Video summary

Webinaire : Stockage des déchets

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas & lessons from the webinar (Waste storage in France)

1) Webinar setup, logistics, and participation rules

Participants were asked to:

  • Update their name in Zoom (first/last name + organization) via the participants list (“More”).
  • Perform a microphone test for speakers.
  • Mute their microphones.
  • Submit questions through:
    • Chat during presentations, or
    • “Raise hand” in Zoom for oral questions.

2) Purpose and framing of the event: “Choosing means anticipating”

The webinar focused on controlled management of waste storage facilities, with an emphasis on how to anticipate future valuation and compliance constraints, particularly for non-hazardous waste landfills (ISDND).

A political/regulatory context was repeatedly emphasized: the storage sector faces evolving rules and liabilities.

3) Current context and regulatory elements discussed (high-level)

Key data points (from ADEME / AMORCE surveys referenced in the talk)

  • Storage reduction targets (DND / non-inert):
    • In 2025, the sector was not yet on track to meet objectives for storage reduction.
    • Even later years still show gaps, with millions of tonnes landfilled above target levels.
  • Scope clarifications for figures:
    • Definitions such as ITOM and “facility perimeter” affect how tonnage figures are interpreted.
    • “Equating” tonnage numbers can be misleading depending on which wastes/facilities are included.
  • Collection-to-storage pathway:
    • A notable share of municipal waste (e.g., OMR) goes directly to storage without sorting.

Waste levy / tax trajectory (formerly called TGAP)

  • “TGAP storage” is renamed as of 2026 to waste tax/dump (the legacy term remains in discussion).
  • Rates mentioned:
    • ~€65/tonne (2025) → €69/tonne (2026) → up to €85/tonne (2030)
    • Inflation indexing / finance bill nuances were referenced.

Decree-driven obligations on “valuable fractions” in landfilled waste

  • Bulky item characterization becomes mandatory annually, with responsibility placed on the collection authority (not necessarily the processing entity).
  • OMR characterization (organic fraction / recoverable thresholds):
    • A maximum 65% recoverable allowance was described as a threshold enabling burial while limiting the recoverable fraction.
    • Tolerance/grace periods and deadlines were shifting toward 2026.
    • This can create practical risks of landfills being effectively blocked without viable treatment solutions.

4) Methodology / proposal: how AMORCE argues for workable derogations (OMR decree issue)

The webinar presented a “problem → proposed fix” approach to avoid unjust compliance failures when treatment routes are not available.

AMORCE’s problem statement

If applied “mechanically,” the 65% threshold can:

  • Block disposal flows without an alternative treatment solution.
  • Penalize territories even when prevention efforts reduced overall recoverables, because the indicator is percentage-based and may not reflect absolute reductions.

Proposed solution: criteria for derogations / exceptions

AMORCE proposes exemptions and bypass criteria so communities can remain compliant in practice.

Derogations discussed include (as narrated):

  • Criteria exceptions allowing disregard of the indicator in specific cases where compliance is not feasible.
  • Adjustments linked to how flows are treated/processed:
    • For instance, OMR treated via certain recovery routes may still be eligible if characterization results meet required thresholds at the time of sending to the ISDND.
  • Non-programmed / urgent transfers:
    • Unsanctioned/unplanned transfers to non-hazardous disposal sites may be exempt.
    • Programmed transfers (even planned only a month ahead due to lack of capacity) would not qualify the same way because characterization obligations would be triggered.

Near-term policy outlook

  • A decree amendment is being considered (timing referenced as potentially summer consultation), with tolerance potentially extended until publication, and timing around the first half of 2027.

5) Valuation strategy shift: from cogeneration to biomethane injection

A major part of the webinar addressed how landfill operators need to rethink energy valuation models.

Why the transition is happening (cogeneration pressure)

  • Cogeneration contracts (e.g., BG11/BG16 referenced) are reaching end-of-contract periods:
    • New contracts have stopped for years.
    • Electricity market conditions and investment recovery make engine reinvestment harder.
  • Declining tonnages accepted and biodegradable inputs reduce biogas production over time:
    • This makes complex projects harder to justify economically.

