technical report templates

1

Final Report

Phase 2 Cost-Benefit Analysis:

Waste Collection Services in

Pembrokeshire

This document describes the financial, environmental and social costs and benefits associated with the delivery of kerbside waste collection services to households in Pembrokeshire.

Project code: WAL005-000 ISBN: 1-84405-449-7

Research date: August to December 2010 Date: March 2011

Phase 2 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Pembrokeshire 2

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

Written by: Eunomia Research & Consulting, Resource Futures and HCW Consultants

Front cover photography: Recyclable materials

WRAP and Eunomia Research & Consulting believe 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/


Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 Project aims ................................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Methodological issues .......................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Current service overview ............................................................................................................ 7 5.0 Financial analysis ........................................................................................................................ 8

5.1 Resources currently employed for kerbside services ............................................................... 8 5.2 Net costs of collection ........................................................................................................ 10

5.2.1 Reported 09/10 actuals ......................................................................................... 10 5.2.2 Authority-specific issues ........................................................................................ 12 5.2.3 Normalised costs – dry recycling service and refuse service ...................................... 13

6.0 Environmental modelling ......................................................................................................... 15 6.1 Material mass flows ........................................................................................................... 15

6.1.1 Generic case study approach to producing mass flows.............................................. 15 6.1.2 Material mass flows for Pembrokeshire ................................................................... 18

6.2 Merchants, intermediate processors and reprocessors .......................................................... 25 6.2.1 Material reprocessed ............................................................................................. 26

6.3 Environmental impacts....................................................................................................... 27 7.0 Social impacts ........................................................................................................................... 29

7.1 Health and safety .............................................................................................................. 31 7.1.1 Summary of data received ..................................................................................... 31

8.0 Combined cost-benefit analysis (CBA) ..................................................................................... 32 8.1 Individual authority results ................................................................................................. 32 8.2 Comparison with other case study authorities ...................................................................... 33

8.2.1 Fate of materials ................................................................................................... 33 8.2.2 Financial costs ...................................................................................................... 37 8.2.3 Environmental performance ................................................................................... 39 8.2.4 Combined financial and environmental performance ................................................. 41 8.2.5 Health and safety .................................................................................................. 42

8.3 Case studies: Overall results and conclusions ....................................................................... 43


Glossary Compositional categories – The classification system used to describe individual materials. The categories used in this project have been derived from various compositional studies. Contraries – Materials that are sent to a MRF, intermediate processor or reprocessor that are not within the scope of materials desired by that part of the recycling chain. At the primary MRF stage, contraries will only comprise non-target materials. However, at subsequent stages of the chain, contraries may include target material that has been miss-sorted into the wrong product stream. Cross-contamination – The miss-sorting of target material into the wrong product stream. Intermediate processors – Facilities that sort material subsequent to the primary MRF process but before the reprocessing stage. MRF – A materials recovery facility (MRF) is a facility at which components of a mixed waste stream, in this case primarily either co-mingled or two-stream collected dry recyclables, are extracted by the use of mechanical and manual separation techniques. Primary MRF(s) – The first sorting location(s) for co-mingled and two-stream systems and the first point of bulking and sorting of plastics and cans for some kerbside sort systems. Process loss – Any material(s) collected from the MRF/ bulking facility within a product stream, but not reprocessed into a new product. This excludes material rejected for residual disposal at the Primary MRF. Process loss rate – The amount of material(s) collected but not reprocessed into a new product, divided by the amount of material collected from the MRF/ bulking facility as a product.

Product/product streams – Materials that are shipped as a specific post MRF/bulking facility product or grade. Each has an assumed composition which includes various components, some of which are specified by onward reprocessors and some of which are contrary items. Some products have the same name as compositional categories such as news and pams. The news and pams product will contain news and pams, but will also contain other compositional categories such as grey and white board. Reject rate – This term is used in this report to describe the material sent for residual disposal from the Primary MRF(s) and is equivalent to the reject rate methodology required for WasteDataFlow reporting. RCV – Rear compaction vehicle. RIDDOR – Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations.

Target material – The materials that are targeted by a collection system for ultimate recycling.

Acknowledgements

Particular thanks are due to the six case study authorities for providing data, attending meetings to discuss their

services with us and for showing us around the facilities related to their collection services. This entailed a

significant commitment of officer time and effort for which we are grateful. Thanks also to the Technical Advisory

Group for their input into the project and to the MRF operators and reprocessors for taking the time to speak to

us, providing access to sites for primary research and observation and for providing valuable information to

support our understanding of the flow of materials from the point of collection to the end destination.

Phase 2 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Waste Collection Services in Pembrokeshire 5

1.0 Introduction

This report has been commissioned by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) on behalf of the Welsh

Assembly Government (Assembly Government) to examine the relative merits of the options that are available to

local authorities in Wales for the collection and sorting of dry recyclable materials. The central aim of the work

has been to inform the long-running debate on the relative performance of co-mingled, two-stream and kerbside

sort dry recycling collection systems in relation to the Assembly Government‟s sustainability objectives. In

addition, it is also important to highlight the underlying context for this work. Towards Zero Waste, the

overarching waste strategy document for Wales, sets a target of 70% for household waste recycling by 2025.

Legislation that will establish statutory targets for local authorities to ensure that this national target is met is

currently being finalised and it is hoped that findings from this study will contribute towards efforts by the

Assembly Government and Welsh local authorities to achieve these objectives.

The project as a whole was split into three key phases as follows:

Phase 1: a desk-based study to evaluate secondary evidence from data and publicly available reports on the

comparative performance of dry recycling collection systems, including in relation to the health and safety

performance of the systems;

Phase 2: primary research to determine the financial and environmental costs of the dry recycling systems in

six case study authorities in Wales which cover the range of kerbside collection systems; and

Phase 3: application of the evidence and understanding obtained in Phase 1 and Phase 2 to model whole

system costs and performance for all Welsh authorities and to draw together the findings of all three Phases.

This report is an output of Phase 2 of the study; it outlines the key costs and benefits associated with the

kerbside collection systems currently employed in Pembrokeshire. It demonstrates the approach to ensuring that

the costs of the service are as comparable to the other case study authorities as possible and identifies any local

factors which influence the costs obtained. It then highlights the findings from the „doorstep to destination‟

analysis of the kerbside collected material, and discusses any potential social impacts that may be taken into

consideration in the comparison of schemes to be undertaken in Phase 3. Fundamentally, it sets the scene as to

our understanding of the financial, environmental and social aspects of the three types of dry recycling system

that need to be taken into consideration when comparing the performance of the systems in Phase 3.

2.0 Project aims

The overall aim of this study is to identify with greater certainty which of the following options for collecting dry

recyclables perform relatively better or worse in relation to the Assembly Government‟s sustainability objectives:

sorting materials at the kerbside;

two-stream collection, with material separated into two streams at the point of collection, with further sorting

at a MRF being required; or

single-stream co-mingled collection of materials, with sorting at a MRF.

Within the study, the specific aims of Phase 2 are to:

undertake a „doorstep to destination‟ analysis of two kerbside sort schemes, two co-mingled schemes and two

two-stream schemes operating in Wales to determine the financial and environmental (including carbon) costs

of each scheme;

develop appropriate metrics to compare the social aspects of the different approaches to collecting

recyclables; and

provide the foundations from which a comparison of the relative performance of each scheme type can

subsequently be made in Phase 3.


3.0 Methodology

The methodology employed in order to determine the financial and environmental costs associated with

Pembrokeshire‟s existing kerbside collection systems is outlined in this section. Further details of the specific

methodology employed for each section are provided later in the report. Fundamentally, the approach for Phase 2

has involved the following key steps:

1 For each of the six case study authorities, the financial outturns were analysed for waste services for 2009/10

or, where there has been a significant change in service in the last 24 months, the most recent budget

figures (2010/11) were analysed instead. In addition, a general overview was obtained of the resources

deployed across the kerbside collection services in each authority. The cost calculations and cost

apportionment methods were subsequently harmonised between services and authorities, to ensure costs

were as directly comparable as possible.

2 Mass flow models were produced for each case study authority to demonstrate the fates determined for

various material streams and to quantify the flow of materials from kerbside collection to their fates. We

started with WasteDataFlow (WDF) tonnages for 2009/10 and then estimated the arisings of different

components for each product stream through applying compositional profiles for each stream to the relevant

WDF tonnage. These profiles were based on our findings from a combination of MRF sampling in Cardiff and

Pembrokeshire and from previous research. The fate for each component was subsequently determined

through interviewing merchants, intermediate processors and reprocessors that deal with the material

collected by each authority.

3 The climate change and air quality impacts associated with the flow of materials from each authority were

subsequently calculated, with an external cost applied (in financial terms) to those impacts, using an

environmental model that employs well-established assumptions regarding environmental impacts.

4 The potential social issues associated with the different collection systems were explored; it was determined

that only qualitative discussion is possible for this aspect of analysis. Health and safety data was obtained

from each case study authority, which will feed into overall conclusions drawn in Phase 3.

5 In order to undertake a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for each case study authority, the external cost

associated with the environmental impact of each system was then combined together with the financial cost

of operating that service. The overall output of the process provides a total net financial plus environmental

cost of the service, as well as a cost per household and a cost per tonne of dry recycling collected.

3.1 Methodological issues

A study of this kind, which seeks to understand at a detailed level (and to some extent compare) six different

waste collection services in six very different authorities presents a number of obvious challenges. Inevitably, the

methodology that was developed is something of a compromise. In particular, it is worth noting the following:

In order to aid comparison between the schemes, we have used a technique of cost „normalisation‟ (described

in Section 5.2.3) through which adjustments are applied to some costs (or budget figures) reported by the

case study authorities. This is intended to address differences in circumstances (e.g. authorities in receipt of

grant funding not available to other councils) or accounting convention (e.g. the treatment of overhead

recharges or shared resources such as depot) that would otherwise make the financial comparison of the

authorities less meaningful. It is therefore important to bear in mind, when considering the comparisons of

cost presented here, that these are based on normalised costs, not on costs as they have been reported by

the authorities, and as such may not reflect the service costs actually experienced by each authority.

Appendix 4 includes a comparison of normalised and non-normalised information for recycling and refuse

collection costs, which provides an idea of the overall magnitude of the adjustments made. As is the case

across Wales at the moment, significant service changes have been implemented in recent times (or are in

the process of being rolled out) in most of the case study authorities. In addition, some are planning further

change, either in terms of collection system or in working practice. All of these changes are likely to impact on

both cost and performance. To deal with this evolving picture, our general approach has been to adopt data

sources that best reflect the current or near future position, provided these sources were considered to be

adequately reliable. This means, for example, that in most cases we have used 2010/11 budgets as our

primary source of cost information, rather than 2009/10 „actuals‟, as the older data often reflected a service


profile that has changed significantly. This clearly presents a number of issues regarding comparability. Most

obvious of these relates to the fact that we have used WDF outturns for 2009/10 as our primary waste flow

data source in all cases, due to the consistency, reliability and ready availability of that data. However,

although we have applied adjustments to these to make them more reflective of current practice, in some

cases there are likely to be significant differences between the waste flows we have assumed and the real

outturn for 2010/11. This potential inaccuracy has the most significant implications for the „cost per tonne‟

metrics reported, as in several cases these compare tonnages for 2009/10 with budgeted costs for 2010/11.

Where possible, adjustments have been made to reflect the expected impacts of service changes on tonnage,

but there is clearly uncertainty as to the reliability of these assumptions. Even beyond the service change

issue, other factors (some well understood, some not even identified) impact on waste arisings in different

parts of collection systems. For these reasons, we would view the „cost per household‟ metric as being more

reliable in terms of accuracy than the „cost per tonne‟ metric.

4.0 Current service overview

Pembrokeshire County Council provides an in-house waste service to around 57,822 households, representing a

population of approximately 118,807 people. The highest proportion of households (41%) live in detached

houses, with 26% living in semi-detached and 21% in terrace housing. 7% live in purpose built flats with the

remainder living in shared housing or mobile temporary housing. Total household kerbside arisings of 35,526

tonnes were collected in 2009/10, with total municipal solid waste (MSW) arisings amounting to 69,158 tonnes in

2009/10 across the county. According to the authority this is forecast to reduce by 0.7% in 2010/11, returning to

0% growth in future years.

The service configuration currently operated by Pembrokeshire is described as follows:

Dry recycling; all households in Pembrokeshire receive a weekly collection of dry recyclables, and are asked

to present their recycling in orange coloured bags which are provided by the council. Residents are able to

recycle newspaper, magazines and office paper, cardboard, cans and aluminium foil and plastic bottles via

the orange bag scheme. Collections are made using seven RCVs (15 tonne) and three cage tipper vehicles

(3.5 tonne). In addition, three 26 tonne 70/30 split-back RCVs are also used by the authority to collect

orange bagged dry recycling and food waste. Once collected, the dry recycling is delivered to one of two

privately operated MRFs (materials recovery facility). One, which received approximately 80% of the dry

recycling tonnage in 2009/10 is located at Withyhedge and operated by SITA; the other which received the

remainder of the orange bags is located at Boncath and operated by A J Recycling Waste Management. A

total of 7,730 tonnes of dry recyclables were collected at the kerbside in 2009/10.

Garden waste; Pembrokeshire County Council actively discourages residents from leaving out garden waste

for collection. If residents are unable to compost green waste at home or take it to Civic Amenity and

Recycling Centres, the council will collect this waste with residual waste provided that it is placed at the

kerbside in approved compostable green bags which can be purchased from the council.

Residual waste; all households receive a weekly residual waste collection presented in black bags. The

residual waste is collected using ten 26 tonne RCVs and three 15 tonne RCVs. A total of 25,511 tonnes of

residual waste was collected at the kerbside in 2009/10 at the SITA-operated Withyhedge landfill site.

Food waste; the weekly food waste scheme began in September 2009, initially rolling out to 11% of

households in Pembrokeshire. In October 2009 this roll out was extended to 26% of households, and in

November 2009 it was further extended to cover 40% of the households in Pembrokeshire. Since then a

further 6,500 households have been added to the food waste scheme, with coverage currently at 50% of

households across Pembrokeshire, and with plans to extend the roll out to 100% of households early in the

2011/12 financial year. Residents are provided with a 23ltr food waste bin, a 5ltr food waste caddy and a

year‟s supply of compostable caddy liners. Food waste is collected alongside dry recycling using three 70/30

split-back RCVs and a food-only 15 tonne RCV. A total of 720 tonnes of food waste was collected at the


kerbside in 2009/10 and this waste is tipped at the SITA MRF in Withyhedge. In 2009/10 food waste was

treated by two contractors, Bryn Composting and Cwm Environmental at in-vessel composting (IVC) facilities.

