Industry

MRF gate fees rise and AD doubles, says WRAP

According to a new report released by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), material recovery facility (MRF) gate fees have increased in the previous twelve months, while the number of local authorities surveyed who use anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities has almost doubled.

The news comes as part of WRAP’s seventh annual gate fees report, ‘Comparing the Costs of Alternative Waste Treatment Options’, which aims‘to increase transparency and improve efficiency in the waste management market’.

The report collates data from a survey targeting local authorities, private sector operators of waste management facilities and senior managers of large waste management companies operating in the UK.

The findings show that the overall UK median MRF gate fee paid by local authorities rose marginally to £10 per tonne this year, compared to £9 the previous year.

However, WRAP also notes, based upon survey responses, that the uptake of AD technology by local authorities has increased over the last twelve months: almost twice the number of local authorities reported using AD facilities in the current survey than in the previous survey.

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) and Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) technologies

A greater number of local authorities reported data for MBT or MHT, which WRAP suggests ‘may indicate greater uptake of MBT/MHT technologies or for more facilities coming on-stream’.

Indeed, the report states that 42 local authorities that took part in the survey now utilise MBT technology.

Currently, the median MBT/MHT gate fee is £84 per tonne, up from £76 per tonne last year’s survey.

Organic waste

The report also shows that the Open Air Windrow (OAW) composting gate fee remains unchanged at £24 per tonne as does In-Vessel Composting (IVC) of ‘mixed food and green waste’ (at £46 per tonne), whereas the IVC median for ‘green waste only’ remains at £27 per tonne. 

Similarly, the report shows that the median gate fee paid for treating food waste at AD facilities ‘remains steady’ at £40 per tonne, but varies between a range of £19 to £63.

The median gate fee for waste wood collected at Household Waste Recycling Centre’s (HWRC) increased marginally to £32 per tonne.

Energy from waste (EfW) and landfill

WRAP states that the average gate fee paid at EfW facilities was at £96 per tonne, showing an increase of £6 on the previous year. 

However, the report highlights that the sample of gate fees paid by local authorities at EfW facilities continues to depend on the age of the facility with the median cost at facilities built before 2000 remaining unchanged at £58 per tonne, and higher prices charged at plants built after 2000.

The median gate fee for non-hazardous waste to landfill increased to £102 per tonne, made up of a gate fee of £22 per tonne (up by £1 per tonne since last year) plus £80 per tonne in landfill tax (up by £8 per tonne since last year).

MRF complexities

WRAP’s report emphasises the issue that the pricing of municipal waste management services ‘can be complex’.

The report suggests that the summary statistics, such as the median MRF gate fee, should be used with caution in comparison to year to year changes.

It also highlighted that around 35 per cent of local authorities responding to the survey are not paying gate fees, and while local authorities outside England reported less data, and where data was provided it suggested that median MRF gate fees are higher in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Commenting on the release of the report, Marcus Gover, Director WRAP said: “Many factors influence individual gate fees and so costs vary substantially, both regionally and for the same types of treatment.

“In the case of MRFs, the range of gate fees is much broader than for other technologies and while some local authorities report receiving as much as £100 per tonne in income for their unsorted recyclate, others report paying up to £96 per tonne for their material to be sorted.

“This variation is related to a number of different factors which we outline in today’s report, which attempts to bring greater clarity to this very complex situation.”

Read 'Comparing the Costs of Alternative Waste Treatment Options'.