(wyg) report - review of kerbside recycling collection schemes in the uk in 2010-11

8/2/2019 (WYG) Report - Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection Schemes in the UK in 2010-11

1/84

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Review of Kerbside Recycling

Collection Schemes in the UK

in 2010/11

March 2012

WYG Lyndhurst, Empress House, 12 Empress Road, Lyndhurst, Hampshire SO43 7AE

Tel: 023 8028 3226

Email: [email protected]


2/84


Foreword

WYG is proud to present its third report reviewing kerbside recycling collection systems. This report covers

England, Scotland and Wales; at the time of our analysis figures from Northern Ireland were not available.

We know that our last two reports generated much interest both in the UK and abroad.

Sadly, the debate as to the merits and de-merits of different recycling systems is still often based upon

prejudice and the spreading of misinformation. WYG hopes that this report will provide further evidence for

those who wish to participate in the debate on the basis of fact.

As stated in our last report, we would like to emphasise for fear of being misrepresented that WYG

believes that it is entirely the choice of local authorities as to which recycling system they choose to operate.

WYG is interested only in assisting local authorities to improve service performance within affordable

budgets. The purpose of these reports is to provide useful information and facts to help inform their

decision-making. WYG continues to support local authorities in their endeavours to improve performance

and works with authorities that use kerbside-sort systems, those that use two-stream systems and those that

use co-mingled systems.

WYG is particularly pleased that the performance tables show that our support has yielded results: we take

pride in the fact that we have worked extensively with three of the top six authorities for improved

performance (Surrey Heath, Tewkesbury and North Somerset). It is worth noting that the first two collect

co-mingled dry recyclables, while North Somerset uses kerbside-sort methodology. Tewkesbury provides its

service in-house while Surrey Heath and North Somerset use contractors.

We say again: commentators who suggest that WYG has a vested interest in one system over another are

misguided. We also refute suggestions that we favour contractors over Direct Services Organisations or vice

versa. We strongly believe that each case is unique and should be examined separately, and that the choice

of appropriate systems and means of service delivery must take local preferences and factors into account.

In any such examination, objective facts and evidence must be considered, rather than relying upon

anecdotes and opinions.

We know, from our extensive work with local authorities, that the recycling of plastic can be a major

concern, and so we have included some extensive commentary on this topic. It is pleasing to note that

many authorities now collect the full range of plastics at the kerbside; the evidence from our case studies

shows a major benefit in terms of increasing the yields of all recyclate collected. A number of claims have


3/84


been made to the effect that the recycling of plastic is difficult; but the evidence is that many authorities

have discovered ways of doing so successfully with major benefit to their residents.

Some of our analysis has been difficult because of errors in the reporting of data by local authorities through

WasteDataFlow: analysis of the data has revealed inconsistencies or omissions that we have rectified

through cross-checking against other data sources or directly with local authority officers or contractors. We

appeal to the WasteDataFlow Project Management Board to ensure that better checks are made for

omissions and inconsistencies and to reduce the checking period from seven months (or eight in the case of

Northern Ireland) so that data is publicly available as soon as is possible each year.

WYG is grateful for the financial contribution and support of Biffa and Plastics Europe. It must be stressed

that this is an independent report, largely funded by WYG and with no public funding whatsoever.

We hope this report proves useful to local authorities looking to the future. We are proud of our track record

in assisting local authorities in improving their recycling performance and in reducing costs, and we look

forward to further years of achievement.

We are always delighted to receive any comments on this report, and we will always respond promptly to

any queries.

Len Attrill, Project Director


4/84


Contents

0.0 Executive Summary......................................................................................................................11.0 Introduction and Background to this Report...................................................................................32.0 Method........................................................................................................................................63.0 Top Performing Dry Recycling Authorities in 2010/11 .....................................................................9

3.1

Top 30: Kerbside Dry Recycling ....................................................................................... 9

3.2 Top 30: Kerbside and Bring Dry Recycling .......................................................................174.0 Factors Affecting Kerbside Recycling Performance........................................................................19

4.1 Collection System...........................................................................................................194.2 Affluence.......................................................................................................................214.3 Other Factors Affecting Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance ............................................234.4 Potential Impact of Moving to a Fully Co-mingled Collection Including Glass ......................23

5.0 Authorities with the Largest Changes in Yield in 2010/11..............................................................266.0 Costs.........................................................................................................................................297.0 Carbon Impacts .........................................................................................................................368.0 Other Issues..............................................................................................................................43

8.1 Quality of Recyclate .......................................................................................................438.2 Health and Safety ..........................................................................................................438.3 Customer Satisfaction.....................................................................................................448.4 Street Cleanliness ..........................................................................................................488.5 Procurement..................................................................................................................50


5/84


9.0 Plastics Recycling .......................................................................................................................539.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................539.2 Top Performing Kerbside Plastics Recycling Authorities in 2010/11....................................549.3 Case Study 1: Partially Co-mingled Kerbside Collections Including Plastics .........................609.4 Case Study 2: Fully Co-mingled Kerbside Collections Including Plastics..............................609.5 Case Study 3: Kerbside Sort Collections Including Plastics ................................................619.6 Yields for Kerbside Recycling of Plastics from Different Collection Systems.........................629.7 Top Performing Overall Plastics Recycling Authorities in 2010/11 ......................................63

Glossary and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................72


6/84


Table Contents

Table 1. Dry Recycling Collection Classifications .........................................................................................8Table 2. Collection Details for the Top 30 Kerbside Dry Recycling Authorities.............................................10Table 3. Kerbside Recycling Collection Types ...........................................................................................11Table 4. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for Top 30 Authorities in 2010/11...........................................12Table 5. Top 30: Kerbside/ Kerbside and Bring ........................................................................................18

Table 6. Authorities Achieving Top 15 Increases in Kerbside Dry Recycling Yield........................................27Table 7. Average Amounts Collected, kg/hh/yr, for each System...............................................................31Table 8. Overview of Collection Operations and Costs, Co-mingled and Kerbside Sort Options ....................31Table 9. Generic Vehicle Cost Assumptions ..............................................................................................32Table 10. Annual Vehicle Cost Estimates..................................................................................................33Table 11. Income per Tonne: Kerbside Sort Materials...............................................................................33Table 12. Total Service Costs: Co-mingled vs. Kerbside Sort .....................................................................34Table 13. Carbon Emissions Factors ........................................................................................................36Table 14. Dry Recycling, Residual and Food Waste Collected in Each Vehicle Type.....................................36 Table 15. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Collections ..........................................................................37Table 16. CO2e Emissions from Transfer Operations .................................................................................37Table 17. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Transfer Operations.............................................................38Table 18. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Haulage to a MRF................................................................38Table 19. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from a MRF.................................................................................39Table 20. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Haulage to Processors or Landfill..........................................39


7/84


Table 21. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Landfill ...............................................................................40Table 22. Estimation of CO2e Savings from Recycling Plastics ...................................................................40Table 23. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Waste Management Operations............................................41Table 24. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for the Top 30 Kerbside Plastic Authorities in 2010/11 ...........56Table 25. Top 30 for Plastics Recycling: Kerbside, Kerbside and Bring, All Household .................................64


8/84


Figure Contents

Figure 1. Inspecting Baled Cans at a Biffa Materials Recycling Facility .........................................................5Figure 2. Top 30: Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) ..................................................................................9Figure 3. A Fully Co-mingled Collection Including Glass, Collected in a Wheeled Bin ...................................15Figure 4. Top 30: Dry Recycling from Kerbside and Bring Sites .................................................................17Figure 5. Comparison of Kerbside Dry Recycling Yields in 2010/11, Broad Groups ......................................19