Since September 2010 the authority has been in contract with Agrivert who treat the waste at their

anaerobic digestion (AD) facility.

5.0 Financial analysis

The resources and associated costs presented in this section have been calculated based on 2009/10 financial

outturns for Pembrokeshire. Due to the timing of service change in the other five case study authorities, 2010/11

budgets have been used and this clearly means that there is some methodological inconsistency with the

treatment of Pembrokeshire. However, although Pembrokeshire is the only authority for whom actual 2009/10

outturns have been used, we would view the other five authorities as the exceptions, in as much as actual

outturns are a more accurate data source and also relate to the most recent full year of tonnage data available.

In the case of Pembrokeshire, the 2009/10 outturns will reflect the change in costs associated with several stages

of roll out of food waste collections during 2009/10; the use of 70/30 split back vehicles to collect food waste and

dry recycling on the same pass will also thus be factored into the financial outturns provided for both the food

waste and dry recycling collection services. This should mean that 2009/10 represents an accurate reflection of

underlying costs and can be most easily analysed in conjunction with actual tonnage data for the same period. In

the case of the other authorities, due to recent significant service change not reflected in 2009/10 actuals,

2010/11 budgets have had to be used in order to provide an accurate picture of „current service design‟ costs.

The methodological differences that have been required in order to provide as accurate a picture of the costs of

each case study authority have led to a need for a number of adjustments to be made in order to make costs as

comparable as possible. There are discussed in detail later in the report.

5.1 Resources currently employed for kerbside services

Table 1 summarises the resources that are currently employed for household kerbside collections in

Pembrokeshire. 27 vehicles are currently employed across the kerbside collection services; the vehicles are

predominantly RCVs, though three cage tippers are also used and are shared between the dry recycling and

residual waste services. Three 26 tonne split-body (70:30) RCVs are used to collect both dry recycling and food

waste on the same pass and a further 15 tonne RCV is used to collect food waste only. In those instances where

garden waste is left out for collection, this waste is collected as part of the residual waste service. The authority

also has one spare 26 tonne RCV for residual collection. The cage tipper vehicles are owned by Pembrokeshire

with the RCVs being a mixture of owned and contract hire. The 70/30 RCV used for orange bag dry recycling and

food waste collections is spot hire. Once the food waste scheme is rolled out to 100% of households, officers

have advised that they will be looking to review vehicles for food waste collection, and will probably look to use

RCVs with a food waste pod.

As demonstrated in Table 2, Pembrokeshire outsources its treatment requirements. Dry recycling is sent firstly to

the SITA MRF at Withyhedge, before being sent to A J Recycling at Boncath, where it is subsequently sold to

reprocessors. A smaller volume of dry recycling goes directly to A J Recycling. Pembrokeshire receives some of

the income from the sale of this material (see Table 3). Food waste was sent to IVC facilities owned by Bryn

Composting and Cwm Environmental, and is now sent to an AD facility owned by Agrivert whilst residual waste is

sent to SITA‟s landfill site, located next to the MRF at Withyhedge.

Pembrokeshire has recently (January 2010) entered into a contract with Neath Port Talbot (NPT) to send MRF

contaminant to their Materials Recovery and Energy Centre (MREC) at Crymlyn Burrows for incineration.


Table 1 Vehicles and crew employed for household waste collections in Pembrokeshire

Dry Recycling Garden Waste Food Waste Residual Waste

Vehicle Type 3.5 tonne cage

tipper

N/A (collected with

residual waste)

26 tonne 70/30 split

RCV

3.5 tonne cage

tipper

Number of

Vehicles

3 (shared 50/50

with residual) 3 (dry plus food)

3 (shared 50/50

with residual)

Number of Crew 1-2 3 1-2

Vehicle Type 15 tonne RCV 15 tonne RCV 26 tonne RCV

Number of

Vehicles 7 1 10

Number of Crew 2 2 20-30

Vehicle Type 26 tonne 70/30 split

RCV 15 tonne RCV

Number of

Vehicles 3 (dry plus food) 3

Number of Crew 3 2

Total Number

Vehicles 13

1 (70/30 split

included under dry)

13 (cage tippers

included under dry)

Total Number

Crew 26-29

3 (70/30 split RCV

crews included

under dry)

26-36 (cage tipper

crews included

under dry)

Table 2 Bulking, transfer, treatment and disposal of household waste in Pembrokeshire

Dry Recycling Garden Waste Food Waste Residual Waste

Treatment Type MRF

Bring and Civic

Amenity site

composted,

Kerbside collection

landfilled.

IVC Landfill

Ownership

SITA – Withyhedge

A J Recycling -

Boncath

Bryn Composting

Cwm Environmental SITA

The income received in 2009/10 net of the gate fee charged by SITA for dry recycling is listed in Table 3; these

material income prices are also net of transport costs. The gate fee charged by SITA is relatively high, with net

values remaining substantially negative (i.e. an overall cost to the authority) for all materials except aluminium.

The payment arrangements for the sorting of dry recyclables in Pembrokeshire is somewhat unusual compared to

the other case study authorities and also compared to wider co-mingled practice in Wales, with materials passing

between two privately-owned MRFs before sale. For all materials except glass, material prices vary from month to

month; for glass (both source-separated and mixed) the price is fixed over the financial year.


Table 3 Materials income

Material Income net of gate fee for all co-mingled items, glass collected as a

source segregated material with a reduced gate fee per tonne (09/10)

News and pams £38.24

Cardboard £52.83

Glass, colour separated -£7.04

Glass, no colour separation £9.96

Cans steel £28.74

Cans aluminium -£411.84

Aluminium foil -£411.84

Plastic bottles £0.23

Note that a positive figure relates to a cost, and a negative figure to an income.

5.2 Net costs of collection

As noted above, costs presented in this section are based on 2009/10 actuals. In this section, we first illustrate

the key budget lines which form part of the overall waste services budget and any items which are particular to

an individual authority and which would not be easily compared between authorities. We then attempt to

normalise the cost of the dry recycling service based on a number of key assumptions, in order that comparison

can be made between the case study authorities in Phase 3 of the study.

5.2.1 Reported 09/10 actuals

Table 4 summarises the key elements which comprise the overall waste services budget in Pembrokeshire. Costs

are broken down into those associated with household waste collection, commercial waste collection, and other

waste services, including the treatment and disposal of all waste which is collected across Pembrokeshire. Note

that „service provider cost‟ (intended to allow comparison between in-house and contracted out services) refers

primarily to the cost of crews and vehicles associated with the particular service, but in some cases also include

some depot and bulking facility costs.

The following elements of the reported 09/10 actuals for Pembrokeshire need to be considered when attempting

to compare this authority to the other case study authorities:

The materials income includes a significant income obtained from the large network of bring banks in

Pembrokeshire (167 bring sites in total and six civic amenity sites).

The MRF gate fee shown is particularly high, but is partly counterbalanced by the materials income obtained.

Depot costs are included as part of the service provider costs.

There are no costs for garden waste collection as this is included as part of the residual waste collection

costs.

Note that the 09/10 actuals reflect the roll out of food waste as detailed in Section 4 – food waste, at the

time of writing standing at 50% of households in Pembrokeshire.

The costs of the split back RCVs used to collect dry recycling and food waste are all currently apportioned to

the food waste service provider costs.


Table 4 Summary of Pembrokeshire 2009/10 financial outturns

£k

Household Waste

Collection Costs

Income

Material Sales -480

Charged Collection Income -19

Income from Container Sales -23

Other Income -230

Total Income -752

Expenditure

Service Provider Costs - Bulky Waste 142

Service Provider Costs - Clinical Waste 10

Service Provider Costs - Refuse 1,879

Service Provider Costs - Dry Recycling 1,184

+MRF/Bulking/Sorting Facility Costs (net of gate fees income)

+MRF gate fee 767

Service Provider Costs - Food Waste 323

Service Provider Costs - Green Waste

Service Provider Costs - Bring Sites 308

Refuse Containment Purchase 137

Recycling Containment Purchase 378

Depot Rent 0

Other Associated Depot Costs 0

Other Expenses 42

Total Expenditure 5,170

Net Cost of Hhld Collection Service 4,418

Net Cost per Hhld £77

Net Cost per Tonne Dry Recycling £588

Net Cost per % Recycling/Composting (£k) £18,480

Commercial

Waste Collections

Income -550

Expenditure (Commercial Waste Service Provider Cost) 550

Net Cost of Commercial Waste Service (excluding disposal) 0

Other Waste

Services

Other Income

(Non-MRF Gate Fees) 0

Grants

For Collection Service -2,599

Waste Awareness

Other (Commercial, HWRC, Compost, IVC etc) -154


Total Other Income and Grants -2,753

Other Expenditure

Back Office 523

Waste Education and Marketing Campaigns 51

Waste Transfer 29

Treatment 43

Disposal 2,883

HWRC 1,248

Capital Charges 49

Overheads 582

Total Other Expenditure 5,407

Net Cost Non-Collection 2,654

Overall

Net Cost of Waste Service (excluding grants) 9,825

Net Cost per Hhld (excluding grants) £171

Net Cost of Waste Service (including grants) 7,072

Net Cost per Hhld (including grants) £123

Note that a negative figure relates to an income, a positive figure to a cost.

5.2.2 Authority-specific issues

Several key factors in Pembrokeshire make it difficult to directly compare the cost of this co-mingled dry recycling

service to the costs of other dry recycling services across Wales. The following service features are specific to

Pembrokeshire:

The use of two MRFs, one to sort the majority of the dry recyclables, the other to market materials. The

costs of using the MRFs are not straight-forward, with a high gate fee paid for the first MRF, but some

materials income received back, with materials prices varying from month to month for all except glass.

Pembrokeshire is the only case study authority not to offer a garden waste service, although the Council

does have plans to introduce one in the near future.

Pembrokeshire is the only authority not to collect glass at the kerbside; instead, the authority offers a

substantial network of bring sites for the collection of glass and other materials across the authority. In order

to normalise the collection costs across the six case studies as much as possible, some account will need to

be taken of the costs of the bring site collection of glass in Pembrokeshire as part of the overall dry recycling

service provider cost.

Pembrokeshire are in the middle of rolling out a weekly food waste collection with approximately 50% of

their households covered by the scheme so far. Completing the roll out will impact on their cost base; hence

the net cost of the service will change from that identified above, which is based on the 09/10 financial

outturn. The current collection method of using 70/30 split RCVs is an interim solution whilst the food service

is rolled out.


5.2.3 Normalised costs – dry recycling service and refuse service

Following on from the authority-specific issues identified above, this section presents any adjustments we would

make to the costs associated with both the dry recycling and refuse services in order that resultant CBA for each

authority is as comparable as possible. Refuse costs are included alongside dry recycling costs because of the

related avoided disposal environmental benefits that result from increased recycling of materials. Organic costs

are, however, excluded, with appropriate adjustments made to other service provider costs where required, as

not all authorities currently collect both garden and food waste, and due to the added complication of most of the

case study authorities being only part way through roll outs of separate food waste collections.

The adjustments that have subsequently been made to the dry recycling collection costs for Pembrokeshire are as

follows:

Reduction in total materials income based on the proportion of each material collected through bring sites

and Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) compared to at the kerbside in 2009/10.

Given that Pembrokeshire is the only case study authority not to collect glass at the kerbside, in order to

make the basket of materials collected through the dry recycling system as comparable as possible, we have

accounted for the glass collected in bring sites in Pembrokeshire as part of the overall dry recycling costs. We

have thus added into the costs in Table 5 the proportionate glass-related materials income and the additional

cost required to cover the collection of glass from bring sites in Pembrokeshire. The costs of the collection of

glass are based on the total bring site service provider costs highlighted in the budget, with the glass-specific

cost calculated based on the proportion of the total bring site tonnage that is glass.

Adjustment of containment costs to ensure that costs are annualised; rather than annualising these costs,

containment costs for local authorities tend to vary annually depending on when stocks need replenishing,

and to match new service roll outs. Hence costs which may show in one year‟s budget may not be included

in the following year. In order to make containment costs as comparable as possible between authorities, we

have annualised the costs of containment in Pembrokeshire based on the average household using three

bags every week to present their dry recycling for collection. Unit costs are based on bulk purchase prices of

clear single-use bags.

The normalised costs for the dry recycling service are presented in Table 5. The overall cost of the kerbside dry

recycling service in Pembrokeshire is thus calculated at £35 per household, or £268 per tonne of dry recycling

collected.


Table 5 Normalised costs – dry recycling service (based on 2009/10 budget)

Item £k

Income

Budgeted Income -480

Adjustment for Bring Site/HWRC Income 79

Adjustment to Include Bring Site Glass Materials Income -51

Total Income -451

Expenditure

Budgeted Service Provider Cost 1,183

Adjustment for Bring Site Collection Cost (Glass) 155

Budgeted MRF Gate Fee Cost 767

Budgeted Containment Cost 378

Adjustment for Annualised Containment -17

Total Expenditure 2,466

Net Kerbside Dry Recycling Service Cost 2,014

Net Cost per Household £35

Net Cost per Tonne Dry Recycling Collected £268


For the refuse service, the containment costs for the refuse service were annualised, with the calculations based

on each householder being provided with one bag each week in which to present their residual waste. The

disposal cost associated with the kerbside collected residual waste was also calculated based on the tonnages of

residual waste collected in 2009/10 and with landfill tax set at £48 per tonne. We note that the landfill tax applied

relates to the financial year 2010/11 rather than 2009/10. In the case of the other five case study authorities,

significant recent service change meant that greater accuracy could be obtained by basing our analysis on

2010/11 budgets rather than 2009/10 financial outturns. Given the significant impact that an £8 per tonne lower

tax calculation would have had on Pembrokeshire‟s residual waste cost in comparison to the other case study

authorities, and that this is significantly greater than any increase in inflation costs between the two years, we

modelled all authorities at the same landfill tax cost per tonne (i.e. the 2010/11 figure). It is important to note

that the overall CBA to which these figures will contribute subsequently excludes landfill tax altogether from the

financial cost calculations to avoid double-counting environmental costs (see Section 8.1).

