Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    57 Figure A -14: Example of calculation of municipal waste landfilling target  calculation

A.2.6  Metals from incinerator bottom a sh (IBA)
Article 11a(6) in the WFD  states  that recycled metals separated after incineration of
municipal waste  can be included in the reporting of  performance against  the metal municipal
waste  recycling targets:
“For the purposes of calculating whether the targets laid down in points I,
(d) and I of Article 11(2) and in Article 11(3) have been attained, Member
States may take into account the recycling of metals separated after
incineration of municipal waste provi ded that the recycled metals meet
certain quality criteria laid down in the implementing act adopted pursuant
to paragraph 9 of this Article. .”
This section provides further guidance on the use of the relevant calculation methodology , as
set out in Annex I II of Decision 2019/1004 .
A.2.6.1  Correctly identifying the calculation point
Figure A -15 shows the key flows of metals .
(Landfilling + (Incineration Disposal –
Material recovery of waste from incineration
disposal)) / Waste Generation %


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    58 Figure A -15: Key Metal Flows  in IBA Processing, and the Calculation Point (CP)

Source: CEWEP
Waste s from a range of sources (municipal, commercial and industrial) are input to municipal
solid waste incinerators at point 1. At this  point, due to the mixing of wastes, it may no longer
be possible to identify the source of the waste .
The output of the incinerator  includes incinerator bottom ash (IBA), which contains , among
other things,  metallic elements. Some processing of the IBA may occur on site. The most
common approach is to extract ferrous (Fe) metals using  over-band magnets. Although steel
is a Fe metal, Stainless Steel (StS) is not magnetic , and so is not  extracted using over-band
magnets  but is identified and extracted  separately. Some facilities now also extract non -
ferrous (N fe) metals  using eddy -current separators ; however, this is less common , and most
operators cho ose to send IBA to dedicated processors.
At dedicated IBA p rocessing sites, the IBA is usually separated into an aggregate fraction  –
for use as a secondary raw material  – and two metallic fractions, Fe and a N fe concentrate,
the latter including light and heavy N fe metals and StS. The Fe fraction is further proce ssed
into different fractions for sale as varying grades, with different technical specifications, to
steel plants. The N fe concentrate is sent to further metal recovery companies that specialise
in extracting different metals from a metal concentrate. The  processes  used  result in a large
number of different fractions, of different metals and particle sizes. The light N fe fraction  is
almost exclusively aluminium. The heavy N fe fraction include s StS, brass, zinc and other
metals.
Based on this material flow,  and in-line with the calculation point s for other metals (see
Section A.2.2.4 ), the calculation point  for metals from IBA, should be:
• Sorted metal that does not undergo further processing before entering a metal smelter
or furnace .
CP

C:\Users\alvar\Desktop\UCM-TFM-G1\data\LLM\pdfs\Guidance on municipal waste data collection.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    59 This calculation point comes at  data c ollection point 3 in Figure A -15, at which only the
weight of metal that is actually recycled  is measured , therefore tak ing any losses into
account. Exam ples of  losses are discussed in the next section.
A.2.6.2  Allowable  measurement m ethod s and obtaining d ata at the measurement
point s
The measurement method for metals from IBA is set out in Annex III of Decision 2019/1004 .
The method is designed to take into account the fact that , at the point of input to a furnace or
smelter , it may not be possible to determine the source of the material. Therefore,
measurement point s are set to measure the metallic outputs from IBA proce ssing that are
sent to furnaces and smelters, with the amount adjusted to take the source of the waste into
account.
It is also important to note that, for the aluminium and steel packaging waste  recycling
targets, the weight of material counted as recycle d is not ‘pure’ metal, but an aluminium or
steel product that may contain alloying elements account ing for a few percent of the total
mass of the metal. These alloying elements are an integral part of the material, and are
desired by manufacturers who will  mainly use alloyed materials in their products. Th erefore ,
the alloys should not be deducted from the weight of aluminium or steel recycled.
The measurement method is described under the following steps.
1. Gather data on the annual tonnages of metal concent rates  from facilities that
separate metal concentrates from raw IBA. Ferrous fractions can be reported under
the ‘Steel’ municipal waste  fraction – along with StS  – and the aluminium  fraction in
the metal concentrate under the ‘Aluminium ’ municipal waste  fraction.
2. Use the f ormula in Paragraph 4 of Annex III of Decision 2019/1004  (shown below)  to
calculate the co ncentration of metals  needed to adjust the total metal concentrate
figure s captured under point  1 above , which will approximate  the concentration of
ferrous metals and aluminium resulting from the processing of metal concentrates
extracted from facilities that separate metal concentrates from IBA ‘C’ means
concentration and ‘m’  means mass (see Annex III of Decision 2019/1004 for the full
list of formula definitions ).

For example, a specific facility determines that for NFe, 5,600 tonnes of IBA NFe metal
concentrates is produced in a given year. 1,960 tonnes of this are non -metallic. This
means that 3,640 tonnes are NFe metals. This gives a NFe metal concentration of
65%.
For Fe, it is determined that 45,000 tonnes of IBA Fe metal concentrates are produced
in a given year. 2,250 tonnes of this are non -metallic. This means that 42,750 tonnes
are Fe metals. This gives a Fe metal concentration of 95%.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    60 3. As per Annex III o f Decision 2019/1004 , concentrations  shall be calculated using data
collected through  regular surveys of facilities that process metal concentrates , and
from other facilities that use metals separated from IBA to produce metal products.
Calculating the  concentrations  require s an understanding of total plant input s and
total metallic content. Th ese can be determined by studies, spot sampling or purity
data available at the treatment plant s based on metal concentrate sale s (e.g. metal
concentrate sale s as a proportion of total plant input). According to stakeholders,
metal concentrates data should be available at the plant level for the three main
fractions : Fe, N fe and StS. At the Member State level , a mean  concentration [plus o r
minus a percentage]  for each of the three key categories should be calculated . When
calculating each mean value, this should be done at the 95% confidence interval , to
show the range of values  (margin of error)  expected at this level of confidence.
Furth er guidance on this is provided in the box below.  Where sampling has been
used to determine the metallic element of the concentrate, the  resulting value  should
be statistically significant (i.e. the data should be tested for statistical significance to
see if the outcome is due to something other than chance , and is therefore a
significant result) and sampling should be repeated at least every 3 years.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    61
4. Apply the coefficients under step 3 to the total amounts of metal concentrate captured
under step 1 to estimate the total amount of steel and aluminium recycled from IBA.
5. Use the formula under Paragraph 5 of Annex III of Decision 2019/1004  to estimate
the mass of re cycled metals  originating from municipal waste  in all recycled metals
separated from IBA. This effectively applies a further coefficient (proportion of
municipal waste ) to the figure s calculated under step 4. The coefficient should be Mean and ‘Confidence Int erval ’ Calculation Example for IBA Metal Concentrates
Member States should calculate the mean concentrat ion and margin of error  at a 95%
confidence level for each metal. They should do this using the concentrations calculated
for each facility, as shown in step 2 above. The followi ng formula should be used:
𝑥̅ ± 1.96𝑠
√𝑛
Where 𝑥̅ represents the mean metal concentration, 𝑠 represents the standard deviation
and 𝑛 represents the number of facilities sampled. The standard deviation of the metal
concentration 𝑥, is calculated using th e following formulae:
𝑠= √∑|𝑥−𝑥̅|2
𝑛 −1
For example, if 5 facilities sampled give NFe concentrations of 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.68 and
0.72, then the mean 𝑥̅ is calculated as:
(0.65 +0.7+0.75+0.68+0.72)
5 = 0.7
The standard deviation 𝑠 is calculated as:
√(0.65−0.7)2 + (0.7−0.7)2 + (0.75−0.7)2 + (0.68−0.7)2 + (0.72−0.7)2
5 −1  = 0.038
The 95% confidence interval is then calculated as:
0.7 ± 1.960.038
√5
This example gives a final NFe concentration coefficient for the Member State of 0.7 ±
0.03 at the 95% confidence level.
Member States should apply the mean and 95% confidence interval coefficients for the
concentration of metals to the total amounts of m etal concentrate captured, to produce a
total amount of IBA metals and a 95% confidence interval for it at the national level. For
example, if the Member State in the example given here had a total annual tonnage of
100,000 tonnes of metal concentrate, the  total IBA NFe metals would be 70,000 tonnes
with a 95% confidence interval (margin of error) of plus or minus 3,000 tonnes. The same
steps should be followed to produce the mean metals concentration and 95% confidence
interval for Fe metals.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    62 calculated at the Member State level ; however, it may be derived from weighted
coefficients sourced from specific facilities.
6. As per Annex III of Decision 2019/1004 , the concentration of metals in the incinerated
waste  shall be determined through sampling surveys of the waste that enters the
incineration operation, which shall be carried out at least every five years and
when ever there are reasons to expect that the composition of the incinerated waste
has significantly changed.
7. Such sampling already exists in several Member States. For example,  in Belgium,
incinerator  operators are required to sample inputs to determine the overall
packaging proportion, and in Estonia incinerator operators are required  to sample 4
times  per year  to determine the proportion of biodegradable wastes as relate to
national renewable energy support schemes. Therefore, input sampling surveys can
be carried out without critical impact on incinerator s; however , some stakeholders
have indicated the costs can be high . Under Article 8a (4a) of the Waste Framework
Directive – Extended Producer Responsibility – there is a requirement on EPR
organisations to ensure financial contributions cover the costs of data gathe ring and
reporting for reporting against targets. The reporting of metals collected from IBA is
relevant to reporting against the packaging element of municipal and packaging
waste targets, therefore part of any incinerator  sampling could  be carried out th rough ,
or part -funded by, national government  or packaging waste  EPR schemes (relating to
municipal waste ) to help minimise the burden  of sampling on  industry . The approach
should be risk based ; for example, initially a survey should be carried out on an
annual basis , and  if the variation in the data is small, the survey could then be carried
out on a two yearly basis, and again on a five yearly basis. If any surveys see a
significant change in the proportions, sampling on an annual basis should start again .
8. The consequence of not carrying out these surveys is that the proportion of municipal
waste  is inaccurate, and either over or understates the amount recycled.
9. Finally, an adjustment factor may be needed to address the reduction in the amount
of material  passing through a n incinerator . For example, tin plate is oxidised from the
surface of steel cans and thin aluminium foils also oxidise to some extent (see further
detail  in Section A.2.6.3  below ). Therefore, if the input to a n incinerator  alone is used
in the calculation, this would not take such effects into account and may over or
underestimate the amount of material counted f or under the recycling targets. This
may be particularly relevant for the aluminium municipal waste  target, where thin
municipal waste  foils are more subject to these issues, thereby reducing the relative
proportion of the recovered light N fe metals that a re from municipal waste  sources
compared to the input.  Member States should seek to assess the signi ficance of such
losses through reviewing relevant evidence and mak ing the necessary adjustments .
A description of the methodological approach(es) taken should be provided  under question
3.2.11 of the Quality Report.  Where sampling has been used to determine the metallic