Biomethane injection—status and scaling numbers

  • Facilities injecting biomethane into gas networks increased from a small number (about “6 facilities” referenced) to 25 by 2026.

Financial/market mechanisms for biomethane injection (as explained by Waga)

Support mechanisms included:

  • Right to injection with facilitation of connections (network operators cover a large part of connection costs).
  • Purchase obligation tariffs (BG11/BG16 transitions to biomethane pricing):
    • Includes a degression mechanism tied to multi-year energy programming targets.
  • Projects outside tariff access thresholds:
    • Biogas production certificates
    • Certificates bought by gas distributors, then returned to the State to meet green gas regulatory obligations.

6) Practical “feasibility methodology” for deciding biomethane injection (Waga Energie)

Julien Sauvé (Waga Energie) outlined selection criteria that function like an informal checklist for investment viability.

Key inputs/conditions Waga seeks

  • Long-term biogas availability
    • Site expected to provide > ~250 normal m³/h of biogas (average/long-run target; can rise then decline).
    • Evaluation horizon: 10–20 years depending on the business case.
  • Biogas composition
    • CH₄ content: target > 38% (ideally within that range).
    • Oxygen level: keep < 3.5% to avoid injection/purification issues.
  • Operational/network readiness
    • Oxygen leaks must be limited:
      • Seal air inlets, monitor, and manage inlet frequency.
      • “Main air leaks” were described as often manageable for most ISDNDs through engineering controls and monitoring.

Project timing & implementation constraints

  • Typical deployment: ~18 to 24 months, including construction/manufacturing and connection steps (GRDF connection mentioned).

Decision principle communicated to communities

  • Don’t wait until end-of-contract:
    • The “window of opportunity” for cogeneration-linked valuation is closing.
    • Begin techno-economic design early to avoid being forced into “wipe or extend” under poor negotiation conditions.

7) Case studies: how communities adapted valuation choices

Case 1: Valtom (Céline Pinot) — biomethane by mixing landfill + neighboring methanizer gases

Situation

  • ISDND started cogeneration (engines) in 2001.
  • Market shift: engines weakened; electrical buyback became non-viable.
  • The landfill alone no longer received enough fermentable waste, so the biogas forecast decreased.

Biomethane approach

  • Combine landfill biogas with methanizer biogas into a Waga purification/injection system.

Regulatory/administrative hurdles

  • DGEC/state acceptance for mixing biogas origins required lengthy negotiation/derogation.
  • Authorized and commissioned in December 2024.

Organizational innovation

  • Created a dedicated company: “Valtum Energie Biomethane”
    • Waga 51% / Valtum 49%.

Reported figures (as stated)

  • Project cost: ~€3.5M
  • Subsidy: ~€339,075
  • Production/output: ~16.6 GW (wording unclear in subtitles; presented as production capacity/output)
  • Revenue in 2025: ~€1.7M shared
  • LCOE reported: ~€89.10 per MW (as described in narration)

Q&A points

  • Payback:
    • Waga indicated typical ~6–7 years in France; for Valtum, likely ~4–5 years depending on specifics.
  • Purification compatibility:
    • Purification handled inside the unit; two cryogenic distillation steps described as enabling treatment of ISDND gas complexity.
  • Project-company model rationale:
    • Political choice: avoid “handing over keys” fully to the operator.

Case 2: Orient Agglomération (Laurent) — biomethane via ownership/management strategy from cogeneration-era transition

Context

  • Landfill operated since the 1990s with successive burial phases.
  • Raw gas had silica issues; engine feasibility improved with manufacturer progress.

Approach

  • Waga machine owned by the community (different from some standard models).
  • Run via an internal autonomous energy management budget.

Operational controls

  • Emphasis on accurate quantification (flow metering/torch history) and managing air leaks.

Connection/injection

  • Connection to GRDF network.
  • Injection flow rate constraints discussed in relation to network capacity and summer demand.