The resultant normalised kerbside refuse service costs are presented in Table 6. The calculated net collection cost

for refuse in Pembrokeshire is £33 per household, £75 per tonne of refuse collected, and the overall refuse cost

(including disposal) equates to £65 per household or £147 per tonne of refuse collected. Alongside the costs

calculated in Table 5 for dry recycling, it is these costs which we have used as part of the CBA model for

Pembrokeshire‟s kerbside collection services.


Table 6 Normalised costs – refuse service (based on 2009/10 financial outturns)

Item £k

Collection Expenditure

Budgeted Service Provider Cost 1,879

Budgeted Containment Cost 137

Adjustment for Annualised Containment -107

Net Refuse Collection Cost 1,909

Net Cost per Household £33

Net Cost per Tonne Refuse Collected £75

Disposal Expenditure

Disposal Cost 604

Landfill Tax* 1,225

Total Refuse Service Expenditure 3,738

Net Service Cost per Household £65

Net Service Cost per Tonne Refuse Collected £147


*The landfill tax calculation was undertaken based on £48 per tonne.

6.0 Environmental modelling

This section firstly presents the quantified flow of materials from kerbside collection to their fates (i.e. the

material mass flows). The calculation of the environmental impact of these material flows is then outlined both in

terms of carbon and also the wider impacts on air quality.

6.1 Material mass flows

This section of the report describes:

how we have approached calculating how much material is produced by householders;

how much of each material is captured by the dry recycling system;

how the materials are separated from co-mingled materials into reprocessable grades;

where materials go and what they are made into; and

how much of the collected materials are made into new products.

6.1.1 Generic case study approach to producing mass flows

Mass flow models were produced for each of the six case study authorities to demonstrate the fates determined

for various material streams and quantify the flow of materials from kerbside collection to their fates. WDF

tonnages for 2009/10 reported by each of the authorities were used as the starting point in the mass flow. WDF

tonnages for the following streams were input for each authority:

kerbside household refuse;

kerbside household dry recycling;

kerbside household organics collections; and

bring sites.

Tonnages for bring sites were included since authorities not targeting a particular material at kerbside for

recycling (glass for example) are likely to have considerably higher tonnages of this material captured at bring

sites in comparison to authorities which do target the material at kerbside. This was important in order to sense


check recycling yields for the various authorities, with consideration of bring sites being required alongside

kerbside recycling in order be able to consistently assess comparative recycling yields.

The composition of all waste streams was reconciled with the following category list, used throughout the model:

news and pams;

non-target fibre;

brown board;

grey and white board;

cartons;

plastic film (LDPE);

plastic bottles;

other dense plastic packaging;

other dense plastic (non-packaging);

textiles;

glass;

ferrous cans;

other ferrous;

aluminium cans (used beverage cans (UBC));

other non-ferrous;

garden waste;

food waste;

hazardous;

WEEE; and

other: miscellaneous / fines.

In designing the categories it was necessary to keep the list reasonably simple, in order to avoid unnecessary

levels of detail within the material flows (which would have made the design of the models excessively complex)

and to account for limited data availability in terms of detailed compositional profiles for many waste streams. On

the other hand, it was necessary to be able to distinguish between categories of material that would be

associated with significantly different outputs with respect to fate of materials in the mass flow models, in

particular those likely to significantly impact the environmental modelling. For example, it was important to

distinguish between ferrous and non-ferrous metals, due to the significantly different environmental benefits

associated with recycling ferrous and non-ferrous metals.

The arisings of different components for each product stream were estimated through applying compositional

profiles for each stream to the relevant WDF tonnage. Arisings within kerbside refuse of the various components

in the category list was determined by applying compositional profiles for kerbside residual waste (derived from

data from the WastesWork and AEA on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government‟s The Composition of Municipal

Solid Waste in Wales, 2010 project) to WDF tonnages. Arisings for kerbside organics and bring sites were

expressed in terms of the common category list through analysing separate tonnages for recycling streams

reported in WDF. Where insufficient data was available on the breakdown of WDF tonnages, reference data from

the Resource Futures on behalf of Defra, WR0119 Review of Municipal Waste Component Analyses, 2009 project

were applied. Once the compositional breakdown of each kerbside dry material stream had been estimated in this

way, the fate for each component was determined. Tonnage arisings for each component in the various kerbside

dry product streams were subsequently produced for each relevant fate. These tonnages are arranged in a

systematic array within the model and represent the outputs for the mass flow modelling.

The main focus of the model was on determining the composition and fates of materials collected for kerbside dry

recycling. The methodology applied for the various collection system types (kerbside sort, single and two-stream

co-mingled) was essentially the same, though the methodology for kerbside sort is the simplest to describe and is

therefore addressed first.


Modelling of kerbside dry material flows for kerbside sort systems

The kerbside sort authorities (Newport and Gwynedd) both reported separate tonnages for the different dry

recycling streams targeted at the kerbside. Each type of material was treated as a separate product stream, i.e.

news and pams, glass containers, etc. The arisings of different components for each product stream were

estimated through applying compositional profiles for each stream to the relevant WDF tonnage. This is illustrated

in Table 7, which presents, as an example, the arisings allocation for the news and pams product stream for

Newport. A tonnage of 4,655 was reported by Newport for news and pams kerbside dry recycling, as derived

from WDF 2009/10. The compositional profile is derived from reference data, in this case a compositional analysis

of news and pams carried out by Resource Futures for another local authority; (comments on the general use of

reference or fieldwork data in the modelling are included below). In Table 7 we can see that the estimated arising

of news and pams type materials within Newport‟s kerbside collected news and pams was 95.23% of the material

stream, equating to 4,433 tonnes; we can also see that non-target fibre was estimated to constitute 3.60% of the

material stream, equating to 168 tonnes; and so forth.

Table 7 Example of arisings allocation in a material (news and pams)

NEWS and PAMS

% arising Tonnes per annum

News and pams 95.23% 4,433

Non-target fibre 3.60% 168

Brown board 0.13% 6

Grey and white board 0.72% 34

Cartons 0.04% 2

Plastic film (LDPE) 0.03% 1

Plastic bottles 0.00% 0

Other dense plastic packaging 0.01% 1

Other dense plastic (non-packaging) 0.01% 0

Textiles 0.00% 0

Glass 0.10% 5

Ferrous cans 0.04% 2

Other ferrous 0.00% 0

Aluminium cans (UBC) 0.01% 1

Other non-ferrous 0.00% 0

Garden waste 0.00% 0

Food waste 0.00% 0

Hazardous 0.08% 4

WEEE 0.00% 0

Other: misc / fines 0.00% 0

TOTAL 100.00% 4,655

Once the compositional breakdown of each kerbside dry material stream had been estimated in this way, the fate

for each component was determined. The fates used across all the models consisted of the following:

recycling (with different types of recycling specified for materials with more than one recycling fate; for

example the fates for paper fibres included newsprint, soft mix and old corrugated cardboard (OCC)

packaging);

landfill cover;

landfill disposal;

energy from waste (EfW);

combustion without energy recovery (materials transported to a separate facility to be incinerated, but with

no energy recovery taking place); and

incinerated during the recycling process (materials incinerated in situ during the recycling process itself, i.e.

burning off combustible components during the smelting of metals).


Continuing with the example of news and pams in Newport, it was determined that the fate of the various

components were:

news and pams, brown board, grey and white board: 100% recycling as newsprint; and

all other components: 100% landfill disposal.

For some components in some material streams in the various authorities, the fate of a particular component was

split over several fates. For example, for the kerbside dry collected glass product stream in Newport it was

determined that 84% of glass was sent to re-melt, whilst the remaining 16% was recycled as aggregates. The

model includes various checks to ensure that the fates for each component equal 100%. From the

aforementioned procedures, tonnage arisings for each component in the various kerbside dry product streams

were produced for each relevant fate. These tonnages are arranged in a systematic array within the model and

represent the outputs for the mass flow modelling.

Modelling kerbside dry material flows: single and two-stream co-mingled systems

The modelling for co-mingled systems followed the same procedures as described above, essentially applying

compositional profiles to different product streams and assigning fates for each component in each product

stream. However, there were additional challenges, including determining the relative arisings of different product

streams and accounting for residue arisings at MRFs. Many of the single and two-stream co-mingled authorities

reported some or all of their kerbside dry tonnages within the co-mingled materials category, with no indication

as to the relative concentrations of the materials targeted. The relative magnitudes of product streams and the

MRF residue stream(s) relating to the kerbside dry materials collected and sent to one or more MRFs were

determined through a combination of examining WDF tonnages (where separate material tonnages were

reported), tonnage data from the MRFs themselves and discussions with relevant contacts at the local authorities

or MRFs.

The use of reference data was more challenging for the single and two-stream co-mingled authorities, due to the

wide variation in product stream compositional profiles at MRFs. Greater variations can be expected in

comparison to compositional profiles for kerbside sort material streams, since a wide range of input streams and

separation technologies or procedures are used at MRFs. In particular, the compositional profile of MRF residues

can be expected to vary greatly between facilities. In light of this, it was decided to focus the fieldwork data

gathered on two of the authorities with co-mingled collection systems (Cardiff and Pembrokeshire), for which

there was reasonable confidence that the samples sorted would relate to material collected by the authority in

question (i.e. not mixed with inputs from other local authorities, or from commercial sources). Further details on

the sampling approach undertaken for the Cardiff and Pembrokeshire MRFs are presented in Appendix A.1.0.

Nonetheless, it was not possible to sample all the product and residue streams for all the case study authorities.

Therefore it was necessary, in many cases, to refer to reference data from compositional assessments carried out

at other MRFs.

The specific approach to calculating the material mass flows for the kerbside services in Pembrokeshire is

presented below.

6.1.2 Material mass flows for Pembrokeshire

Pembrokeshire County Council reported material specific tonnage for kerbside dry recycling in WDF 2009/10.

These were reconciled with the operational tonnage data reported for the two MRFs processing material in

Pembrokeshire. The model includes the arisings for each of the two MRFs.

The composition of the product being produced at each of the MRFs is modelled on fieldwork data gathered as

part of this project. Time was spent at both the SITA (four days) and A J Recycling (two days) MRFs carrying out

compositional analysis of all the product and residual streams. The sorting process at both MRFs is primarily

based on a positive handpick system. The material arrives bagged and is opened (mechanically at SITA and by

hand at A J Recycling) before entering a picking cabin. The paper, card and plastics products are all positively

picked by hand off the line. The steel is removed by an overband magnet and the aluminium is recovered through

an EC system. In total over 55 samples were sorted over the two facilities.

In both MRFs the fibre is collected in two separate bays with the big items (whole newspapers etc.) being pulled

off first and then smaller items (sheets of paper and newspaper etc.) pulled off further down the line. Samples of

material were taken from each of the bays and sorted separately. The composition of the fibre was based on


apportioning the profiles of each bay based on conversations with the MRF operators as to their contribution to

the whole. This method was also applied to the residue in the SITA MRF.

All materials are marketed by A J Recycling. Paper and glass (note glass is collected only from bring sites in

Pembrokeshire) is transported direct from the SITA MRF; all other materials from the SITA MRF are baled and

transported to A J Recycling.

The residual waste from both MRFs is baled and sent to the Neath Port Talbot, Materials Recovery & Energy

Centre (MREC). News and pams are being shipped direct to UPM Shotton. We were informed by A J Recycling

that there are 1 to 2 loads per year that are shipped as soft mix from the A J Recycling MRF; these go via Parry &

Evans for cleaning before going on to UPM Shotton. We have not modelled this small tonnage flow.

A J Recycling uses Monoworld for plastics and cardboard. It has been difficult to get any substantive information

from Monoworld on the processes that they use and the fates of the materials; we have, therefore, assumed

similar recovery rates to other reprocessors.

Table 8 provides a summary of the current reprocessing locations for outputs from the SITA and A J Recycling

MRFs.

Table 8 Summary of processing and reprocessing locations for outputs from the SITA and A J Recycling MRFs

Material Product Intermediate Processor Final Reprocessor

News and pams UPM Shotton

Soft mixed papers Via Parry & Evans for

cleaning then to UPM Shotton

Not known but assumed to be mixed into

packaging

OCC (old corrugated

cardboard) Monoworld

Process unknown, Monoworld believed to act as

merchants, fate of material unknown.

Steel cans None Tata Steel – Port Talbot

Aluminium UBC (used

beverage cans)

Undefined – currently being

stockpiled. Have previously

supplied Novelis

Unknown

Mixed rigid plastic packaging Monoworld Process and fate of material unknown

Plastic films Monoworld Process and fate of material unknown

Residues None Neath Port Talbot MREC RDF/SDF burnt at plant

The following additional assumptions regarding the composition and fates of various materials were applied in

calculating the mass flows for each of the case study authorities:

1 Non-target fibre

These were genuinely identified in the reference or field data informing the compositional profiles.

2 Fibre losses through the pulping process

We also questioned the rationale that no fibre was lost through the pulping process i.e. is it correct that

100% of the recyclable fibre sent for reprocessing gets turned into new product? Looking at all the profiles

for the fibre products and thinking through the pulping process, we took the decision that for each one tonne

of contamination, one tonne of fibre was lost from the reprocessing system as a result of being screened off

with the contamination. This assumption was applied to all fibre streams with the exception of the SCA soft

mix for Monmouthshire, which is going to the Far East. For the SCA material, we assumed that less fibre loss

would occur, as the material would be cleaned by hand before processing, meaning that less contamination

would enter the process. A ratio of one tonne contamination to half a tonne of lost fibre was applied in this

instance.

3 Plastic film losses

These arise from compositional profiles, the majority of which we are pretty confident about, and the relative

arisings of product/residue streams. In particular, there is a lot of film that ends up in residue.

4 Rigid plastics

The same argument is applied here as for films. Where non-bottle dense plastic does arise in plastic bottles

or mixed plastics streams, we are assuming that the majority gets recycled. However, according to our


compositional profiles, a lot does end up in the residue. Having looked at SCA, there is some uncertainly

about the compositional profiles (we have applied Enviros profiles); nonetheless, we have no better data

upon which to base SCA.