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    63 element of the concentrate  or the proportion of municipal waste, details of the sa mpling
procedure used should be reported, including:
• The percentage of total national sites sampled (i.e. incinerator s, facilities that process
metal concentrates , and other facilities that use metals separated from IBA to
produce metal products , or).
• How the sample sites were selected.
• The number of samples taken at each site and across all sites.
• How the samples were taken.
For reporting of data under the new rules from 2021, where surveys of incinerator plants,
bottom ash and metal concentrates do not currently exist, Member States may use average
values from the survey results under the measurement method study (see Section 6.0  Task
4 of the final study report).25
A.2.6.3  Losses within the incine ration p rocess
Metals passing through incinerators undergo, t o varying degrees, a number of physical and
chemical transformations. The extent of the transformations depends on the physical and
chemical structures of the metals themselves and how they tolerate the conditions (such as
high temperatures and varying lev els of oxygen) to which they are exposed during the
incineration process. These transformations are important to consider in the context of metal
municipal waste  because:
• They may reduce the volume of metals which end up in IBA;
• They may alter the propert ies of metals in a way which affects the efficiency of their
removal and subsequent recycling; and
• The effects may vary across municipal waste  and non -municipal waste streams (where
relevant material -specific recycling rates apply).
This could have implic ations for the calculation of the recycling rate for metal municipal waste
that is incinerated. Although all metals will undergo transformation to some extent, aluminium
is of particular interest because it is commonly used for packaging of consumer goods and
so is commonly found in municipal waste,  and is one of the metals commonly removed from
IBA for recycling.
The literature indicates that several small -scale laboratory and site -based tests have been
conducted on how aluminium behaves through the incineration and IBA treatment process es.
There is still, however, a degree of uncertainty around the exact way losses may occur in the
incinerator. The main transformations that aluminium can undergo are as follows:
• The presence of oxygen and high tempera tures means that the exposed aluminium
may undergo oxidation into aluminium oxide.  Aluminium will melt at around 660°C, and

25 Eunomia et al (2019) Study to Support the Implementation of Reporting Obligations Resulting from the New
Waste Legislation Adopted in 2018 , Final Report for the European Commission DG Environment under
Framework Contract No ENV.B.3/FRA/2017/0005, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication -detail/ -
/publication/3d72ef00 -bcac -11e9 -9d01 -01aa75ed71a1


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    64 this melt often gains an aluminium oxide skin that encloses it, protecting it from further
oxidation. 26 This aluminium will form nuggets which will be present in the IBA .
• Very fine particles of aluminium/aluminium oxide can be carried up the flue of the
incinerator due to convection, and will be transferred mainly into air pollution control
residues (APCR).  27
• Some aluminium will react with nitrogen in the air to form aluminium nitride, occurring
at around 900°C. 28  It is not clear to what extent this is lost via the flue or whether it
remains in the IBA (and if it is in the flue gas, whether it may be foun d in APCR).
• Some aluminium will be lost as a result of volatilisation. 29
Several of the  aforementioned  tests have sought to determine the influence of different
factors on the rates of oxidation and loss to volatilisation/ APCR . Factors which influence
these transformations include:
• The characteristics of the metal municipal waste  itself:
o Surface area to volume ratio. Large pieces of metal which have a small surface
area relative to their total mass will experience limited oxidation, whereas small
thin pi eces of metal with large surface areas will experience far more pronounced,
or even complete, oxidation .
o Particle size is an important factor in oxidation (the greater the particle size the
lower the rate of oxidation), and some studies have found thickne ss to be relevant
as well (the thicker the particle, the lower the rate of oxidation) . 30
o Composition of the municipal waste  (i.e. how much aluminium as compared to
other materials such as paper). This can affect the level of oxidation as non -
aluminium mat erial can ‘protect’ the aluminium from oxidation .31, 32
• The conditions in the incinerator:

26 Bunge, R. (2015) Recover y of Metals from Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash. Institut für Umwelt und
Verfahrenstechnik UMTEC, April 2015.
http://umtec.hsr.ch/fileadm in/user_upload/umtec.hsr.ch/Dokumente/News/1504_Metals_from_MWIBA__R._Bung
e.pdf
27 Hu, Y., Bakker, M.C.M, and de Heij, P.G. (2011). Recovery and distribution of incinerated aluminum  packaging
waste. Waste Management, 31, 2422 -2430.
28 Bunge, R. (2015) Recovery of Metals from Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash. Institut für Umwelt und
Verfahrenstechnik UMTEC, April.
2015, http://umtec.hsr.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/umtec.hsr.ch/Dokumente/News/1504_Metals_from_MWIBA__R._
Bunge.pdf
29 Biganzoli, L., Gorla, L., Nessi, S. & Grosso, M., (2012). Volatilisation and oxidation of aluminium scraps fed into
incineration furnaces. Waste Management, 32, 2266 –2272.
30 Biganzoli, L., Gorla, L., Nessi, S. & Grosso, M., (2012). Volatilisation and oxidation of aluminium scraps fed into
incineration furnaces. Was te Management, 32, 2266 –2272.
31 López, F., Román, C., García -Díez, I. and Alg, F., (2013) Energetic Valorisation Of Semi -Rigid And Flexible
Aluminium Packaging By Oxidation At High Temperature. Braga, Wastes: Solutions, Treatments And
Opportunities 2nd Int ernational Conference.
32 Biganzoli, L., Gorla, L., Nessi, S. & Grosso, M., (2012). Volatilisation and oxidation of aluminium scraps fed into
incineration furnaces. Waste Management, 32, 2266 –2272.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    65 o There are differences in the temperature and oxygen availability in different parts
of the incinerator and so not all aluminium will undergo the same level of oxida tion
and/or other transformations .
o IBA processing, such as quenching of the aluminium with water in the bottom ash,
can promote oxidation . 33
o PH value and salt contamination are also thought to affect oxidation.34
Oxidation is largely a problem for the re cycling potential of the aluminium, because the oxide
cannot actually be recovered in the secondary smelter, and it therefore results in a reduced
mass of aluminium that can ultimately be recycled. There is a small evidence base relating to
quantifying rat es of oxidation in aluminium. According to the CEN standard on ‘Packaging.
Requirements for packaging recoverable in the form of energy recovery, including
specification of minimum inferior calorific value ’ (EN 13431:2004),  thin-gauge aluminium foil
(up to 50 μm thick) is considered recoverable in the form of energy, suggesting that it is
considered to be fully oxidised. However, it is unclear what evidence underpins this
assumption. Laboratory tests have been conducted in which the oxidation level of different
aluminium products in municipal waste were determined for several types of consumer
products ; however ; these tests measured the incinerator input as compared to the output of
recyclate from IBA, and therefore also take  into account the effectiveness of bottom ash
removal techniques. What this research did show is a large difference in the recovery rates
between different types of aluminium municipal waste : thin foil, foil containers and cans , with
recovery factors of 77 , 88 and 93 wt.% respectively. It is not known how representative these
figures are.
Other studies have found similar variability between municipal waste  types, with average
oxidation levels for aluminium in the residues of the incineration process equal t o 9.2% for
cans, 17.4% for trays and 58.8% for foils. This study also looked at compacted beverage
cans, which were characterized by a low overall oxidation level (9.2%) compared to the other
materials, due to the reduction in exposed surface area.35
Additional studies looking at oxidation rates for different municipal waste  types report that
oxidation never exceeds 17%36, and  that  the oxidation of aluminium limits the recycling factor

33 Biganzoli, L., Gorla, L., Nessi, S. & Grosso, M., (2012).  Volatilisation and oxidation of aluminium scraps fed into
incineration furnaces. Waste Management, 32, 2266 –2272.
34 Hu, Y., Bakker, M.C.M, and de Heij, P.G. (2011). Recovery and distribution of incinerated aluminum packaging
waste. Waste Management, 31, 2422 -2430.
35 Biganzoli, L., Gorla, L., Nessi, S. & Grosso, M., (2012). Volatilisation and oxidation of aluminium scraps fed into
incineration furnaces. Waste Management, 32, 2266 –2272.
36 López, F., Román, C., García -Díez, I. and Alg, F., ( 2013) Energetic Valorisation Of Semi -Rigid And Flexible
Aluminium Packaging By Oxidation At High Temperature. Braga, Wastes: Solutions, Treatments And
Opportunities 2nd International Conference.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    66 to a maximum of 82.5 %,37 though another study reports a third of the mass of aluminium
being lost to oxidation. 38
The only available estimation of how much aluminium is lost to APCR puts this a t 10 wt.%
from municipal waste.39 However, this  loss is likely to vary according to di fferent waste
compositions and incineration technologies, as well as  the nature of the flue gas treatment.
A.2.7  Identifying the municipal waste  proportion in multi -stream treatment
plants
Figure A -16 provides an example of a recycling value chain for paper where the whole
amount of the waste is in -scope (i.e. all the waste material is municipal waste ). In this case,
the total weight of recycling at the calculation point  can be counted under the respective
target.

