Waste Recycling Angela Jones, Assistant Director Jenny Robinson, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Serving the people of Cumbria Waste Recycling

Angela Jones, Assistant Director Jenny Robinson, WRAP

Serving the people of Cumbria

Waste Hierarchy

Serving the people of Cumbria

Cumbria Recycling and Re-use

• Cumbria County Council – Waste Disposal Authority

(WDA’s)

• Six District Councils – Waste Collection Authorities

(WCA’s)

• 14 HWRC’s – Cumbria County Council delivered through

Shanks PPP contract subcontract to Cumbria Waste Management

• Additional Bring sites
• Re-use organisations and charities
• Freegle and social media

Serving the people of Cumbria

Household Collections

• WCA’s responsible for kerbside and bring site

recyclate

• 6 different schemes and different contract

arrangements

• Some provide trade waste collection
• Some services allow for charge – Bulky and

Garden Waste

• WCA’s directed by WDA where to deliver

household waste

Serving the people of Cumbria

Council Priority

We will deliver our Climate Local commitments, work on joint initiatives to deal with waste as efficiently as possible, and promote waste minimisation.

How – Work with district authorities to develop a business case for greater consistency in Cumbria’s waste and recycling collections.

Serving the people of Cumbria

Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership (CSWP)

• County Council and 6 Districts – Elected Member representation
• Partnership to develop the most cost effective and practical

methods of dealing with waste in the future commitment to work together has been

• No decision making powers
• Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2008 – 2020 – needs

refresh

• Government funded Waste and Resources Action Plan (WRAP)

Consistency project

Cons nsis istenc ency y Project ject for Cumbria bria St Strateg egic ic Waste Pa Partn tner ership hip (CSW SWP)

Je Jenn nny y Ro Robinson inson – WRAP AP Septe tembe mber r 2017 7

Political context

• Initial drive from Rory Stewart

“There is potential for recycling to be done more cheaply and more efficiently but it is about persuasion and local authorities working together to make it simpler for public; industry and each other.” “There maybe over 100 different ways in which recycling is done if we could get that down to 5 or 6 it would make a huge difference.”

• Remains a policy priority for Defra

Cross Industry Advisory Group

Local Government Association (LGA) Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC) National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO) Association of Directors or Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT) Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) / Resource London Chartered Institute of Wastes Management (CIWM) Resource Association Recycling Association Anaerobic Digestion and Bio- resources Association (ADBA) Green Alliance Environmental Services Association (ESA) British Retail Consortium (BRC) Food and Drink Federation (FDF) Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP)

Cross ss indus ustr try y advisor isory y pane nel l establi lishe hed: :

Consistency Framework

Benefits - what consistency must deliver

Increased reased quality ty of mater erials ials re recycl ycled ed Increased reased quantity tity of mater erials ials re recycled cled Bett tter er househol seholder der engag gagem ement ent Legal gal Compl pliance ance Financial ncial – cost t & bett tter er va value e for r money ey

Funding and support

• Stage 1: Cumbria SWP was successful in applying for

2016/17 funding and received value of c. £40,000 contractor support plus free additional support from WRAP

• Stage 2: Cumbria SWP was successful in applying for

2017/18 funding and is receiving value of c. £45,000 contractor support plus free additional support from WRAP

• WRAP has contracted through its Framework with

Eunomia Research and Consulting for both stages of the work.

Background Stage 1 Purpose:

• Assess possible service changes which would allow

for greater consistency in household kerbside collections across CSWP

• Test range of options through options appraisal

process

• Provide CSWP and members with information on:

– costs – operational issues – performance – potential recycling gains

Stage 2 purpose

• Identification of preferred option.
• Focussing on overall costs, both tiers of local government
• Effect of any changes holistically – how would collection changes

work with existing and new infrastructure?

• A time-line for changes – all authorities have different contracts,

vehicle purchasing plans, infrastructure needs and political aspirations – it can’t all happen in the short-term

• Looking at cost-savings overall but costs may need to be shared

differently through an agreed pragmatic mechanism

• Full consistency of approach in collections and materials collected

(both recycling and residual) and how the materials are transported to processing plants and end markets

• Good value for Cumbria Council tax payers

Background

Options Modelled

Model Outputs - Performance

Indicative Household Recycling Rate Performance by Option (including kerbside waste from households not modelled, bring sites, bulky waste and street cleansing)

Model Outputs – Costs

• Predicted costs and savings associated with each
• ption compared with the baseline

– provides a relative comparison to be made against each of the options modelled

• Gross collection costs:

– cost of operating the service in terms of vehicles, resources and containers

• Net costs:

– take account of the gross costs of collection – factor in any assumed income (sale of recyclables & recycling credits) – Waste Collection Authority (WCA – the districts in Cumbria) cost of processing/treating dry and organic waste

Sensitivity - No Food Waste

• Sensitivity run

– assess the impact on recycling performance and cost of not separately collecting food waste on fortnightly residual collection options (1 – 4)

• Amount of food waste assumed collected under fortnightly

residual options was 11,800 tonnes

– impact of not collecting food waste reduces recycling rate between 5.1 – 8% (based on option 1)