5 Steel and aluminium losses

For the co-mingled authorities, a fair amount of steel ends up in plastic film (crushed cans wrapped around

film), and where star screens are used for metals, 2D elements (lids) tend to get through to the residue. The

highest losses are for Pembrokeshire, probably due to the „positive hand sort‟ MRF designs, where our

fieldwork gives us pretty good confidence in the compositional profiles.

The assumed composition of materials exiting the MRFs is detailed in Appendix A.2.0 and A.3.0 for the SITA and

A J Recycling MRFs respectively. Diagrams of known and assumed process flows are detailed from Figure 1

onwards, with a supporting summary of intermediate processor and reprocessors‟ processes detailed in Section

6.3. Note that the key for the process flow diagrams can be found in Appendix A.3.0.


Figure 1 SITA MRF

Pembrokeshire

orange sacks

Trade waste

Input Hall+ve pick

CabinBag Splitter

film

Disc screen

Broken

glass

(small

paricles)

News and

PamsCardboard A

A

FilmOCC

UBC

Mixed

rigid

plastics

N&P

Mixed

plastic

bottles

Overband magnet

Steel

Cans

Baled

Al UBC

and foil

mixed

Baled

ECS

Steel

Residue EFW

baled


Figure 2 A J Recycling MRF

Pembrokeshire

orange sacks

Trade waste

Input Hall+ve pick

Cabin

Manual bag

splitting off floor

filmNews and

PamsCardboard A

A

Film OCC

UBC

Mixed

rigid

plastics

N&P

Mixed

plastic

bottles

Overband magnet

Steel

Cans

Baled

Al UBC

and foil

mixed

Baled

ECS

Steel

Residue EFW

g


Figure 3 News and pams process

UPM- Shotton,

Screening in

pulping plant

Residues that

don’t pass the

pulping

screens plus

some fibres

NewsprintN&PPaper

pulpN&P

Landfill

Figure 4 Old corrugated cardboard (OCC) process

Monoworld

OCCOCCOCCOCC

Process Unknown,

believed to act as

merchants fate of

material unknown

Export


Figure 5 Plastics processes

FilmsFilmsFilmsFilms

Mixed

rigid

plastics

FilmsFilmFilmFilm

Mixed

rigid

plastics

Next stage

unknownFilmsFilmsFilms

Mixed

rigid

plastics

Mixed

rigid

plastics

Monoworld - Bedfordshire

Next stage

unknown

Figure 6 Used beverage cans (UBC) process

UBC

Location currently undefined – currently being stockpiled

Have previously supplied Novelis

Chipping ECSAluminium

Chips

Waste to

landfill

Landfill

Aluminium ingot to be sent

for can manufactureUBC


Figure 7 Steel process

Steel

Cans

Tata Steel Port Talbot

Steel Melt

Process Slag

Steel

Recycled

6.2 Merchants, intermediate processors and reprocessors

This section summarises what we have been able to find out about the processes employed by merchants,

intermediate processors and reprocessors for material derived from the SITA and A J Recycling MRFs.

UPM Shotton

UPM Shotton is a reprocessor that takes fibres from A J Recycling (some via Parry & Evans). Every load is visually

inspected and there is a rolling programme of weight-based composition testing. All the non-fibre is screened off

via the drum pulpers and is landfilled.

Parry and Evans

Parry and Evans is a merchant that takes cardboard and plastic bottles from A J Recycling, but this is only on an

occasional basis. A J Recycling will go wherever they are getting the best price. Inspections are made for

moisture and unwanted material. Card handled by Parry & Evans is estimated at 1,000-1,500 tonnes per annum,

all going for export to China; plastic bottles estimated to be 90 tonnes per annum being sold on to Viridor and the

UK market. Parry and Evans stated that the quality from A J Recycling is impeccable and in the last 12 months

they have not had any problems, with all material simply being reshipped.

Monoworld Recycling

Monoworld is a merchant for some materials and a reprocessor for plastics. They have a MRF and a plastic flaking

facility. Some plastics are taken from Monmouthshire and cardboard, mixed plastics and plastic film are taken

from Pembrokeshire to the Monoworld plant in Bedfordshire and are sorted further, subsequently producing

plastic flake in HDPE and PET grades. These grades are then sold on to various manufacturers (e.g. fleeces from

PET, wheelie bins from HDPE), though Monoworld would not disclose the specific destination manufacturers.

There is also a mixed plastics output from Monoworld‟s plant which is then sold on for export to Europe/Far East

for further sorting.

Regarding cardboard, Monoworld handle the haulage of this material and sell it on to various paper mills, the

details of which they were unable to disclose.

Tata Steel

Tata Steel (previously Corus) reprocesses steel packaging, and takes material from Cardiff (via Thamesdown

Recycling, Swindon), Pembrokeshire (via A J Recycling), Gwynedd, RCT and Newport (via Pontypool Steel). Visual

inspections are undertaken at accumulation centres such as Pontypool and Thamesdown. The material is rejected

if it is more than 5% non-steel by weight. Tata Steel commonly expects material to be 98% by weight steel. The

process involves all material being melted for steel at Port Talbot. This process produces three outputs: new

steel, a slag used in cement processing and gas emissions.


6.2.1 Material reprocessed

Figure 8 shows the combined reject tonnages that occur at both the Sita and A J Recycling MRFs for each of the

main components found in the dry recycling material collected, and Figure 9 illustrates the reject rates for each

component being processed through the MRFs. The combined overall reject rate for Pembrokeshire equates to

8.4% of the total collected kerbside dry recycling material. The rejects are incinerated at an EfW facility.

Following processing at the MRFs, the resultant product streams are then sent for reprocessing into new

products. In a number of the product streams, there will be some contraries i.e. materials that are not wanted by

the reprocessor which, during reprocessing, will become a „process loss‟ rather than a new product. Figure 10

shows the process losses in tonnes that are subsequently incurred during reprocessing. The overall process loss

rate for Pembrokeshire is 3.0%. The majority of this loss is sent to landfill, with only losses associated with the

steel product stream being partly incinerated during the recycling process itself.

The final combined reject and process loss rate for the authority is calculated at 11.4%.

Figure 8 Kerbside dry recycling material MRF rejects (tonnes per annum)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Kerb

side D

ry R

ecy

clate

Tonnes

Rejected 225 24 79 71 41 100 4 12 16 7 55

Taken as Products 4,029 822 505 91 722 23 0 470 83 25 106

News

and

Pams

Brown

Board

Grey &

White

Board

Plastic

Film

Plastic

Bottles

Other

Dense

Plastic

GlassFerrous

Cans

Al Cans

(UBC)

Other

Non

Ferrous

Other


Figure 9 Kerbside dry recycling material MRF reject rates (%)

5.3%2.8%

13.5%

43.8%

5.3%

80.9%

94.5%

2.5%

16.5%

21.5%

34.2%

8.4%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

News

and

Pams

Brown

Board

Grey &

White

Board

Plastic

Film

Plastic

Bottles

Other

Dense

Plastic

Glass Ferrous

Cans

Al Cans

(UBC)

Other

Non

Ferrous

Other Total

Dry Recycling Components

Reje

ct R

ate

(%

)

Figure 10 Process losses incurred during reprocessing of product streams (tonnes per annum)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Tonnes

Process Loss 56 2 119 33 9 1 5

Recycled 3,990 48 1,238 465 76 726 94

Paper Side Cardboard MRF Cardboard Steel Cans Aluminium Cans Plastic Bottles Plastic Sacks

6.3 Environmental impacts

The methodology used within our assessment of the performance of each local authority‟s recycling and residual

waste collection/treatment system combines the external cost associated with the environmental impact of each

system together with the financial cost of operating that service. In economics, an external cost – also known as


an externality – arises when the social or economic activities of one group of persons has an impact on another

group and when that impact is not fully accounted for or compensated for (in financial terms), by the first group.

Particularly in the case of waste treatment facilities, our experience indicates that it is the climate change and

local health impacts of these plant that cause most concern for local residents and the wider community.

Eunomia‟s preferred approach is therefore to apply monetary values or external costs to both the climate change

and air quality impacts.

The impacts of the major air pollutants – NOx, SOx, PM, and VOCs – are attributed an external monetary value

which measures the extent of the damage to health associated with the quantity of pollutant being released into

the air. Impacts associated with the emission of greenhouse gases are calculated on the basis of the cost of

mitigating the effects of climate change. Air quality impacts are calculated based on the external costs of key air

pollutants known to have a local or regional impact1. In both cases impacts can be estimated on a £ per tonne

basis, with a higher figure thus representing greater damages. The methodology thus described is widely used in

impact assessments carried out by UK governments.

Our methodology for assessing the environmental impacts accounts for emissions from the following:

those resulting from the collection and transportation of both dry recyclate and residual waste (this includes

the shipping of recyclate overseas for reprocessing);

impacts associated with sorting and transfer facilities;

avoided emissions resulting from the reprocessing of recyclate;

impacts associated with the rejected material throughout the collection, sorting and reprocessing cycle; and

impacts associated with the treatment and disposal of residual waste. This includes a consideration of

avoided emissions resulting from the generation of energy by incineration facilities.

It should be noted that, for the purposes of the Phase 2 modelling, organic costs (both financial and

environmental) have been excluded from the analysis, as not all authorities currently collect both garden and

food waste, and because of the added complication whereby most of the case study authorities are currently part

way through roll outs of separate food waste collections.

The assessment of the environmental impacts uses the mass flow and transport data provided by each local

authority, as has already been described earlier in this report. The approach to the calculation of the

environmental impacts can be summarised as follows:

environmental impacts are based on those associated with air pollution only – impacts to soil and water are

not considered. The impacts associated with air pollution are much better understood than those of soil and

water pollution;

climate change impacts are monetised using the methodology recently developed by the UK Government2;

air pollution impacts are monetised using the UK-specific damage costs taken from the Clean Air for Europe

(CAFE) programme3. The dataset includes both the impact of pollution originating in the UK on European air

quality as well as damage costs for pollution occurring in the oceans – this is required when considering

emissions associated with shipping recyclate overseas;

for the climate change impacts we consider results both excluding and including the biogenic CO2 emissions.

Whilst the exclusion of the biogenic CO2 impacts is typical when a life cycle analysis (LCA) approach is taken

in this type of analysis, analyses undertaken using the CBA framework typically include these emissions. We

1 These external costs include those associated with days lost to ill-health, and costs resulting from hospital admissions, etc.

2 DECC (2009) Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach. Climate Change Economics, Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2009

3 M. Holland and P. Watkiss (2002) Benefits Table Database: Estimates of the Marginal External Costs of Air Pollution in Europe, Database Prepared for European Commission DG Environment; AEAT Environment (2005) Damages per tonne Emission of

PM2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from Each EU25 Member State (excluding Cyprus) and Surrounding Seas, Report to DG Environment of the European Commission, March 2005


present results excluding the biogenic CO2 in the central case, with sensitivity analysis considering any

variation in the results that would occur as a consequence of the inclusion of this impact;

in modelling the behaviour of landfill, we assume a landfill gas capture rate of 50%;

for the Phase 2 models, incineration facilities are assumed to generate only electricity at a gross generation

efficiency of 24%. The incinerator is assumed to meet the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive

with respect to the pollution abatement equipment installed;

we assume the electricity generated by incinerator offsets the production of electricity that would otherwise

have been generated using combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant in line with UK government guidance4.

Our model considers both the climate change and air quality impacts associated with this avoided

generation;

the environmental benefits associated with reprocessing the recycled material are based on data provided by

WRATE. We consider only the impacts associated with climate change as the impacts on air quality (both

positive and negative) are likely to happen outside Wales in many cases;

we assume energy use at the MRF to be 35kWh of electricity per tonne of material treated and 2 litres of

diesel per tonne; energy requirements for the treatment of recyclate at a transfer station are assumed to be

4kWh of electricity and 1 litre of diesel. In both cases our estimates have been developed based on data

provided by currently operating facilities obtained through the course of this project;

with regard to the financial costs, we exclude both the impact of fuel duty and landfill tax from the final

totals that combine the financial and environmental costs. The duty and the tax are intended to offset some

or all of the environmental impact associated with the pollution from road transport and landfilling waste.

Both types of pollution are separately accounted for in the consideration of environmental damages; thus the

duty and the tax are excluded from the final total to avoid double-counting this part of the impact.

The results of the environmental modelling are presented as part of the overall CBA in Section 8.0.

7.0 Social impacts

Increasingly, importance is being placed on consideration of the social costs and benefits associated with

alternative management routes for waste. While the methodological approach to incorporating environmental

costs and benefits using monetised damage costs in the framework of CBA is well established and widely

accepted, there is no such consensus on the approach to social impacts.

One recent study undertaken for Defra used an approach called the Social Return on Investment (SROI) to try

and integrate the environmental, economic and social impacts associated with a number of case studies of third

sector involvement in waste management5. The report demonstrates that the SROI is effective at ensuring that all

the stakeholders who may benefit from specific activity are identified, but in so doing, the approach can involve

double counting.

In one example of this, the approach counts as benefits:

avoided landfill tax; plus

avoided greenhouse gas impacts of landfill; plus

reduced external environmental impacts of landfill.

In addition, it is stated in the report that „it is not possible to directly compare the SROI ratios generated for the

case study projects as they describe value generated in different activities and different contexts‟. This is clearly

not acceptable if seeking to compare alternative collection routes. For this, it is necessary to use an approach,

such as CBA, which does not bias the analysis in favour of one or other of the approaches under comparison.

4 See, for example: DECC (2009) Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach. Climate Change Economics, Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2009

5 Defra (2009) Benefits of Third Sector Involvement in Waste Management, Defra Waste and Resources R&D project WR0506


However, even though social impacts are not always so amenable to inclusion within a monetised approach, this

does not mean that such impacts do not exist or are not valid, especially for decision-makers who may find

themselves under pressure to consider social factors. Our approach, therefore, is to discuss the social impacts,

and present relevant data alongside cost and environmental data, but without seeking to place a monetary value

on these impacts.

