ser/1 Messanges /prov/rech/ser/1 Metz Metz /prov/rech/ser/1 Montauban Montauban /prov/rech/ser/1 Montbéliard Montereau Messanges Montbéliard Montereau Fault Yonne /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Monthyon (Somoval) Monthyon /prov/rech/ser/1 Mourenx Mourenx /prov/rech/ser/1 Valoréna (Nantes) Nantes (Loire Atlantique) /prov/rech/ser/1 76 Waste Management Capacities

81 Nice Nice /prov/rech/ser/1 Nîmes (EVOLIA) Nîmes /prov/rech/ser/1 Uiom Noidans le Ferroux Noyelles sous Lens Noidans le Ferroux Noyellessous-lens /prov/fiche /prov/rech/ser/1 Valoryele (Ouarville) Ouarville /prov/rech/ser/1 Ivry Paris /prov/rech/ser/1 Pithiviers Pithiviers /prov/rech/ser/1 Lamballe (Planguenoual) Paris (Ivrysur-Seine) Planguenoual (Côtes d'armor) /prov/rech/ser/1 Plouharnel Plouharnel /prov/rech/ser/1 Pluzunet Lannion Pluzunet /prov/rech/ser/1 Poitiers Poitiers /prov/rech/ser/1 Pontarlier Pontarlier /prov/rech/ser/1 Pontcharra Pontcharra /prov/rech/ser/1 Pontivy Pontivy /prov/rech/ser/1 Smeco (Pontmain) Born 2 (Pontenx) Sovvad (Rambervillers) Pontmain (Mayenne) Pontex-les- Forges Rambervillers /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Reims Reims /prov/rech/ser/1 Rennes Rennes /prov/rech/ser/1 Valorly (Lyon) Corrèze Incinération (Egletons) Rillieux La Pape Rosiers d'egletons /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Rungis Rungis /prov/rech/ser/1 Saint Jean de Folleville (Le Havre) /prov/rech/ser/1 Saint Ouen Saint Ouen /prov/rech/ser/1 Saint-ouen-l'aumone Saint Pierre Oléron Centre de Valorisation énergétique de Saint Saint Jean de Folleville Saintouenl'aumone St Pierre d'oléron Saint Saulve /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/ atique//id/6878/prov/rech/ser/1 Waste Management Capacities 77

82 Saulve Saint thibault-des-vignes Uiom de Salaise-sur-Saine St Thibault des Vignes Salaisesur-Saine /prov/rech/ser/ Uiom d'orléans Saran /prov/rech/ser/1 Sarcelles (Saren) Sarcelles /prov/rech/ser/1 Mulhouse 2 Schweighouse Sausheim (Haut Rhin) Schweigho use-sur- Moder (Bas Rhin) /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Sens Sens /prov/rech/ser/1 Sète Sète /prov/rech/ser/1 Strasbourg Strasbourg /prov/rech/ser/1 Paille Surgères Dinan 2 Taden /prov/rech/ser/1 Thiverval Grignon Thonon Les Bains Thiverval- Grignon Thonon Les Bains Cedex /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Tignes Tignes /prov/rech/ser/1 Toulon Toulon /prov/rech/ser/1 Setmi- Uiom de Toulouse Toulouse /prov/rech/ser/1 Meuse Energie (Tronville en Barrois) Vaux-le-Penil Tronville en Barrois Vaux-le- Penil /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Avignon Vedène /prov/rech/ser/1 Vernou-en-Sologne Vert le Grand Villefranche/Sâone Vernou-en- Sologne Vert le Grand Villefranche sur Sâone /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Villejust 1 Villejust /prov/rech/ser/1 Esiane (Villers Saint-Paul) Villers Saint Paul /prov/rech/ser/1 Vitré Vitré /prov/rech/ser/1 78 Waste Management Capacities

83 Uiom de Fort-de-france Uiom de Saint Barthelemy Hungary Fort-defrance (Martinique) Saint Barthelemy (Guadeloupe) /prov/rech/ser/ /prov/rech/ser/1 Budapest HHM Budapest HungarianWasteManagementPolicy.pdf Island Kirkjubæjarklaustri Kirkjubæjarklaustri Kirkjubæjar klaustri Kirkjubæjar klaustri Svinafell Svinafell mwaste.pdf Húsavík Húsavík mwaste.pdf Vestmannaeyjum Talknafjoerdur mwaste.pdf mwaste.pdf Isafjoerdur Isafjoerdur mwaste.pdf Reykjanes Reykjanes mwaste.pdf Italy Arezzo Arezzo /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Bergamo Bergamo /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Bolzano Bolzano /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df ASM Brescia S.p.A. Brescia /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Accam S.p.A: Castelnuovo Garfagnana Colleferro Busto Arsizio (VA) raedi_urgangs_island_1995_2008_heimasida.p df mwaste.pdf Vestmannaeyjum Talknafjoerdur Castelnuovo Garfagnana (LU) Colleferro (Roma) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df /files/segreteria_sindaco/piano_straordinario_ %20ATO%20COSTA%20allegato_alla_Delibe ra_n.3_del_ pdf /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df ACSM S.p.A. Como /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Waste Management Capacities 79

