HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Agenda Item No.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PANEL
THURSDAY 29 JUNE 2006 at 2.00 P.M.
2
HERTFORDSHIRE WASTE PARTNERSHIP STUDY TOUR TO WASTE
TREATMENT SITES IN GERMANY
Report of the Director of Environment
Author: Matthew Evans
Tel: 01992 556174
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley
1.
Purpose of report
1.1
To summarise to the Panel the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership’s
(HWP) waste treatment study tour to Germany and explain how it links
with the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Hertfordshire.
2.
Background
2.1
Between 22-24 May a group of Officers and Councillors representing the
Hertfordshire Waste Partnership (HWP) travelled to Germany to visit
waste disposal/treatment sites. The trip was facilitated by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) Waste
Implementation Programme (WIP).
2.2
The trip was organised to help implementation of the Hertfordshire Joint
Municipal Waste Management Strategy, part of which involves
delivering future waste disposal infrastructure for Hertfordshire. The trip
entailed visiting working examples of some of the potential disposal
options available to Hertfordshire to assist with the diversion of
biodegradable waste from landfill. These facilities were unavailable in
the UK or were only available on a limited scale.
2.4
The following were the main objectives of the visits:
 Understand how the plants operate and perform, particularly against
the recycling/landfill diversion targets Hertfordshire faces
 Form an impression of their environmental impacts
 Understand the economics of the processes (given that it would be
within the German context)
 Assess their potential use in Hertfordshire set against the planning
framework, public opinion and the urgency of the Hertfordshire
situation.
533544536
1
3.
The Sites
3.1
Four sites were visited, each treating residual Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), including 3 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plants and
an Energy from Waste (EfW) plant. All sites were receiving residual
waste collected from within areas where kerbside recycling initiatives
were in operation.
3.2
MBT is a generic term encompassing a variety of technologies, but all of
which involve some sort of mechanical sorting and separating of the
waste and also a biological treatment of the waste to change its form.
The aim is to treat and separate out MSW into useable fractions for
materials and/or energy recovery.
3.3
The MBT plants all involved a mechanical sorting and preparation
process and biological treatment although the order and technicalities of
these processes differed. Each produced a combination of the following
outputs: material for recycling (possibly including inert material to
landfill), a stabilised material which can be landfilled and a fuel. The
output produced is dependant on the particular process used which, in
turn, is driven by the requirements of the ‘customer’.
3.4
Herhof Biodrying MBT (Osnabruck)
 pre-shredding
 aerobic digestion (Biodrying) – using the natural biological activity
within waste to generate heat and dry the waste
 mechanical separation
 metals recycling
 inert material separation (used in landfill engineering)
 RDF production
Issues (negative):
Limited holding capacity (inflexible in the case of breakdown)
Biological element of RDF minimally reduced should an outlet not be
found for the RDF and it subsequently landfilled
Issues (positive):
No apparent odours or excessive noise
As heavy metals are removed before the RDF is produced, less onerous
cleaning of exhaust fumes required compared to traditional EfW.
Not a large footprint
3.5
Pohlsche Heide Anaerobic Digestion MBT
Located at a landfill site which had vast amount of void space
Included separate composting facility on site
 Shredding and sieving
 Mechanical separation – metal separation
 Size separation (<60mm directly to biological; >60mm organic
fraction and mineral component further separated with sieve and
then further shredding
533544536
2

Anaerobic digestion – methane into Combined Heat and Power
Plant (CHP); 0.5MW of electricity and heat used on site
 Aerobic digestion – (composting) and sent to landfill as stabilised
 Bio-stabilised waste to landfill
 RDF to commercial gasification plant
Issues (negative):
Large footprint (waste is retained on site for 10 weeks)
1/3 of total input sent to landfill (requiring landfill void)
Issues (positive):
Low building and stack
3.6
Neumunster MBT with Biodegma process
 Mechanical separation (sieving of high calorific fraction. <80mm
further processed removing metals and sent to in-vessel
composting (aerobic digestion))
 Aerobic digestion (material dried and further refined to produce a
fuel)
 >80mm further crushed and metals and contaminated materials
separated. Fed into Neumunster CHP.