Figure 6. Comparison of Kerbside Dry Recycling Yields in 2010/11 ............................................................20Figure 7. Effect of Relative Affluence/Deprivation: Co-mingled vs. Separate Collections..............................22Figure 8. Effect of Relative Affluence/Deprivation: Fully Co-mingled Collections Including and Excluding Glass

and Separate Collections Including Glass .................................................................................................22Figure 9. Performance of Gloucestershire Authorities in 2010/11...............................................................24Figure 10. Potential Performance of Gloucestershire Authorities ................................................................24Figure 11. Comparison of Satisfaction in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk......................................................48Figure 12. Litter Failure Scores by Land Use ............................................................................................49Figure 13. A Bale of Natural HDPE Bottles ...............................................................................................53Figure 14. Top 30: Kerbside Plastics ........................................................................................................55Figure 15. Top 30 Kerbside Plastics Authorities, Showing All Materials Collected at the Kerbside .................55Figure 16. Quarterly Kerbside Dry Recycling Yields in Staffordshire Moorlands ...........................................60Figure 17. Quarterly Kerbside Dry Recycling Yields in Denbighshire...........................................................61Figure 18. Quarterly Kerbside Dry Recycling Yields in Newport..................................................................62Figure 19. Comparison of Kerbside Plastics Yields in 2010/11 ...................................................................63


9/84


Figure 20. Top 30: Kerbside and Bring Plastics (kg/hh/yr) ........................................................................66Figure 21. Top 30: Bring Site Plastics, Shown with Kerbside Plastics (kg/hh/yr) .........................................67Figure 22. Top 30: All Household Plastics (kg/hh/yr) ................................................................................68Figure 23. Top 30: All Plastics (kg/hh/yr).................................................................................................69Figure 24. Top 30: Commercial/ Industrial Plastics (kg/hh/yr)...................................................................70Figure 25. Top 30: Commercial/ Industrial Plastics (tonnes)......................................................................71Figure 26. Top 30 All Plastics (tonnes).....................................................................................................71


10/84

Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection Schemes in the UK in 2010/11

Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection Schemes in the UK in 2010/11 March 2012

1

0.0 Executive Summary

0.1.1 This report is an update to WYGs two previous reports, which analysed kerbside recycling

performance of local authorities in England in 2008/09 and in the whole of the UK in 2009/10. This

report covers England, Scotland and Wales for 2010/11; Northern Ireland could not be included as

its data was not publicly available at the time of our analysis.

0.1.2 This years report has a special focus on plastics collection: which authorities collect the most

plastics and the collection methods used by the top performers. Case studies are provided,

illustrating the features of different collection systems and their impact on plastics recycling.

0.1.3 There are also additional sections on costs, carbon impacts, quality of recyclate, health and safety,

customer satisfaction, street cleanliness and procurement.

0.1.4 As has been the case in the two previous years, the group of the highest performing councils in

terms of dry recycling is dominated by authorities that collect dry recycling on a co-mingled basis

and collect both recycling and residual waste fortnightly from wheeled bins.

0.1.5 The differential in yields between kerbside-sort schemes and fully co-mingled collections (where

both include glass) is significant, across the spectrum of deprivation. While incentive schemes may

help boost performance Windsor and Maidenhead occupies third position in the table of top dry

recyclers we believe that it is as yet unclear as to the cost-effectiveness of incentive schemes, as

all authorities introducing incentives have changed collection schemes at the same time.

0.1.6 We do not believe that one recycling system will always be cheaper than another; we offer a

transparent cost model that suggests that there is a case for co-mingled recycling to be cheaper in

many circumstances. Where local authorities wish to know the difference for their area, this modelcould easily be adapted for local circumstances. For authorities undertaking waste collection

contract procurement, we believe that a similar approach should be used to evaluate tenders based

on a total cost scenario for different collection options, including transport, labour, separation and

disposal costs, and income from recyclates.

0.1.7 The key findings from our research are as follows for kerbside collections:

20 of the top 30 performing councils for (dry) recycling yields operate fully co-mingled

collections including glass;


11/84



2

The highest performing fully co-mingled authority, Surrey Heath, collects 295 kg/ household/

year, nearly 60 kg/hh/yr more than the highest performing authority that collects mainly using

kerbside sort, Guildford, although Guildford provides co-mingled collections to some

households;

No authority in the top 30 collects all kerbside materials separately: two collect mainly using

kerbside sort, but provide co-mingled collections for some materials or some households;

All the top 30 collect paper, card, cans, glass and plastic bottles, and 20 collect mixed plastics;

26 of the top 30 authorities collect recycling fortnightly; the two authorities that sort at the

kerbside collect recycling weekly;

Areas that are more affluent tend to have higher yields, but fully co-mingled collections

including glass tend to outperform separate collections by a similar margin across the spectrum

of deprivation;

Authorities that collect fully co-mingled but do not accept glass performed similarly to separate

collections that included glass across the spectrum of deprivation.

14 of the top 30 authorities for plastics collect it as part of a fully co-mingled collection and all

except one collect plastics within a co-mingled stream.

11 out of the 15 highest improving authorities between 2009/10 and 2010/11 moved to fully

co-mingled collections including glass;

The 3 out of the top 15 highest improvers that continued collecting using kerbside sort all

moved from fortnightly to weekly recycling collections and from weekly to fortnightly refuse

collections, and added plastics and cardboard (as a minimum);

0.1.8 The results show that to achieve high yields, kerbside sort collections must be made weekly but

co-mingled collections can be made fortnightly. In addition, yields for existing co-mingled

collections can be improved by adding glass to the mix, which can be done for no or marginal

increases in collection costs.


12/84



3

1.0 Introduction and Background to this Report

1.1.1 In 2010, WYG published a report, Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection Schemes Operated by

Local Authorities, which analysed the performance of local authorities in England in 2008/09. The

aim of that report was to compare yields, costs, quality of materials and operational considerations

between co-mingled and kerbside-sort collections.

1.1.2 In the next report, on performance in 2009/10, we expanded the scope of the report to cover the

whole of the UK and highlighted the characteristics of high performing kerbside dry recycling

schemes in the UK.

1.1.3 This report covers 2010/11 for England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland could not be

included in this edition of the report as WasteDataFlow data was not publicly available at the time

of our analysis.

1.1.4 This report is being published at a time when Defra and the Welsh Government are consulting 1 on

amendments to the Waste Regulations that implement the EU Waste Framework Directive. This

was necessary following the Judicial Review challenging the implementation, which has been

delayed for until June 2012 to allow the consultation and amendments to take place. The aim of

those calling for the Judicial Review was to exclude co-mingled collections from being specified in

the Regulations as an allowed form of separate collections. Defra and the Welsh Government are

proposing that the Regulations should be amended to state that collections of paper, metal, plastic

and glass must be made separately where this is:

(a) technically, environmentally and economically practicable; and

(b) necessary to meet the appropriate quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors

1.1.5 The consultation document states that this does not exclude co-mingled collections if separate

collections are not practicable and if co-mingled collections can deliver material that meets the

appropriate quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors then that fulfils the obligation1.

1 Consultation on amending the Waste Regulations 2011 on the separate collection of recycling; Consultation start: 23February 2012, Consultation end: 12 April 2012; www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/waste-regs-condoc-120222.pdf.


13/84



4

1.1.6 Defra and the Welsh Government aim to develop guidance on the separate collection provisions

and are working to promote quality, including consideration of making mandatory the MRF code of

practice being developed by the Environmental Services Association.

1.1.7 While the Welsh Government has a stated preference of all local authorities moving to kerbside sort

collection, the proposal to withhold funds from authorities that collect recyclables co-mingled has

been dropped and, acknowledging the significant investment in vehicle fleets and MRFs, or long-

term contracts, has decided to continue to allow local authorities discretion as to the collection

systems they adopt as long as the requirements of Article 11 of the Directive are met from 1

January 2015.

1.1.8 WYG has always believed that it is for local authorities to make choices as to their choice of system

for collecting waste, and this change of policy by the Welsh Government is therefore welcomed by

us.

