final report recycling on the go containers - wrap england container guide.pdf · final report...

Final Report

Recycling on the Go Containers

A reference document identifying considerations in the selection of containers for different Recycling on The Go (RotG) sectors and situations.

Project code: PAC004

Research date: February 2012-April 2012 Date: July 2012

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Written by: Polly Griffiths (Score Environment)

Front cover photography: Recycling on the Go containers at a South Ayrshire park (source: Taylors)

WRAP believes the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements

are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost

information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).

The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to

ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being

inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain

whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by

WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the

material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must

not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its

web site: www.wrap.org.uk

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

Recycling on the Go Containers 3

Contents

1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Information sources ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Sectors and situations .......................................................................................................... 4

2 Selection Considerations ............................................................................................................ 6 2.1 General considerations......................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Considerations according to internal or external environment ................................................ 10 2.3 Considerations by sector .................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Security ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.5 Features ........................................................................................................................... 12

3 Containers ................................................................................................................................. 14

Tables

Table 1 RotG sectors and situations .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 2 Key general considerations in container selection ............................................................................... 6 Table 3 Conventional units versus reverse vending machines .......................................................................... 8 Table 4 Container material considerations ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 5 Characteristics required of containers in different situations .............................................................. 10 Table 6 Specific considerations by sector .................................................................................................... 11 Table 7 Container features ........................................................................................................................ 13 Table 8 Examples of containers currently or planned to be utilised in different RotG sectors and situations ....... 15

Glossary

Container: receptacle used for the collection of recyclable materials within a RotG scheme.

Bin: receptacle used for the collection of residual waste. Also used in conjunction with ‘wheelie’ when ‘wheelie bins’ are used to collect recyclates within a RotG container.

Acknowledgements

WRAP would like to acknowledge the help of the container suppliers, who generously committed time to provide

information, and the individuals and organisations involved in the development of the Scottish RotG case studies.


1 Overview

1.1 Objective

The objective of the research was to identify recycling on the go (RotG) containers that are suitable for use at

different types of site.

It is recognised that a range of different container types are likely to be suitable for RotG schemes. The research aimed to identify the key considerations in container selection and give examples of existing containers that are

suitable for different situations.

1.2 Information sources

The information sources used in the compilation of this document were:

Recoup (undated) Recycling on the Go Scoping Document

RotG workshop outputs

RotG literature review draft

Zero Waste Scotland RotG Capital Support Fund application forms (container type and site type information only); and

Direct contact with container suppliers (see Appendix 1).

Telephone conversations: Leafield and Glasdon; and

Face to face meetings: Broxap and Wybone.

1.3 Sectors and situations

Table 1 below gives a breakdown of the typical sectors and situations where RotG containers may be located.

This breakdown forms the structure for the information presented in the remaining sections.


Table 1 RotG sectors and situations

Sector Sub-sector Potential situations

Academia

Colleges Public areas of schools

Universities

Car parks Entrances

External Internal

Events

Commercial (e.g. exhibitions)

Music / cultural festivals Sporting festivals

External

Internal

Hospitals

Public areas including areas with retail

outlets and food outlets Waiting areas

Car parks

Entrances External

Internal

Leisure attractions

Cinemas Community halls

Conference centres Music venues

Privately managed parks /open spaces Sporting venues

Theme parks

Car parks Entrances

External Internal

Local authority

Beaches / esplanades Car parks

Parks

Streets

External Pavement

Shopping centres Car parks

Entrances External

Internal

Tourist accommodation Camping and caravan sites Holiday parks

Hotels

Car parks Entrances

External

Internal

Transport hubs

Airports

Bus stations

Motorway service stations Ports

Roadside Train stations

Car parks

Entrances

External Internal

Transport vehicles

Ferries

Trains

Internal


2 Selection Considerations

2.1 General considerations

As shown in Table 2, there are a large number of considerations to take into account when planning the

installation of RotG containers or the upgrade of existing facilities.