Issues (negative):
Poor quality of material separated for recycling
Issues (positive):
3.7
Hamburg Energy from Waste
 Traditional energy from waste plant
 Two incinerator units with grate firing and waste throughput of
21.5t/hour – can be operated independently of each other
 Metal removed for recycling
 Bottom ash stored then used as aggregate
 Provides heat and power for local residents and industry
 Electricity sold and exported to grid
Issues (negative):
Large stack
Issues (positive):
Requires no further disposal outlet other than small amount to landfill
3.8
Appendix 1 summarises the key data for each site.
4.
Relevant points to consider
4.1
All of the plants used gas cleaning systems to remove pollutants from
the exhaust gas or to reduce its carbon content.
4.2
It should be noted that in Germany the Landfill Directive was
implemented differently from the UK in that, from June 2005, untreated
waste could no longer be sent to landfill. This resulted in a saturation of
the market with new RDF and a lack of capacity to use it as a fuel.
Whilst this was particular to the German industry, it illustrated the
sensitivity of MBT to the RDF market. MBT plants which produce a RDF
533544536
3
will require an outlet to burn it and without such an outlet, the MBT
facility will not sufficiently divert BMW from landfill.
4.3
Possible outlets for RDF in the UK at the present time are limited to
Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP) and cement kilns, although
Defra are working towards improving the UK RDF market.
4.4
Hertfordshire faces a time pressure as a result of the Landfill Allowance
Trading Scheme (LATS), meaning that it is likely that some form of
disposal/treatment facility will be needed by 20011/12. This places
restrictions on the type of facility which could be made operational within
this timeframe.
Taking into account current waste projections for Hertfordshire, it is
anticipated that by 2012 there could be 300,000 tonnes of waste
requiring treatment and disposal.
5.
Conclusion
5.1
At the closing discussion of the study tour, it was felt that communication
with the public will clearly be a very important aspect of delivering waste
disposal facilities for Hertfordshire. The WasteAware team has begun
working with Communications to develop a communications strategy.
5.2
The Waste Disposal Options paper, produced as part of the Waste
Strategy review, will be considered in light of the treatment facilities
viewed on the study tour.
5.3
This report, together with any further advice or views of the Panel, could
be made available to each of the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership
authorities for information.
6.
Financial Implications
6.1
There are no financial implications of this report.
533544536
4
Appendix 1: Summary of key data for each waste treatment site
Type
Input
Tonnage
(per year)
Feedstock
Output
Capital
Cost (€)
Gate Fee (€
per tonne)
MBT
Osnabruck
Biodrying
90,000
MSW
53% RDF
30% condensate
12% inert (landfilled)
5% Metal (recycled)
€25
million
MBT Minden
Polsche
Heide
Anaerobic
followed by
aerobic
digestion
100,000
40% MSW
40% commercial
12.5% sewage
sludge
7.5% other
sludges
33.5% stabilised material to
landfill
32% RDF
16.5% moisture losses
8.3 % miscellaneous
2.5% metals
€26
million
€78 (low due
to the plant
being taken
over from
another
company that
went into
insolvency)
€ 140
MBT
Neumunster
Aerobic
digestion
260,000
200,000 MSW
60,000
commercial
€40
million
€90-100
Hamburg
EfW
Conventional
incineration
320,000
MSW
40% RDF to ChP
12% biostabilised material to
landfill
10% inerts
5% rejects (landfill)
5% light plastics (fuel or
recycled)
3-5% metals recycled
22.5% bottom ash (used as
aggregate)
2.7% metal recycled
1.9% fly ash landfill
1.3% Hydrochloric acid sold and
recycled
0.6% salts to mine storage
0.3% gypsum landfilled
Heat and power to local
residents and industry
Electricity sold to the grid
€230
million
€ 130
Fee To
Burn
RDF (€
per
tonne)
€50-60
Land Area
unknown
€50-70
Total (incl
landfill):
800,000 m²
Buildings:
11,500 m²
Traffic area:
14,500 m²
unknown
Not
applicable
Total site:
63,000 m²
Total site:
20,210 m²
Buildings:
6,063 m²
533544536
5