Figure A -16: Example with total plant input being municipal waste

However, in some case s, waste from different sources may be come  mixed  at measurement
points along the value chain (for example , if paper from non -municipal sources is mixed with
paper from municipal sources during the process of sorting paper into grades) . This means
that the weight of material at the calculation point  may not wholly relate to municipal waste .
In such circumstances, t he total plant output cannot be used to calculate the amount of
material contributing to the specific recycling targets at the calculation point  because this
amount would include out of scope material, and therefore overestimate the recycled
amounts for a given target. Therefore, some approach(es) are needed in order to identify the
proportion of the total material that should be counted as municipal waste .

37 Claassens, H.J.P. CO2 emissions in the recovery and recycli ng of aluminium from MSWI [MSW incinerator]
bottom ash. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/310195
38 Bunge, R. (2015) Recovery of Metals from Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash, Institut für Umwelt und
Verfahrenstechnik UMTEC, April 2015,
http://umtec.hsr.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/umtec.hsr.ch/Dokumente/News/1504_Metals_from_MWIBA__R._Bung
e.pdf , p. 15/16
39 Claassens, H.J.P. CO2 emissions in the recovery and recycling of aluminium from MSWI [MSW incinerator]
bottom ash. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/310195
Sorting of mixed
recyclables
Paper sorting
into grades
Paper mill
Calculation
point
Mixed
paper/card
EN643


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    67 If plant operators cannot easily determine whether the entirety of the waste entering their
plant is  municipal waste , periodic surveys (e.g. at least every 1-2 years) of the supply chain
could be carried out to determine average proportions of in -scope wastes in plant inputs, or
to develop nationally applicable protocols for individual materials, that co uld be applied to the
total tonnage of all material at the calculation point .
It is important, however, that the nature of the classification of municipal waste  and the
approaches for identifying the in -scope material are fit for purpose, recognising that
municipal waste  is a part of most waste streams and that the targets are material specific.
Utilising approaches that are based  only upon the proportion of in -scope waste inputs to
plants assumes that overall plant losses are equivalent to the losses that would  occur if
plant s were treating only a municipal waste  stream, in isolation. However, in cases where the
losses associated with municipal waste  wastes are different to those of the other waste
streams, this may lead to inaccurate data being reported. Consequently, a more detailed
approach may be needed to produce reliable data.
Figure A -17 below depicts a  situation in which  waste is mixed prior to a subsequent
sorting/treatment phase, and the proportion of non -target material is different between the ‘in -
scope’ and ‘out of scope’ waste streams. In the diagram ‘in -scope’ waste refer to municipal
waste , and ‘out of scope’  waste  refers to non - municipal waste . To calculate the quantity of
in-scope wastes recycled, two Source Factors (SFs) are needed:
• SF1: is a factor that describes th e proportion of input waste that comes from in -scope
sources. As noted above this may be deriv able from the national waste statistical
system (or from improvements to it) in a straightforward way b ased on  sorting plant
operators submitting total inputs to the system from both in and out scope sources.
However, in some situations , in and out scope waste might have been collected
together or mixed prior to arrival at the site. In such  case s, periodic surveys of upstream
waste handling processes may need to be  carried out in order to determine the factor.
For municipal waste , including biodegradable plastic municipal waste, sampling of the
waste stream may need to be carried out to determine the proportion at the input
(sampling methodologies are discussed in m ore detail  below ).
• SF2: is a factor that would be applied to the total stream of non -target material leaving
a plant. It would not be possible to identify the source of the material at this point. Firstly,
periodic sampling (PS) would have to be carried ou t at point PS1, in order to determine
the characteristics of the waste material in the output non -target stream. Sampling at
the input, point PS2, for both in and out of scope wastes would then need to be carried
out to estimate the proportion of non -targe t material in both streams. These data would
then be used to calculate SF2, assuming that the relative proportions of non -target
material at the input were the same as those at the output. Sampling would be carried
out in accordance with standards and to p rovide an appropriate level of statistical
accuracy (e.g. 95% confidence that results were  accurate to within +/ - 10%).
If it were not possible to accurately identify the type of waste ( municipal waste ) in the waste
streams, batch sampling of each type of waste may have to be carried out to estimate the
relative proportions of non -target material in each type; i.e. a batch of waste from a known
source, which was wholly municipal waste , would be run through the plant and total inputs
and outputs measured.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    68 Using this approach, where  there is  difficult y in sampl ing the output directly , the following
calculation could be developed to provide data relating to the amount of in -scope waste
recycled at the calculation point  for submission against municipal waste  targets:
Recycling (in scope)  = Weight plant input ×  SF1-(Weight non -target  × SF2)
Further information on sampling standards and methodologies is given in the following
section.

Figure A -17: Concept Diagram for Source Calculations

A.2.7.1  Sampling standards and methodologies
Waste sampling needs to be undertaken to a high quality using a consistent minimum
standard and accepted procedures in order to ensure valid results. For example, several
standards and technical reports already exist at an EU level regarding sampling and a nalysis
of waste:
In-scope targeted
 Out-scope
targeted

Non-target
Non-target
Sorting Plant
In-scope targeted
Out-scope
targeted

 Non-target
Further
processing
In-scope
(municipal or
packaging)
Out-scope (non -
municipal or non -
packaging)
SF1: proportion of input by
source  or periodic sampling
SF2: proportion of non -
target by source  -
periodic sampling of
inputs and outputs
Total plant input (weighed)
Total non -targeted outputs (weighed)
Total targeted
outputs (weighed)
Total inputs
(weighed)
In-scope
quantity
calculated
PS1
PS2
Calculation
point


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    69 • EN 14899: Framework for the preparation and application of a Sampling Plan;
• CEN/TR 15310 -1: Characterization of waste. Sampling of waste materials – Part 1:
Guidance on selection and application of criteria for sampling under various co nditions;
• CEN/TR 15310 -2: Characterization of waste. Sampling of waste materials – Part 2:
Guidance on sampling techniques;
• CEN/TR 15310 -3: Characterization of waste. Sampling of waste materials – Part 3:
Guidance on procedures for sub -sampling in the fi eld;
• CEN/TR 15310 -4: Characterization of waste. Sampling of waste materials – Part 4:
Guidance on procedures for sample packaging, storage, preservation, transport and
delivery;
• CEN/TR 15310 -5: Characterization of waste. Sampling of waste materials – Part 5:
Guidance on process of sample defining the sampling plan; and
• BDS EN 15002: Characterization of waste. Preparation of test portions from the
laboratory sample.
These standards cover the entire process of waste sampling, from initial planning and
preparation of a sampling plan through to final testing of collected samples.
In addition to the European CEN standards, Eurostat publishes a comprehensive Manual on
Waste Statistics, which was developed over several years and utilis ed the experience of
multiple stakeholders to develop the methodology. The aim of the handbook is to ensure that
waste statistics are comparable and harmonised across Member States due to their
importance in EU law. The manual covers the whole process of data collection and statis tical
distribution , including waste generation and treatment , data collection , and  data processing ,
as well as guidance on approaches to statistical surveying to generate waste statistics.
In addition, in the UK, there is a compulsory testing and reportin g scheme in place for
Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) which sort mixed recyclable waste. The Environmental
Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 contain requirements for
MRFs to routinely sample and test:
• The composition of their input streams by individual supplier; and
• Their main outputs by material stream e.g. cardboard, paper, etc. (in order to
understand the level of not -target materials therein).
MRF operators must report the average (or arithmetic mean) percentage composit ion of
target material, non -target material and non -recyclable material every quarter. The
organisation WRAP has produced guidance regarding how the samples should be taken and
tested.
A.2.8  Preparatory operations / temporary storage
Preparatory operations include preparatory activities prior to any recovery or disposal
operation, such as blending, mixing, repackaging, temporary storage, etc. that change the
characteristics of the waste in order to reduce its volume or hazardous nature , facilitate its
handling or enhance recovery. These operations are not reported. Instead, Member States


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    70 with significant amounts of wastes temporarily stored are asked to report the amounts in
storage as of  31st December of the reference year in the quali ty report  (under question
3.2.13  of the Table 2 Quality Report [sheet “ QR Table 2 - Material -breakdown ”]). The
treatment of these stored wastes sh ould be reported under the respective operation in the
actual year of treatment.
A.2.9  Measuring the amounts of muni cipal biowaste composted  / digested
A.2.9.1  Correctly identifying the calculation point
The calculation rules for biodegradable municipal waste ( here abbreviated as biowaste ) are
covered across a number of requirements detailed  in Decision 20 19/1004  and Directive
2008/98/EC . The detail concerning the legal requirements are discussed further below, which
together set the  calculation point  for biowaste recycling  as illustrated in  Figure A -18.