Sensitivities – No Food

Sensitivity - No Food Waste

• Introducing a separate food waste collection increases the

collection costs of the kerbside collection service

• Estimated net cost of operating a separate food waste collection

is estimated to be in the region of £400,000 to £870,000/yr per authority

– the assumed recycling credit from collecting food waste offsets the gross cost of collection – If no food waste was collected this would obviously reduce the cost of the kerbside collection service but have an impact on performance

• Collecting food waste is important to Government in meeting

recycling targets and for sustainability issues such as energy production

• Full costs and potential savings will be explored in Stage 2

Sensitivities - Charged Garden

• A decrease in potential recycling rate from 5.7% - 11.7% across all

LAs (relative to Option 1 with a free of charge service)

• However this drop in recycling rate could be made up through

collecting food waste weekly

• Garden waste not collected through charged for service is likely to

end up back in the residual waste, for which collection and disposal costs would be generated.

Sensitivities - Charged Garden

• Revenue from charging for garden waste collection

presents opportunities to offset against cost of changes to other services e.g. introduction of food waste

WDA Costs WDA Costs :

• Important to consider the implications for Cumbria

CC (Waste Disposal Authority) of different options, in terms of :

– potential impact on residual disposal costs and guaranteed tonnages of residual waste – the additional cost of processing waste at HWRCs if additional material enters the sites e.g migration of waste from kerbside due to charging for garden waste collections – the recycling credits payable from the WDA to the WCA for additional material recycled

WDA Costs

WDA Costs :

• Additional dry recycling 2,200– 6,700 tonnes/yr
• Estimated Food waste 11,800 – 15,500 tonnes/yr
• Charged garden :

– potentially additional 2,100 tonnes/yr residual – 6,400 – 8,600 tonnes/yr of garden waste entering HWRCs – 21,400 tonnes of garden waste no longer collected at kerbside (Recycling credit)

• A summary of Estimated Costs to WDA from WCAs

introducing different Collection Options has been produced and reported

Two-tier Costs

• WDA costs need to be considered in the round

– Is there a better way of sharing overall costs to incentivise recycling and waste diversion?

• From Department of Communities and Local

Government’s (DCLG) 2017 Litter Strategy:

Moving to stage 2

When considering relative cost and performance of the different options, it is important that the CSWP considers the following –

• Waste composition analysis

– validate assumption regarding current levels of capture of material such as garden waste – amount of food waste in residual stream

• Market conditions

– impact of different market conditions on the income/processing/treatment cost of different

• ptions
• Recycling credits/Powers of direction/New agreed two-tier arrangements

– For example assumed for purpose of modelling that WCA would pay gate fee for food waste and receive recycling credit from WDA

• Processing facilities

– Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facilities etc. - where these would be? – Bulking/haulage requirements – Contractual arrangements

some of the above are being considered by CCC, such as the compositional analysis, others are being carried out in the second stage of this project

Stage 2 – current work

Logistic Arrangements - Current

Establish a current baseline position for all waste flow movements for each LA

– Contractual & financial data – Data requests – GIS - plot existing locations used, drive times

Logistic Arrangements - Future

Future

– Links to other tasks e.g. potential location of facilities such as Anaerobic Digester (AD) plants and Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) – Assess potential changes to depot/tipping points – Map location to see impact on drive time

Material Market Opportunities

• Build on Phase 1, to look at:

– Where material is sent to – Current prices received – Contractual commitments

• Look at options to increase income e.g.

Brokerage

• Soft market-testing
• Charged garden waste

– Charges, administration

Costs of changes to infrastructure

• Bulking-up and transport
• Treatment and disposal
• Gate fees
• All costs to both tiers considered
• Selection of preferred model based on all

costs

Cost Sharing Mechanisms

• Look at the different mechanisms for avoided

disposal and cost-sharing between the two tiers of authorities

– Funding the service changes – Paying for treatment of food waste and garden waste – Approach to recycling credits

• Set out:

– Estimated WCA and WDA costs/savings – Overall net costs or savings to the CSWP LAs as a whole – Different options for distributing these costs and savings across authorities in the CSWP

• Evaluate approaches

Sample Model - Cost Sharing

Final outcomes

• WRAP supported, DEFRA-funded

– Preferred model identified – Bulking and haulage defined – Markets/ material brokering and treatment infrastructure/ facilities fully considered – two-tier financial model/ arrangement (recycling credits etc.) – Implementation plan and financial plan presented

• CSWP can consider

– Joint procurement of vehicles and other capital items – Joint procurement of service – i.e. bulky collections and AHP – Local collection policy discussions (input from WRAP?) – Waste composition analysis (advice from WRAP – already completed?) – Garden waste charging? Central hub and administration?

• Inform Cumbria’s waste strategy and decision-making

Project timetable

Four main delivery milestones for stage 2:

• Delivery of Interim reports on logistics,

markets, facilities & cost sharing – end September

• Options Evaluated – end October
• Draft report – February 2018
• Sign off of final report – by end of financial

year

Thank you! Jenny.robinson@wrap.org.uk