There are a number of different social impacts that may arise from the way in which waste is collected. These

may include:

the nature of the employment, i.e. total levels, the location, and whether full or part time, directly employed

or via an agency, indoors/outdoors;

the way in which collection vehicles may affect traffic flow under differing approaches, possibly causing

congestion;

potential visual disamenity and inconvenience associated with on street containers for different approaches

to collection.

Increased employment is intuitively of social value to the individual employed, the local authority area, and to

Wales and the UK as a whole through increasing the tax base. However, attributing any kind of monetary value

to employment is not a straightforward matter. Guidance has been sought from the Welsh Assembly Government

economists on whether there is a particular monetary value that might be used in assessments looking at

employment and job creation and whether this varies by location. Guidance was also sought on the use of

multiplier effects. However, the response was that there are no such values or indeed distributional weights

applied in Assembly Government analysis, and that the more appropriate way to deal with employment and other

social impacts is as we have proposed, through a narrative approach6.

It is worth noting that the costs of employment will already be incorporated within the CBA, alongside the other

relevant costs. By placing the full time equivalent (FTE) figures alongside, it will be possible to present and

compare the net cost:gross jobs ratio of the competing options. The qualitative distinction will also be made

between the proportion in permanent posts, those on fixed term contracts, and those employed on a more casual

basis such as via agencies. A distinction could also be made between the number working indoors, and those

outdoors. Again, this will be presented alongside the CBA rather than incorporated within it.

In Phase 3, comment will be made as to the employment characteristics of the competing approaches, based on

the crewing levels outlined in Section 5.0.

Another potential impact is that relating to traffic congestion from alternative collection methods. The Department

of Transport uses an approach based on the value of travel time savings to evaluate the potential benefits from

road schemes in the expectation that they will reduce travel time, which is taken to be unproductive time7.

Following this approach, different values of time are used based on whether travel is undertaken within working

time, or outside, with working time having the greater value. While such an approach could theoretically be

applied to consideration of the alternative collection routes, the data requirements would be considerable. It

would be necessary to know how the impacts of collection on traffic congestion might vary between alternative

systems, and to know how many people might have their journey times increased, and by how long, and indeed

the proportion of road users who might be travelling during working hours. Accordingly, this analysis will present

a description of the collection requirements in terms of how the vehicles are operated rather than seeking such

data on impacts.

Alternative collection systems will also have differing requirements in terms of the number of containers placed

outside the household. To the extent that they vary, there may be differing impacts in terms of obstruction and

the perceived unsightliness of such containers. This potential „disamenity‟ could theoretically be captured through

ascertaining people‟s marginal „willingness-to-pay‟ (WTP) for a reduction in the level of „clutter‟ outside their

6 Personal communication with Andrew Hobden, Welsh Assembly Government Economist, 19 November 2010.

7 DfT (2009) Values of Time and Operating Costs, Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 3.5.6, April 2009. Available at http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.5.6.pdf

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.5.6.pdf


homes. However, again the research requirements would be significant, and therefore the approach will be to

describe the number of containers required in each instance, alongside the cost data for each scheme.

7.1 Health and safety

Health and Safety data was requested from the authority for the three year period from April 2007 to March 2010

for both the collection of dry recyclables at the kerbside and the handling and sorting of dry recyclables either at

a bulking depot or MRF. An electronic template was supplied which requested the following information:

the number and category of RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences

Regulations) incidences that have taken place;

the format by which RIDDOR incidences have been recorded and copies of those records where applicable;

the number and category of non-reportable accidents that have taken place;

the format by which non-reportable accidents have been recorded and copies of those records where

applicable;

the number and category of non-reportable near misses that have taken place;

the format by which non-reportable near misses have been recorded and copies of those records where

applicable;

how the data the authority has recorded on accidents, near misses, sickness and absence is used within the

waste department and the authority as a whole;

the numbers of employees (FTE) by category of task – drivers, loaders, sortline operatives etc.;

the number of frontline staff days lost through work related and non-work related sickness including the

nature of the operation to which any work related sickness was related;

the number of frontline staff days lost through work related and non-work related absence including the

nature of the operation to which any work related absence was related.

7.1.1 Summary of data received

A partially completed questionnaire was received from Pembrokeshire County Council. Numbers of reportable and

non-reportable accidents were provided for all waste collection services as Pembrokeshire where unable to

separate out the dry recycling kerbside collection service data from other waste collection services data. Staff

numbers were provided for the dry recycling collection service while sickness data was provided for both dry

recycling and the other waste collection services. No data was provided for the handling and sorting of dry

recyclables by either the authority or the two MRF contractors.

Although it will not be possible to draw any conclusions from the data regarding accident rates in relation to

collection methodology, the following initial high level conclusions can be drawn from the data supplied:

the number of RIDDOR incidences reported has dropped from 14 in 2007/08 to nine in 2008/09 and then to

seven in 2009/10;

the total number of non-reportable accidents recorded was 43 in 2007/08. This decreased by 58% to 18 in

2008/09 but increased by 61% to 29 in 2009/10;

the most frequently occurring category of non-reportable accident recorded was „slips, trips and falls‟ at 41%

of all recorded accidents followed by „other manual handling related injuries not involving cuts and grazes‟ at

33% and „struck by a moving object‟ at 19%; and

no near misses were recorded.


8.0 Combined cost-benefit analysis (CBA)

This section presents the combined impact of the external cost associated with the environmental impact of each

system together the financial cost of operating that service. Given the difficulties associated with trying to

quantify the social impacts of the kerbside collection systems, social costs are not included in the results

presented here. The section first presents results specific to Pembrokeshire, before discussing these results

alongside those found for the other five case study authorities that have contributed to this phase of work.

8.1 Individual authority results

Table 9 presents the headline results for Pembrokeshire, whilst Table 10 provides a breakdown of the climate

change (greenhouse gas) environmental impacts, based on the approach detailed in Section 6.3. Details on the

breakdown of the financial costs have already been provided in Section 5.2.3. An adjustment has been made to

the overall combined net cost of the dry recycling and residual waste services in order to ensure that there is no

double counting between the financial costs and the environmental costs. Fuel duty and the landfill tax are

intended to offset some or all of the environmental impact associated with the pollution from road transport and

landfilling waste. Hence both types of pollution are separately accounted for in the consideration of environmental

damages, and need to be excluded from the financial costs that form part of the overall CBA.

Table 9 Headline results (excluding biogenic CO2 emissions)

Annual Total Per-household Per-tonne

FINANCIAL

Total Net Cost £5,752,123 £99.48 £174.20

Total Net Adjusted for Tax and Duty £4,296,377 £74.30 £130.11

ENVIRONMENTAL

Climate Change Impact £1,603,070 £27.72 £48.55

Air Quality Impact £434,864 £7.52 £13.17

Total Environmental Impact £2,037,934 £35.24 £61.72

TOTAL

Total Environmental + Financial Cost £6,334,311 £109.55 £191.83

Table 10 Breakdown of greenhouse gas environmental impacts

£

RESIDUAL WASTE

Collection £24,974

Residual Waste Treatment £1,626,728

SUB-TOTAL £1,651,702

DRY RECYCLING

Collection £23,216

Onward Transport £5,527

MRF Treatment £4,016

Bulking Depot £0

Benefits of Dry Recycling -£121,059

Treatment of Rejects £39,668

SUB-TOTAL -£48,632

TOTAL £1,603,070


8.2 Comparison with other case study authorities

Individual authority reports equivalent to this report have been provided to and reviewed by each case study

authority. This section highlights the key findings across the case studies and summarises the information that

has subsequently been used to develop the Phase 3 Wales-wide modelling of the different collection systems.

8.2.1 Fate of materials

A detailed program of research attempted to trace the path of all collected dry recycling from the point of

collection to the point of the material being reprocessed or sent for disposal. This assessment reveals a complex

pattern for all the case study authorities. In the case of co-mingled and two-stream authorities, the material

passes through MRF facilities where in many cases it is mixed with material from other authorities and/or

commercial waste. Material rejected from primary MRFs is in some cases further sorted at a secondary MRF,

along with substantial amounts of material from other sources. Kerbside sort material is bulked at collection

depots. However, in both kerbside sort case studies some processing of metal and plastic containers is conducted

before the material is shipped onwards. In all case studies, some grades of material are sold on through a chain

of merchants and/or intermediate processors before the material arrives at a reprocessor. In many cases material

from various sources is mixed with the case study material during these transfers. The following sections detail

some of the findings from this part of the research.

Types of MRF

Four of the authorities use primary MRFs. The range of materials dealt with by these MRFs is broadly similar, with

two key exceptions. Pembrokeshire do not specify glass as a permissible material and RCT collect dry recycling

sacks co-mingled with garden waste in the same vehicle compartment, with the garden waste therefore requiring

separation at the MRF. As noted above, the case study authorities that specify two-stream set out from

householders, Monmouthshire and RCT, treat the material as a single-stream co-mingled material from the point

of collection onwards. Two authorities, Cardiff and Monmouthshire, utilise medium to large sized MRFs that are

relatively mechanised. Cardiff operates its own facility and Monmouthshire hauls its co-mingled material to SCA in

Southampton. Pembrokeshire and RCT both use smaller facilities. Pembrokeshire utilises two MRFs, one operated

by SITA and another by A J Recycling. RCT operates its own MRF and sends material from part of the authority to

a small facility operated by Siteserv. All the smaller MRFs studied have similarities in that they are relatively non-

mechanised and for many materials rely on positive hand picking from conveyor belts.

MRF reject rates

All the co-mingled and two-stream authorities report a reject rate to WDF, representing the amount of material

that is sent for disposal from the primary MRF. In general, we have used the values stated in WDF for 2009/10.

However, the following exceptions to this have also been applied. In the case of Cardiff, we also noted the MRF

reject rate from the secondary MRF used by the authority as part of the overall reject rate for Cardiff. In the case

of Monmouthshire, we have used more recent management data from SCA Recycling, which indicates a lower

reject rate than that reported in WDF.

Merchants, intermediate processors and reprocessors

The majority of material identified in the case studies is reprocessed in the UK and for some materials the end

destinations are similar for specific materials. Examples where case studies differ and examples of material

streams that differ between systems are as follows:

The paper and cardboard material collected from Cardiff and Monmouthshire results in three grades of paper

product; news and pams, soft mixed and OCC cardboard, with soft mixed accounting for more material than

the other grades. This is typical for larger MRFs. Gwynedd is unusual for a kerbside sort collection in that the

only paper product shipped from their depots is a soft mixed grade.

All paper grades from Monmouthshire are exported. The soft mixed paper from Gwynedd is bought by Palm

Paper, who did not clarify end reprocessing destinations. News and pams from all other case study authorities

is reprocessed at the UPM-Kymmene plant at Shotton. The soft mixed paper produced by Cardiff is bought by

Severnside and reprocessed in Kent.

All glass is collected on a colour mixed or co-mingled basis. Glass from the kerbside sort schemes is sent for

mechanised colour separation at either the Recresco plant in Ellesmere Port or the Viridor plant in Sheffield.


These processes result in a significant proportion of input material being sent for reprocessing into container

glass. Positively picked glass from the RCT MRF is sent via the same process. The remaining glass from the

RCT MRF is either „composted‟ along with a predominantly organic fine fraction and used as landfill cover or

occasionally is sent for aggregates. The glass from Monmouthshire and Cardiff is sent for processing into

aggregates at the Nationwide facility in Llandarcy. Pembrokeshire does not collect glass from the kerbside.

The majority of rigid plastic packaging is sent to one of four plastic recycling facilities (PRFs) where the

material is re-sorted into separate polymers, with any metals present being reclaimed. The operators of the

PRFs stated that the majority of separated polymers are reprocessed in the UK.

Plastic films are shipped as a grade from all the co-mingled authorities and in all cases this material is

exported and the end destination is unknown.

Steel containers are all reprocessed in the UK at the Tata plant in Port Talbot, apart from material from

Monmouthshire which is purchased by EMR and sent to various reprocessors across Europe. Tata only accept

steel via accredited aggregation centres, so in all cases the material is sent via a third party. In the case of

Gwynedd and RCT, the material is sent via Pontypool Steel where it may be resorted.

Aluminium Cans (UBCs) from Cardiff, Newport and RCT are reprocessed at the Novelis plant in Warrington.

UBCs from Monmouthshire are sent to Alutrade where they may be resorted. UBCs from Gwynedd are sent to

Tom Martin and Co to be sold on to various reprocessors. In both cases, the final reprocessor is unknown.

Material quality

All participating authorities, MRF operators, merchants, intermediate processors and reprocessors were asked

about their procedures for assessing material quality. Two reprocessors reported that they conduct sampling of

incoming material where material is sorted and weighed. All other reprocessors and intermediate processors

reported that they rely on visual inspections to assess the quality of material. Previous work by Resource Futures

for WRAP8 tested the efficacy of visual assessment of material by conducting a visual assessment and then

sorting and weighing the material. This work found that visual assessments are an inaccurate method of

determining material quality and only suitable for identifying extreme levels of certain contrary materials.

All merchants, intermediate processors and reprocessors reported that they did not have any problems with

material quality from the case study authorities that were currently supplying material and that no loads had been

rejected. In a few cases there were reports that they had previously dealt with a case study authority, but no

longer purchased this material, which was attributed to poor quality.

We had planned to use reprocessor quality monitoring data to estimate the composition of products from each

case study authority which in turn would inform Phase 3 of the study. The small amount of data that was made

available to the project was used, but in general we were not as successful as we had hoped in obtaining credible

data from reprocessors. The project relied primarily on previous compositional work conducted by WRAP and

specific compositional assessments conducted for this project.

End uses of materials

Each product being sent from a MRF contains materials that are wanted by reprocessors and will be reprocessed

into new materials and also materials that are not wanted and are termed contraries in this report. This section

describes the fate of the materials, including contraries, for each product stream.

News and pams when shipped as a product from all case study authorities was reprocessed into newsprint.

There was no secondary sorting of this material prior to entering the reprocessing process. During this

process, the material is pulped and screened. The fibre items that are not specified (excess grey and white

board, brown board and some other fibre materials) are pulped and pass through screens to become

newsprint. Non-pulpable materials are generally caught on the screens and removed to become a process

residue. During this process the contrary items are coated in fibres and therefore there is loss in fibre material

to residue which is proportionate to the amount of contraries. All process residues are currently landfilled.