Figure A -18: Biowaste composting or anaerobic digestion recycling calculation point


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    71 Figure A -19: Biowaste treatment which is not composting or anaerobic digestion recycling calculation
point

According to the calculation rules in Article 11a of the WFD , biodegradable municipal  waste
entering composting or anaerobic digestion processes can be counted as recycling  under
certain circumstances :
“4. For the purpose of calculating whether the targets laid down in points
(c), (d) and (e) of Article 11(2) and in Article 11(3) have been attained, the
amount of municipal biodegradable waste that enters aerobic or anaerobic
treatment may be counted as recycled where that treatment generates
compost, digestate, or other output with a similar quantity of recycled
content in relation to input, which is to be used as a recycled product,
material or substance. Where the output is  used on land, Member States
may count it as recycled only if this use results in benefits to agriculture or
ecological improvement.
As from 1 January 2027, Member States may count municipal bio -waste
entering aerobic or anaerobic treatment as recycled onl y if, in accordance
with Article 22, it has been separately collected or separated at source. ”
It is necessary to break the above article down to clarify individual aspect s:
1)  Firstly,  consider the following  element  of Article 11a(4)  of the WFD  (emphasis  added) :
“... the amount of municipal biodegradable  waste that enters aerobic
or anaerobic treatment may be counted as recycled where  …”
o Thus, in practice, in order to include only the amount of biodegradable  waste
in the calculation , the non -biodegradable part of the waste (which may be


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    72 removed within or after the composting/ anaerobic digestion (AD) process ) should
be subtracted from the numerator  (recycled amount) , but included in the
denominator  (total MSW ) of the municipal waste recycling calculation . The
calculation point  should be the entry to a biowaste treatment facility , provided that
all materials sent to other treatment options by the facility are subtracted.
o Furthermore, the requirement to only count biodegradable  waste as recycled
means that non-biodegradable part s of the waste which are not removed  within
or after the composting/ anaerobic digestion (AD) process should also be
subtracted from the amount of municipal waste measured at the input to the
process . Therefore, the calculation point  should subtract non-biodegradable
materials which remain in facility outputs (stones  and other  non-degradable
contaminants ) from reported figures.  This will need t o be established by sampling
input mat erial entering biowaste treatment  operations.  Such input sampling should
be careful in relation to moisture and biological matter which is likely to stick to the
sampled non -biodegradable materials; to provide a true indication of non -
degradable, the sampl ed non -degradable materials might be dried to ambient
(though not dry) conditions to facilitate an accurate analysis.
o Furthermore, although the term ‘biodegradable’ is used in the applicable
terminology, it would seem sensible in the case of municipal was te to link this to
the term ‘compostable’ as currently indicated in CEN 13432, thereby discounting
material that does not meet the standard .
2)  Secondly, consider the following element of Article 11a(4)  (emphasis added):
“... the amount […] that enters aerobic or anaerobic treatment may be
counted as recycled where that treatment generates compost,
digestate  […] which is to be used as ”
o Which  means quantities entering a process which  produces compost  or diges tate
count as recycling  (subject to subtraction of certain elements covered by other
rules discussed above and below).  In these cases, it is not necessary to deduct
evaporation  or losses from biological degradation (i.e. gas and moisture loss) from
the amounts reported as recycled. This a ligns with the ‘general rule’ principle
within WFD recital 4 6, which says  (emphasis added) :
“As a general rule, the actual measurement of the weight of municipal
waste counted as recycled should be at the point where municipal
waste enters the recycling operation. […]   Losses  in weight of
materials or substances due to physical or chemical
trans formation processes inherent in the recycling operation
whereby waste materials are actually reprocessed into products,
materials or substances should not be deducted  from the weight
of the waste reported as recycled ”
o However, while inherent losses or chan ges are allowable , any material (including
biowaste ) removed either at the input or from the outputs of a process  should  not
be counted as recycled . This prin ciple is confirmed within Article 4(1) of
Implementing Decision 2019/1004 , which says (emphasis added):


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    73 “The amount of recycled municipal bio -waste entering aerobic or
anaerobic treatment shall only include materials that actually undergo
aerobic or anaerobic treatment and shall exclude all materials,
including biodegradable material, whic h are mechanically
removed  during or after the recycling operation.”
o In effect, all material mechanically removed from the compost/digestate  (including
biodegradable material ) does not contribute  to amounts recycled  (except in the
instance that it is count ed under a different recycling process) .
o A further condition of Article 11a(4) specifies that  where outputs ( typically compost
or digestate)  are used on land, then  ecological or agricultural benefits must be
derived  (this is considered separately in point  4 below) :
“In addition, where the output is used on land, Member States may
count it as recycled only if this use results in benefits to agriculture or
ecological improvement. ”
3)  Thirdly,  consider the following element of Article 11a(4) (emphasis added):
“... the amount […] that enters aerobic or anaerobic treatment may be
counted as recycled where that treatment generates […] other
output with a similar quantity  of recycled content in relation to
input , which is to be used as a recycled product, m aterial or
substance .”
o Which means quantities entering a specific process that produces outputs
which are not compost or digestate  only count as recycling where the
quantit ies of outputs are similar to the input quantit ies and where these
outputs are used as a recycled product  (also subject to the other rules
discussed above and below).  This aligns with WFD recital 48 which says:
“While the output of such [aerobic or anaerobic]  treatment is most
commonly compost or digestate, other output could also be  taken
into account provided that it contains comparable quantities of
recycled content in relation to the amount of the treated
biodegr adable waste.”
o The generation of such other outputs  is expected to be less common or significant
for Member States , but can be understood to apply to processes such as
biochemical technologies producing feedstocks which are recycled as substances
or products  (for instance starch which may be used in paper or paperboard
strengthening , textile warp sizing liquor, starch bags and liners etc. ). The
implication here is that if these technologies produce recycled outputs which are
less than the amount of input biodegradable waste , then the amounts to be
reported as recycled should be scaled downwards accordingly.
o Recital 48 continues  with the following qualification that other processes (such as
pellet fuel production facilities) which do not recycle either compost , or digestate ,
or other recycled materials where the amount recycled is similar to the input
quantity, then this is  not considered recycling :


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    74 “In other cases , in line with the definition of recycling, the
reprocessing of biodegradable waste into materials which are to be
used as fuels or other means to generate ene rgy, which are disposed
of, or which are to be used in any operation that has the same
purpose as recovery of waste other than preparing for re -use and
recycling, should not be counted towards the attainment of the
recycling targets. ”
4)  Fourthly, r elatin g to the condition requiring benefits to agriculture or ecological
improvement , the use of compost standards or end of waste criterion could be used
to establish the conditions under which these requirements are satisfied . The source of
the compostable municipal waste  could also be considered. For example, compostable
municipal waste  from source segregated sources would be much more likely to lead to
higher quality outputs. Indeed, WFD article 11a(4)  reproduced above  requires  that only
recycling of source segregated biowaste should be counted under the targets after
2027.
A.2.9.2  Rules concerning c ompostable plastics
Concerning  compostable plastic municipal waste  (which is sometimes used in packaging
applications , most typically ), Article 22(1) of the WFD allow s this to be collected, and thus
treated, with biowaste:
“Member States may allow waste with similar biodegradability and
compostability  properties which complies with relevant European standards
or any equivalent national standards for packaging recoverable through
composting and biodegradation, to be collected together with bio -waste”
However, a recent study by the Commission found incon clusive evidence regarding the
ecological benefit ,.or otherwise of composting this material.40 Overall , the abovementioned
rules (detailed in Appendix A.2.9.1 ) provide the basis for whether compostable municipal
waste  can be counted under the recycling targets or not. If Member States include any
compostable plastic municipal waste  in the amounts re cycled , evidence of benefits to
agriculture or ecological improvement where the output is used on land  must be
provided along with the Quality Report . The amounts of compostable plastic municipal
waste  that are included in the total plastic recycling and t otal plastic waste generation figures
must also be stated separately in tonnage terms in the Quality Report. Detail s can be
provided under question 3.2.3.
However, identifying the amount of compostable plastics entering a biowaste treatment
facility separa tely from other types of waste may be challenging if the compostable plastics
arriving at the site is not separate from other waste s arriving at the facility . Also, the amount
of compostable municipal waste  in the waste stream may change over time, particu larly

40 “Relevance of biodegradable and compostable consumer plastic products and packaging in a circular
economy” ( https://op.europa.eu/s/n3Rv )


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    75 given the increase in the use of compostable plastic municipal waste . Properly accounting for
compostable plastics may, therefore, become more important over time.
Surveys could be carried out on plant inputs (either on a plant -by-plant basis, or through
wider research on composition levels within collected wastes ) to estimate the amount of
compostable plastic municipal waste  entering such facilities . Given the rapid  changes in the
amount of compostable plastics on the market , as driven by changes in trends in packaging ,
the surveys should be carried out on a relatively frequent basis.  Indeed, Article 6c(d) of
Commission Decision 2005/270 as amended by Commission Impl ementing Decision
2019/665 states that:
“Where biodegradable packaging that is subject to aerobic or anaerobic
treatment is included in the recycled amounts for the respective packaging
material, the amount of biodegradable packaging in biodegradable waste
shall be determined by performing regular composition analyses of the
biodegradable waste entering those operations.”
The above relates to the municipal proportion of compostable plastic packaging, and indeed,
other compostable municipal plastic wastes.
For example, a survey in Italy carried out by the Italian Composting Association (CIC), in
cooperation with the PRO for plastics (COREPLA), has included a comprehensive sampling
programme of input materials at compost sites. This survey programme was able t o identify :
a) the amount of fossil -derived plastics (and how much thereof w as bags or municipal
waste ); and b) the amount of compostable plastics ending up in compost sites. The survey
found that the proportion of compostable plastics in the total weight of material collected
through separate food waste collections entering the plants was 1.4%.
Addit ionally , it is important that compostable plastic municipal waste  that is not fully
composted is not included in the amounts recycled. This is consistent with Article 6c(d) of
Decision 2005/270, which states that:
“Biodegradable packaging waste that is removed before, during or after the
recycling operation shall not be included in the recycled amounts.”
A.2.9.3  Processes where recycling and energy recovery of biowaste are combined
There are technologies  that treat separately collected biowastes, or materials derived from
biowaste, from which the output streams include both biological materials and also products
that can be used to generate  energy. On e example already discussed above is anaerobic
digestion (AD), where the anaerobic degradation of biomass leads to the generation of
methane, which can be used for various purposes (in cluding  combined heat and power
generation, or , after further cleaning, use as vehicle fuel, or injection into the gas network,
typically for use as heating fuel). In such  case s, subject to the solid/liquid  output material
being used as a recycled product, material or substance, the input material, net of rejects
and non-biode gradable waste , is deemed to be recycled.  As is identified in the discussions


