ITEM 10 ITEM 10 Executive Thursday 27th June 2002 HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING COLLECTION SCHEME Report of A J Eden – Chief Customer Operations Officer Statutory Powers: Environmental Protection Act 1990 s45 Financial Implications: The revenue costs required to implement the town and one rural trial are £30,000 for the purchase of suitable containers, publicity, temporary staff and operational resources. Purpose This report reviews the current achievement of recycling in the South Hams, the targets set by the Government and the options available to this Council to improve its recycling rate in a cost effective manner. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Executive RESOLVES that: i. A pilot scheme based on Scenario G as set out in the report be implemented in the Totnes area and a rural refuse round, to compare the two areas in terms of take-up and recycling rates. ii. A sum of £30,000 be made available at the discretion of the Chief Finance and Administration Officer, to purchase additional containers for the trial, operational, marketing and education costs and additional temporary staffing. iii. A further report be compiled to give detailed information of the above scenarios for the whole District, to detail the full financial implications of such a scheme. That the Executive NOTES that: i. The Council is only likely to achieve a recycling rate of 25% through the collection of ‘dry recyclables’ ii. Officers from Waste Management Services will report back to the Executive regarding the opportunities for Trade Waste Recycling . iii. To achieve the Government targets will require the implementation of segregated collections of organic material for recycling. Future research and development will be required to establish a cost effective methodology. 19 Summary 1. With tough targets set by the Government to recycle or compost municipal waste, this Council still has a great deal to achieve. Even if the current Household Recycling Scheme is altered to gain maximum material and recovery at a reduced cost for the whole District, it is clear that the Governments targets are unlikely to be met in the near future. The Council will be closer to meeting these targets by making alterations to the recycling collection scheme but are unlikely to achieve them. 2. Appendix 1 shows the targets set for South Hams District Council and the current performance. The best recycling rate that can be achieved for dry recyclables, even with an improved Household Recycling Collection system, is also shown. This figure is in the region of 25% recycled/composted but the target for 2003/2004 is 28%. 3. It is clear that in order to achieve the Government targets a collection and processing system for putrescible/organic waste will be required. These systems are currently being researched but currently the funding for the project and end markets for the materials are not in place in the South Hams District. Therefore the target set for 2003/2004 is unlikely to be met but the 2005/2006 could potentially be developed with an organic waste collection and processing system if the technology can be developed on a commercial scale. 4. In order to increase the recycling rate in a more cost effective way it is proposed that Scenario G – Fortnightly Paper and Monthly Plastics/Cans – is trialled in one main town area (Totnes) and on a rural refuse round. This trial would run for 4-6 months and operate within Totnes, which is currently serviced by the ‘green bin’ scheme. The householders in this area will be asked to stop using the ‘green bin’ scheme (where applicable), and will be changed over to the new trial scheme. This trial will require the purchase of some forms of container, as well as additional temporary resources. It could commence during September and would need to operate for six months to gain sufficient information to develop the scheme District wide. 5. An action plan will be drawn up for this pilot and if successful a progressive changeover of schemes will be adopted by first changing the 26,000 properties currently on the ‘green bin’ scheme over and then providing this service to the remaining 38% of the District. Background Information 6. Each year in the UK we produce over 100 million tonnes of waste from households, commerce and industry. The majority of this waste is landfilled, the Government knows that this is a wasted resource. As landfill space diminishes and it becomes increasingly difficult to find new sites for landfill, the Government has decided, with our European partners, to implement tough targets to reduce the quantity of waste sent to landfill. 20 Government Targets/Legislation 7. Within the South Hams District we produced approximately 45,000 tonnes of waste in 2001/2002 (including Civic Amenity Site wastes). Approximately 20% of this was recycled either by the District Council, Devon County Council or Voluntary Groups. The breakdown of these waste arisings can be seen in Appendix 2. With waste arisings growing at a rate of 3% per annum this is a major issue for this Council. In order to reduce waste sent to landfill, South Hams District Council has been set two major targets by the Government, for the recycling of Municipal Solid Waste. These targets were set by the Government based on the levels of recycling being achieved by each authority in 2000. 