Manufactures and suppliers who were consulted suggested that they will work with the client to undertake a site survey or waste audit to help set the constraints and boundaries for container selection. All suggested that

footfall is a very important consideration as it impacts on the best locations for containers, the number of containers required and the capacity needed to meet demand. Most suggested that clients should consider a trial

or pilot before implementing full schemes. Suppliers suggested that the trial stage need not necessarily involve a

cost to the client.

Table 2 Key general considerations in container selection

Headline considerations Sub-considerations

Budget available

Limits the number of containers;

Some materials and signage requirements will be expensive; and

High-tech reverse vending machines versus other types of container.

Potential locations for

containers

Geography – e.g. internal or external environment;

Ensuring that containers are visible;

Space available may be an issue;

Busiest locations – areas of highest footfall; and

High waste producing areas – e.g. canteens, food outlets.

Materials collection Wastes arising and materials to be collected for recycling;

Segregated or co-mingled;

Number of materials collected; and

Plans for residual waste - will residual waste be paired/twinned/co-located with recycling.

Selecting number of

containers

Size of location;

Space available;

Footfall;

Accessibility – adequate number to allow easy accessibility; and

Vehicle available for servicing containers – emptying / cleansing.

Selecting container

capacity

Space available;

Footfall; and

Emptying frequency –in part will dictate capacity required. Frequency will depend on

whether the collection will be a new service or added to an existing collection round.

Operational constraints

Manual handling issues;

Emptying by hand versus by vehicle uplift;

Vehicles available for servicing containers – emptying / cleansing;

Ability to empty when full;

Number of operatives available to empty containers;

Ease of opening and accessibility; and

Ability for users to continue to use container while being emptied.

Security and fixing

Ability to lock;

Fixed versus free standing;

Fixed containers may need planning permission;

Ability to secure containers in the case of a security alert; and


Headline considerations Sub-considerations

Specific security consideration for certain sectors e.g. airports (see Section 2.3).

Other health and safety

considerations

Ability to move containers;

Exclude sharp edges; and

Accessibility to disabled and children.

Signage and branding

Ability to brand with corporate and national messages/signs/iconography;

Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings;

Corporate style /street scene consistency;

Flexibility to change if scheme is modified/new materials added; and

Ability to add advertising/sponsorship – potential source of income.

Maintenance requirements Ease of cleaning;

Vandalism risks – fly-posters, fire risks;

Vermin risks – seagulls, rats;

Longevity – corrosion (e.g. salt corrosion at seafront sites);

Ability to refurbish; and

Flexibility of solution – ability to easily adjust or change signage, apertures, volume split.

Procurement/sustainable

procurement/CSR

Ability to recycle;

Use of recycled materials in manufacture;

Ability to refurbish; and

Any procurement restrictions e.g. framework contracts.

This document focuses on ‘low tech’ containers i.e. containers which do not require an energy supply. Table 3

outlines some differences between conventional units and reverse vending units. There are conventional units that require an energy supply to allow the incorporation of more high-tech solutions. These are recent additions

to the container market. Two examples are given in

Table 4 and Error! Reference source not found.


Table 3 Conventional units versus reverse vending machines

Conventional unit Reverse vending

No requirement for an electrical supply;

Substantially cheaper to procure than RV;

Opportunity to collect mixed recyclables within the same

unit;

Suitable for different sizes, shapes and forms of

packaging;

Internal units are smaller in size and require less floor space;

Low daily maintenance; and

Rely on external messages to the consumer to minimise contamination.

Require an energy source (can be supplied through solar panels);

Generally more expensive than conventional units;

Generally collect just cans and plastic bottles. Some units can be used for hot drink containers;

Ability to provide incentives to users; however, users

may expect a form of incentive which is not always sustainable and withdrawing incentives can result in

lower capture rates;

Able to reject contamination; but can also reject requested items (e.g. unidentified barcodes);

Electronic record keeping of the number of times the unit

has been used;

Can incorporate crushing and therefore have a higher

capacity compared to a non-crushing unit;

Require periodic emptying and cleaning;

Require software update (e.g. new barcodes);

Depending on the size, may not be applicable to all types

and sizes of packaging (e.g. no HDPE bottles or no 1-2L PET bottles); and

If external, can attract vandalism.

