ITEM 5 PAPER NO. WRWA 863 WESTERN RIVERSIDE WASTE AUTHORITY 19th September 2018 MEETING General Manager REPORT (Contact Mark Broxup - Tel. 020 8871 2788) AUTHOR/DATE 11th September 2018 SUBJECT Report outlining progress with operations and other matters since the previous meeting of the Authority. Page 1 Executive Summary Pages 1 to 9 Items reported on Page 9 Recommendations Pages 10 -20 Appendix A - Performance Monitoring Tables Pages 21-28 Appendix B – WRWA/Cory Joint Statement and CONTENTS Fact Sheets in response to LGA statement on plastics. Pages 29-62 Appendix C – Ricardo 1st report – Joint Waste Policy Support Pages 63-113 Appendix D – Ricardo 2nd report – Joint Waste Policy Support STATUS Open BACKGROUND None PAPERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. This paper brings Members up to date on operational and other matters which, in themselves, do not warrant production of a separate paper. The majority of these matters are for Members' information, but where approval is sought this is referred to in the report. The specific matters covered in this report are:- a) Operations b) Performance Monitoring c) Joint Statement in response to LGA’s report on Problems with Plastic Recycling d) Joint Waste Policy Support e) End of the line Waste Avoidance/Reduction Campaign f) Constituent Council New Recycling Initiatives g) English Resources and Waste Strategy h) Cory Riverside Energy’s plan for a new Energy Park i) Autumn Open Day for Residents j) Members Visit to Belvedere k) Items costing between £5,000 and £30,000 OPERATIONS Transfer Stations/ Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) 2. There has been no major disruption in service to the main Transfer Stations’ operations since the last Authority meeting. PERFORMANCE MONITORING Introduction 3. Detailed performance monitoring is shown at Appendix A to this report. The tables shown set out: a. the tonnages of each waste type (including co-mingled recycling contamination) delivered by each constituent council in the current financial year to date, together with projected outturn tonnages, compared against those budgeted for and the previous financial year’s outturn; 1 b. the projected annual cost for each commodity, compared to what these would be if the Authority’s budgeted tonnage of each commodity was received; c. forecast tonnages for future years, adjusted simply by the number of working days in each year; the major waste type and co-mingled contamination tonnages are also shown on a monthly as well as an annual basis; d. comparisons of the tonnage of each major waste type handled by each constituent council on an annual basis; e. comparisons by borough of the tonnages of Locally Authority Collected Waste (LACW), household and non-household waste, household waste arisings per dwelling and per person; and f. weight-based recycling performance on a household and LACW basis. Points to Highlight 4. Whilst General Waste (the residual waste that cannot be reused or recycled and is sent for energy recovery) accounts for around 77% of the delivered waste stream, it accounts for almost 93% of the Authority’s costs after allowing for the treatment of the contamination within the co-mingled recycling. By comparison co-mingled recycling represents 18% of the delivered tonnage, but only accounts for 4% of the Authority’s costs. 5. From tonnage data to date we are predicting a 1.7% reduction in total waste handled by the Authority in 2018/19 from that budgeted for and a 2.6% reduction in General Waste. The levels of reductions vary across the constituent councils with, for example, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea predicted to have 3.1% and 1.3% reductions in General Waste respectively. 6. General Waste for 2018/19 at the Household Waste and Recycling Centre is currently forecast to be over 19% below that predicted in the budget and the total waste figure is down by around 8% (possibly due to General Waste successfully being diverted into the reuse and recycling waste streams). However, these figures could change in time as there is a great deal of seasonality in the HWRC figures, with the 2 prolonged spell of hot weather experienced this summer likely to be a factor in this reduction. 7. The tonnage of co-mingled recycling collected by Lambeth is down on the forecast for 2018/19, by nearly 2%, with Kensington and Chelsea’s and Hammersmith & Fulham’s down by around 1%. In contrast, Wandsworth’s co-mingled recycling tonnage is forecast to be up by 1% on that originally forecast for the year. Contamination levels are generally better than the corresponding period last year, with an overall figure of 14.1% now predicted for 2018/19. JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION’S STATEMENT ON PROBLEMS WITH PLASTIC RECYCLING 8. On 4th August 2018 the Local Government Association (LGA) issued a statement concerning the problems associated with the recycling of plastic waste, suggesting that two-thirds of plastics are not recyclable, and they are calling for manufacturers to work with councils to develop a plan to stop unrecyclable packaging from entering