Q&A point

  • Landfill cover materials and tonnages:
    • Older cells: clay; newer cells: geomembrane.
    • Tonnes in buried waste were mentioned with values described as partly estimated due to dated figures.

Case 3: Organom (Audrey Trou d’Ogan) — planning uncertainty after engine contract ends

Situation

  • Publicly managed landfill (old ISDND starting 1984; extension 2016–2028).
  • Biogas valuation with TotalEnergies under contract ending in 2027.
  • Landfilled tonnage declines due to upstream diversion policies.

Methodology employed

  • Diagnose current biogas capture and network performance:
    • Where/what flows enter, reception quality, capture share.
  • Forecast future biogas over decades based on planned tonnage evolution.
  • Techno-economic study to size solutions under multiple future scenarios.

Options under study (as narrated)

  • Electricity generation (despite end-of-bond-tariff risk).
  • Biomethane injection (preliminary feasibility study suggests profitability).
  • Thermal treatment via flares/torch as a last resort:
    • Not preferred because it does not align with recovery prioritization.

Open question

  • Whether future “MTD storage” obligations (best techniques) will impose more constraints and affect valuation choices.

Q&A point

  • Oxygen management methodology:
    • Network operator monitors oxygen intake and uses analyzers at inlet points.
    • Automated supervision plus checks for seasonal variation and pipe expansion effects.

8) Pivotal system-level issue raised: biogas quality requirements differ by use

A key discussion highlighted that cogeneration vs biomethane injection have different sensitivities to biogas quality—especially oxygen content and injection compatibility.

Communities described local mitigation/monitoring approaches rather than assuming one setup works everywhere.

9) Regional forward planning: Nouvelle-Aquitaine prospective study (Julie Collin)

This segment broadened the focus from individual landfills to territorial capacity planning.

Study purpose and scope

  • Led by Indigo in 2024, ending Feb 2025.
  • Forecast waste treatment solutions and capacity needs up to:
    • 2031, 2040, 2050
    • (storage closure signals begin around 2031 in their planning)
  • Territory: Nouvelle-Aquitaine (~6M inhabitants, 12 departments)
    • With numerous treatment/valuation installations (energy recovery, incineration, storage sites, sorting/mechanobiological processes, etc.).

Methodology (structured consultation)

  • Conducted through working groups:
    • Local authorities with processing responsibilities
    • Private operators (confidential concerns handled via individual interviews rather than open group sharing)
    • Environmental associations, consulted across phases

Findings & strategic direction

  • Storage capacity declines are expected from closures, but waste residuals do not decrease as quickly as anticipated.
    • Storage will still be needed for some period even with increased recovery.
  • Scenarios:
    • “Stradet scenario” continuation vs a “territorial reality scenario” incorporating planned community actions (e.g., collection changes, drop-off vs door-to-door).
  • Considered regulatory ramp-ups:
    • Source separation / biowaste collection
    • New REP mechanisms mentioned

Priority principle

  • Prefer energy recovery when possible, while:
    • Preserving landfill roles for refusals that cannot be valued elsewhere
    • Avoiding transport expansion beyond fair/local constraints

Territorial cooperation strategy examples

  • Inter-community partnerships to divert waste to incineration/energy recovery outside their own department, including rerouting stored waste to other territories when closures loom.

Conclusions from the study

Storage will not disappear immediately; communities should:

  • Plan replacement outlets (incineration or energy recovery)
  • Manage exemptions/extension requests case-by-case
  • Stay vigilant regarding:
    • Calendar delays (land availability, construction timelines)
    • Outlets disruption (crisis events)
    • Climate resilience (storms/flooding impacts)

Regional follow-up

  • A reassessment planned within 6 months after regional elections (timing around 2028) to update the Stradet orientation and enable legal/financial support requests (letters to ministries, coordination with DREAL/prefecture).

10) Brief / PFAS updates and “compliance futures” (storage reference & PFAS obligations)

Two regulatory tracks were highlighted as relevant to landfill management.