Table 4 Renew in London

Locations installed:

200 Renew ‘communication pods’, that double as paper recycling containers, have been installed in the Square Mile of London.

High tech features:

Two LCD screens displaying live news, entertainment

and information;

Wi-fi hotspots; and

Public broadcast network in emergency situations.

Other features:

Designed to mitigate the force, fire and fragments of

an improvised explosive device: inner chassis four

times stronger than steel and body panels made from glass-reinforced polymer; and

Slot aperture for paper recycling.

Cost:

£25,000 per unit;

Renew pays for containers and maintenance; and

Recoup capital expenditure through sponsorship

and corporate news and announcements, as well as the content that is shows in real-time.

Source: http://renewsolution.com/index.html and various internet news articles accessed.

http://renewsolution.com/index.html


Table 5 Big Belly solar bin

Locations installed (worldwide):

External locations; and

On-street, parks, colleges, beach fronts, leisure

venues.

High tech features:

Solar panel which powers a compactor; and

Wireless monitoring system – sends text or email

when 85% full.

Advertised advantages:

Reduction in container collection costs;

Elimination of over flowing containers; and

Generates positive public response and “buy-in”.

Energy supply: Solar panel

Source: http://www.bigbellysolar.co.uk/

There are some considerations when thinking about the material most suitable for the body of the container (see

Table ). However, many units tend to be composites or manufactured from a mixture of materials. Manufacturers of metal containers are able to supply containers with a variety of finishes such as anti-fly paint

and anti-corrosion paint. As such, it is hard to draw general conclusions about material suitability. (Material considerations in relation to bomb proof units are discussed in Section 2.3.)

Table 6 Container material considerations

Material Characteristics

Glass fibre Non corrosive; and

Hard wearing.

Plastic Generally lighter than steel;

Generally cheaper than steel;

Can be more vulnerable to vandalism and fire damage;

Can have double-skin moulding for added strength; and

Can be manufactured using recycled plastic.

Steel/galvanised steel

Heavier than plastic;

High durability;

Can be more vulnerable to corrosion but galvanised metal containers are more resistant

and anti-corrosion paint is commonly available;

Can get hot in summer if positioned in direct sunlight;

Can have sharp edges; and

Can be refurbished.

http://www.bigbellysolar.co.uk/


2.2 Considerations according to internal or external environment

Table 7 outlines some of the characteristics required for containers depending on where they will be located. Internal

locations are frequently more space-limited than external situations and so container footprint is a key consideration. Internal

environments tend to be more controlled than external environments - features can be included such as liquid reservoirs and

vandalism is less of an issue. In external environments, the key considerations are selecting containers that will be robust,

hard-wearing and resistant to weather and vandalism.

Table 7 Characteristics required of containers in different situations

Car park As external;

Highly visible; and

Tend to require larger capacity than internal.

Entrances As internal.

External Fireproof;

Fixed and locked;

Hard wearing;

Larger capacity / large footprint;

Planning permission (required for fixed containers);

Resistant to vandalism;

Vermin-proof including seagulls; and

Weather resistant.

Internal Easily accessed;

Easily serviced / cleaned;

Movable;

Resist damage; and

Small footprint.

Pavement As external; and

Small footprint.

2.3 Considerations by sector

Table 8 sets out some specific considerations by sector; these have been highlighted at the WRAP organised

RotG stakeholder engagement workshops1 or identified by container suppliers. Generally, the considerations outlined in Table 2 are common across different sectors and have not been specifically repeated below. The only

design specification identified in this research was produced by BAA for their airports (see Section 2.4). The NHS sets strict fire requirements which have to be met by waste collection containers.

1 Stakeholder engagement workshops were held in England, Scotland and Wales with organisations involved in RotG development and delivery to explore the financial mechanisms behind their schemes and how existing partnership arrangements could be replicated. The workshops were held in January and February 2012.


Table 8 Specific considerations by sector

Sector Consideration

Hospitals Compliant with fire safety;

Infection control – must be easy to clean; and

Restricted space (in corridors).