1.1.9 The Environmental Services Association has stated:

Our members operate both co-mingled and kerbside sort collection systems depending

on the preference of their local authority customers, and find that while each system has its

own merits, both can deliver high quality recycling.

1.1.10 The Local Government Association commented:

Recycling is a real success story. For that success to continue it is vital that councils and

their communities having the flexibility to choose a waste collection service that best suits

the local circumstances of their area.

Some 57 per cent of councils in England and Wales collect mixed recyclables which are

then sorted back at a waste plant. There would be huge ramifications for the 197 local

authorities and residents in those areas where this arrangement currently works well if they

were to be forced to start sorting waste at the kerbside instead.

The main focus should be on supporting councils to ensure that targets for reducing the

amount of waste buried in the ground are met and that hefty EU fines are avoided.

1.1.11 We believe that there is information within this report that might be considered as useful evidence

in the consultation and Judicial Review processes and in the development of guidance documents.


14/84



5

The results show that the highest yields are provided by co-mingled collection systems that include

the collection of glass. We also refute the claim of the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR) that

kerbside-sort collection systems always offer lower costs, and have included a section on costs plus

commentary on procurement processes in this report.

1.1.12 We are pleased to note that the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) document Kerbside

Collections Options: Wales included a review of WYGs previous analysis and acknowledged that

co-mingled collection systems generally collect more recyclables than kerbside-sort schemes.

1.1.13 This report appears at a time when recycling targets have been dropped in England and new

targets have been set in Scotland and Wales. WYG applauds all authorities that continue to

improve their recycling performance, whether targets exist or not, and welcomes the overall

increase in recycling and composting performance across the UK.

Figure 1. Inspecting Baled Cans at a Biffa Materials Recycling Facility


15/84



6

2.0 Method

2.1.1 This report analyses kerbside dry recycling yields for unitary and waste collection authorities in

England, Scotland and Wales in 2010/11 and compares changes since 2009/10. Yields for each

local authority were calculated from WasteDataFlow data as follows:

Tonnages of materials collected for recycling at the kerbside were extracted from Question 10,

including tonnage recorded as co-mingled;

Materials such as garden waste, food waste and bulky materials were excluded, to leave only

materials that are collected in kerbside dry recycling schemes;

Tonnages input to materials recovery facilities (MRFs) and tonnages output for recycling were

extracted from Question 58;

A MRF reject rate was derived for each authority [(tonnage input - tonnage output for

recycling) / tonnage input], with 10% assumed2 if MRF tonnage data were missing;

The co-mingled tonnage collected at the kerbside was multiplied by the MRF reject rate to

obtain the amount rejected, and this was subtracted from the tonnage collected to derive the

kerbside tonnage adjusted for MRF rejects;

The adjusted kerbside recycling tonnage was divided by the number of dwellings reported in

WasteDataFlow Question 23, and multiplied by 1,000 to obtain the average yield in kg per

household per year;

The co-mingled percentage at the kerbside was obtained by dividing the co-mingled tonnage,

with MRF rejects subtracted, by the adjusted kerbside dry recycling tonnage.

2 MRF figures were missing for 25 authorities out of 376; only 7 of these collected more than half of their kerbsidematerials co-mingled. The average MRF reject rate for authorities that collected co-mingled at the kerbside andprovided MRF tonnage data was 7.1%. A default rate of 10% was used for consistency with previous reports.

3 The 4th quarter dwelling stock figure is used, as was the practice for National Indicators, as official dwelling stocknumbers are updated in this quarter.


16/84



7

2.1.2 On the basis of the co-mingled percentage, collections were initially classified as being:

Fully Co-mingled (>99.5% co-mingled4);

Partially Co-mingled (50-99.5% co-mingled);

Other (550% co-mingled);

Separate (


17/84



8

Table 1. Dry Recycling Collection Classifications

% Co-mingled Type Sub-type Number

Including glass 70>99.5% Fully Co-mingled

Excluding glass 49

Separate glass (and possiblytextiles)

30

Separate paper/card (andpossibly textiles)

4950-99.5% Partially Co-mingled

5-50% Other Other 68


18/84



9

3.0 Top Performing Dry Recycling Authorities in 2010/11

3.1 Top 30: Kerbside Dry Recycling

3.1.1 Figure 2 shows kerbside dry recycling yield in kg per household per year for the top 30 authorities

in 2010/11. Bulky materials are excluded from dry recycling yields. Yields are broken down by

materials collected at the kerbside and it can be seen that all but two of the top 30 authorities

collect all or most of their materials co-mingled.

Figure 2. Top 30: Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

SurreyHeath

SouthOxfordshire

WindsorandMaidenhead

SouthKesteven

Lichfield

Stratford-on-Avon

MoleValley

Elmbridge

Rochford

EppingForest

NorthKesteven

Tamworth

Rutland

MidSussex

CastlePoint

Woking

Wychavon

Walsall

WestLindsey

Huntingdonshire

CannockChase

Basildon

Guildford

Spelthorne

Tewkesbury

SouthHolland

Hart

Brentwood

Epsom

andEwell

DenbighshireK

erbsidedryrecyclingyield(kg/household/year)

Other

Textiles

Glass

Plastic bottles

Cans etc

Paper and card

PaperCo-mingled

3.1.2 Table 2 summarises collection details for these authorities, showing the amount collected, type of

collection, percentage of materials collected co-mingled, average frequencies of recycling and

refuse collections and the percentage of households provided with each type of containment; all

figures are averages over the year. Authorities that WYG has worked with are indicated with a tick

in the third column. Cells are shaded for: fully co-mingled collections, fortnightly recycling or

refuse collections and wheeled bins provided to the majority of households for recycling or refuse.

A key to the codes used for kerbside recycling collection types is provided in Table 3.


19/84



10

Table 2. Collection Details for the Top 30 Kerbside Dry Recycling Authorities

Recycling Refuse

Rank

Authority

WYGclient

Kerbside

Recyclingkg

/hh/yr

Type

%Co-mingled

Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Kerbside

Boxes

Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Com-

munal

1 Surrey Heath 295 C 100% F 90% 10% F 88% 3% 8%

2 South Oxfordshire 288 C 100% F 95% 4% F 90% 4% 5%

3 Windsor and Maidenhead 275 C* 86% W 40% 60% W 86% 5% 9%

4 South Kesteven 274 C 100% F 99% F 99%5 Lichfield 273 Ct 100% F 99% 0% F 96% 1% 2%

6 Stratford-on-Avon 270 C 100% F 96% 4% F 94% 4% 2%

7 Mole Valley 268 C 100% F 84% 16% F 84% 10% 6%

8 Elmbridge 264 C 100% F 96% 4% F 86% 4% 9%

9 Rochford 260 Ct 98% F 98% 2% F 92% 0% 8%

10 Epping Forest 260 Cg 78% F 5% 94% 91% F 91% 3% 5%

11 North Kesteven 254 C 100% F 99% F 99%

12 Tamworth 253 Ct 100% F 99% 1% F 100%

13 Rutland 249 C 100% F 99% 1% F 96% 1% 3%

14 Mid Sussex 249 C 100% F 100% F 100%

15 Castle Point 247 Cgt 76% F 5% 99% 94% W 99%

16 Woking 242 C 100% F 91% 9% F 83% 7% 10%

17 Wychavon 240 C 100% F 89% 11% 8% F 89% 8% 3%

18 Walsall 239 C 100% F 98% 1% W 91% 0% 8%

19 West Lindsey 239 C 100% F 91% 9% F 91% 9% 1%

20 Huntingdonshire 237 C 100% F 86% 12% 2% F 91% 5% 4%

21 Cannock Chase 237 C 100% F 75% 25% 25% F 99% 0% 1%

22 Basildon 237 Cgt 77% F 93% 99% W 90% 9%

23 Guildford 235 KS 16% W 4% 9% 88% F 85% 9% 6%

24 Spelthorne 234 C 100% F 88% F 88% 1% 13%

25 Tewkesbury 234 C* 98% F 98% F 98%

26 South Holland 232 C 100% W 99% W 99%

27 Hart 231 Cg 71% F 100% 95% F 95% 5%

28 Brentwood 231 Cg 76% F 99% 99% W 85% 14%

29 Epsom and Ewell 230 KS 26% W 90% 97% F 97% 1% 2%

30 Denbighshire 229 C/Cq 100% F 61% 37% F 61% 37%


20/84



11

Table 3. Kerbside Recycling Collection Types

C Fully co-mingled

C* Fully co-mingled by end of year, but changed during the year

Cx Two streams, one of which is co-mingled

Cxy Three streams, one of which is co-mingled

g Glass separate

p Paper separate

q Paper and card separate (in a combined stream)

t Textiles (and shoes) separate

KS Kerbside-sort

3.1.3 Table 2 shows that:

26 of the top 30 authorities collect recycling fortnightly, 22 from wheeled bins and 4 from sacks

plus boxes;