8. These targets are as follows: To recycle or compost at least 28% of household waste by 2003/2004 To recycle or compost at least 36% of household waste by 2005/2006 (See Appendix 1) National recovery targets: To recover value from 40% of municipal waste by 2005; To recover value from 45% of municipal waste by 2010; To recover value from 67% of municipal waste by 2015. 'Recover' means to obtain value from waste through recycling, composting, other forms of material recovery, or recovery of energy. 9. In order to reduce the amount of methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – from being produced by landfill, the Government and our partners in Europe, have agreed the EU Landfill Directive. This Directive sets out strict targets, which are as follows: By 2010 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995. By 2013 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 50% of that produced in 1995. By 2020 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995. 10. In the past there has not been any legislation to make Local Authorities recycle. The Environmental Protection Act (1990) does place a statutory duty on Council’s to produce a recycling plan. However, although there are targets set in place and the need for a recycling plan, there have been no penalties if the targets are not met. 11. This situation has now changed and it has been indicated that if local authorities fail to meet these targets then the Secretary of State will exercise powers under Section 15 of the Local Government Act. These powers could mean that directions would be ordered to local authorities and a transfer of functions to a third party under the Secretary of State. 12. It is likely that there could also be financial penalties to Councils’ who have not reached (or attempted to reach their targets). 21 Current Situation 13. There are 4 main indicators that can be used to measure the performance of Household Recycling Schemes. These are: 1) 2) 3) 4) % of households participating in the recycling scheme. Cost of the recycling scheme % of recyclable material recovered Recycling Rate (%) achieved. It should be noted that the information above is based on the currently available data. This information may change if and when circumstances alter. Household Recycling Scheme Variables 14. When implementing and operating a recycling collection scheme there are a number of factors that have an influence on the overall success of the scheme. These factors are listed below: The percentage of people who participate in the scheme Quality of the material put out for collection by the householders Market value of the materials Processing costs for the materials (where applicable) Collection costs of the materials Recycling Credit Rate. 15. For the purpose of this report we have applied these variables in different formats depending on the type of scheme. For example, the put out rate for the recently trialled pilot recycling scheme was 50%, whereas we assume a 75% put out rate for the current recycling scheme. This lower figure has been used in the calculations for Scenario’s E, F, G, H, which represents a conservative view of the likely participation rate. If the proposed revised schemes continued to attract a 75% participation rate, the benefits become substantial. 16. The scenarios presented throughout this report can be seen in graphical form in Appendix 3 and 4. Scenario A - Current Situation 17. We are currently operating the ‘green bin’ scheme within our 2 main refuse rounds from Totnes, Kingsbridge and Ivybridge Depots. This scheme has been operating since 1997 where it was first trialled in Totnes.The scheme now covers 62% of households in the District - some 26,000 properties. Newspapers, Magazines, Cardboard, Plastic Bottles and Aluminium/steel cans can all be recycled through this scheme. The materials are collected on a fortnightly basis from all participating households. 18. In 2001/2002 we collected 3451 tonnes of household recyclables throughout the District, which was delivered to the Plymouth Materials Recycling Facility (MRF). The gate fee at the MRF in 2001/2002 was £53.56 per tonne input into the plant. As there is only a 50% recovery rate at the MRF we only recovered and received income for 1725.5 tonnes. This therefore means that we pay for the 22 material to be processed but do not gain an income or recycling credit for 50% of the input. 19. The income from the household-recycling scheme, for 2001/2002 (sale of materials plus recycling credits), was £127,383. However, the expenditure for collection and processing was £471,440. This obviously leaves us with a net cost of £344,058. This situation is not considered to be cost effective and therefore the scheme could not be extended without further funding from this Council. 20. Below is a summary of the four main factors affecting the scheme: 1) % Of households Participating 75% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme £344,058 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 50% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 16.70% Scenario B - Current Situation – 100% of District 21. In order to attempt to reach the Government targets, we must provide a recycling collection scheme to the remaining households in the District. Some 38% of households within the South Hams do not receive a household recycling collection from the Council. 