8 Report commercial sensitive and not publically available.


Soft mixed from one authority (Cardiff) is reprocessed into plasterboard lining; for the remainder, the fate is

either unknown or assumed to be reprocessed into packaging items such as the internal fluting in corrugated

cardboard or fibre moulded packaging inserts. We have assumed that the process involves the material being

pulped and therefore non-pulpable contraries will be removed and a corresponding amount of fibre will be

lost. With the one known UK reprocessor, the fate of contraries is landfill. For exported material the fate of

contraries has also been assumed to be landfill.

OCC (cardboard) when shipped as a product has various destinations, but in all known cases is shipped to

mills producing corrugated cardboard. We have assumed that the process involves the material being pulped

and therefore non-pulpable contraries will be removed and a corresponding amount of fibre will be lost. The

fate of contraries has been assumed to be landfill.

Glass, in all cases, is shipped as a mixed colour grade to one of two distinct processes. Where material is

shipped to the reprocessors that mechanically colour sort a proportion of the material, then several possible

mass flows were noted by the reprocessors. One of the colour sorting reprocessors deals with incoming

material from source segregated glass schemes (kerbside sort and bring schemes) separately from glass from

other sources (MRF glass). This reprocessor reported a high recovery rate of glass to re-melt into glass

packaging production (85% to 90%). The remaining glass (mostly that with a particular size lower a 20mm) is

sent for a variety of reprocessing applications such as aggregates, filtration media and fibreglass production.

For environmental modelling purposes we have allocated this latter group of material to an aggregates fate,

which seems to be the predominant end use for this material. Metal contraries are removed as aluminium and

steel grades and sent for reprocessing. We have assumed a 90% recovery of these materials. The remaining

residue is sent to a MRF for further sorting. We have assumed a 50% recovery of these materials. The

remainder of contraries have been assumed to be landfilled. The other glass sorting facility reported a facility

average recovery for re-melt into packaging glass at 85% and this is the value that was used for the relevant

case study authorities. The remaining glass is used for a variety of reprocessing applications such as

aggregates, filtration media and fibreglass production. For modelling purposes we have allocated all this group

of material to an aggregates fate. Residues are sent to EfW (incineration process). In a number of cases,

glass was sent to an intermediate process which mechanically grades the material for aggregate production.

This process involves the material being left outside for a period of time where some organic materials

present in the initial product stream will degrade. The material is then screened. Material that does not pass a

5mm screen is sent via an overband magnet and eddy current separator where steel and aluminium is

recovered. The glass material and any contraries passing the 5mm screen are used as aggregates, and the

remaining material is assumed to be landfilled.

Rigid plastic packaging. The majority of this material is sent to plastic reclamation facilities (PRFs) where the

material is sorted into polymers and any metal contraries are recovered for recycling. The facilities that

responded claim all plastics that enter the facility are either graded into polymers or a small amount is

shipped as mixed plastics for recycling abroad. We have modelled a 100% reclamation of plastics. The

remaining non-metal contraries have been assumed to be sent to EfW (incineration).

Plastic film is, in all cases, exported to the Far East where little is known about its ultimate fate. We have

assumed 99% recovery of plastic materials to a recycling fate and 90% recovery of metal contraries. The

remaining materials we have assumed are sent for EfW (incineration).

Steel packaging is virtually all reprocessed at Tata Steel, Port Talbot. When the material arrives at this facility

there is no further sorting. All steel is processed into steel, the contraries are incinerated in the process which

results in either a gas emission or they contribute to the formation of a process slag. The process slag is

recycled in cement manufacturing.

Aluminium cans (UBCs) are mostly sent to Novelis in Warrington. The aluminium is all recycled into aluminium

ingots for the manufacture of aluminium packaging. The aluminium recovery process involves some removal

of contraries at the beginning of the process, which are sent to landfill. We have assumed that 50% of paper


contraries and 80% of other contraries are removed. The remaining contraries are incinerated in the paint de-

coating process.

Summary

As shown in Figure 11, MRF rejects occur in all co-mingled and two-stream authorities. The lowest reject rate is

for Cardiff, which is a relatively automated process and utilises a secondary MRF for the sorting of the reject from

its primary facility. The remaining facility reject rates are broadly similar. Process losses, however, differ distinctly

between the authorities. The most significant process losses are attributable to relatively high levels of contraries

in soft mixed paper. The two facilities that produce soft mixed, Cardiff and SCA (Monmouthshire) show the

highest process losses. The three other MRFs that do not produce soft mixed show markedly lower process

losses, though they are still higher than the process losses calculated for kerbside sort systems. Process losses

are also made more significant due to the difference in sorting techniques between the large, highly automated

MRFs and smaller, simpler facilities. In larger MRFs, material is primarily mechanically sorted, with contraries

removed by hand, whereas in smaller MRFs it is common to find products are sorted with a positive hand pick,

whereby the targeted materials are removed from the line, leaving the unwanted materials to pass. This latter

approach generally produces less contaminated product streams and therefore lower process losses further down

the reprocessing line. It also generally produces higher MRF reject rates, as more contraries are captured into this

stream and some of the targeted material is missed and is inadvertently rejected. The two authorities using less

mechanised MRF processes are Pembrokeshire and RCT, and although these authorities show slightly higher MRF

reject rates than the others, they are not markedly so.

It is worth noting that the process losses for all glass accepting MRFs are likely to be understated. The MRF reject

rates and process loses for RCT are likely to understate the real picture, as the end of line rejects are trommelled

and the fines either composted or sometimes reprocessed as aggregates. The contraries in this material are not

counted as disposed to landfill or EfW and therefore do not appear as a loss. Similarly, where contraries pass into

aggregates they are not counted as being sent for disposal and therefore do not appear as losses.

A small quantity of contrary items ends up being reprocessed into a product, but the majority are removed either

as MRF reject or as process losses. It is notable in the co-mingled and two-stream systems that the removal of

contraries only accounts for part of the overall loss. For example of the 16% loss calculated for Monmouthshire,

only 6% of the loss comprises of contraries, whereas 10% relates to the loss of targeted recyclables, most of

which have ended up in the wrong product stream.


Figure 11 Case study MRF reject rates and process losses

6.8%8.0% 8.4%

9.4%

8.4%

2.8%

7.9%

1.9%

3.0%

3.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Cardiff Gwynedd Monmouthshire Newport Pembrokeshire RCT

MR

F R

eje

ct R

ate

and P

roce

ss L

oss

es

(%)

Process Loss Rate

MRF Reject Rate

8.2.2 Financial costs

Table 11 and Table 12 summarise the net costs for the kerbside dry recycling and residual waste services for

each of the case study authorities. Details on how these costs have been calculated can be found in Appendix 4.

The net cost of the dry recycling service varies from £14 per household in Newport to £50 per household in

Gwynedd, and the pattern is similar when looking at the cost of the service per tonne of dry recycling collected,

with costs varying from £79 to £371 per tonne of dry recycling collected. Given that the two kerbside sort

services provide the lowest and the highest overall cost, it appears that collection system type is not the key

driver for the pattern of costs across the authorities. The urban authorities have the lowest collection costs,

though part of the lower cost for Cardiff is likely to be due to its fortnightly collection frequency, with all other

authorities operating a weekly service. In addition, a number of key factors vary between the authorities that also

help to drive the differential in costs; these include:

The materials income received by those authorities who market their own materials; this is likely to be driven

by, for example, whether or not an authority sells on the spot market or has entered into longer-term

contracts (and if so, the nature of those contracts). Fundamentally, it is likely that ability to negotiate high

values in the market place varies between authorities, although taking a one-year view of this (as we have)

may not provide a complete picture, as authorities currently exploiting high spot market values may be more

exposed to the risk of a downturn in commodity markets in future.

MRF gate fees/operating costs; depends on factors such as what infrastructure is present and therefore how

much capacity needs to be filled by the MRF (and the gate fee that is subsequently offered), and how the

facility is run (scale of operation, value being obtained for material at end of MRF process etc.).

Differences in unit labour costs between authorities; driven by location, historical circumstances and, to some

extent, by whether the staff are permanently employed or are agency temps (and the impact of this on staff

on-costs).

The efficiency of the collection services; this will depend on factors such as vehicle technology, round

configuration, crewing levels, shifts employed and management systems.


It is considered unlikely that the low per household cost achieved in Newport could be replicated across Wales.

Newport‟s collection partner Wastesavers is a not-for-profit social enterprise. Lower running costs and the

absence of shareholders mean all surplus profits are reinvested into service delivery to reduce unit costs. It

should also be noted that with increased recycling towards 70% the “per tonne” based payment mechanism used

will also increase the cost per household.

The collection costs for residual waste are less variable than the collection costs for dry recycling, with costs

varying from £20 per household in Monmouthshire to £34 in RCT. Thus, unlike the dry recycling service, the

urban authorities do not necessarily have the lowest residual waste collection costs. The collection costs are

cheaper where the service is predominantly fortnightly (Monmouthshire, Gwynedd and Newport) compared to

where it is predominantly a weekly service. When disposal costs for residual waste are also considered, total

residual waste costs vary from £50 per household in Gwynedd to £76 per household in RCT, and from £116 per

tonne of waste collected in Gwynedd to £147 per tonne in Pembrokeshire.

Table 11 Dry recycling and residual waste net costs (£ per household)9

Cardiff10 Gwynedd Monmouthshire Newport Pembrokeshire RCT

Dry Recycling Net

Cost

£26 £50 £32 £14 £35 £34

Residual Waste

Collection Cost

£28 £26 £20 £26 £33 £34

Residual Waste

Disposal Cost

£35 £24 £35 £45 £32 £41

Residual Waste

Total Cost

£63 £50 £56 £70 £65 £76

Total Net Cost £89 £100 £87 £84 £99 £110

Total (adj for LF

tax & duty)

£65 £75 £65 £60 £74 £77

Table 12 Dry recycling and residual waste net collection costs (£ per tonne waste collected)


Dry Recycling Net

Cost (£ per Tonne

Dry Recycling

Collected)

£133 £371 £166 £79 £268 £156

Residual Waste

Net Cost (£ per

Tonne Residual

Waste Collected)

£144 £116 £143 £145 £147 £118

Table 11 also shows the adjusted combined net cost of the dry recycling and residual waste services that is used

when both the financial and environmental costs are considered in the cost benefit analysis that follows in Section

8.2.4. This ensures that there is no double counting between the financial costs presented in this section and the

environmental costs described in Section 8.2.3. The fuel duty and the landfill tax are intended to offset some or

all of the environmental impact (externalities) associated with the pollution caused by road transport and

landfilling waste. Hence both types of pollution are separately accounted for in the consideration of environmental

damages, and need to be excluded from the financial costs that form part of the overall CBA. The total cost,

9 As noted above, the cost figures reported in this section are based on normalised costs. See Appendix 4 for a comparison of normalised and non-normalised costs for recycling and refuse collection.

10 Cardiff is currently forecasting a considerable underspend versus the 2010/11 budget, with a significant proportion of this relating to MRF operations and material sales income. Therefore, it seems likely that the figures we have analysed represent an overstatement of Cardiff‟s actual costs, in this year at least.


adjusted for landfill tax and fuel duty, varies from £60 to £77 per household, with Newport running the service at

the lowest overall cost, and RCT at the highest overall cost.

8.2.3 Environmental performance

Figure 12 demonstrates the overall climate change emissions which result from the combined dry recycling and

residual waste collection and treatment services in each authority. Results are ranked in order from left to right,

from the highest emissions to the lowest emissions produced per 50,000 households. Despite a relatively high

emissions offset from the dry recycling service, the overall service in RCT produces the highest tonnes of CO2

equivalent overall, due to the more significant emissions associated with the residual waste service. Similarly, the

service in Monmouthshire produces the lowest overall emissions, with the lowest overall residual waste emissions

and a relatively high offset associated with the dry recycling service. The overall emissions associated with the

residual waste service are three to four times greater than those associated with the dry recycling service, and

this is driven primarily by the impact of residual waste disposal by landfill (which contributes around 97 to 99% of

the total residual waste service emissions).

Figure 12 Climate change emissions from dry recycling and residual waste collection and treatment (tonnes CO2

equivalent per 50,000 households).

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

RCT Cardiff Newport Gwynedd Pembrokeshire Monmouthshire

GH

G Im

pact

s (t

onnes

CO

2e p

er 50,0

00 h

hld

s)

Residual Dry Recycling Total

Figure 13 illustrates a breakdown of the factors that contribute to the overall environmental impact of the dry

recycling system in each authority including, in this instance, impacts associated with air quality as well as

greenhouse gas impacts. Results are again ranked in order from left to right, demonstrating the lowest to highest

overall benefit derived from the dry recycling system. Similarly to the financial costs discussed above, there is no

apparent pattern in climate change emissions according to the dry recycling collection system employed. The

schemes will be likely to include a number of sub-optimal components, including collection productivity (related in

part to technology) and the fate of materials (for instance, news and pams going into soft mix product rather

than being reprocessed into news and pams), making them difficult to compare.

The benefits of dry recycling outweigh any increase in emissions resulting from the collection and processing of

dry recycling material, and it is this which drives the overall order of results obtained in Figure 13. In addition, the

combined reject and process losses requiring subsequent disposal are also particularly significant for Cardiff and

RCT in reducing the overall benefit obtained from the system. Onward transport is also particularly significant for

Monmouthshire, with a notable amount of material (and in particular news and pams, soft mix and card) being

exported for reprocessing from SCA.