4 collect recycling weekly, 17 from a box and 18 from a box and a bin (both using kerbside

sort), 19 using sacks and 110 moving from boxes to wheeled bins.

and

24 authorities collect refuse fortnightly from wheeled bins;

6 collect refuse weekly, 2 from wheeled bins and 4 from sacks;

3.1.4 In summary, the two authorities collecting mainly using kerbside sort have weekly collections;

authorities using only wheeled bins collect fortnightly.

3.1.5 Table 4 shows materials collected at the kerbside for the top 30 authorities. All data is obtained

from analysis of WasteDataFlow returns, with materials checked against local authority information.

7 Guildford also collected co-mingled materials in sacks from 9% of households.8 Epsom and Ewell provided fortnightly co-mingled collections of cardboard, plastic bottles and coloured paper from a

wheeled bin and weekly kerbside sort collections from a box of paper, glass, cans, textiles, shoes and batteries.9 South Holland collected fully co-mingled using sacks.

10 Windsor and Maidenhead changed to a fully co-mingled system using bins between June and November 2010, fromtwo-stream co-mingled collections with paper and card separate, using boxes.


21/84



12

Table 4. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for Top 30 Authorities in 2010/11

Rank

Authority

Kerbside

Recycling

kg/

hh/yr

Type

Co-mingle

d

%o

fkerb

side

materials

All5

Otherplastics

Textiles

Aerosols

Foil

CartonsMaterials collected separately or co-mingled

1 Surrey Heath 295 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic conta

2SouthOxfordshire

288 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic conta

3Windsor andMaidenhead10

275 C* 86% Co-mingled (86% over the year, now 100%: Paper, Card, card (14%): changed from two-stream with separate pape

4 South Kesteven 274 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic bottleCartons)

5 Lichfield 273 Ct 100% Two Stream: Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, GlassCartons), Textiles [bagged]

6Stratford-on-

Avon270 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic conta

7 Mole Valley 268 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic bottle

8 Elmbridge 264 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic bottle

9 Rochford 260 Ct 98% Two Stream: Co-mingled (98%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, separate third sector collection of Textiles & Shoes (2%)

10 Epping Forest 260 Cg 78% Two Stream: Co-mingled in sacks (78%: Paper, Card, Cans(22%)

11 North Kesteven 254 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic contaAerosols, Foil, Cartons)

12 Tamworth 253 Ct 100% Two Stream: Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, GlassCartons), Textiles [bagged]

13 Rutland 249 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic bottle

14 Mid Sussex 249 C 100% Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic bottle


22/84


23/84



14

3.1.6 In Table 4, All 5 indicates that all five main materials are collected: paper, card, cans, glass and

plastic bottles.

3.1.7 Dry recycling collection systems provided by the top 30 performers were as follows:

19 collected fully co-mingled by the end of the year, 17 for a full year (marked C) and 210,11

(marked C*) changed collections during the year;

9 collected two or more streams, one of which was co-mingled:

o 1 (marked C/ Cq) collected fully co-mingled from most households, but with paper and card

separate for some households;

o 3 (marked Ct) collected textiles & shoes as a separate stream;

o 3 (marked Cg) collected glass as a separate stream;

o 2 (marked Cgt) collected glass and textiles & shoes as two separate streams;

2 (marked KS) collected mainly by kerbside sort, although more than 10% of materials were

collected co-mingled;

No authority collected all kerbside recycling as separate streams.

3.1.8 All authorities with two- or three-stream systems collected at least 70% of materials co-mingled.

3.1.9 Materials collected were as follows:

All 30 collected All 5 materials: paper, card, cans, glass and plastic bottles;

20 collected plastic containers as well as plastic bottles (and some collected bags and/or film);

10 collected textiles (and some also collected shoes);

26 collected aerosols;

11 Tewkesbury changed to a fully co-mingled system in April 2010; only 2% of materials collected separately (from thefirst few weeks before the change in service).


24/84



15

18 collected foil; and

19 collected waxed cartons.

3.1.10 The top performer in 2010/11 was Surrey Heath, which collected an average of 295 kg/hh/yr. The

authority introduced a new service in September 2009 comprising fortnightly collections of refuse

and

co-mingled recyclables from wheeled bins, along with weekly food waste collections and a

fortnightly subscription garden waste scheme.

3.1.11 The next highest performer was South Oxfordshire, which in June 2009 rolled out the same service

as was subsequently adopted by Surrey Heath. South Oxfordshire would have been the top

performer, but a mistake was made in their WasteDataFlow inputs: a reject rate of 12.6% was

used, instead of the actual rate that applied after MRF upgrades were made. If the correct rate

had been used, the kerbside dry recycling performance for South Oxfordshire would have been

much higher. At the time of writing this report, South Oxfordshire is in discussion with the

Environment Agency about the reject rates that should have been applied, so corrected figures

cannot yet be published.

Figure 3. A Fully Co-mingled Collection Including Glass, Collected in a Wheeled Bin


25/84



16

3.1.12 Windsor and Maidenhead was the third highest performer and moved to fully co-mingled recycling

collections using wheeled bins between June and November 2010, from two-stream co-mingled

with paper and card separate, using boxes. Both refuse and recycling remained weekly. Windsor

and Maidenhead also rolled out the RecycleBank incentive system with the recycling bins, through

which participants are rewarded with discount vouchers for partner shops and leisure activities.

3.1.13 According to LetsRecycle.com12, Windsor and Maidenhead pays a licence fee to RecycleBank for

administering the service of 144,000 per year, or 2.35 per household. In addition, this system

requires all recycling vehicles to be fitted with bin weighing equipment the Waste Improvement

Network13 indicates that Windsor and Maidenhead spent approximately 350,000 on this (i.e. 5.70

per household) along with RFID (radio-frequency identification) chips, which generally cost a

minimum of 0.50 per chip when supplied with the bins (i.e. 30,000 for Windsor and Maidenhead)

or 2 for retrofitting existing bins12. Annual maintenance costs for the RFID chips and weighing

equipment are estimated to be approximately 0.25 per household12. Assuming vehicle-related

costs are amortised over 8 years and bins over 10, it costs approximately 1 per household per

year in addition to the 2.35 licence fee to run this scheme, i.e. approximately 200,000 per year

for Windsor and Maidenhead.

3.1.14 As yet, no robust trials have been carried out of the cost-effectiveness of this recycling scheme: all

trials so far have involved service changes during or just before the trial, for example Windsor and

Maidenhead moved from two stream collections using boxes to fully co-mingled collections in a

wheeled bin and Halton had just finished moving half its residents from a monthly collection of

paper to a fortnightly collection of co-mingled materials from wheeled bins. Thus it is not possible

to identify whether changes in yield were the result of the incentive scheme or the changes in

collection.