22. If the current ‘green bin’ scheme was provided to 100% of fully rated properties in the District, expenditure would rise to £724,377 and the income from the scheme could potentially be £198,426. Although this scenario covers the whole District we are still in a situation where the net expenditure would be £525,951. This scheme is summarised below: 1) % Of households Participating 75% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme £525,951 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 50% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 18.94% Where do we go from here? 23. It is clear that if we want to further expand the household recycling collection service, throughout the remainder of the District, we can either input further funding or, we must look at alternative options. The options available have been analysed, and are identified and explained in this section of the report. 23 Scenario C - Current Situation – with MRF improvements. 24. Funding is needed to improve the situation at the MRF. If a funding bid were successful then the recovery rate could potentially rise to 75%.We have recently submitted a bid to DEFRA for a share of the £140 million recycling fund. This was a joint bid between Plymouth City Council and South Hams District Council for funding to improve the efficiency of the MRF. If successful the improvements made at the MRF could increase the recovery rate to 75%. 25. The inefficiencies do not lie in the management of the MRF but in the processing ability of the plant. Therefore, if major alterations were made to the MRF, the gate fee would remain the same but the income would increase in line with the recovery rate. There would be an increased income for both material sales and recycling credits. 1) % Of households Participating 75% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme £280,366 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 75% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 18.71% Scenario D – Improved recovery rate at MRF for 100% of District. 26. If we were to extend the current ‘green bin’ scheme, with the improved 75% recovery rate, to the remaining 38% of the District, the net cost to the Council would be significantly higher. The actual gate fee per tonne would remain the same but would increase inline with increased throughput of material. However, income would increase due to an improved recovery rate. The implementation of this scheme would obviously be an improvement from the current situation and Scenario C, however is still a costly option. The details of this scheme are outlined below: 1) % Of households Participating 75% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme £426,739 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 75% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 21.82% ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION METHODOLOGIES 27. The scenarios already highlighted in this report do provide a change to the current situation, however they still incur huge costs. Therefore, as the main issues are processing costs and recovery rates, it is important to review methods that do not rely heavily on a MRF, for the processing of recyclable materials. 24 Segregated Collections 28. The Plymouth MRF is costly due both to poor mechanical efficiency and a high gate fee. Therefore, an option for reducing cost would be, to implement a recycling collection scheme that eliminates the need for a MRF, whilst maximising the recovery of recycled materials. 29. It is possible that we could ask householders to sort the recyclables for collection. The segregated materials would then need to be collected separately. There would be a need to decide on which materials would be collected. As paper makes up approximately 33% by weight, of the domestic dustbin, it is important to collect this. 30. There are also many different frequencies on which the recyclables could be collected. The two that have been seriously considered are: a) alternative fortnightly paper and container collections (plastic and cans) b) fortnightly paper and monthly container collections (plastic and cans) Trialled Pilot Recycling Scheme 31. This scheme was introduced in December 2001. Four of our rural refuse rounds were issued with polypropylene sacks to collect either paper or plastic bottles. The four rounds covered properties in areas such as Wotter, Shaugh Prior, Lopwell, Roborough, Warleigh, North Huish, Battisborough Cross, Ugborough, Chivelstone, North Pool, Stokenham, South Pool, East Prawle, Bolberry, Marlborough, Coombe Norris, Fowlescombe, Hope Cove, Soar, Collaton, Batson, Woolston and other areas. 32. Two areas had paper collected from their households on a monthly basis and 2 had plastic bottles collected on a monthly basis. This service was provided to 501 households out of the 642 properties on the rounds. This is due to the high number of holiday properties on these rounds and also some properties being unoccupied. The scheme had a participation rate of 41% for the paper collections and 47% for the plastic collections. 33. Due to the nature of the areas we were collecting in, only about 150 properties can be serviced on these rounds per day. This factor obviously has an affect on the recyclable material quantities collected and the cost of collection. The scheme was closely monitored on every collection and questionnaires issued to householders at the end of the scheme in May 2002. 