Local authority managed

spaces Ability to empty using existing vehicles;

Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings, particularly in conservation and heritage

areas / with street-scene requirements;

Containers that will not corrode - specifically for coastal areas;

Easy to open and empty;

Low maintenance;

Meet the requirements of the population that use the area; and

Resistant to vandalism.

One-off events Easy to transport, stack and store;

High capacity;

High visibility; and

Quick to install.

Permanent leisure

attractions / venues Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings; and

Highly visible.

Shopping centres Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings; and

Highly visible.

Transport hubs Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings;

Airports – the collection of materials that cannot be taken through security e.g.

sharps, liquids and textiles;

Highly visible;

Security – requires frequent emptying; and

Security – transparent or blast resistant containers may need to be considered.

2.4 Security

Security is a particular concern at transport hubs and some other potential terrorist targets. Blast proof containers have been installed within the Square Mile in London (Section 2.1).

The Aviation Security in Airport Developments (ASIAD) provides recommendations on the positioning and

structure of containers for airports that can be accessed through official sources.

The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI)1 has carried out a number of tests on containers.

They then allocate a rating and it is up to the airport to decide on the standard and suitability of the containers they install.

The Home Office has produced a guidance note (HOSDB 12/08) – The selection, positioning and testing of Blast

Resistant Litter Bins2.

BAA has a ‘Design Performance Standard for Airport Bins’3. This sets out detailed requirements including: being

able to sustain intense use; having a high quality visual appearance; being readily maintainable and cleanable;

1 http://www.cpni.gov.uk/

2 http://www.cpni.gov.uk/documents/publications/2008/2008052-hosdb_guidance_note_12_blast-resistant_litterbins.pdf?epslanguage=en-gb

3 BAA Airports (2009) Airport Bins: Design Performance Standard.


being portable and meeting manual handling regulations; and being colour-coded according to WRAP

conventions.

Based on the consultation with the suppliers, it would seem that railways station operators are more concerned

about the security risks than airports. Glasdon produces the only container approved by TRANSEC1 for use in

railway stations. The ‘C-thru’ container is fire and blast-proof. Some containers available from suppliers can be provided with blanking plates to block the apertures of containers if there is a security alert.

2.5 Features

This section highlights some of the specific features that can be included on RotG containers to encourage use

and to help operationally.

Container suppliers and practitioners at the RotG workshops suggested that material-specific apertures help

reduce contamination. Containers are available with apertures specific for bottles, cans, paper and mixed dry recyclate. Generally, it seems to be agreed that the aperture size for all materials, including residual litter, should

be restricted to prevent contamination and, for larger capacity containers, used by commercial businesses. In

addition, it also seems to be generally agreed that the aperture provided for residual waste should be larger than that for the recycled material streams. Error! Reference source not found. identifies some of the other

container features available.

1 The Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC) was set up as a separate unit within the Department for Transport (DfT) following the Lockerbie bombing of 21 December 1988.


Table 9 Container features

Feature Comments

Ability to group bins Some containers are specifically designed to be grouped together e.g. collecting source-segregated material.

Ashtray/stubber plate For external environments.

Branding/good signage Branding and signage can look busy on smaller containers;

Needs to be very clear, simple, eye-catching and easy to understand; and

Should look different from residual waste bins.

Brushes on apertures Can extinguish lit matches decreasing the fire risk;

Can prevent food waste; and

Can reduce potential health and safety risk e.g. broken glass escaping out of

container.

Castors on liners Helps to make emptying easier.

Colour Recycle Now1 and Recycle for Scotland colour code is current standard best practice;

Black can work well for RotG if well signed and has coloured apertures for recyclate;

Black can be viewed by users as residual waste containers, if not distinguished by signage/colour-coding;

Colour can be used to tie in with kerbside scheme in a local authority situation; this may not be appropriate in tourist areas where the kerbside colour has no meaning to visitors; and

Colour on the apertures and doors can be used to help identify the materials accepted.

D-shaped profile or flat profile Allows positioning against a wall.