3.1.15 While RecycleBank offers potential gains, similar gains could be (and have been) realised through

changing to co-mingled collections using wheeled bins, as discussed in this report, and the cost-

effectiveness of partnering with RecycleBank or a similar scheme should be carefully evaluated.

12 Source: RecycleBank: What will it cost?, Special Report by LetsRecycle.com, 13 August 2010,http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/special-reports/recyclebank-what-will-it-cost.13 Incentives, rewards and behavioural change - Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, WIN Case

Study, February 2011, http://www.win.org.uk/site/cms/contentDocumentDownload.asp?id=3178.


26/84



17

3.2 Top 30: Kerbside and Bring Dry Recycling

3.2.1 This section illustrates, for top performers for dry recycling, the relative impact of other sources of

recycling, including bring sites serviced by the local authority, street recycling facilities and kerbside

and bring site collections serviced by non-contracted third parties (e.g. charities). Waste collected

at household waste recycling centres or extracted from residual waste is not included, to allow

comparison between collection and unitary authorities.

3.2.2 Figure 4 shows recycling yields in kg/hh/yr for the top 30 performers for kerbside and bring

(including third sector collections and street recycling). For most top performing kerbside

authorities, collections from these other sources are not hugely significant. However, some

authorities with lower performance at the kerbside collect significant amounts from other sources.

Ceredigion moves up from 357th out of 376 authorities for kerbside collections (for England,

Scotland and Wales) to 5th position, with 82 kg/hh/yr from the kerbside, 191 from bring sites and 5

from street recycling. Uttlesford moves from 52nd for kerbside collections to 8th, with 209 kg/hh/yr

from the kerbside, 59 from bring sites and 4 from third sector kerbside and bring collections.

Chiltern and Chichester also climb significantly, from 196th to 16th and 77th to 26th respectively.

Figure 4. Top 30: Dry Recycling from Kerbside and Bring Sites

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

SurreyHeath

SouthOxfordshire

MoleValley

W

indsorandMaidenhead

Ceredigion

Lichfield

SouthKesteven

Uttlesford

Stratford-on-Avon

EppingForest

Rochford

Rutland

Elmbridge

Tamworth

Huntingdonshire

Chiltern

Hart

NorthKesteven

Guildford

Woking

Wychavon

MidSussex

CastlePoint

Basildon

Chichester

Rugby

Brentwood

WestLindsey

WestOxfordshire

Denbighshire

Dryrecyclingy

ield(kg/household/year)

Bring

Kerbside


27/84



18

3.2.3 Table 5 provides a comparison of the top 30 performers, in kg/hh/yr, for dry recycling for

household kerbside collections only and household kerbside and bring (including third sector

kerbside and bring collections and street recycling).

Table 5. Top 30: Kerbside/ Kerbside and Bring

Rank Kerbside Dry Recycling

(kg/hh/yr)Kerbside and Bring DryRecycling (kg/hh/yr)

1 Surrey Heath 295 Surrey Heath 315

2 South Oxfordshire 288 South Oxfordshire 300

3 Windsor and Maidenhead 275 Mole Valley 279

4 South Kesteven 274 Windsor and Maidenhead 278

5 Lichfield 273 Ceredigion 277

6 Stratford-on-Avon 270 Lichfield 275

7 Mole Valley 268 South Kesteven 274

8 Elmbridge 264 Uttlesford 272

9 Rochford 260 Stratford-on-Avon 271

10 Epping Forest 260 Epping Forest 271

11 North Kesteven 254 Rochford 270

12 Tamworth 253 Rutland 267

13 Rutland 249 Elmbridge 265

14 Mid Sussex 249 Tamworth 262

15 Castle Point 247 Huntingdonshire 260

16 Woking 242 Chiltern 258

17 Wychavon 240 North Kesteven 257

18 Walsall 239 Hart 257

19 West Lindsey 239 Woking 256

20 Huntingdonshire 237 Guildford 256

21 Cannock Chase 237 Wychavon 256

22 Basildon 237 Mid Sussex 252

23 Guildford 235 Castle Point 248

24 Spelthorne 234 Basildon 247

25 Tewkesbury 234 West Lindsey 247

26 South Holland 232 Chichester 247

27 Hart 231 Rugby 247

28 Brentwood 231 Brentwood 247

29 Epsom and Ewell 230 West Oxfordshire 246

30 Denbighshire 229 Denbighshire 246


28/84



19

4.0 Factors Affecting Kerbside Recycling Performance

4.1 Collection System

4.1.1 Figure 5 presents the range of dry recycling yields, in kg/hh/yr, for different kerbside collection

systems in England, Scotland and Wales in 2010/11. As before, the dry recycling amounts exclude

bulky waste collections. It shows the range and quartiles for:

All kerbside collections;

Fully (>99.5%) co-mingled collections;

Separately collections (with


29/84



20

classified in the Other group rather than Separately collected as they collect more than 5% of

kerbside dry recycling co-mingled.

4.1.3 To obtain greater insight into which collection types tend to perform better, the groups were

subdivided further as follows, with the range of performance for each group shown in Figure 6:

Fully (>99.5%) co-mingled with glass included in the co-mingled materials;

Fully (>99.5%) co-mingled with glass not included in the co-mingled materials;

Co-mingled (>50% of materials) with glass collected separately;

Co-mingled (>50% of materials) with paper and/or card collected separately (glass may or may

not be included in the co-mingled materials);

Separately collected (with


30/84



21

4.1.4 It can be seen that the group collecting fully co-mingled including glass has the highest maximum,

75th percentile, median, 25th percentile and minimum. In fact, its top quartile exceeds the top-

performing authority with separate collections, i.e. more than 25% have higher yields than the best

performing separate collection system.

4.1.5 Authorities that collect co-mingled with glass separate tend to perform higher than those that

collect co-mingled with paper/card separate.

4.1.6 Authorities with separate collections tend to perform lower than the overall group.

4.1.7 Authorities that collect fully co-mingled excluding glass tend to have lower performance than the

other groups.

4.1.8 This last point is significant: the easiest way to increase recycling yields is to add glass to an

existing co-mingled collection, by moving processing to a modern MRF that accepts glass.

Re-procurement of MRF contracts can take advantage of improved gate fees (e.g. moving from a

cost of 30/tonne to an income of 30/tonne), collection rounds can be optimised, as there is a

more even balance between refuse and recycling, and residents can simply be informed that they

can recycle an increased range of materials in their existing bin.

4.2 Affluence

4.2.1 As in last years report, we have compared yields in different authorities with their relative

deprivation to obtain Figure 7 below. This shows that areas that are less deprived tend to have

higher yields, but fully co-mingled collections (blue) tend to outperform separate collections (gold)

by a similar margin across the spectrum of deprivation.

4.2.2 Analysing further, Figure 8 shows the results when the fully co-mingled group is split into those

including glass (dark blue) and excluding glass (light blue) and compares these with separate

collections that include glass (gold).

4.2.3 Co-mingled collections including glass performed even better across the spectrum of deprivation,

and in particular in areas of low deprivation. Co-mingled collections excluding glass performed

similarly to separate collections including glass, although slightly worse in more affluent areas and

slightly better in more deprived areas.