34. The average amount of paper collected per participating household was 17 kilograms per collection. The average amount of plastics collected per participating household was 1 kilogram per collection. The plastic bottle figures are very low, however this is due to the weight of the plastic and the quantity in volume was much greater. 25 35. At the end of the pilot scheme a questionnaire was distributed to all households who were included on the scheme (501). We have received responses from 221 households so far and the results from the questionnaire are shown in Appendix 5. 36. This pilot provided us with detailed information about the householders’ attitudes to recycling, the quantity of material that can be collected per household, participation rates and put out rates. For the purpose of this report the data collected from the pilot scheme has been applied to create different recycling collection scenarios, based on 62% and 100% coverage of the District. Scenario E – Alternate Fortnightly Paper and Plastics Collection (62% of district) 37. This scheme would work in a similar way to the recent pilot scheme that was operated in the more rural areas. However, the materials would be collected on a fortnightly-alternating basis. The householder would be asked to segregate the materials at home into two different receptacles. Therefore, one fortnight plastic bottles and cans would be collected and the next fortnight paper, from 26,000 households. This would mean that the different materials would be collected once per month. This activity would eliminate the need for the MRF at Plymouth, although a small plant would be required within the South Hams to separate aluminium and steel cans from plastic bottles. 38. Currently 75% of households participate in the household recycling scheme and with good marketing it may be possible to maintain the level of households who would continue to take part. However, the figures below have been calculated on a scenario of 50% participation. The four main factors of this scheme are shown below. 1) % Of households Participating 50% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme £178,534 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 92.07% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 19.09% Scenario F – Alternate Fortnightly Paper and Plastics Collections (100% of District). 39. Scenario F is identical to Scenario E, apart from the number of households covered by the collection scheme. In this scenario there would be 40,500 properties covered by the scheme (i.e. 100% of the households). The details of this scheme can be seen below: 1) % Of households Participating 50% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme £333,763 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 92.07% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 26 19.62% Scenario G – Fortnightly Paper and Monthly Plastic/Cans (62% of District) 40. As paper contributes to around 33% by weight of the normal domestic dustbin, it is important that this is collected. Due to the quantities/weight of the paper collected, this material needs to be collected on a fortnightly basis. The plastic bottles and mixed cans would be collected co-mingled on a separate monthly collection. 41. The paper could be stockpiled at a location within the South Hams, and the plastics and cans would need to be separated from one another. This could be done using an eddy current separator for the aluminium and a magnet for the steel. There is a market for mixed plastic bottles and therefore there would be no need for sorting of the plastics. It is likely that the basic sorting and stockpiling could be done at the Torr Quarry site. 42. This scenario would mean that the maximum material can be collected and recovered without a huge gate fee or processing cost. There will obviously be some capital expenditure for the sorting and baling equipment, or tenders invited from suitably qualified contractors to design, build and operate this plant. However the income received would be for 100% of the material collected for both recycling credits and material income. 1) % Of households Participating 50% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme -£34,989 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 100% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 20.94% Scenario H – Fortnightly Paper and Monthly Plastics/Cans (100% of District) 43. This collection scheme is the same as Scenario G; however, this scheme covers the whole District. The material collected would rise significantly for this scheme to 5670 tonnes. This material would all be recycled and therefore we would receive 100% of the income for this material. 1) % Of households Participating 50% 2) Net Cost of the Recycling Scheme - £65,868 3) % of recyclable materials recovered 100% 4) Potential Recycling Rate 24.92% 27 RISK ANALYSIS 44. The various scenarios A – H are shown as bar charts in Appendices 3 and 4 and a summary of the information is shown in Appendix 6. Appendix 7 indicates the comparison of the various scenarios highlighting the two performance indicators of cost and % of total waste recycled. NB 45. It should be noted that the figures presented in this report are subject to change due to fluctuations in material income, recycling credit rates, processing costs, put out rates by householders and available markets. Summary of Worst Case Scenarios for options A – H. 46. The Scenarios presented in this report are all subject to an element of change. The biggest concern is the processing costs and material income. Therefore Appendix 8 shows the ‘worst case scenario’ for all of the option (A – H) given in this report. This shows what affect the loss of income could have on a scheme. The figures all show a possible situation, given the volatile material markets, of a complete loss of income for both recycling credit and material income. 