Figure 13 Breakdown of environmental damage costs (excluding biogenic CO2 emissions but including air quality

impacts) per 50,000 households

-6,000

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

Cardiff Gwynedd Monmouthshire Pembrokeshire RCT Newport

Dry

Recy

clin

g T

onnes

CO

2e p

er

50,0

00 h

hld

s

Collection

Onward transport

MRF treatment

Bulking materials

Benefits of dry recycling

Treatment of rejects/ process losses

Cardiff Gwynedd Monmouthshire Pembrokeshire RCT Newport

Total Dry Recycling

GHG Impacts (tonnes

CO2e per 50,000 hhlds

-1,675 -2,621 -2,826 -2,934 -3,450 -4,570

In order to provide a financial cost comparable metric, air pollution impacts were monetised using the UK-specific

damage costs taken from the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) programme11 and climate change impacts were

monetised using the methodology recently developed by the UK Government12. It is important to note that the

climate change impacts methodology includes two prices of carbon, a „traded‟ price, which relates to the

European Union Emission Trading Scheme and covers anything involving electricity generation, and a „non-traded‟

price, which is applied to other impacts, including to methane produced by landfill and to diesel. The non-traded

price is more than double the cost per tonne of carbon relative to the traded price. As demonstrated in Figure 12,

the majority of climate change emissions relate to residual waste disposal. Given that all authorities use landfill as

their primary means of disposal, and that the emissions related to this are factored in at the higher non-traded

price of carbon, the overall impact of residual waste disposal is further emphasised when the emissions are

monetised. This is demonstrated in Table 13; although Newport is the highest performer in terms of reduced

tonnes of CO2 equivalent from its dry recycling service, it produces more residual waste per household than most

other authorities (except RCT), which drives up the overall environmental cost for this authority, so that only RCT

generates at a higher overall carbon emissions cost than Newport.

11 M. Holland and P. Watkiss (2002) Benefits Table Database: Estimates of the Marginal External Costs of Air Pollution in

Europe, Database Prepared for European Commission DG Environment; AEAT Environment (2005) Damages per tonne Emission

of PM2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from Each EU25 Member State (excluding Cyprus) and Surrounding Seas, Report to DG Environment of the European Commission, March 2005

12 DECC (2009) Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach. Climate Change Economics, Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2009


Table 13 Climate change external costs (£ per household)


Residual Waste £28.7 £30.4 £24.8 £33.3 £28.6 £38.3

Dry Recycling £0.5 £-0.8 £-0.5 £-2.2 £-0.8 £-0.7

Total £29.2 £29.6 £24.3 £31.1 £27.7 £37.6

The overall environmental cost of the dry recycling and residual waste services across each authority is presented

on a per household basis in Table 14. Aside from RCT, whose total environmental cost is £47 per household, the

environmental costs for the remaining five authorities are similar, ranging from £32 to £38 per household.

Table 14 Environmental cost £ per household (dry recycling and residual waste services)


Greenhouse Gases £29 £30 £24 £31 £28 £38

Air Quality £6 £8 £8 £6 £8 £9

Total £35 £38 £32 £37 £35 £47

8.2.4 Combined financial and environmental performance

The overall net costs presented in Table 11 are added to the total environmental costs in Table 14 to give the

combined financial and environmental performance per household presented in Figure 14. Newport provides the

cheapest overall dry recycling and residual waste service when both financial and environmental performance are

considered, due to its low financial cost, driven primarily by the £14 per household dry recycling collection cost.

The lower environmental cost associated with the Cardiff and Monmouthshire collection systems brings the

overall cost for these two authorities close to that of Newport, though this reflects the lower residual waste per

household in these authorities rather than a greater offset in emissions from the dry recycling services. RCT is the

most expensive service both financially and environmentally, and also had the highest overall greenhouse gas

emissions (Figure 12).


Figure 14 Combined financial and environmental cost per household (financial costs adjusted for landfill tax and

fuel duty)

£-

£20.00

£40.00

£60.00

£80.00

£100.00

£120.00

£140.00

RCT Gwynedd Pembrokeshire Cardiff Monmouthshire Newport

Cost

per hhld

(£)

Total Environmental

Total Financial

RCT Gwynedd Pembroke-

shire Cardiff

Monmouth-

shire Newport

Financial Cost £77.33 £75.16 £74.30 £65.42 £65.13 £59.61

Environmental Cost £46.83 £37.87 £35.24 £35.13 £32.24 £37.15

Total Cost £124.16 £113.03 £109.55 £100.56 £97.37 £96.75

8.2.5 Health and safety

Each of the case study authorities provided data relating to health and safety for both the collection of dry

recyclables at the kerbside and the handling and sorting of dry recyclables either at a bulking depot or MRF.

Although data was requested from the authorities in a standard format, the data obtained was not useable for

any meaningful comparison between the different systems in operation. In some cases, data was only available

at an overall waste services/directorate level. In Monmouthshire, there had been a switch from a kerbside sort to

a co-mingled service part way through 2009/10, with no data yet available for the current co-mingled service. In

all cases, even where data was available for handling and sorting operations, no data was available for the MRF

operations. Authorities do not typically differentiate their own data in terms of operational differences. Data tends

to be collected by departments, so that, for example, street cleansing accidents are included along with refuse

collection and recycling operations. Injuries to loaders are typically generically collated, and attributing them to

either refuse collection or recycling operations retrospectively cannot easily be done. As such, differences within a

system are also not discernable.

In itself, this is of interest as it suggests that those managing these operations do not see the collation of these

statistics at such a detailed level as an operational tool with which to investigate underlying causes of incidents.

This is perhaps a reflection of the way that in the UK accident statistics required by RIDDOR are the benchmark

by which operators gauge themselves. As this is first and foremost a tool to assist the Health and Safety

Executive (HSE) in accident investigation it has to be, by necessity, generic in its application.


It is thus difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about the relative merits of the different dry recycling

collection schemes in terms of safety and health from the case study data supplied.

8.3 Case studies: Overall results and conclusions

Examining six case study authorities in detail has enabled us to gain insight into:

the flow of dry recycling materials and the associated environmental costs from the point of collection through

to the end destination in six Welsh authorities; and

the financial costs for the initial collection and sorting of those dry recyclables.

Although the costs for collection and sorting of dry recyclables were found to vary quite significantly between the

case studies, this variation could not be attributed to variation in collection system type. The urban authorities

were found to have the lowest collection costs, probably driven in part by the collection frequency for Cardiff,

with this being the only authority not to collect dry recycling on a weekly basis. A number of additional factors

also made it difficult to directly compare system costs, including variations in materials income received, MRF

gate fees or operating costs incurred, unit labour cost variations paid and efficiency of collection services.

Regarding the environmental performance of the dry recycling systems, there was again no apparent pattern in

greenhouse gas or air quality emissions according to the collection system employed. Each case study authority

scheme will be likely to include a number of sub-optimal components, including collection productivity (related in

part to technology) and the fate of materials, making them difficult to compare. The benefits of dry recycling

outweighed any increase in emissions resulting from the collection and processing of dry recycling material, and it

is this which most significantly influenced overall environmental performance of the dry recycling system.

There was less variation in financial costs for the residual waste system, with cost differences driven primarily by

disposal costs incurred rather than by differences in collection costs. Differences in the overall environmental

performance of the combined dry recycling and residual waste collections were primarily driven by the impacts

associated with disposing of residual waste; therefore, those authorities that collected more residual waste per

household were the worst overall environmental performers.

It was also difficult to draw any conclusions in relation to differential health and safety performance of the

different dry recycling systems from the data obtained from the authorities. Given that health and safety data is

only reported at a high level for most authorities, and is primarily based on RIDDOR sub-coding, data on the

differences between methods will be likely to remain elusive.

The work undertaken in Phase 2 thus illustrates the limitations of a comparison of dry recycling systems

employed by a small sample of very different authorities and schemes. Although it provides insight into some of

the factors that may be driving the overall differential in financial and environmental costs, it is difficult to unpick

local differences such as productivity levels, salaries, gate fees paid, and whether materials are going to the

optimal end destination, from any cost differential that might be associated with the dry recycling system per se.

Hence, it is not surprising that no meaningful pattern has emerged as to which is the highest performing

collection system.

Nonetheless, Phase 2 has provided useful insight into the key factors for consideration in modelling the waste

flows for Phase 3 of this project (the Wales-wide modelling), in particular those relating to fate of material after

collection, which is a key area where data availability has been a barrier to meaningful analysis in the past. It has

also provided essential data regarding the general logistics involved in operating services for urban, rural and

valleys authorities in Wales and this has been used as a basis from which the Phase 3 financial and environmental

performance has subsequently been determined.


A1.0 Appendix A.1.0 MRF Sampling

Cardiff MRF

Between 19 and 21 September 2010, Resource Futures collected samples from each of the major MRF output

streams other than paper (for which data was already available) and glass (due to a problem with the glass

sorting equipment while the analysis was being conducted).

The materials sampled, sample collection method, target weight for each sample and number of samples sorted

are shown below.

Material Collection method Target kg Samples

Aluminium cans Split 2 bales of material 25kg 7

Steel cans Diverted from baler chamber 25kg 6

HDPE Split bale 25kg 1

Mixed plastics Diverted from baler chamber 25kg 1

Plastic film Diverted from baler chamber 15kg 1

Residual picked at bag splitter cabin Collected from stillage under cabin 25kg 4

Residual picked at paper cabin Collected from skip under cabin 25kg 4

End of line material (for H.W. Martin) Brushed directly from end of line 25kg 3

Samples were collected with the aid of site staff, and were sorted by a two-person team using a wooden sort

table. The end of line material was sorted using a 40mm screen, and the sub-40mm fraction sub-sampled using a

coning and quartering method. All other materials were sorted in their entirety.

The materials were hand sorted into containers according to a pre-agreed list of material categories, and then

weighed off using digital scales. The results were recorded on paper for input into Excel spreadsheets.

Pembrokeshire County Council

Resource Futures collected samples from two MRFs in Pembrokeshire. Between 25 and 28 October, material was

sampled from the SITA Withyhedge Landfill MRF, while material was sampled on 29 October and 1 November

from the A J Recycling MRF at Boncath. Samples were collected from all the major output streams at both

facilities.

The materials sampled, sample collection method, target weight for each sample and number of samples sorted

at each MRF are shown below.

SITA Landfill MRF, Withyhedge


Paper – large Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 50kg 4

Paper – small Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 25kg 4

Aluminium cans Diverted from picked aluminium 25kg 7

Steel cans Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 25kg 7

Cardboard Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 50kg 2

Plastic bottles Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 25kg 1

Plastic film Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 25kg 2

Residual bay 1 – screenings Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 10kg 5

Residual bay 2 - pick Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 20kg 5


A J Recycling MRF, Boncath


Paper – large Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 50kg 2

Paper – small Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 25kg 2

Aluminium cans Diverted from picked aluminium 25kg 4

Steel cans Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 25kg 4

Cardboard Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 20kg 1

Plastic bottles Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 20kg 2

Residual Hand collected from bay under sort cabin 10kg 4

Samples were collected by hand from bays beneath the sorting cabin and sorted by a two-person team using a

wooden sort table. The fine residual material (Boncath residual and Withyhedge residual from the screens) was

sorted using a 40mm screen, and the sub-40mm fraction subsampled using a coning and quartering method. All

other materials were sorted in their entirety.

The materials were hand sorted into containers according to a pre-agreed list of material categories, and then

weighed off using digital scales. The results were recorded on paper for input into Excel spreadsheets.


A2.0 Appendix A.2.0 Assumed Material Compositions from MRF NEWS & PAMS MIXED PAPER CARDBOARD STEEL CANS ALUMINIUM CANS PLASTIC BOTTLES MIXED PLASTICS PLASTIC FILM GLASS RESIDUE

News and Pams 91.15% 66.87% 5.40% 0.91% 0.23% 0.81% 4.05% 4.31% 0.37% 19.60%

Non-Target Fibre 1.26% 1.78% 4.13% 0.38% 0.04% 0.16% 0.89% 0.17% 0.02% 3.59%

Brown Board 2.03% 10.68% 68.98% 0.34% 0.05% 0.21% 0.86% 0.81% 0.00% 4.27%

Grey and White Board 3.18% 10.41% 17.24% 0.59% 0.12% 0.61% 2.25% 1.19% 0.01% 4.93%

Cartons 0.16% 1.19% 0.44% 0.15% 0.03% 0.14% 0.70% 0.06% 0.00% 0.88%

Plastic Film (LDPE) 0.34% 0.70% 0.64% 0.92% 0.16% 1.11% 1.64% 60.55% 0.00% 12.60%

Plastic Bottles 0.27% 1.45% 0.55% 0.55% 0.11% 87.60% 63.38% 16.00% 0.00% 6.02%

Other Dense Plastic Packaging

0.20% 0.52% 0.53% 0.36% 0.11% 3.37% 12.95% 8.15% 0.19% 6.49%

Other Dense Plastic (Non-Packaging)

0.13% 0.34% 0.36% 0.24% 0.08% 2.25% 8.63% 5.44% 0.12% 4.33%

Textiles 0.06% 0.08% 0.05% 0.04% 0.00% 0.04% 0.28% 0.05% 0.00% 12.35%

Glass 0.02% 0.43% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.20% 0.15% 0.00% 98.54% 2.21%

Ferrous Cans 0.15% 0.77% 0.23% 92.64% 0.27% 0.19% 0.13% 0.75% 0.00% 1.51%

Other Ferrous 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Aluminium Cans (UBC) 0.08% 0.47% 0.21% 0.65% 96.18% 0.30% 0.78% 0.42% 0.03% 0.98%

Other Non-Ferrous 0.01% 0.03% 0.02% 0.12% 2.03% 0.01% 0.36% 0.10% 0.32% 0.26%

Garden Waste 0.04% 0.16% 0.05% 0.08% 0.02% 0.11% 0.11% 0.08% 0.02% 0.75%

Food Waste 0.45% 2.03% 0.58% 0.99% 0.27% 1.43% 1.41% 0.95% 0.19% 9.48%

Hazardous 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WEEE 0.04% 0.16% 0.05% 0.08% 0.02% 0.11% 0.11% 0.08% 0.02% 0.76%

Other: Misc / Fines 0.43% 1.93% 0.55% 0.94% 0.26% 1.35% 1.34% 0.90% 0.18% 9.00%

TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

NOTES

Adapted from Enviros Type 1

MRF profile (from published

report).


MRF profile (from

published report).

Adapted from Enviros Type 1 MRF

profile (from published

report).


profile (from published

report).


profile (from published report).


MRF profile (from published report).


MRF profile (from published

report).

Adapted from

Enviros Type 1

MRF profile (from

published report).


MRF profile (from published report).

Adjusted to account for arising

of plastic film found in Kerbside

Dry materials from Monmouthshire

sampled.