the environment in the first place. Further information can be found here: https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/two-thirds-plastic-packaging-pots-and- trays-unrecyclable 9. The Authority and Cory prepared a joint statement in response to the LGA’s statement and also produced fact sheets that provide detailed information on how materials are recycled, where they are recycled and what products are made from the recycled material. Copies of both the joint statement and the fact sheets are attached at Appendix B and are available on the Authority’s website. JOINT WASTE POLICY SUPPORT 10. In June 2017, the Authority considered a Recycling Performance report (Paper No. WRWA 832) which led to a seminar being held for Authority Members on 14th September 2017, the outcomes of which were discussed at the Authority’s September 2017 meeting (Paper No. WRWA 838). Authority officers subsequently met with officers from the constituent councils, on 4th October 2017, to discuss the matter further. 11. In January 2018, following a procurement exercise as detailed at the last Authority meeting (Paper No. WRWA 850), Ricardo were appointed to advise on: 3 i. the accuracy of the data used to prepare Paper No. WRWA 832 and the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from it; ii. any differences in performance between the constituent councils on different waste types; iii. the suitability of having a range of performance targets, as opposed to the current ‘one size fits all’ weight-based recycling targets; iv. the enhancement of the current recycling programme, with a new focus on a number of waste minimisation initiatives; and v. building on the work detailed in i) to iv) above, to draft a new joint waste policy for the Authority and its constituent councils. 12. Two reports from Ricardo, which cover points i) to iv) above, are attached as Appendices C and D, respectively, to this report. 13. The Ricardo reports’ confirm the accuracy of the data used by officers to prepare Paper No. WRWA 832 and the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from it. The Ricardo reports are very comprehensive but officers would wish to highlight the following points: a) waste prevention/minimisation, including reuse, is a more effective intervention, since, by removing or reducing the demand for goods, it maximises the reduction in demand for raw materials and the associated environmental impact of their production. The Authority’s proposal for the consideration of material specific campaigns to minimise the volume of waste discarded by residents, as outlined in Paper No. WRWA 842 in June 2017, would reduce not only the level of material wasted by residents, but would also represent a saving for residents against the purchasing costs involved. This approach would reduce the carbon impact of these wastes, whether introduced as stand-alone initiatives or in conjunction with the introduction of dedicated collection services. b) given their built environment and demographics, the Authority and its constituent councils generally perform well in comparison to London as a whole and the rest of the UK in terms of dry recycling performance. The 2015 ‘At This Rate’ report by SITA (now Suez) noted that the highest reported recycling rate for authorities with a proportion of multi-occupancy 4 dwellings of above 50% was 39%. In 2016/17 WRWA recorded a capture rate of 34% with a multi-occupancy rate of 73%; c) the lack of garden waste available constrains the Authority and its constituent councils overall weight-based recycling rate, which is a combination of dry and organic recycling. As a result, the level of recycling performance contrasts poorly with outer London and England, where garden waste tonnages are more easily available; d) consideration of alternative methodologies for measuring the best environmental option for each material stream would enable more appropriate targets to be set which would better reflect the performance in the Authority’s area, whilst also demonstrating environmental best practice. For example reducing or recycling textiles and WEEE would generate significant carbon savings but would contribute very little to weight based recycling targets. e) conversely, food and garden waste recycling would only result in small (if any) carbon savings although they might make a greater, but probably still modest, contribution to weight bases targets. The reports highlight that the carbon benefits of treating food waste by Anaerobic Digestion are small when compared to EfW and would be reduced further, or possibly disappear completely, after factoring in the carbon impact of the necessary additional collection services, transport from WTS to reprocessor, delivery of containers (including regular delivery of liners), and the embedded carbon in the containers provided. Utilising the Waste & Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) mean capture rate for food waste recycling, suggests it would be also be difficult to achieve a five percentage point increase from the Authority’s current weight based recycling rate of around 26.5% to 31.5%.