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    76 on of Article 11a(4) of the WFD  in Appendix A.2.9.1  above, this applies for biowaste in in the
following cases :
• A technology where  compost is generated and recycled  (i.e. composting );
• A technology  where digestate is generated and recycled  (i.e. anaerobic digestion );
• Other technologies producing other recycled outputs BUT ONLY where a similar
quantity of recycled content is produced in relation to input .
In addition, where the output is used on land, Member States may count it as recycled only if
this use results in benefits to agriculture or ecological improvement . In situations such as
where the outputs are used for backfilling, then this would classify as “other recovery ”.
As noted above, it is not the intention of Directive  2008/98/EC  (Article 11a(5))  to count
material as being recycled where end -of-waste materials are used as fuels or as other
means to generate energy:
“However, end -of-waste materials to be used as fuels or other means to
generate energy, or to be incinerated, backfilled or landfilled , shall not be
counted towards the attainment of the recycling targets ”.
Where biodegradable  municipal waste  is concerned, therefore, it is clear that sending
residues from biological treatment to incineration (including pyrolysis and gasification) is not
to be considered as recycl ing.
In a situation where a facility creates a compost or digestate  output , and through the course
of the year a certain percentage of the output is used as compost or digestate , but for
another part of the year a percentage of the output is backfilled, and another part of the year
a percentage of the output  is thermally treated for energy production  – then the amounts
reportable for recycling, energy recovery and other recovery should be scaled according to
the p roportion of output used for each purpose .
A.2.10  Measuring the amounts of biowaste separated  and recycled at source
(e.g. home composting)
A.2.10.1  Introduction
The following section outlines the methodology for calculating municipal bio -waste separated
and recycled at source.
There are two different methodologies that can be used depending on the share of municipal
bio-waste separated and recycled at source in a ll municipal waste generated ; see Figure A -
20 for a flow diagram set ting out which method should be used.
When the  share of municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source in all municipal
waste generated is less than 5 % at national level , the simplified methodology outlined in
section A.2.10.2  (method 1) should be used .


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    77 When the share of municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source in all municipal
waste generated is more  than 5 % at national leve l, the methodology outlined in section
A.2.10.3  (method 2)may be used .
As method 2 is more involved than method 1, Member States may therefore prefer to follow
the simplified method 1 the first time they calculate municipal bio -waste separated and
recycled at source  , and then consi der whether there would be benefit in following method 2
in future years. However, if a Member State follows method 1 and gets a result higher
than 5%, they may only claim  a maximum of  5% in this case. If method 2 is followed
and returns a result lower tha n 5%, the returned result must be reported as calculated
(i.e. even if under 5% ).
The surveys  used  to collect data for the purposes of applying the formulas laid down in this
section should be carried out for the first year of reporting on municipal bio -waste separated
and recycled at source . Thereafter , they should be carried out  at least every five y ears, and
for other years whenever there are reasons to expect significant changes in the amount of
municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source.
Member States may update the reported amount of municipal waste recycled at source for
the years for w hich data is not collected by using appropriate estimates.

Figure A -20 Methodologies for calculating municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    78 A.2.10.2  Less than five percent share of municipal bio -waste separated and recyc led
at source
Where the share of municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source in all municipal
waste generated is less than 5 % at national level, Member States may use a simplified
methodology to calculate municipal bio -waste separated and recycle d at source by applying
the following formula:
mMBWRS = nP × mBWpp × qRS
where:
mMBWRS  means the mass of municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source;
nP means the number of persons involved in municipal bio -waste recycling at source;
mBWpp  means the mass of generated municipal bio -waste per capita; and
qRS a coefficient representing the share of municipal bio -waste generated that is likely to
be separated and recycled at source in the total amount of municipal bio -waste generated.
The followin g sections describes each of the parameters in more detail.
A.2.10.2.1  Np
The number of persons actively involved in the separation and recycling of municipal bio -
waste at source may be obtained through registries (e.g. public sector data) on composting
units (CUs) (but ensuring to account for persons on the register not actively separating and
recycling their bio -waste), or should be derived from surveys identifying active individuals.
Ideally, the survey would ask how many people are involved in CU s.
In the event  that Member States  only have data on CU s, they should multiply this by the
average number of people per household. However, this is assuming  that there is 1 CU per
household. For neighbourhood composting, if this is licensed then it should not be
considered as municipal biowaste recycling  at source .
Registers or survey ors are advised to collect and record the following information:
• Contact details of the households running CU s (subject to GDPR41).
• Basic features of the CU: volume, model, individual/collective, etc.
• Fiscal benefits related to owning a CU, if applicable.
• Starting year of activity.
• Training received.
• Number of people per househ old in the case of individual CU s.
• Number of households contributing to collective CU s.
This information  should be updated yearly, including the monitoring of a sufficient number of
CUs from which an overall dropout rate should be estimated. Dropouts would  re-enter the

41 GDPR = General Data Protection Regulation, https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02016R0679 -20160504


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    79 database only after confirmation based on visits or any other reliable information (e.g. pictures,
etc.). The number of new CU s coming from former dropouts should be accounted for
separately.
A.2.10.2.2  mBWpp
The total amount of biowaste separated and recycled at source in a Member State should be
subtracted  from the total amount of municipal biowaste generated. Th e resulting  number
should then be divided by the population of the country, giving  the mass of generated
municipal bio -waste per capita.
A.2.10.2.3  qRS
To calculate the coefficient representing the share of municipal bio -waste generated that is
likely to be separated and recycled at source in the total amount of municipal bio -waste
generated , a survey should be undertaken.
Member States  should survey d ifferent types of municipalities where active recycling is
taking place . The sampling strategy and stratification should take into account the following
factors:
(a)  The size and type of households that use an active recycling unit in the case of
food and  kitchen waste .
(b)  The size and management of gardens and parks served by an active recycling
unit in the case of garden and park waste .
(c)  The available collection system, in particular the complementary use of waste
collection services for bio -waste and mixed municipal waste .
(d)  The level and seasonality of municipal bio -waste generation.
The data collection surveys should  be based on representative samples and appropriate
sub-samples. The survey  results  must  be statistically significant according to scientifically
accepted statistical techniques. To ensure statistical significance of analysis, M ember States
should report  relevant data as  required by Table 4.1.3 of Annex V (see Figure A -21) such as
confidence intervals, the margin of error and the sample size – as bio -waste is a component
of municipal waste.
There are documents that can be followed in determining the samplin g criteria and
stratification strategy to ensure that the surveys are statistically significant. These  includ e the
European Commission report on the Methodology for the Analysis of Solid Waste (SWA -
Tool) User Version42, United Nations report on Designing H ousehold Survey Samples:

42 European Commission (2004) Methodology for the Analysis of Solid Waste (SWA -Tool) User Version , 2004,
https://www.wien.gv.at/meu/fdb/pdf/swa -tool-759-ma48.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    80 Practical Guidelines43 and Zero Waste Scotland’s report Guidance on the Methodology for
Waste Composition Analysis44

Figure A -21 Table 4.1.3. in Annex V  to Implementing Decision 2019/1004

A.2.10.3  More than five percent share of municipal bio -waste
Where the share of municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source in all municipal
waste generated is more than 5 % at national level, the amount of municipal bio -waste
separated and recycled at source s hall be calculated by using the following formula:
mMBWRS = Σ nARUi × (mFi + mGi)
where:
mMBWRS  means the mass of municipal bio -waste separated and recycled at source;
nARUi  means the number of active recycling units for the recycling of municipal bio -waste at
source in subsample i;
mFi means the mass of food and kitchen municipal bio -waste recycled at source per active
recycling unit in subsample i; and
mGi means the mass of garden and park municipal bio -waste recycled at source per active
recycling unit in subsample i.
The following sections describes each of the parameters in more detail.
A.2.10.3.1  nARUi
This parameter is similar to  the number of persons involved in municipal b io-waste recycling
at source, as discussed in section A.2.10.2.1 . However , nARUi refers to the number of active
units. The number of active recycling units for the r ecycling of municipal bio -waste at source
shall include only those recycling units that are used by waste producers. That number shall
be retrieved from registers of such units or shall be obtained through surveys of households.
Surveys should take into ac count the factors set out in section A.2.10.2.3  and follow the
guidance on ensuring surveys are statistically significan t in that section.

43 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008) Designing Household Survey Samples:
Practical Guidelines , 2008, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/surveys/Series_F98en.pdf
44 Zero Waste Scotland (2015) Guidance on the Methodology for Waste Composition Analysis , 2015,
https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/sites/default/files/WCAMethodology_Jun15.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    81 A.2.10.3.2  mFi and mGi
There are two different ways of calculating these parameters, through direct measurement
and through indirect measurement  (see box 1) .

