household recycling Mike Gardner A framework for Local Authority - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Consistency in household recycling

Mike Gardner Local Authority Account Manager 22nd February 2018

A framework for

greater consistency in household recycling in England

• Policy review

Within the Framework – a 5 point action plan:

• Packaging: rationalising plastics packaging and removing

elements that hinder recycling

• Communications: – the role of the whole supply chain, on pack

labelling

• Collections:

Evaluating the case at a local level Collections contracts Bin colour consultation Recycling Guidelines

• Infrastructure, reprocessing and markets:

Future requirements – with a focus on dry recycling Material Quality and Markets

Priority areas identified Engaging with more brands, retailers, manufacturers to take it forward Key areas:

• PVC
• Black plastic (in conjunction with Recoup)
• Increasing recycled content
• Clear labelling

Packaging

Communications

Recycling Guidelines - published Capacity and capability – ongoing End markets – plastics packaging

Infrastructure and reprocessing

• Evaluating the business case

for Greater Consistency at a local level

• Contract documentation under

development

Collections

Collections – Dry recycling

220 214 197 172 147 111

50 100 150 200 250

2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 NUMBER OF AUTHORITIES PERIOD

• No. of LAs collecting glass, paper, card, tins/cans, plastic bottles and

PTTs (England)

Collections – food waste

38 49 54 68 72

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13

NUMBER OF LAS

England – food and garden mixed

109 104 100 94 85

20 40 60 80 100 120

2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 NUMBER OF LAS

Separate food waste collections - England

• Evaluating the business case for Greater Consistency at a local level
• 24 projects supported covering 84 individual authorities
• In the North East:
• Durham County Council:
• Northumberland County Council
• Newcastle City Council
• North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
• Stockton Borough Council

Local authority collections work

Evaluating a range of collection options

1 - Co, FW Sep 2 - Co, FW Pod 3 - KS 4 - TS (C+F) 5 - TS (Co + Glass)

Dry Recycling Weekly Multi- Stream Fortnightly Two- Stream (Container plus Fibre) Fortnightly Two- Stream (Comingled plus Separate Glass) Food Waste Garden Residual 1 - Co, FW Sep 2 - Co, FW Pod 3 - KS 4 - TS (C+F) 5 - TS (Co + Glass) Weekly Separate Fortnightly Charged Fortnightly Fortnightly Co-mingled

Food waste collections

Impact of separate food waste collections on recycling rates

BL - 2015/16 BL - 2016/17 1a - Sep FW 1b - TS (C+F) 2a - F Co, Sep FW 2b - F Co, FW Pod 3 - KS Residual Waste 17,896 18,901 16,315 16,537 15,857 15,857 16,951 Garden Waste 8,554 9,716 8,554 8,554 8,554 8,554 8,554 Food Waste 450 511 2,032 2,032 2,032 2,032 2,032 Dry Recycling 9,167 8,403 9,167 8,944 9,625 9,625 8,531 NI192 46% 45% 49% 49% 49% 49% 50%

35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Recycling Rate CBC Total Household Waste Collected (tonnes/year)

Example 1: Costs modelled with current arrangements for the treatment of organic waste

Blue = WCA costs, Grey = WDA costs, Green hatched = ‘Whole system’ costs; None of the modelled options cost less than the baseline

Example 2: Costs modelled with assumed ‘typical gate fees’ for organic waste treatment

Blue = WCA costs, Grey = WDA costs, Green hatched = ‘Whole system’ costs All of the modelled options cost less than the baseline

Example 3: costs modelled for Option 1b with assumed ‘typical gate fees’ for organic waste treatment plus the following sensitivities: (i) = increased yield of food waste; (ii) = smaller residual bin but no change in frequency of collection (iii) = 3 weekly residual collections (iv) = chargeable garden waste Options with 3-weekly residual collections and chargeable garden waste show the greatest savings when compared with the baseline.

Cost and performance:

Local review – summary of findings

least cost highest cost 1 2 3 4 Baseline 52% 16% 16% 16% Co-mingled + Food 0% 12% 24% 64% Two-stream + Food 20% 36% 32% 12% Multi-stream + Food 28% 40% 24% 8%

• 3.6 to +18.0
• 2.5 to +18.0
• 1.0 to +18.0

Percentage of results falling in each ranking Cost Ranking Recycling performance deviation from baseline (percentage points) System

• NB: negative recycling rates relate to assumptions regarding residual waste capacity

• Business case positive for some authorities under certain

circumstances

• Key factors impacting on business case
• Existing residual waste collection service
• Disposal costs
• Level of service change required
• Where food is already in place, potential cost savings in 80% of

cases

• Potential to mitigate costs of adding separate food through

considering residual waste frequency and garden waste services.

• The costs of separate food waste collections can be reduced

through the delivery of a shared service.

Pilot business case projects – key findings

Thank you for listening