31/84



22

Figure 7. Effect of Relative Affluence/Deprivation: Co-mingled vs. Separate Collections

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010

Kerbsidedryrecycling

(kg/household/year)_

Fully Co-mingled SeparateLinear (Fully Co-mingled) Linear (Separate)

Increasing deprivation

Figure 8. Effect of Relative Affluence/Deprivation: Fully Co-mingled Collections Including andExcluding Glass and Separate Collections Including Glass

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010

Kerbsidedryrecycling(kg/household/year)_

Fully co-mingled inc. glass Fully co-mingled exc. glass Separate inc. glass

Linear (Separate inc. glass) Linear (Fully co-mingled inc. glass) Linear (Fully co-mingled exc. glass)

Increasing deprivation


32/84



23

4.3 Other Factors Affecting Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance

4.3.1 Analyses were also undertaken of yields for other variations in waste collection schemes: refuse

and recycling collection frequencies and containers. As was found in the previous report:

Authorities using wheeled bins for recycling tended to have higher recycling yields than those

that used sacks or boxes;

Authorities using wheeled bins for refuse tended to have higher recycling yields than those that

used sacks or other containment;

Authorities collecting refuse fortnightly tended to have higher recycling yields than those

collecting weekly;

Authorities collecting co-mingled recyclables fortnightly tended to have higher recycling yields

than those that collected weekly using kerbside-sort.

4.3.2 These effects have been seen in practice. For example, in Waltham Forest, 6,000 households were

moved from a box for recycling to a wheeled bin, which generated an increase in recycling tonnagein those areas in excess of 40%.

4.4 Potential Impact of Moving to a Fully Co-mingled Collection Including

Glass

4.4.1 The figures below illustrate the potential impact on kerbside and bring yields for the Gloucestershire

collection authorities if they moved from their current collections (Figure 9) to fully co-mingled

collections including glass (Figure 10), with Tewkesbury not changing as it already moved to this

form of collection in April 2010. For all other authorities, the estimated potential performance is

the average performance of Nearest Neighbour authorities that undertook this form of collection in

2010/11. Both kerbside and bring yields were considered, as higher kerbside yields tend to reduce

amounts collected from bring sites, although overall totals are higher.


33/84



24

Figure 9. Performance of Gloucestershire Authorities in 2010/11

105

171

98

135 134

234

142

31

54

36

29 28

8

31

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Dean Gloucester Stroud Tewkesbury Total/ Average

Annualyieldkg/household_

Kerbside dry recycling Bring recycling

Figure 10. Potential Performance of Gloucestershire Authorities

214

255 246

218

262

234 237

16

86

13

6

8 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Dean Gloucester Stroud Tewkesbury Total/ Average

Annualyieldkg/h

ousehold_

Kerbside dry recycling Bring recycling


34/84



25

4.4.2 It can be seen that all authorities are estimated to have significant increases in performance, apart

from Tewkesbury which already has this collection system. Across Gloucestershire, the average

yield from kerbside collections is estimated to rise by 94, from 142 to 237 kg/hh/yr (an increase of

66%); the average yield including bring sites is estimated to rise by 73, from 174 to 247 kg/hh/yr

(or 42%). With 268,290 households in Gloucestershire, this represents an increase of

approximately 19,600 tonnes of dry recyclables from kerbside and bring collections. With landfill

tax of 56/tonne and a landfill gate fee of 24/tonne, this diversion from landfill to recycling would

generate a saving of over 1.5 million, without considering potential savings in collection costs.


35/84



26

5.0 Authorities with the Largest Changes in Yield in 2010/11

5.1.1 Table 6 shows the 15 authorities with the largest changes in yield between 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Figures are provided for 2009/10 then 2010/11, with the change shown in square brackets.

5.1.2 Changes in collection systems between 2009/10 and 2010/11 are denoted in bold in the table.

Cells are shaded for authorities that, by the end of the year, operated fortnightly refuse collections

from wheeled bins, fortnightly recycling collections from wheeled bins or fully co-mingled recycling

collections including glass.

5.1.3 All achieved increases of over 45 kg/hh/yr. The highest improver, Surrey Heath, achieved an

increase of 120 kg/hh/yr, having already been the highest improver in 2009/10 with an increase of

130 kg/hh/yr from 2008/09 levels: an increase of 250 kg/hh/yr over two years.

5.1.4 It can be seen that, by the end of the year:

11 out of the 15 authorities moved to fully co-mingled collections including glass;

9 authorities collected co-mingled recycling fortnightly from wheeled bins;

8 authorities collected refuse fortnightly from wheeled bins;

All authorities had at least one of these features.

5.1.5 The 3 authorities that continued collecting using kerbside sort moved from fortnightly to weekly

recycling collections and, conversely, from weekly to fortnightly refuse collections, and added

plastics and cardboard (as a minimum).

5.1.6 This result (and the results for the top 30 authorities) supports our view that to achieve high

recycling yields, kerbside sort collections need to be made weekly, whereas co-mingled collections

can be made fortnightly. To carry out a fair cost comparison between systems, kerbside sort

systems should be modelled as weekly collections and co-mingled as fortnightly collections.


36/84



27

Table 6. Authorities Achieving Top 15 Increases in Kerbside Dry Recycling Yield

Ra

nk

Authority

Kerbside

Recyclingkg/hh/yr

% Co-

mingled

Refuse

Collections Recycling Collections

1 Surrey Heath178

295[+117]

79% 100%[+20%]

Fortnightly binsWeekly sacksFortnightly bins

2 Tewkesbury121

234[+113]

0% 98%

[+98%]

Weekly binsFortnightly bins

Fortnightly boxes Fortnightly bins

3 Horsham105

214[+109]

76% 100%

[+24%]

Weekly 140 litre binsWeekly boxesFortnightly bins

4 Bridgend 86

179[+93]

0% 0%

[+0%]

Weekly sacksFortnightly sacks

Fortnightly boxesWeekly boxes

5 Herefordshire105

189[+84]

Variable 100%

[+0%]Weekly sacks

Weekly sacks/ boxesFortnightly bins

6 North Somerset117

192[+75]

0% 0%[+0%]

Weekly sacksFortnightly bins


7 Sedgemoor116

179[+63]

0% 0%

[+0%]



8 Stockport160

222[+62]

31% 41%

[+10%]

Weekly sacksFortnightly 140 litre bins

Fortnightly boxes and sacksFortnightly 180 litre bins for fi

4-weekly 180 litre bins for conta

9 Kingston-upon-Hull131

188[+57]

64% 99%

[+35%]Weekly bins

Fortnightly boxes and 4-weekly bin Fortnightly bins


37/84



28

Rank

AuthorityKerbside

Recyclingkg/hh/yr

% Co-mingled

RefuseCollections

Recycling Collections

10 Coventry101

158[+57]

70% 100%[+30%]

Weekly binsFortnightly boxes Fortnightly bins

11Windsor andMaidenhead

219 275

[+56]

34% 86%

[+51%]Weekly bins

Weekly boxes Weekly bins

12 Vale of White Horse160

208[+48]

0% 62%

[+62%]


Weekly boxesFortnightly bins

13 Sandwell53

100

[+47]

79% 97%

[+18%]

Weekly dustbinsWeekly boxes

Fortnightly bins

14 Monmouthshire141

187[+46]

50% 100%

[+50%]

Weekly sacksWeekly boxes Weekly sacks

15 Cambridge122

168[+46]

49% 100%

[+51%]Fortnightly bins

Fortnightly boxes Fortnightly bins


38/84



29

6.0 Costs

6.1.1 There are a number of claims that are made as to which recycling systems offer lowest costs, but

often without much evidence given. In our report Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection

Schemes Operated by Local Authorities (covering the year 2008/09 and which considered a

number of procurements we had been involved in which included comparative costings for different

collection systems) we said:

sometimes kerbside sort systems have lower net costs than co-mingled systems but

sometimes the reverse is true: and we would urge any council (or any other body that

represents local authorities or offers advice to them) to approach this subject with some

caution; and not to assume that one answer will be correct in terms of which system

costs less for all cases.

6.1.2 We noted in our report covering the year 2009/10 that For outsourced services, re-procurement

provides the opportunity to consider major changes and in Section 8.5 of this report we discuss

procurement and the option of seeking different prices for different scenarios. For those authorities

that follow this advice, the relative costs of each system will be clear.