Dimpled/perforated/ribbed

surface

Deters fly posting.

Front opening Allows emptying without lifting.

Interchangeable apertures/lids Gives flexibility to modify what is being collected.

Liner tray with reservoir To collect liquids and help cleaning.

Liquid reservoir Can be used to help reduce liquid contamination; and

Not suitable in an external environment.

Rat modification For consideration in areas where rats are an issue.

Seagull flaps For consideration in areas where seagulls are an issue.

Side or rear opening Containers can still be used while being emptied.

Sound dampening For consideration if collecting glass.

Sloping/pyramid roofs Prevents materials being placed on the top of the container.

Special coatings e.g. anti-fly posting, anti-corrosion

Can be considered for specific external situations.

Transparent Users can see what materials should go in the container;

Discourages contamination;

High security –any suspect package can be seen;

It has been suggested that transparent containers are not suitable in an external environment. However, some suppliers are now producing transparent containers considered to be tough enough to use externally; and

Can have some aesthetic issues, as not everyone likes to see the content of a recycling container.

Weight warning graphic On clear containers to indicate when contents reaches a certain weight within the container (e.g. used for battery collection).

1 http://www.recyclenow.com/ and http://www.recycleforscotland.com/

http://www.recyclenow.com/


3 Containers

Table 10 gives some more detailed examples of containers that have been adopted in different RotG sectors and situations. This information has been compiled from the Scottish RotG case studies and the Scottish RotG

Capital Support Fund applications.

The accompanying Excel file (RotG container database July 12.xls) gives details of recycling containers currently

available from the main manufacturers. It should be noted that suppliers have development programmes and as

such new products are continually being developed. In addition, some suppliers are able to offer bespoke

solutions. Hence, there is likely to be greater flexibility in container provision than can be demonstrated in the

database.

Within the database the following details are provided for each container, subject to the information being

available via the manufacturer’s website (details are listed in same order as the database):

Manufacturer;

Model;

Main material type;

Containment method inside container e.g. metal liner, plastic sack;

Colour;

Colour of aperture/lid;

Number of apertures;

Type of aperture;

Volume;

Suitability for grouping;

Number of material streams;

Situation most suitable (external or internal);

Other comments on suitability (based only on information provided by supplier);

Features;

Optional features;

Lockable option;

Fixing; and

Source (website link).

The information in the database was supplemented with material provided directly by the suppliers consulted.


Table 10 Examples of containers currently or planned to be utilised in different RotG sectors and situations

Organisation Sector Sub-

sector

Situation Container

types

Material

type

Internal

containment

method

Number

of

apertures

Aperture

type

Vol.

(litres)

Reasons given for selection

Aberdeenshire Local

authority

managed

space

On-street External Glasdon

Nexus 360,

Leafield Eco

Envirobank,

Broxap

Derby

Plastic,

cans,

residual

waste

Wheelie bin –

240 or 140

litre

2 Specific to

material

stream

3x140

or 240

Residual waste can be collected adjacent to recycling to reduce contamination

Compatible with wheeled bin

collection system so existing vehicle fleet can be utilised for collection

Clackmannans

hire Council

Local

authority

managed

space

On-street External Double

Derby Bins

Slimline

Recycling

Unit (BX

2596-DDS-

RC)

Mixed

recycling

(paper,

card,

plastics,

metal food

and drink

containers

); residual

waste

Clear plastic

liner

4 Specific to

material

stream.

2x80 Allows collection of residual waste with recycling

Community

Central Hall

Permanent

leisure

attraction

Community

hall

Internal Wybone –

box cycle

single

Paper,

plastic

bottles,

cans

Clear plastic

sack

1 Specific to

material

stream.