47. Apart from the costs of these schemes the factors that do affect this Council are the recycling rate (%), participation rate (%), recovery rate (%) and % of households served. These have been highlighted for the individual scenarios already shown. 48. A trial is important to identify householders reaction to the revised scheme, the level of complaints from residents, problems of storage using a third container and to establish the actual participation, together with quality of materials. All these factors will help to establish the indicative costs and benefits of the revised scheme and will enable the officers to present detailed information to the Executive once the trial period has been completed. 49. Action Plan To compile a report for the Executive outlining financial and operational issues of Scenario G, including the following: To develop a project plan for the trial recycling period for Scenario G based on the Totnes area, and if successful fully implement throughout the District. A timetable of financial projections as Scenario G is trialled and then implemented throughout the District. A chart projecting the influence of the new scheme on the key performance indicators i.e. Recycling Rate. 28 - Identify any additional resource requirements needed to fully implement the proposals, including maintaining performance levels in the future. It will be necessary to spend about £30,000 on the trial scheme in the Totnes and one rural area. Additional containers will be required, additional operational resources, advertising and publicity and additional temporary staff to implement the changes. Members and Officers to liaise with major retailers on a local and national level, regarding packaging waste and waste minimisation, inline with the National Waste Awareness Initiative. To make a conscious improvement in the delivery of education in relation to Waste Minimisation and Recycling activities within the District. To continue to research the possibility of a household collection system for glass. To continue in researching the feasibility of recycling commercial waste. This will include undertaking a waste analysis and research project via landfill tax funding. Timescale 50. If the Executive approves the trial scheme of Scenario G in the Totnes area, this could be implemented from September for six months. If the trial proved to be successful then the rest of the District could be converted to the separate collection, as set out in Scenario H over the 12 months starting in April 2003. In financial terms therefore, no significant benefits will accrue in the current financial year 2002/3 and if the scheme were approved for the whole district, then approximately half of the benefits would accrue in 2003/4 as the scheme is progressively implemented during the year. The full benefits would not accrue until 2004/5. There will be one-off setting up costs (purchase of containers, marketing, operational costs) which will need to be determined and reported to the Executive at the conclusion of the trial in March 2003. Conclusion 51. In order to meet the ever increasing targets set by DEFRA it is clear that the collection of ‘dry recyclables’ will not be enough to achieve the Government’s targets. In order to gain maximum value from the refuse bin, the Council will need to look at all contents of the domestic bin. It is therefore clear that in order to afford to reach these targets, the ‘dry recyclable’ collections will need to be as efficient and cost effective as possible. This will therefore mean that the Council will collect maximum quantities of dry recyclable material, before the possibility of an organic waste collection is looked at. This collection could include all food wastes (subject to the pending Animal biproducts Order) and green garden waste. 52. This is also highlighted by the EU Landfill Directive, which sets ambitious targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Biodegradable 29 wastes are classed as materials such as paper, food wastes and green wastes' (Waste Strategy 2000), or ‘any organic matter which can be decomposed by micro-organisms.’(Waste Management Papers). 53. For the South Hams District this means that approximately 15,000 tonnes of biodegradable waste will be allowed to be landfilled in 2010. There are two additional targets following this making the final target in 2020 to 35%. This will mean only 7020 tonnes of biodegradable waste will be permitted to landfill and therefore research must be continued to find alternatives for dealing with the organic fraction. A J Eden Chief Customer Operations Officer Authors V G Palk Waste Management Officer C J Lucas Customer Operations Manager 2002 Executive Thursday 27th June Background Papers: Torr Quarry Developments – Report to Executive 20 September 2001 (Minute E.40/01) Working Papers Liaison meetings with Plymouth City Council Survey Results from Questionnaire in Rural Trial Areas Waste Strategy May 2000: Part I and II – DETR Publication 30