6.1.3 For those authorities that are not in the business of procuring in this fashion (e.g. because they

provide services in-house), or that wish to understand likely costs of different recycling systems

before embarking upon a procurement exercise, then cost modelling is probably inevitable.

6.1.4 We are aware that on occasion statements regarding costs of different collection systems are at

least claimed to be supported by the results of modelling; however, there is often little or no

transparency as to how the cost modelling works. This is indeed the case with WRAPs Analysis of

Kerbside Recycling Performance in England 2007/8 as well as in WRAPs more recent Kerbside

Collections Options: Wales. Indeed, it requires detailed examination of the modelling within the

latter to understand that some of the gate fees for co-mingled systems are not representative of

market prices prevailing at the time, and also that it is assumed that kerbside recycling collections

will be made weekly for all systems, whereas in practice most authorities that use co-mingled

systems, including those councils with the highest dry recycling rates, collect fortnightly.


39/84



30

6.1.5 In an attempt to be transparent, WYG offers a cost model in this report. We accept that it is a

hypothetical model, and that certain costs (particularly the avoided costs of disposal, the payment

for the arrangements for processing dry recyclate and the income values for dry recyclables) will

fluctuate in time and by authority, sometimes significantly. We accept also that this model might

need significant adjustment for certain extreme scenarios (e.g. collecting in Central London); that

local circumstances will affect fuel consumption, labour costs and (to some extent at least)

productivity rates; and there will be significant cost variations (particularly in terms of pension

costs) between Direct Services Organisations and (at least some) externalised operations. All of

these figures can be adjusted to suit local situations: our intention is to show an illustrative modelin a transparent fashion.

6.1.6 The modelling is designed to compare the cost of collecting co-mingled recyclate with kerbside-sort

collections, and we have considered a hypothetical urban authority with 100,000 households. It is

assumed that co-mingled collections are made fortnightly from wheeled bins and kerbside-sort

collections are made weekly from boxes. These assumptions reflect general practice for each of

the scenarios: co-mingled collections can be made fortnightly without any loss of performance, as

wheeled bin capacity is sufficient. Kerbside-sort collections need to be made weekly with at least

two boxes per household to reach a similar level of capacity. Both schemes are assumed to collect

paper, card, cans, aerosols and glass, with the kerbside sort scheme collecting plastic bottles and

the co-mingled collection scheme collecting mixed plastic bottles and containers.

6.1.7 In both cases, it is assumed that refuse is collected fortnightly from wheeled bins and food waste is

collected weekly from a caddy. For the alternate weekly co-mingled scheme, collections will be

made using RCVs with pods in order to collect food waste weekly, on the same vehicle as either the

refuse or recycling each week. For the kerbside-sort scheme, food waste is assumed to be

collected weekly on the recycling vehicle. The alternate weekly refuse and co-mingled collections

are assumed to be made by two loaders; the kerbside sort scheme by a driver and a loader and the

associated refuse collections by two loaders.

6.1.8 It is also assumed that in both cases garden waste is collected separately via a self-supporting

subscription scheme, and so is excluded from the comparison.

6.1.9 In terms of quantities collected, we have based estimates of performance on the 75 th percentile for

each system: co-mingled collections are assumed to yield 233 kg/hh/yr and kerbside-sort

169 kg/hh/yr.


40/84



31

6.1.10 Refuse, recycling and food waste collections from households are assumed to yield a total of

650 kg/hh/yr for both systems, ignoring garden waste, bulky collections and other sources of

household waste. This figure is an average for authorities with dry recycling performance near the

75th percentile. Food waste is assumed to yield 75 kg/hh/yr (or approximately 1.5 kg/hh/week).

The residual waste is then the difference between 650 kg/hh/yr and the dry recycling and food

waste yields. These yield estimates are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Average Amounts Collected, kg/hh/yr, for each System

Regular collections from

households

Co-mingled

System

Kerbside Sort

System

Dry recycling 233 169

Food waste 75 75

Residual waste 342 406

Total 650 650

6.1.11 Table 8 provides a summary of the modelled collection operations and costs for the systems

described above. Rounds are based on the minimum number required to collect from all

households at the productivity levels shown, with sufficient capacity to collect all refuse, recyclate

and food waste in up to two loads per day. For the co-mingled scheme, the rounds required for

the refuse and recycling collections are set to be the same, and the minimum number is

determined by the capacity required for the refuse collections.

Table 8. Overview of Collection Operations and Costs, Co-mingled and Kerbside Sort Options

Co-mingled Kerbside SortService

Recycling Refuse Recycling Refuse

Frequency Fortnightly Fortnightly Weekly Fortnightly

Vehicle typeRCV withfood pod

RCV withfood pod

Recyclingvehicle

RCV (nofood pod)

Households 100,000

Collections (inc. food) (kg/hh/yr) 270.5 379.5 244 406

Collections per household per year 26 26 52 26

Collections days per cycle 10 10 5 10

Capacity per vehicle recycling/ refuse (tonnes) 8.5 8.5 3 11.5

Tips per round per day 2 2 2 2


41/84



32

Co-mingled Kerbside SortService


Loaders per vehicle 2 2 2 2

Households passed per round per day (max.) 1,250 1,250 750 1,500

Rounds required 8 8 27 7

Tonnes per round per day (exc. food) 11.2 16.4 2.4 22.3

Drivers 8 8 27 7

Loaders 16 16 54 14

Cost per vehicle per year* 65,000 65,000 37,000 60,000

Average driver cost including on-costs 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Average loader cost including on-costs 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Vehicles cost per year 520,000 520,000 999,000 420,000

Drivers cost per year 200,000 200,000 675,000 175,000

Loaders cost per year 320,000 320,000 1,080,000 280,000

Total cost per year 1,040,000 1,040,000 2,754,000 875,000

Cost per collection system per year 2,080,000 3,629,000

* Costs per vehicle are estimated below.

Costs per driver and loader are chosen to reflect the current market rates. National insurance and (basic)employers pension contributions are included as well as an allowance for absence cover (sickness and holidays).

6.1.12 Generic vehicle costs are shown in Table 9 and average costs per vehicle per year are estimated as

shown in Table 10, with fuel assumed to cost 1.20/litre.

Table 9. Generic Vehicle Cost Assumptions

Insurance 3,000

Vehicle Tax 280

Tools and equipment 150

Mobile communications 300

Breakdown and recovery 200

Total 3,930


42/84



33

Table 10. Annual Vehicle Cost Estimates

ItemRCV withfood pod

RCVRecycling

vehicle

Fuel efficiency (mpg) 2.9 3.0 6.0

Average miles per year 10,000 10,000 6,000

Fuel: annual cost (rounded) 19,000 18,000 5,000

Contract hire cost 40,000 36,000 26,000

DoT charges 99 99 75

Tyres 2,000 2,000 1,500

Generic costs 3,930 3,930 3,930

Cost per year (rounded) 65,000 60,000 37,000

6.1.13 The income per tonne of kerbside-sort material is estimated using market income rates for

November 2011, and a typical composition for a kerbside sort authority collecting 169 kg/hh/yr, as

shown in Table 11. The income per tonne for co-mingled materials is assumed to be 30, based on

contracts procured in the same period.

Table 11. Income per Tonne: Kerbside Sort Materials

Material Percentage /tonne Weighted

Paper 52.4% 90 45

Card 10.5% 100 10

Glass 21.0% 5 1

Plastics 7.7% 200 24

Cans: Al 1.0% 975 9.75

Cans: Fe 7.3% 150 10.50

Total 100% 95*

* Rounded to nearest integer

6.1.14 The overall cost of running the service is estimated in Table 12, with incomes shown as negative

and all annual costs rounded to the nearest 1,000. The landfill tax figure of 56/tonne for

2011/12 is used, with 24/tonne assumed for gate fees. Haulage is assumed to be 10/tonne and

recyclate transfer fees are based on operational costs from a recent project; it is recognised that

each of these will vary according to local circumstances.