84 HERA S.p.A. Corteolona Coriano (RN) Corteolona (PV) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df azione/comunicati_stampa/anno_2011/settem bre/documenti_html/300911_impianti_aperti.ht ml Cremona Cremona did=92 Dalmine Brianza Energia Ambiente - B.E.A. S.p.A. Dalmine (BG) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Desio (MI) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Hera Ferrara S.r.l. Ferrara /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df HERA S.p.A. Forli /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Gioia Tauro F.E.A. S.r.l. Gioia Tauro (Reggio Calabria) Granarolo Emilia (BO) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Livorno Livorno /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Macchiareddu Macomer Massafra Macchiareddu (CA) Macomer (NU) Massafra (TA) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Melfi Fenice S.p.A. Melfi (PZ) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Mergozzo Mergozzo (VB) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Messinambiente S.p.A. Messina /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df AMSA - Azienda Milanese Servizi Ambientali S.p.A. Acerra Termomeccanica Ecologia S.p.A. Statte (TA) Milano /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Milano (Acerra) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Milano /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df 80 Waste Management Capacities

85 Hera S.p.A. Modena /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Montale/Agliana Ospedaletto Montale/Agliana (PT) Ospedaletto (PI) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Padova Padova /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Lomellina Energie Srl Parona (PV) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Tecnoporgo S.p.A. Piacenza /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Falascaia Poggibonsi Pietrasanta /LU) Poggibonsi (SI) Potenza Potenza Access /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df HERA S.p.A. Ravenna /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Enía S.p.A. Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti (Vergaser) Reggio Emilia /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Roma %20di%20Malagrotta.doc Energonut Spa Pozzilli Access 2013 A.E.R. S.p.A. San Vittore del Lazio Rufina/Pontas sieve (FI) San Vittore del Lazio (FR) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Schio (VI) Schio /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df CORE - Consorzio Recuperi Energetici S.p.A. Terni Tolentiono/Pollenza Sesto S. Giovanni (MI) Terni (außer Betrieb) Tolentino/Pollenz a (MC) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df e/com_ _greenasm.pdf /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Trezzo sull'adda Trezzo sull Waste Management Capacities 81

86 Acegas - APS S.p.A. Trieste /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Silea - Società Interconmunale Lecchese Per l'ecologia e l'ambiente per Azioni S.p.A. Valmedrar a (LC) /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Fusina Venezia /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Vercelli Vercelli /Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.p df Luxembourg E.ON Energy from Waste Leudelange Leudelang e Netherlands HVCavfalcentrale locatie Alkmaar Alkmaar Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) Afval Energie Bedrijf, AEC Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) ARN B.V. Beuningen Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) E.ON Energy from Waste Delfzijil B.V. HVCafvalcentrale locatie Dordrecht Delfzijl Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) Dordrecht Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) AVR Afvalverwerking B.V. Duiven Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) REC Harlingen Harlingen Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) Avfal Energie Centrale (AEC) Moerdijk Moerdijk Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) SITA ReEnergy Amsterdam Roosendaal Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) AVR Afvalverwerking Rijnmond Rotterdam Afvalverwerking Nederland, Gegevens 2011 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu) Norway Nordmøre Energigjenvinning KS Averøy BIR Avfallsenergi, Bergen Bergen artside.aspx FREVAR KF Frederikstad n.a. nleggetrestavfall/tabid/75/default.aspx 82 Waste Management Capacities

87 Bio-El Frederikstad Frederikstad s_artikkel.asp?artikkelid=1653 Eidsiva Bioenergi Hamar EU_Hamar_2012.pdf Senja Avfallselskap IKS Lenvik Haraldrud Energigjenvinningsanlegg Oslo (Haraldrud) mune.no/getfile.php/energigjenvinningsetaten %20(EGE)/Internett%20(EGE)/Sentrale%20do kumenter/ege_årsrapport_2011_web_1%20- %20endelig%20versjon.pdf Klemetsrud Energigjenvinningsanlegg Oslo (Klemetsru d) mune.no/getfile.php/energigjenvinningsetaten %20(EGE)/Internett%20(EGE)/Sentrale%20do kumenter/ege_årsrapport_2011_web_1%20- %20endelig%20versjon.pdf Returkraft AS Rakkestad pdf Forus Energigjenvinning Sandnes KS Østfold Energi A/S Sarpsborg A/Avfall/Avfallsanlegg-i-Ostfold/ Østfold Energi A/S Rakkestad A/Avfall/Avfallsanlegg-i-Ostfold/ Borregaard Waste to Energy Sarpsborg s_artikkel.asp?artikkelid=1654 Tafjord Kraftvarme A/S Spjelkavik CC7CF EF327FC7438F.ppt Heimdal varmesentral Trondheim CC7CF EF327FC7438F.ppt Hallingdal Renovasjon Ål Avfallsplan% forslag.docx Poland ZUSOK - Zaklad Unieszkodliwiania Stalych Odpadow Komunalnych Portugal Central de Valorização Energética - LIPOR II Solid Waste Treatment Stationof Meia Serra Central de Tratamento de Residuos Solidos Urbanos Sweden Warschau Moreira da Maia Access Madeira cgener/presenta/rup2012/brochure_rup_en.pd f São João da Talha, Lisboa /1/Tese%20Doutoramento%20Margarida %20M%20J%20Quina.pdf Källhagsverket i Avesta Avesta Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Waste Management Capacities 83