A3.0 Appendix A.3.0 Key to Process Maps

Glass = A connector, to another process location

Key

Landfill

Cardiff green

sacks = The authority’s input material

Trade waste = Other input material

Trade

waste -

cardboard

removal

= Manual hand pick

Input Hall = Location or Mechanical Process

+ve pick

film

A

= Stream description

= On page description

Landfill

= The established final fate of a material

= Final reprocessor not established but no further work proposed

A4.0 Appendix 4: Impact of Normalisation

The table below shows a comparison of cost per household for the net dry recycling service cost and the refuse

collection cost, comparing un-normalised data (U) as supplied directly by the authorities and our normalised data

as reported in Table 11.

Table 15 Comparison of un-normalised (U) and normalised (N) costs

Cardiff Gwynedd Monmouth. Newport Pembs. RCT

U N U N U N U N U N U N

Dry Recycling

Net Cost £23 £26 £50 £50 £33 £32 £11 £14 £32 £35 £47 £34

Residual Waste

Collection Cost £27 £28 £27 £26 £21 £20 £25 £26 £35 £33 £33 £34

A number of adjustments were made to the costs associated with both the dry recycling and refuse services in

order that resultant CBA for each authority was as comparable as possible. Refuse costs are included alongside

dry recycling costs because of the related avoided disposal environmental benefits that result from increased

recycling of materials. Organic costs are, however, excluded, with appropriate adjustments made to other service

provider costs where required, as not all authorities currently collect both garden and food waste, and due to the

added complication of most of the case study authorities being only part way through roll outs of separate food

waste collections.

It should be noted that no adjustments were made to the following components of the service:

The materials income received by those authorities who market their own materials; this is likely to be driven

by, for example, whether or not an authority sells on the spot market or has entered into longer-term

contracts (and if so, the nature of those contracts). Fundamentally, it is likely that ability to negotiate high

values in the market place varies between authorities, although taking a one-year view of this (as we have)

may not provide a complete picture, as authorities currently exploiting high spot market values may be more

exposed to the risk of a downturn in commodity markets in future.

MRF gate fees/operating costs; depends on factors such as what infrastructure is present and therefore how

much capacity needs to be filled by the MRF (and the gate fee that is subsequently offered), and how the

facility is run (scale of operation, value being obtained for material at end of MRF process etc.).

Differences in unit labour costs between authorities; driven by location, historical circumstances and, to some

extent, by whether the staff are permanently employed or are agency temps (and the impact of this on staff

on-costs).

The efficiency of the collection services; this will depend on factors such as vehicle technology, round

configuration, crewing levels, shifts employed and management systems.

These elements of the services genuinely vary between authorities and can be considered legitimate

differentiators which could not easily be replicated elsewhere. To adjust, for instance, the unit labour costs would

be to suggest that an authority could readily adjust what it pays its staff, and this would prove difficult in

practice.

The adjustments that were subsequently been made to the dry recycling collection costs are listed below, those

authorities to which each adjustment was applied given in brackets:

Materials income (Cardiff, Gwynedd, Newport, Pembrokeshire). A reduction in the total materials income was

applied to account for the collection of some material through bring sites and HWRCs. This apportionment


was based on the proportion of each material collected through bring sites and HWRCs compared to at the

kerbside in 2009/10. It should be noted that given that Pembrokeshire is the only case study authority not to

collect glass at the kerbside, in order to make the comparison between the basket of materials collected

through the dry recycling system as comparable as possible, we have accounted for the glass collected in

bring sites in Pembrokeshire as part of the overall dry recycling costs. We have thus added into

Pembrokeshire‟s costs the proportionate glass-related materials income and the additional cost required to

cover the collection of glass from bring sites in Pembrokeshire. The costs of the collection of glass are based

on the total bring site service provider costs highlighted in the budget, with the glass-specific costs calculated

based on the proportion of the total bring site tonnage that is glass.

Depot costs (Cardiff, Gwynedd, Monmouthshire). Where depot costs were identified separately to other

service provider costs, a proportion of the depot costs was subsequently added to the overall costs of the dry

recycling service. The costs for depots for Cardiff and Monmouthshire were apportioned based on the relative

service provider costs for the individual services. Given that less detail was supplied in the budget return

from Monmouthshire, depot costs for this authority were apportioned based on the number of vehicles used

in each service as a proxy for service provider cost apportionment.

Bulking/sorting facility costs at Caernarfon (Gwynedd). Part of the site at Caernarfon is shared by the Council

with Antur Waunfawr, a community-based reuse and recycling group that does not deal with household

waste. We have used only those costs that are considered directly related to the dry recycling service.

Food waste collection on same pass as dry recycling (Newport, Pembrokeshire). A reduction in the service

provider cost was applied to account for food waste being collected on the same pass as dry recycling in this

system. Newport Council funds the cost of the food waste collection undertaken by Wastesavers on a per

tonne collected basis, hence was able to separate the costs specifically related to food waste from those

associated with the Wastesavers dry recycling service. Pembrokeshire provided separate service provider

costs for the dry recycling and food waste parts of their service based on the additional vehicle cost required

to collect food waste on top of the existing dry recycling vehicle costs.

Cardboard not collected on dry recycling pass (Newport). An adjustment to costs was made to account for

cardboard being collected in the garden waste stream rather than as part of the dry recycling service in

Newport. In order to ensure that the dry recycling collection costs are as comparable across authorities as

possible, it is important to analyse costs over the same basket of materials. All other case study authorities

collect the majority of card as part of their dry recycling service. Hence we have included the collection and

treatment costs of the cardboard element of the garden waste service in the costs presented here. The costs

of garden waste collection are based on collecting an average of 27.5kg per household per annum from a

free garden waste service, to give a relative proportion of cardboard in terms of tonnage, which has then be

applied to the garden waste service provider cost. The treatment cost is based on the gate fee provided for

the open windrow facility and the tonnage based on 27.5kg per household per annum; this cost is subtracted

from the overall service provider cost, as in all other authorities this material would not be included as part of

the organic treatment cost and would accrue an income.

Garden waste co-collection with dry recycling (RCT). A reduction in service provider costs for RCT was

applied to remove the additional costs associated with garden waste being co-collected with the dry

recycling; this adjustment was calculated based on tonnages collected.

Trade waste dry recycling co-collection (RCT). A small reduction in costs was applied to RCT to account for

the dry recycling trade waste tonnage that is collected as part of the overall dry recycling service; this

adjustment was calculated based on tonnages collected.

Infrastructure capital costs (Cardiff, Newport). An annualised capital cost associated with the building of the

MRF in Cardiff and Wastesavers depot in Newport was added to the collection costs for these two authorities.

The MRF in Cardiff and depot in Newport were both partially paid for by a European grant; a grant which

would not be accessible to other authorities across the country should they wish to build their own MRF or


depot in future. Hence a cost has been factored in to adjust for this grant. In reality, the capital cost might

be covered as a one-off cost or financed over a number of years; however, in order to be representative of

the overall costs incurred in running a dry recycling service with a MRF, an annualised cost of capital is

included in the costings presented.

Non-operational waste management costs (Monmouthshire). A reduction in employment-related costs was

applied in order to account for six non-operational waste management staff that spend around half of their

combined time on waste services and whose costs were included as part of the service provider costs

provided. This cost was split equally between the refuse, recycling and organic services.

Annualised containment costs (all six case studies). Containment costs were adjusted to ensure that costs

are annualised and do not include costs associated with the provision of food waste caddies and bio-liners;

rather than annualising these costs, containment costs for local authorities tend to vary annually depending

on when stocks need replenishing, and to match new service roll outs. Hence costs which may show in one

year‟s budget may not be included in the following year. In order to make containment costs as comparable

as possible between authorities, we annualised the costs of containment as follows:

o Gwynedd and Newport; costs were calculated based on the average household being provided

with two boxes, costing £4 per unit with an annual replacement rate of 10%.

o Cardiff; costs were based on the average household using five bags every fortnight to present

their dry recycling for collection, costing 4p per unit for clear single-use bags.

o Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire and RCT; costs were calculated based on the average

household using three bags every week to present their dry recycling for collection. Unit costs

at 4p per single-use bag.

The normalised costs for the dry recycling service for each case study authority are presented in Table 16. The

adjustments that were subsequently been made to the refuse costs are listed below:

Depot costs (Cardiff, Gwynedd, Monmouthshire). Where depot costs were identified separately to other

service provider costs, a proportion of the depot costs was added to the overall costs of the refuse collection

service. The costs for depots in Cardiff and Monmouthshire were apportioned based on the relative service

provider costs for the individual services. Given that less detail was supplied in the budget return from

Monmouthshire, depot costs for this authority were apportioned based on the number of vehicles used in each

service as a proxy for service provider cost apportionment.

Annualised containment costs (all six case studies). Containment costs were again adjusted to ensure that

costs are annualised. In order to make containment costs as comparable as possible between authorities, we

annualised the costs of containment so that wheeled bins were costed at £1.80 per household per annum

(based on a unit cost of £18 per bin), with a 2% replacement rate for those households with wheeled bins to

account for lost/damaged bins. Costs for those authorities providing black sacks for collection were calculated

based on 1p per unit, with Pembrokeshire costs based on providing one sack per week to all households and

the small percentage of households in Cardiff, Gwynedd and RCT each provided with four bags per week.

Where an authority provides both wheeled bin and sack collections, costs were calculated based on the

proportion of households provided with each containment type. For Monmouthshire containment costs are

zero as residents are required to provide their own black bags for refuse collection.


Table 16 Normalised dry recycling collection costs (£k)

Item Cardiff Gwynedd Monmouth-

shire Newport

Pembroke-

shire RCT

2010/11

budget

2010/11

budget

2010/11

budget

2010/11

budget

2009/10

actuals

2010/11

budget

Income

Budgeted Income -1,038 -371 0 0 -480 0

Adjustment for Bring Site/HWRC

Income 25 54 0 0 79 0

MRF Gate Fees Income -450 0 0 0 -51 0

Total Income -1,463 -317 0 0 -451 0

Expenditure

Budgeted Service Provider Cost 1,630 2,827 714 917 1,183 1,641

Depot Costs 98 24 21 0 0 0

Budgeted Operational Cost of

Bulking/Sorting Facility 0 443 0 0 0 0

Budgeted MRF Cost 2,466 0 300 0 767 1,653

Adjustment for Build Cost of MRF* 356 0 0 130 0 0

Adjustment for Build Cost Bulking

Depot** 0 0 0 0 0 0

Adjustment for Back-Office Staff

Costs 0 0 -38 0 0 0

Adjustment for Food Waste Co-

Collection 0 0 0 -297 0 0

Adjustment for Cardboard being

Collected in Organic Stream 0 0 0 113 0 0

Adjustment for Cardboard Compost

Cost 0 0 0 -75 0 0

Adjustment for Bring Site Collection

Cost (Glass) 0 0 0 0 155 0

Adjustment for Garden Waste Co-

Collection 0 0 0 0 0 -305

Adjustment for Trade Waste Co-

Collection 0 0 0 0 0 -21

Budgeted Containment Cost 802 68 250 408 378 1,642

Adjustment for Annualised

Containment -103 -20 -4 -358 -17 -1,036

Total Expenditure 5,249 3,343 1,243 837 2,466 3,573

Net Kerbside Dry Recycling

Service Cost 3,786 3,026 1,243 837 2,014 3,573

Net Cost per Household £26 £50 £32 £14 £35 £34

Net Cost per Tonne Dry

Recycling Collected £133 £371 £166 £79 £268 £156

Notes

*Based on build cost of £5.5 million, financed over 25 years at 4.8% (10 year average 50 month + fixed rate figure from the

Public Works Loan Board.

**Based on build cost of £2 million, financed over 25 years at 4.8% (10 year average 50 month + fixed rate figure from the

Public Works Loan Board.


The disposal cost associated with the kerbside collected residual waste was calculated based on the tonnages

of residual waste collected in 2009/10, the gate fees supplied by each authority and with landfill tax set at £48

per tonne.

o It should be noted that Monmouthshire changed from a weekly refuse to a fortnightly refuse

service in 2009/10 at the same time as making significant changes to the dry recycling scheme;

Monmouthshire‟s residual waste tonnage has therefore been adjusted to account for the

authority‟s estimate of the increase in recycling performance (and reduction in residual waste

tonnage).

o We also note that the landfill tax applied relates to the financial year 2010/11 rather than

2009/10. in the case of all authorities apart from Pembrokeshire, 2010/11 budgets rather than

2009/10 financial outturns were used in the analysis, in order to more accurately account for

the impact on costs of recent service changes. Given the significant impact that an £8 per

tonne lower tax calculation would have had on Pembrokeshire‟s residual waste cost in

comparison to the other case study authorities, and that this is significantly greater than any

increase in inflation costs between the two years, we modelled all authorities at the same

landfill tax cost per tonne i.e. the 2010/11 figure. It is important to note that the overall CBA to

which these figures will contribute subsequently excludes landfill tax altogether from the

financial cost calculations to avoid double-counting environmental costs.

The normalised costs for the dry recycling service for each case study authority are presented in Table 17.

Table 17 Normalised refuse costs (£k)

Item Cardiff Gwynedd Monmouth-

shire Newport

Pembroke-

shire RCT

2010/11

budget

2010/11

budget

2010/11

budget

2010/11

budget

2009/10

actuals

2010/11

budget

Collection Expenditure

Budgeted Service Provider

Cost 3,668 1,467 813 1,488 1,879 3,380

Adjustment for Back-Office

Staff Costs 0 0 -38 0 0 0

Depot Costs 221 12 24 0 0 0

Budgeted Containment Cost 90 131 0 38 137 110

Adjustment for Annualised

Containment 194 -22 0 76 -107 92

Net Refuse Collection

Cost 4,173 1,591 799 1,602 1,909 3,582

Net Cost per Household £28 £26 £20 £26 £33 £34

Net Cost per Tonne

Refuse Collected £64 £61 £52 £53 £75 £53

Disposal Expenditure

Disposal Cost 2,088 182 729 1,316 604 1,139

Landfill Tax 3,120 1,248 820 1,440 1,225 3,216

Total Refuse Service

Expenditure 9,381 3,021 2,186 4,358 3,738 7,937

Net Service Cost per

Household £63 £50 £56 £70 £65 £76

Net Service Cost per

Tonne Refuse Collected £144 £116 £143 £145 £147 £118

www.wrapcymru.org.uk/kerbsidecollectionoptions

technical report templates

Documents