A) “Brief storage” (EU Best Available Techniques document)

  • Goal:
    • Create a Landfills BREF focused on emission control from the storage sector.
  • Timeline:
    • Work started: 2025
    • Publication expected: 2029
    • Compliance expected by ~2033
  • Governance:
    • EU working group with member states and European federations
    • France represented via relevant risk prevention structures
    • AMORCE participants described as representing community interests through a national mirror group
  • Data collection:
    • Volunteers from ISDNDs were asked to provide real-world data to ground “best available techniques.”
  • Interaction:
    • Iterative consultations with feedback (“ping-pong”) until the final version.

B) PFAS/PFOS measures for landfills

Background

  • Large-scale PFAS identification campaigns occurred in 2023–2025.

Decrees

  • Sep 2025 decree:
    • Progressive national reduction of PFAS mass emissions
    • Direction mentioned:
      • Aim for 70% fewer PFAS by Feb 2028 and toward near-end emissions by Feb 2030 (subtitles noted uncertainty/vagueness)
  • Dec 2025 decree:
    • Progressive marketing bans for some uses, affecting inputs to waste systems.

Consultations in spring 2026

  • One consultation on treatment of liquid waste potentially containing PFAS (ICPE headings 2790/2791 referenced).
  • Another consultation topic:
    • A pollution charge for PFAS water discharges
    • Mentioned framing: €100 per 100g increment of rejected PFAS
    • (framework of a decree/order still awaited/under consultation)

AMORCE positions

  • Requested exemption for facilities not responsible for PFAS contamination as a source.
  • Requested clarification on how royalties allocate under the polluter-pays principle and whether the framework is coherent.

Practical concern

  • Monitoring cadence and treatment assumptions described as theoretical and not pragmatic (e.g., monitoring frequency every two weeks; quantification-related limits).

Bigger picture message on storage

One comment argued that while storage is low in the waste hierarchy, climate and circular-economy realities may still justify storage as complementary—especially for waste streams (e.g., certain plastics) that are difficult to recycle economically or quickly.

11) Closing, resources, and upcoming AMORCE events

  • Webinar recordings and slides will be made available.
  • AMORCE announced:
    • 40th congress in Lyon (Oct 7–9)
    • A one-day event in Paris (waste & value creation)
    • Sessions for newly elected officials and training-style informational sessions in the municipal election year
  • An updated guide (“guide du choix” / wording unclear) is planned by end of June.

Speakers / sources featured (as identified from subtitles)

Main speakers

  • Léa de Le Pierre (AMORCE) — webinar host; waste treatment and energy recovery topics
  • Thierry Roland (ADEME / “ADEM” in subtitles) — introduction and ADEME legislative/political context remarks
  • Julien Sauvé (Waga Energy) — biomethane injection vs cogeneration; valuation mechanisms and project feasibility criteria
  • Céline Pinot (Valtum) — Valtom/ISDND biomethane project case study
  • Laurent (Orient Agglomération; subtitles indicate “Laurent” as speaker) — Orient Agglo biomethane injection operational experience
  • Audrey Trou d’Ogan (Organom) — long-term planning after end of biogas valorization contract; diagnosis and scenarios
  • Julie Collin (Nouvelle-Aquitaine Region) — regional prospective study and territorial cooperation strategy
  • Guillin / Giselin (Veolia; first name unclear) — discussion about biomethane certificate/modulation coefficient attractiveness

Additional voices referenced / acknowledged

  • Institutional actors mentioned: ADM / DGPR / DGEC / GRDF / France Gaz / FNAD(E) / FEAD (exact individuals not identified in subtitles)
  • TotalEnergies — referenced as equipment/operator partner in Organom’s contract scenario
  • Julien — also appears answering questions in the Q&A
  • Carole Lebreton de Valorine — participant question (microphone muted/unheard fully)

Organizations / sources providing data or studies (mentioned)

  • AMORCE (surveys referenced, publications, advocacy)
  • ADEME / ADEM (institutional partner)
  • Indigo (Nouvelle-Aquitaine prospective study)
  • LAADEM (appears repeatedly in subtitles; likely ADEME used consistently)
  • DGPR / DGEC (regulatory authorities mentioned)

Original video