Direct Measurement
Direct measurement involves individuals  measuring the actual compost being produced and
the amount of food and gar den waste inputted  into this. Direct measurement means that
either qualified personnel from public authorities or external professionals (i.e. in no case the
measurement will be carried out by householders) should establish a methodology for
weighing and r ecording the inputs to the CU, for example, employing weight scales,
establishing a sampling method and frequency, etc.
Direct measurement requires measuring the input to the active recycling unit or its output
under the following conditions:
(a)  the mea surement shall be carried out, where feasible, by or on behalf of public
authorities;
(b)  where the measurement is carried out by the waste producers themselves,
Member States shall ensure that the reported amounts are subject to plausibility
checks and are adjusted to the effect that the amount of bio -waste separated and
recycled at source per person in no case exceeds the average amount per capita of
municipal bio - waste collected by waste operators at national, regional or local level;
(c)  where the output of an active recycling unit is measured, a reliable coefficient
shall be applied in order to calculate the amount of the input.

Indirect Measurement
Indirect measurement requires measuring the following amounts through composition
surveys of collected municipal waste, which take account of municipal bio -waste that is
separately collected and of municipal bio -waste that is not separately collected:
(a)  the amount of bio -waste contained in collected municipal waste that is generated
by households or in areas where waste is separated and recycled at source;
(b)  the amount of bio -waste contained in collected municipal waste that is generated
by house holds or in areas with characteristics that are similar to the characteristics of
households or areas referred to in point (a), where waste is not separated and
recycled at source.
The amount of municipal bio -waste that is separated and recycled at source  shall be
determined based on the difference between the amounts specified in points (a) and (b).
Surveys should take into account the factors set out in section A.2.10.2.3  and follow the
guidance on ensuring surveys are statistically significan t in that section.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    82 Box 1: Calculating Amounts of Bio-waste Home Compost ing through Statistical Modelling: the Case of
the UK
The measurement of the amoun ts of bio -waste  home composted  in the UK were studied
through statistical modelling in the early 2000s and validated later in 2009 .45, 46, 47, 48
The methodology comprised two complementary approaches, one at district level and one
at household level.
In the household -level approach, the dependent variable was the amount of bio -waste
diverted from landfill. It was measured through onsite waste composition studies of waste
arisings at households with and without composting units, so the difference s between
these were assumed to be amounts of  bio-waste home composted  (i.e. the amounts that
were composted were estimated, not directly measured). The independent variables
included:
• Total garden area;
• Household size (number of occupants);
• Number of d ry recyclable materials collected by separate kerbside collection;
• Use of separate kerbside garden waste collection; and
• Residual waste c ontainer (wheeled bin or sack).
In the district level approach, the variations in waste arisings (dependent variables )
between district s were modelled in relation to independent variables such as participation
in home composting, average household size, garden size and other relevant variables.
The differences in waste arisings attributable to participation in home compo sting were
statistically calculated.
By mixing the results of both models, the authors concluded that 150 kg of biowaste per
person per year was diverted from landfill through home composting . By multiplying this
figure by the total number of household s home composting , an overall figure for amounts
home composted  could be calculated. This example illustrates how to estimate the
amounts of biowaste home composted through statistical modelling, without the direct
measuring of the amounts of biowaste enterin g the composting units.
Source: Own elaboration based on the references cited in the box
A.2.11  Applying the average loss methodology
A.2.11.1  Application of average loss rate s (ALR s)
Under Article 11a(3) of the  WFD , ALR s may be applied in certain circumstances:

45 Parfitt, J. (2005) Home composting diversion models. WRAP report. WRAP.
46 Parfitt, J. (2009) Home Composting Diversion : District Level Analysis. WRAP.
47 Hyder, S. (2006) WRAP composting report (Project DV53041). WRAP.
48 Andrew Davey, Clist, S. and Godley , A. (2009) Home composting diversion: household level analysis. Final
report. Oxon: WRAP.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    83 3. Member States shall establish an effective system of quality control and
traceability of municipal waste to ensure that the conditions laid down in
point (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article and in paragraph 2 of  this Article are
met. To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data gathered on
recycled waste, the system may consist of electronic registries set up
pursuant to Article 35(4), technical specifications for the quality
requirements of sorted waste, o r average loss rates for sorted waste for
various waste types and waste management practices respectively.
Average loss rates shall only be used in cases where reliable data cannot
be obtained otherwise and shall be calculated on the basis of the
calculati on rules established in the delegated act adopted pursuant to
paragraph 10 of this Article. ”
Recital 46 of the Waste Framework Directive provides further guidance:
“(46)[…] The average loss rates should preferably be established at the
level of individual  sorting facilities and should be linked to the different main
types of waste, different sources (such as household or  commercial),
different collection schemes and different types of sorting processes.
Average loss rates should only be used in cases where  no other reliable
data are available, in particular in the context of shipment and export of
waste. Losses in weight of materials or substances due to physical or
chemical transformation processes inherent in the recycling operation
whereby waste material s are actually reprocessed into products, materials
or substances should not be deducted from the weight of the waste
reported as recycled.  .”
ALRs should only be used when there is no other reliable data available on material losses
that occur before the calculation point , such as data from electronic registries. The main
instance in which ALRs might be applied is where waste is exported for recycling and reliable
data on such losses cannot be obtained from the operators in the receiving country. In such
cases, further conditions as specified under section A.2.11.2 should be applied.
ALRs can be applied at different outputs of sorting processes in the waste management
chain, and are dependent upon the source and type of municipal waste  material. After init ial
sorting, different materials are subject to a range of down -stream processes before the
recycling calculation point , each with varying loss rates. This is especially true for plastics as
different polymer types can follow different recycling processes.  It is reported that mixed
plastic polymers have high levels of material rejects , which  are sent for disposal or energy
recovery. In comparison, materials that are easier to sort, such as steel cans, typically have
much lower reject rates. As such, ALRs fo r mixed plastic municipal waste  should ideally only
be applied after the plastics are separated into different polymer types.
Annex V of Implementing Decision 2019 /1004  (paragraph 3.2.6.) provides a table for
reporting use of ALRs, as shown in Figure A -22. The information provided under the
‘description’ column should include a description of the methodological app roach taken to


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    84 calculate the ALRs , including the statistical accuracy of any surv eys used  and the nature of
any technical specifications.

Figure A -22: Table for Reporting Use of ALRs

A.2.11.2  Approaches to calculating ALR
The average loss rate is calculated as the weight of the average losses from sorted
municipal waste up until the calculation point , in relation to the weight of the sorted municipal
waste .
ALRs can be defined and calculated in different ways. For instance, they may be defined at
the national level, by plant type, or on a plant -by-plant  basis. Calculating ALR s may be based
on data collected in the following ways: periodic surveys to sample losses throughout the
chain from output of sorting to the calculation point , using technical specifications regarding
the allowable levels of non -target material in certain material streams at the output of sorting,
and extrapolating loss rates provided in other Member States.
The surveys referred to above should include data from at  least one of the following
methods:
• Sampling of the input and output of preliminary treatment of batches of sorted municipal
waste  originating from a Member State in waste treatment facilities .
• Representative samples from the total input and output of wa ste treatment facilities
carrying out preliminary treatment .
• Data on the total annual input and output of waste treatment facilities carrying out
preliminary treatment which may be calculated as an average of up to three
consecutive years.
The most appropriate approach depends upon a number of factors , including:
• The variation in non -targeted material for in -scope waste streams;
• The proportion of input to facilities that is from in -scope waste streams; and
• The variation in overall loss rate s for different configurations of sorting  operation.
A.2.11.3  Tracking ALR s through the recycling chain
Where ALRs are to be applied to municipal waste  sent for further treatment in another
country, an appropriate mechanism needs to be defined in order to transfer ALRs from the
destination country back to the country of origin. This is necessary in order to report the total
weight of municipal waste  exported, along with the relevant ALR s, to the competent
authorities in the country of origin of the waste.
Figure A -23 demonstrates the approach to transferring ALRs between Member States. The
ALR data is passed between the competent authorities of each Member State – the exact


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    85 mechanism still needs to be developed, and direct transfer between operators is still within
scope of a future Delegated Act  Requests for ALRs would need to be made by the
competent authority and a common categorisation of treatment plant types would need to be
developed.
However, there are a number of challenges in applying ALRs to exported waste,  particularly
outside of the EU. The systems described above require other countries and operators to
partake in the system, potentially requiring legislation in the destination countries. If such
approaches were not feasible, a method for ensuring that no n-target material  was deducted
from the amount of waste reported as exported for recycling would be required. For example,
the highest ALR for a given material and process type used anywhere in the EU could be
applied to any exports of that type. Alternati vely, further studies could be carried out to
develop ALRs for various countries to which certain types of municipal waste  are exported
for recycling.