43/84



34

Table 12. Total Service Costs: Co-mingled vs. Kerbside Sort

ItemCo-mingled

(A)Kerbside-sort

(B)Difference

(A B)

Recyclate income /tonne -30 -95 70

Recyclate transfer cost /tonne 3.50 7.50 -4

Recyclate haulage cost /tonne 10 10

Net recyclate income /tonne -16.50 -87.50 76

Recycling tonnes/year 23,300 16,900 6,400

Recyclate income /year (rounded) -384,000 -1,479,000 1,095,000

Refuse gate fee + tax (landfill) /tonne 88 88 0

Refuse haulage cost /tonne 10 10 0

Total refuse cost /tonne 98 98 0

Refuse tonnes/year 34,200 40,600 -6,400

Refuse disposal cost /year (rounded) 3,352,000 3,979,000 -627,000

Collection cost /year 2,080,000 3,629,000 -1,134,000

Net cost /year 5,048,000 6,129,000 -666,000

% difference co-mingled vs. kerbside sort -17.6%

6.1.15 With this set of assumptions, co-mingled collections save 17.6% compared with kerbside-sort costs.

The difference in costs is of course highly dependent on assumptions, particularly the amounts of

recyclate and refuse collected and the income or costs per tonne. We do not claim that this result

will be replicated for all authorities; we have noted in our previous reports that another major

variable is transport costs for co-mingled materials but recent procurements that we have been

involved in which involve the use of a modern MRF which is ca. one hour away have seen similar

differentials.

6.1.16 We have not, in the cost model above, included any cost savings from reducing bring bank

collection frequencies and/or the number of such banks. However, we know that several

authorities that collect a wide range of materials at the kerbside, including mixed plastics, made

savings in this area: e.g. South Oxfordshire has reduced the number of bring banks significantly

and Tewkesbury has been able to remove all of them. Even though the typical cost of servicing

bring banks will be less than 100,000 for most authorities, it is another factor worthy of

consideration.


44/84



35

6.1.17 The increases in landfill tax of 8/tonne each year from 2011/12 until 2014/15 are estimated to

increase the saving from co-mingled collections by over 50,000 per year using the assumptions

above (8 x 4,600 tonnes), due to higher recycling yields that reduce residual arisings.

6.1.18 To reiterate: we are not saying that this model will hold for all authorities, but we believe that it

reasonably reflects matters such as labour costs, vehicle costs, fuel consumption and productivity

levels that would apply for many authorities, based on tenders that we have seen, and with

material prices and MRF payments taken from a common point in time. The result is clear: and

although we are not claiming it would hold true in all cases, the modelling supports our previous

statements that sometimes often, even co-mingled collection systems offer lower costs than

kerbside-sort systems.

6.1.19 It is worth noting, further, that there are some recent tenders which appear to have been

submitted on the basis that the differential prices (i.e. between the winning and other tenders) do

not reflect the costs of collection nor current material prices but seem to be based upon a

tenderers views of the future value of materials and/or of capture rates. It will be interesting to

see how such contracts cope with changes in material prices.


45/84



36

7.0 Carbon Impacts

7.1.1 This section provides a hypothetical case study to illustrate the carbon impact of the management

of household waste in the UK, for both co-mingled and kerbside sort systems. All carbon emission

figures in this report are CO2e equivalent emissions. The emissions factors used are the latest

figures provided by Defra14 from August 2011, shown in Table 13:

Table 13. Carbon Emissions Factors

CO2e kg per litre diesel 2.6676CO2e kg per kWh electricity 0.52462

7.1.2 Table 14 provides an overview of the amounts of kerbside dry recycling, residual and food waste

collected in kg/hh/yr and in tonnes, for the hypothetical local authority discussed in Section 6, with

100,000 households. For the co-mingled system, food waste is collected in a pod in both refuse

and recycling weeks, so the 75 kg/hh/yr is divided equally between the two collections. In the

kerbside sort system, food waste is collected weekly on the same vehicle as the dry recyclate.

Table 14. Dry Recycling, Residual and Food Waste Collected in Each Vehicle Type

Co-mingled Kerbside SortAmounts collected


Refuse/ recycling (kg/hh/yr) 233 342 169 406

Food waste (kg/hh/yr) 37.5 37.5 75 -

Total for each vehicle type (kg/hh/yr) 270.5 379.5 244 406

Combined (kg/hh/yr) 650 650

Refuse/ recycling (tonnes/year) 23,300 36,200 16,900 42,600

Food waste collections (tonnes/year) 3,750 3,750 7,500 -

Total for each vehicle type(tonnes/year) 27,050 39,950 24,400 42,600

Combined (tonnes/year) 65,000 65,000

14 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/110819-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors.xls


46/84



37

7.1.3 Table 15 summarises the operational parameters for each system and provides estimates of CO 2e

emissions from collections. All annual CO2e emissions in this section are rounded to the nearest

1,000 kg.

Table 15. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Collections

Co-mingled Kerbside SortCO2e emissions: collection


Vehicle typeRCV withfood pod

RCV withfood pod

Recyclingvehicle

RCV (no foodpod)

Households 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

Rounds 8 8 27 7

Distance per vehicle per year (miles) 10,000 10,000 6,000 10,000

Distance per year all vehicles (miles) 80,000 80,000 162,000 70,000

Fuel efficiency: mpg 2.9 2.9 6.0 3.0

Litres per year 125,409 125,409 122,744 106,075

CO2e kg per year: collections 335,000 335,000 327,000 283,000

7.1.4 Table 16 provides emissions per tonne for transfer operations involving co-mingled and kerbside

sort recyclate, from actual operational figures for Camden provided in the report Energy Audit of

the Kerbside Recycling Services, ADAS, 2007.

Table 16. CO2e Emissions from Transfer Operations (Camden)

CO2e emissions: transfer Co-mingled Kerbside Sort

Electricity kWh/tonne 1.00 1.39

Diesel litres/tonne 0.47 0.51

CO2e kg per tonne (from electricity) 0.52 0.73

CO2e kg per tonne (from diesel) 1.25 1.36

CO2e kg per tonne: transfer 1.77 2.09


47/84



38

7.1.5 Table 17 provides estimates of CO2e emissions from transfer operations for both systems using the

figures given above. Transfer emissions for handling refuse and food waste were assumed to be

the same as the co-mingled stream, as each involves one waste stream.

Table 17. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Transfer Operations

Co-mingled Kerbside SortCO2e emissions: transfer

Recycling Food Refuse Recycling Food Refuse

CO2e kg per tonne transfer 1.77 1.77 1.77 2.09 1.77 1.77

Transfer tonnes per year 23,300 7,500 36,200 16,900 7,500 42,600

CO2e kg per year transfer 41,000 13,000 61,000 35,000 13,000 72,000

7.1.6 Table 18 shows emissions from haulage to a MRF estimated using the fuel efficiency and payload

values provided in the Camden report, with a round trip distance of 50 miles (the Camden report

used a lower distance, the actual distance to the MRF).

Table 18. Estimation of CO2e Emissions from Haulage to a MRF

CO2e emissions: haulage to MRF Co-mingledRecycling

Round trip distance (miles) 50

Fuel efficiency: mpg 4.7

Round trip fuel (litres) 48.4

Tonnes recycling 23,300

Payload per bulk hauler (tonnes) 19

Number of loads recycling 1,227

Fuel litres per year 59,350

CO2e kg per year: haulage toMRF

158,000

7.1.7 Table 19 shows MRF emission estimates based on values provided by CommunityWaste to Hyder

for their joint presentation Commingled and Source Segregated Collection Systems, September

2008. These values have been used rather than those provided in the Camden report, which were

criticised for being untypical values.


48/84



(wyg) report - review of kerbside recycling collection schemes in the uk in 2010-11

Documents