88 Värmeverket i Boden Boden Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Säverstaverket i Bollnäs Bollnäs Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Bäckelundsverket Borlänge Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Åmotfors energi AB Eda Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Eksjö Energi AB Eksjö Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Finspång Finspång Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Sävenäsverket i Göteborg Göteborg Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Halmstad Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Beleverket i Hässelholm Kristinehedsverket i Halmstad Hässleholm Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Jönköping Energi Jönköping Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Karlskoga Kraftvärmeverk Karlskoga Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Avfallsvärmeverket på Heden Karlstad Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Kils Energi AB Kil Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Kiruna Värmeverk Kiruna Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf SAKAB Kumla Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Norsaverket Köping Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Lidköpings Värmeverk Lidköping Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Gärstadverket i Linköping Linköping Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Ljungsjöverket i Ljungby Ljungby Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf 84 Waste Management Capacities

89 SYSAV Sydskånes Avfallsaktiebolag Utmeland Avfallsanläggning Malmö Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Mora Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Händelöverket Norrköping Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Stockholm Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Bristaverket Stockholm Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Korstaverket i Sundsvall Sundsvall Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Igelstaverket Södertälje Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Lillesjöverket Uddevalla Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Dåva kraftvärmeverk Umea Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Vattenfall Värme Uppsala AB Stegeholmsverket i Västervik Uppsala Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Västervik Rapporter/Förbränning/F pdf Slovakia OLO, a.s., zavod Spalovna Bratislava odpadu Kosit a.s. Kosice United Kingdom Teesside EfW Plant Billingham m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Tyseley Waste Disposal Ltd Högdalenverket i Stockholm Birmingham m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Bolton Thermal Recovery Facility Bolton m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Chineham Chineham m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Waste Management Capacities 85

90 Lakeside Energy from Waste Ltd Colnbrook m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Coventry & Solihull Coventry m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Douglas(Isle of Man) Douglas (Isle of Man) ver/what-are-wedoing/downloads/incineration.pdf Dudley Dudley m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Dargavel Stores (Vergaser) Dumfries ment.pdf, ent/pioneering-waste-plant-faces-legal-actionafter-pollution-leaks-and-anexplosion Dundee Dundee ver/what-are-wedoing/downloads/incineration.pdf Newhaven nning/applications/erf/default.htm Grimsby Grimsby m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Kirklees East Sussex Huddersfield m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Edmonton London m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Riverside Resource Recovery Belvedere (London Borough of Bexley) sideresourcerecovery.htm Kent enviropower Allington, Maidstone m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Marchwood ERF SELCHP London ver/what-are-wedoing/downloads/incineration.pdf Marchwood, Southham pton m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf 86 Waste Management Capacities

91 Eastcroft Energy from Waste Facility m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Portsmouth ERF Nottingham Portsmouth m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Sheffield ERF Sheffield m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Lerwick Energy Recovery Plant La Collette Stoke on Trent Shetland Islands St Helier Jersey Stoke on Trent ntfirstburn.aspx m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Wolverhampton ver/what-are-wedoing/downloads/incineration.pdf Wolverhampton m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Isles of Scilly Isles of Scilly m/uploads/attachment_data/file/181825/pb incineration-municipal-waste.pdf.pdf Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Slovenia and Malta no incineration plants city%20and%20waste%20shipping%20in%20 Europe%20the%20end%20of%20the%20proximi ty%20principle%20-january% pdf Estonia, Croatia, Ireland no incineration plants ng-municipal-solid-waste Source: compiled by the authors according to sources in the table itself Waste Management Capacities 87

92 Annex 5 Incineration capacity in 2010: maps South-Eastern Europe is not included, because there are no incineration plants available as shown in Map 2.1. The legend for the maps is the same as used in Map 2.1. Map A5.1 Incineration plants in Southern Europe Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 3 88 Waste Management Capacities

93 Map A5.2 Incineration plants in Western Europe Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 3 Waste Management Capacities 89

94 Map A5.3 Incineration plants in Central Europe Source: compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 3 90 Waste Management Capacities

95 Map A5.4 Incineration plants in Northern Europe Source: Compiled by the authors according to data in Annex 3 Waste Management Capacities 91