Figure A -23: ALR Reported between Competent Authorities

A.2.11.4  Data collection a nd verification
In order to ensure that the ALRs used are accurate, measures should be taken to verify the
data used for calculating the ALR and to ensure that the sampling methods used are highly
accurate. Member States should also take measures to e nsure that the sorted waste from
the various facilities surveyed is of comparable quality. Member States should conduct
verification of the evidence from waste recycling operators within their annual  compilation of
data.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    86
A.2.12  Guidance on proving compliance with re quirement to ensure all waste
outside the EU is treated unde r broadly equivalent conditions
Article 8 of Directive 2008/98/EC  states that :
“Waste exported from the Union for preparing for re -use or recycling shall
count towards the attainment of the targets laid down in Article 11(2) and
(3) of this Directive by the Member State in which it was collected only if
the requirements of paragraph 3 of this Article are met and if, in
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, the exporter can prove
that the shipment of waste complies with the requirements of that
Regulation and that the treatment of waste outside the Union took place in
conditions that are broadly equivalent to the requirements of the relevant
Union environmental law. ”
In considering  how Member States can provide evidence that waste is being exported to
facilities where broadly equivalent conditions apply , it should be  noted that there is currently
no standard or certification that a facility can obtain that would show that it meets the test of
broad equivalence.
Member States have previously expressed interest in the  Commission preparing an
approved list of facilities and/or countries where broadly equivalent standards were in place ,
recognising that it makes little sense for each Member State to make its own individual
assessment if the standard is to be applied in a consistent manner, and that an EU -wide
approach could reduce administrative costs (e.g. around the translation of documents
received from receiving countries) and produce gre ater harmonisation. However, there was
also concern regarding whether this was an appropriate role for the Commission, whether
the Commission was resourced to undertake such assessments, and whether an EU -wide
approach might give rise to problems in relati on to WTO rules on non -discrimination.
Accordingly, the guidance in the following sections has been provided for Member States to
assist them in meeting their obligations regarding  recycling exports  and proving compliance
with this requirement . This inclu des the interpretation of the term “broadly equivalent”,
establishing whether broadly equivalent conditions are in place, and addressing potential
statistical issues.
A.2.12.1  A definition of “broadly equivalent conditions”
An appropriate definition might be as fol lows:
“A receiving facility that operates under ‘broadly equivalent conditions’ to
those in place within the EU is one that operates under a system of rules
that broadly replicates the requirements of the acquis that help guard
against, or limit, negative environmental impacts arising from the facility. ”


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    87 While the language used varies slightly between different pieces of legislation, there is no
significant difference between formulations such as “broadly equivalent conditions” and
“broadly equiva lent standards”, not least since, apart from in the case of WEEE, codification
of the implied conditions within a set of standards has not taken place.
The relevant standards that must be met in order to achieve broad equivalence are the laws
on:
• The licen sing and operation of waste facilities;
• Emissions to air; and
• Emissions to water .
Therefore, t he standards that are relevant are those that relate to the environment, including
environmental laws focused on human health. These include  the requirements tha t:
• The receiving facility should be subject to a permitting system, in line with Chapter IV
of Directive 2008/98/EC .
• The receiving facility should be subject to an inspection, record -keeping and
enforcement system, in line with Chapter VI of Directive 2008 /98/EC .
• For processes that fall under Annex I of Directive 2010/75/EU (e.g. the processing of
metals, and the handling of any residues that may not be suitable for recycling), the
facility should conform with the requirements of Directive 2010/75/EU49 on industrial
emissions regarding permits, inspections, record keeping and enforcement .
• The receiving facility should maintain adequate records to demonstrate the fate of the
material it receives (e.g. the proportion that is recycled (and who purchases the
material), the quantity that is rejected or lost through processing (and how such material
is managed).
In line with the requirements of Article 27 of Directive 2008/98/EC, these  requirements shall
also take account of the standards set out in any relevant Be st Available Techniques
reference document, in particular the Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document
for Waste Treatment50 and any sections of BAT Reference Documents for the production of
materials insofar as they relate to techniques specific  to the use of waste material as
feedstock, such as the BREFs for:
• Pulp, Paper and Board51;
• Iron and Steel52; and

49 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)  (OJ L  334, 17.12.2010, p. 17 –119)
50 European Commission (2018) Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Waste Treatment,
2018, http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/WT/JRC113018_WT_Bref.pdf
51 DG JRC (2015) Best Available Techniques (BAT) R eference Document for the Production of Pulp, Paper and
Board, 2015, http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/PP_revised_BREF_2015.pdf
52 Joint Research Centre (2013) Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron and Steel
Production, January 2013, http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/I&S/IS_Published_0312.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    88 • Non-ferrous Metals53.
Where receiving facilities would, if within the EU, be subject to Directive 2010/75/EU , the
permitted limit values for emissions should be in line with any relevant BAT Reference
Documents, as required by Article 14 of the Directive. A key example would be facilities that
process secondary metals.
The use of the term “broad equivalence” rath er than “equivalence” implies that the standards
met by receiving facilities need not be identical to those in the EU, or achieve exactly the
same results. However, it would be difficult to demonstrate broad equivalence if any of the
issues covered by EU l aw are entirely unaddressed in the standards that the facility must
meet, or if those standards (or the performance achieved) are substantially lower than would
be required in the EU.
Recycling facilities that meet these requirements – not necessarily exa ctly as specified in EU
law, but achieving the same or very similar effect – should be regarded as operating under
conditions that are broadly equivalent to the requirements of the relevant Union
environmental law.
There is a separate point , which relates to processes that  may handle residues from
recycling operations that receive waste from EU Member States. Any recycling operation
leads to the generation of some, hopefully small, quantities of residues, and these may be
subject to treatment / disposal ope rations as opposed to recycling operations. There is an
argument that the ‘broadly equivalent conditions’ should extend not only to the receiving
facility itself, but also those facilities used to deal with residues. Indeed, there are reasonable
economic a nd environmental arguments for requiring this , and Member States may wish to
do so .
A.2.12.2  Guidance on establishing whether broadly equivalent conditions are in place
In order  to confirm  that broadly equivalent conditions are in place in receiving
countries/faci lities, Member States (and the responsible bodies within them) will need to
make more consistent assessments  than currently done in practice . A proposed process for
doing so is shown in  Figure A -24.

53 Joint Research Centre (2017) Best Available Techniques ( BAT) Reference Document for the  Non -Ferrous
Metals Industries, 2017, http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/NFM/JRC107041_NFM_bref2017.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    89 Figure A -24: Outline Monitoring and Reporting Process

This process is supplement ed by the following guidelines :
• Regarding materials that may be of greater or less significance from the point of view
of exports , examples include :
o Glass and biowaste will rarely be exported from the EU, and it may be appropriate
to take a proportionate approach to seeking to validate that no such material has
been exported .
o Exports of  plastic and paper are commonplace, and  are associated with concerns
regarding quality, loss rates and leakage. Exports therefore require more careful
scrutiny .
o Metal recycling operations can give rise to high levels of industrial emissions, and
involve processes that within the EU would be subject to the Industrial Emissions
Directive . Therefore , facilities receiving exports will  require similar scrutiny
focussed on the ir emissions .
o Any recycling operation may give rise to residues and losses that requir e disposal ,
and Member States should require information regarding the treatment of these
materials , which must also take place under broadly equivalent conditions.
• Regarding the types of positive evidence that might demonstrate whether, in general,
export s to a particular country may be permissible , examples might include:
o Documentary evidence of the existence of an effective system of permitting that
applies similar operating requirements and emissions limit values for emissions to
those in force in the E U.
o Documentary evidence of the existence of an effective system of inspection and
enforcement, including steps being taken to deal with non -compliant facilities .


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    90 o Documentary evidence regarding the disposal/treatment arrangements for
residues and losses.
• Regarding the types of positive evidence that might demonstrate whether, in particular,
exports to a particular facility may be permissible , examples might include:
o The facility’s operating permit, showing that it is required to meet appropriate
standards re garding site operations, emissions and the handling of
residues/losses .
o The facility’s inspection and compliance record, demonstrating that the required
standards are in fact being met .
o Independently audited quality standards met by the facility, potential ly providing
additional assurance that appropriate procedures are being followed.
• On the use of negative evidence that might indicate that, irrespective of other evidence,
a country or facility is not applying broadly equivalent conditions , examples might
include:
o Inspection or enforcement records that indicate that the facility is failing to meet
the required standards .
o Credibly sourced NGO and/or news reports highlighting poor practice in a country,
which may undermine the plausibility of documentary evid ence regarding the
country’s permitting system .
o Concerns regarding specific facilities that may undermine the plausibility of their
inspection record, including evidence of:
▪ The absence of appropriate perimeter fencing to ensure that only
authorised person s enter the facility;
▪ A lack of proper storage arrangements to prevent waste materials
escaping the facility, e.g. as a result of wind or rain;
▪ The use of uncontrolled burning at the facility;
▪ Unabated discharges to the atmosphere from controlled combustion;
▪ Discharges of chemical effluent to local watercourses; and
▪ The use of uncontrolled dumpsites or fly -tipping to dispose of residues
and material removed from the recyclate through sorting.
Where concerns arise, it may be appropriate to undertake steps such as seeking additional
information from the country or facility, or undertaking a site visit (if the facility or country is of
particular importance in terms of scale).
If the evidence gathe red provides good reason to believe that the receiving facility is not
carrying out recycling operations under broadly equivalent conditions to those that apply
within the EU, the Member State should ensure that no further exports to that facility are
coun ted as recycled until evidence is obtained that broadly equivalent conditions have been
reinstated reliably.
A.2.12.3  Guidance on common statistical issues
The following guidance relates to  addressing common statistical issues.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    91 • A Member State that asserts that it does not export any recyclate outside the EU should
provide an evidence trail that supports this claim – especially where recyclate may be
transported to another Member State as an interim destination before being sent to its
final treatment destination.
o It remains the responsibility of the originating Member State to evidence that
material it claims towards its recycling target has been recycled.
o It is difficult to demonstrate con clusively a negative claim (i.e. that no exports took
place) . So, such Member States should provide evidence that their material was
sent to recycling operations within the EU, for example by providing a
comprehensive list of the end destinations for each material stream, the
approximate tonnage treated at each, and the means by which they validated that
this was in fact the end destination.
• Where recyclable waste is transported between Member States prior to export outside
the EU, this can give rise to tr acking issues. A review of the implementation of the
Waste Shipment Regulations54 found that there had been  significant misreporting  (for
example, where one Member State’s estimate of exports of waste to another Member
State d id not match the latter’s esti mate of imports from the former ). Poor traceability
undermines the ability of Member States to demonstrate that exported waste is
recycled under broadly equivalent conditions and  will need to be addressed if Member
States are to be able to do so in future.
Therefore, Member States are likely to need to monitor the tonnage and destinations
(both intermediate and end) of ‘green list’ wastes in order to demonstrate that such
material is being recycled under broadly equivalent conditions.
• Wherever possible, M ember States should obtain from exporters actual data on the
quantity of material that is ultimately recycled. Where this is done, Member States
should describe how actual data from the overseas facilities receiving the material was
obtained. However, wher e material passes through  an intermediate destination , and
perhaps becomes mixed with similar material from other sources, it can become more
difficult to calculate the quantity of material originating in a particular Member State that
is ultimately recycl ed.
o Where direct information on rejects, residues and losses cannot be obtained,
Member States should adopt an approach to estimating losses. Any such
approach should be based on a clear rationale that ensures that the proportion
that is recycled is not o verestimated.
o The loss rate for exported waste should not be:
▪ Lower than the estimated percentage of contamination found in material
of a particular type that is exported from the Member State;  or
▪ Lower than the loss rate for material reprocessed domestic ally, or in
neighbouring Member States.
o Where an estimated or default loss rate is used, Member States should explain
the basis on which it has been selected and provide a rationale for its use.
Guidance on applying average loss rates  (ARLs)  is provided i n Section A.2.11