60 Clear containers to reduce contamination

Fit together easily to create recycling points

Dundee City

Council

Local

authority

managed

space

Parks /

open

spaces

External Wybone

Timber

Fronted

(RLA/5 & 6)

Plastic

packaging,

aluminium

cans and

paper/card

board

- 1-2 Self-closing

flaps

Timber fronted containers match the circular slatted timber

litter bins currently on-site Blend in well with the

surroundings

Dundee City

Council

Local

authority

managed

space

On-street External Broxap

Single

Sided

Recycling

Plastic

packaging,

aluminium

cans,

- 3 Flap 270 Same container as found to be successful in beachfront location

Hard-wearing High enough capacity to cope

with demand



sector

Situation Container

types

Material

type

Internal

containment

method

Number

of

apertures

Aperture

type

Vol.

(litres)


Container

(BX45

SEPR8)

paper/card

board

Size not too obtrusive

Dundee City

Council

Local

authority

managed

space

On-street External Glasdon

Nexus

range /

Wybone

Mini Cyclo

Plastic

packaging,

aluminium

cans and

paper/card

board

Double

unit

- - - 200 -

300

Co-ordinate with the existing litter bins yet distinctive enough to avoid confusion (and hence contamination)

Minimise the risk of fly posting damage

Aperture sizes limits large-scale deposits or the dumping of larger materials

East Lothian Local

authority

managed

space

On-street

and car

park

External Taylors

Node 360º

Mixed

recyclates:

mixed

paper and

cardboard;

comingled

cans,

plastic and

glass.

- 1 - 4x800 High capacity (to fit with fortnightly collection frequency)

Locking post and base plate gives security without need for

planning permission Material specific apertures

reduce contamination and minimise health and safety risks

Edinburgh

Leisure

Permanent

leisure

attraction

Swimming

pool

Internal Wybone –

triple,

double,

single and

plastic cup

recycling

- Clear plastic

liner

1-3 Specific to

material

stream.

- Ability to relocate – if location chosen not working

Similar in design to those found in many other public spaces therefore easier for visitors to recognise and use

Essential

Edinburgh

Permanent

leisure

attraction

Parks /

open space

External Broxap

Buxton

Double

Recycling

Unit

Mixed

recycling;

residual

waste

Liners 6 Large

aperture

2 x 120 None given

Glasgow Council

Local authority

On-street / parks /

External Wybone Peat unit

Mixed papers

Metal liner. 1 Keyhole 120 Able to secure on concrete plinth which makes them secure and less



sector

Situation Container

types

Material

type

Internal

containment

method

Number

of

apertures

Aperture

type

Vol.

(litres)


managed space

open spaces

(newspapers/magazines), card, plastic bottles and cans

likely to be knocked over Size makes it suitable for highly

visible location Size does not cause any manual

handling issue

Highland

Council

Local

authority

managed

space

Car park External Glasdon

Nexus 200

Paper,

cans and

plastic

bottles

Liner 4 Small hole 200 None given

Perth and

Kinross

Council

Local

authority

managed

space

On-street External Taylors

Node 360

Mixed

recyclates:

Paper,

cardboard,

cans,

mixed

plastics

- 4 - 4x800 Able to be serviced by current fleet of RCVs – reducing operating costs

High capacity (to fit with fortnightly collection frequency)

Highly visual Locking post and base plate

gives security without need for planning permission

No need for groundwork Container can be moved –

freedom to adjust location of containers if required

Reduced manual handling risk

Royal Botanic

Garden

Edinburgh

Leisure

attraction

Parks /

open space

Internal Dolphin

recycling

container –

stainless

steel

Paper,

plastic

bottles,

residual

waste

Clear plastic

liners

3 Large

aperture

2 x 50

1 x 70

High specification Aesthetically appropriate to

setting (visitor centre entrance) Robust

Clear signage

Royal Botanic

Garden

Edinburgh

Leisure

attraction

Parks /

open space

Internal Glasdon –

Nexus 100

Plastic,

paper,

cans

Clear plastic

liners

1 Slot

(paper);

small hole

(plastic)

100 High specification. Aesthetically appropriate to

setting (meeting rooms). Robust.

Clear signage

Source: Successful applications to the Zero Waste Scotland RotG Capital Support Fund – Phase 1.

www.wrap.org.uk/rotgengland

final report recycling on the go containers - wrap england container guide.pdf · final report...

Documents