54 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1013 -20180101


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    92 A.2.12.4  Information sharing
In order to minimise duplication of effort, the sharing of information regarding broadly
equivalent conditions  is encouraged . In practice, some Member States already make use of
assessments carried out by others.
While having regard to the commercial confidentiality of contracts that exporters may have
entered into, Member States should publish their assessments of countries and f acilities –
including those deemed not to have broadly equivalent standards in place – and respond
positively to requests from other Member States’ authorities to share the evidence on which
their assessment s have been based.
The Commission may consider c ollating and publishing Member States’ assessments , and
may wish to highlight where there are inconsistencies between assessments so that Member
States can review whether an appropriate assessment has been made. The Commission
may also include details rega rding the date on which assessments were made, so that other
Member States can decide whether they are sufficiently up to date to be able to be relied
upon.  Further details will be provided in  future if such a system of information sharing is
setup.

A.2.13  Calculating Statistical Significance (confidence intervals) of Surveys /
Sampling
Please refer to the worked example for IBA metals, provided within the box in Annex A.2.6.2 .


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste  _________________________    93 Annex 3  List of relevant d ocuments
The relevant legal acts constitute:
Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Text with EEA relevance)
Commissi on Implementing Decisio n (EU) 2019/1004 of 7 June 2019 laying down rules for
the calculation, verification and reporting of data on waste in accordance with Directive
2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission
Impleme nting Decision C(2012) 2384 (notified under document C(2019) 4114) (Text with
EEA relevance)
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1885 of 6 November 2019 laying down rules
for the calculation, verification and reporting of data on landfill of municip al waste in
accordance with Council Directive 1999/31/EC and repealing Commission Decision
2000/738/EC (notified under document C(2019) 7874)
Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
amending Directive 1999/31/EC  on the landfill of waste (Text with EEA relevance)


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste  _________________________    94 Annex 4  Index  for Key terms used in this Guidance

Average loss rate (ALR)        p. 82
Backfilling         p. 7
Best Available Techniques (BATs)      p. 87
Biostabilised w aste fines        p. 25
Biowaste         p. 70, 50
Broadly equivalent conditions      p. 86
Bulky waste          p.50
Calculation point         p.8
Calculation rules         p.8
Chemical rec overy  (/chemical recycling)     p.41
Composting units (CUs)        p.78
Disposal          p.7
Energy recovery         p.24
Exports (of waste)         p.24, 17
Glass waste          p.44
Home composting         p.76
Incinerator bottom ash (IBA)       p.57
Landfill          p.28
List of Waste (LoW) codes        p.32
Material recovery         p.7
Measurement method        p.50
Measurement point         p.8
Metals waste         p.45
Municipal waste         p.5
Non-target material         p.47, 54
Paper / board waste         p.43
Plastics waste         p.39
Preparation for reuse       p. 35


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste
___________________________________________________________________________________    95 Preparation for reuse and recycling      p.16, 21
Quality Report         p.29
Recovery          p.7
Recycling          p.7
Sampling standards        p.68
Separate collection         p.7
Source Factors  (SFs)        p.67
Table 1 – Joint Questionnaire of Eurostat and OECD     p.14
Table 2 – Material breakdown       p.19
Table 3 – Recycling rate        p.27
Table 4 – Landfill rate        p.28
Textiles waste         p.49
Treatment          p.7
Waste batteries         p.50
Waste electrical and electronic equipment  (WEEE)    p.50
Waste generation         p.15, 20
Wood waste          p.47


CDT.VIBHA THOMAS
TN/19/SWA/838507
WASTE MANAGEMENT


WHAT IS WASTE?
•Waste (orwastes ) are unwanted or unusable materials. Waste is any substance which
is discarded after primary use, or is worthless, defective and of no use.
•Aby-product by contrast is a joint product of relatively minor economic value . A waste
product may become a by -product, joint product or resource through an invention that
raises a waste product's value above zero.
•Examples include municipal solid waste (household trash/refuse), hazardous
waste ,wastewater (such as sewage , which contains bodily wastes ( feces andurine )
andsurface runoff ),radioactive waste , and others.


SOURCES OF WASTE
❖Sources of waste can be broadly classified into four types: Industrial, Commercial,
Domestic, and Agricultural.
•Industrial Waste :These arethewastes created infactories andindustries .Most industries
dump their wastes inrivers andseas which cause alotofpollution .Example :plastic, glass,
etc.
•Commercial Waste :These wastes areproduced inschools, colleges, shops, and offices .
Example :plastic, paper, etc.
•Domestic Waste :The different household wastes which arecollected during household
activities like cooking, cleaning, etc.areknown asdomestic wastes .Example :leaves,
vegetable peels, excreta, etc.
•Agricultural Waste :Various wastes produced intheagricultural field areknown asagricultural
wastes .Example :cattle waste, weed, husk, etc.


TYPES OF WASTE
❖5 TYPES OF WASTE
❑Liquid waste: It refers to all grease, oil, sludges, wash water, waste detergents and dirty water that
have been thrown away. They are hazardous and poisonous to our environment and are found in
industries as well as households. Wastewater, as it is often called, is any waste that exists in liquid
form .
oHow is liquid waste removed?
The three methods we can remove liquid wastes from wherever they’re located include;
•Containment : This involves storing liquid waste in barrels or tanks so that they can be removed
from our surroundings. Containing liquid waste prevents it from being dumped in our environment.
•Treatment : All liquid wastes do not need to be thrown away. You can treat and reuse them. For
example, organic waste is composted and used to produce fertilizers in various stations in the UK.
•Disposal : If no treatment can be done on liquid waste, then it should be disposed of.


TYPES OF WASTE
❑Solid waste: Solid waste is any garbage, sludge, and refuse found in industrial and commercial
locations. The five major types of solid rubbish are;
•Glass and Ceramics : Numerous companies readily recycle ceramics and glass. The catch here
is that you have to dispose of them correctly.
•Plastic waste : Plastic waste is any container, jar, bottle, and bag that is found in companies and
houses. Plastics are non -biodegradable, and most of them cannot be recycled. Do not mix
plastic rubbish with regular waste. Instead, sort them out before throwing them away.
•Paper rubbish : This refers to all newspapers, packaging materials, cardboards, and other
paper products. Paper is recyclable.
•Metals and Tins : You can easily find tins and metals in homes because food containers and
household materials are made from them. Most metals are recyclable, so take them to a scrap
yard or recycling depot after use.


TYPES OF WASTE
❑Organic Waste: It refers to rotten meat, garden and food waste. This type of rubbish is
commonly found in homes. With time, they decompose and turn into manure by the action
of microorganisms on them. But be careful; you should not dispose of them anywhere you
like.
•When decomposing, organic waste produces methane, so, it must not be thrown away with
regular waste. Instead, get a green bin and dispose of this type of waste properly.
❑Recyclable Waste: All discarded items like metals, furniture, organic waste that can be
recycled fall under this category. Not all items are recyclable, so you have to be careful when
putting things into the recycle bin. If you are not sure whether an item is recyclable or not,
then check the item’s packaging.


TYPES OF WASTE
❑Hazardous Waste: It includes flammable, corrosive, toxic and reactive materials. In a nutshell, they are
wastes that pose a significant or potential threat to our environment.
oThe four ways of disposing of hazardous waste are;
•Recycling: A few hazardous wastes can be recycled to form other products. For example, circuit boards
and lead -acid batteries can bind to other pollutants and later used as pavement fillings. Chemical levels
are reduced when hazardous wastes are converted to new products.
•Incineration and Destruction: Another way of disposing of hazardous waste is to destroy or incinerate
them. Incineration reduces the amount of hazardous waste and can also generate energy for use in the
process.
•Pyrolysis : Pyrolysis, in a very high -temperature arc under inert conditions, is an excellent way to
dispose of hazardous waste. This process is used to avoid the dangers of combustion and is preferable
when dealing with PCBs, organic waste and pesticides.
•Disposing in a landfill : A landfill is a disposal facility where rubbish is placed in. Land treatment facilities
are not landfills.