Local Authority Recycling in an age of Austerity. Andrew Bird Chair of LARAC Recycling & Waste Services Manager Newcastle under Lyme BC

Transcription

1 Local Authority Recycling in an age of Austerity. Andrew Bird Chair of LARAC Recycling & Waste Services Manager Newcastle under Lyme BC

2 What I will be talking about Economic Circle Background UK legislation devolved governments. WFD (TEEP) & MRF code of practice Case study Newcastle under Lyme our approach to increasing recycling & reducing costs. Closing thoughts.

3 The Economic Loop Raw materials Design & Manufacture Retail Re-use / Re-manufacture End of life Use Local Authority s have a key strategic role in the supply chain, Economic Loop Disposal

4 Background UK legislation devolved governments Strategy England Wales Scotland NI Waste Policy Review in 2011 Toward Zero Waste Overarching, long-term plan for resource efficiency & sustainable waste management; Implementation via: 6 key Sector Plans, including municipal, C&I, Food & Retail sectors; Statutory Recycling and Recovery Targets Supporting Waste Prevention Programme Zero Waste Scotland Overarching, long-term plan for resource efficiency & sustainable waste management Implementation via requirements of the Zero Waste (Scotland) Regs 2011 Toward Resource Management to Toward Resource Efficiency Strategy largely follows the Welsh model with staggered targets and penalties for failure to achieve targets (currently being consulted on)

5 Waste Management England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland.- Key Comparisons England Wales Scotland NI Currently as per Waste Framework Directive. No recycling targets for Local Authority s. Recycling, preparation for reuse or composting of LA municipal waste: 52% by (achieved) 58% by 2014/15 64% by 2019/20 70% by 2024/25 90% reuse/recycling of C&D wastes by 2025 Maximum 30% residual waste by 2025 Recycling, preparation for reuse or composting of LA household waste: 50% by 2013 (achieved) 60% by % by 2025 Recycling Bill introduced during 2014 with a mandatory 60% LACMW target by 2020.

6 Waste Management - England, Scotland, Wales, & Northern Ireland.- Economic Benefits? England Wales Scotland NI Economic benefits recognised, but leaving it to the market to develop. Again Government will only intervene where necessary, where there are clear market failures. A key aim of the Zero Waste plan is to design out waste, develop technologies to deal with the waste that is produced as sustainably as possible, and to manage waste within Wales where possible. In doing so, waste will be reduced (saving money), jobs and markets will be created within Wales. A key aim of the Zero Waste strategy plan is to talk about resources rather than waste. To reduce resource use via smart product &packaging design, deal with the waste that is produced as sustainably as possible, and get as much economic value form waste as possible. The move toward Resource Efficiency has similar aims to Scotland and Wales: saving money though waste prevention, trying to maximise the value of waste, and to deal with waste as locally as possible.

7 WFD (TEEP) & MRF regulations Two important regulations both of which have come into force in the last twelve months. TEEP effective from January 2015 Requirement to collect paper, metal, glass & plastics separately no guidance from DEFRA on this interpretation MRF Regulations effective from October 2014

8 TEEP - The LA Route Map

9 High Quality Recycling Whilst high quality recycling is not mentioned in Regulations 12 and 13, Defra s Waste Management Plan for England, to which local authorities should have regard, states that in effect the Regulations require the separate collection of waste paper, metal, plastic and glass from 2015 onwards wherever separate collection is necessary to get high quality recycling, and practicable. One way to assess whether a collection method yields recycling that is high quality recycling is to consider whether the material which is collected can be used in the same ways and with the same environmental benefits as separately collected material.

10 MRF code of practice LARAC fully supports the regulations They could have gone further, - but They provide a consistent bench mark of evidence They will promote reassurance about quality. All this will help with evidence for TEEP

11 Comingling poses the biggest challenge for LA s

12 What are the effects for LA s? LA Budgets face further cuts 40% in the last five years, more to come Costs are rising, will this be for the short term? Quality not quantity is now the focus Contamination is an issue now, where it hasn t been a problem necessarily in the past Councils will have to communicate effectively and monitor collections

13 What will this mean for LA s? Communications will need to be thought about again, does one size fit all? Reduced resources means less presence for monitoring National media dislike of so called Bin police But failure to tackle these issues results in increased costs.

14 Do residents really care? Recent LA survey asked the following question Is it important for you to know where your recycling is being reprocessed?

15 Future Options for Waste & Recycling Services

16 Introduction We considered 13 options for waste and recycling collection services. Options are based on different types of recycling collections, and frequency of collections. Analysis details the risks associated with each option together with the benefits & cost of service. We will look at the options in the order of risk, starting with the highest risk to the Council, through to the lowest.

17 The Options A Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Residual & Garden B weekly Food Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden C No Food - Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden D Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Garden Monthly Residual E Weekly Residual Fortnightly Basic Recycling Chargeable Garden No Food Kerbside Sort 2,576,094 3,016,288 2,607,198 2,421,336 N/A Fully Comingled 3,322,246 3,304,601 2,756,326 2,957,488 N/A Dual Stream 3,117,046 3,077,801 2,529,526 2,698,288 N/A Basic Recycling N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,815,253

18 High Risk - Option E - Basic A Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Residual & Garden Service B weekly Food Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden C No Food - Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden D Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Garden Monthly Residual E Weekly Residual Fortnightly Basic Recycling Chargeable Garden No Food Kerbside Sort 2,576,094 3,016,288 2,607,198 2,421,336 N/A Fully Comingled 3,322,246 3,304,601 2,756,326 2,957,488 N/A Dual Stream 3,117,046 3,077,801 2,529,526 2,698,288 N/A Basic Recycling N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,815,253

19 High Risk - Option E Benefits & Risks Benefits Risks Basic Recycling Service Using existing Kerbside Box Very easy for the householder Only just legal in terms of collection of recyclable material. Reduced recycling rate & income. Far higher waste disposal cost due to increased level of residual waste. Fully chargeable garden waste collection not popular. Poor reputation for the Council.

20 High Risk - Option D Weekly Recycling & Food Monthly B weekly Residual Food C No Food - A Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Residual & Garden Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden D Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Garden Monthly Residual E Weekly Residual Fortnightly Basic Recycling Chargeable Garden No Food Kerbside Sort 2,576,094 3,016,288 2,607,198 2,421,336 N/A Fully Comingled 3,322,246 3,304,601 2,756,326 2,957,488 N/A Dual Stream 3,117,046 3,077,801 2,529,526 2,698,288 N/A Basic Recycling N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,815,253

21 High Risk - Option D Benefits & Risks Benefits Risks Kerbside Sort Fully Comingled Dual Stream Maximises quality and income. Completely legally compliant. Future proof for TEEP. Flexibility of service for future changes. Monthly residual waste collections will increase levels of recycling and income. Lower residual waste disposal costs. More capacity provided by weekly collection should reduce likelihood of contamination. Recycling Rate should increase by 20%. Lower disposal tonnages and savings in disposal costs Higher value paper kept separate meaning better income potential. Dovetails with neighbouring authority collection systems. 3 bin system easy for residents + separate paper and Food. More legally compliant than under option 2, under current government guidance. Reduced disposal cost through reduced residual tonnage More Containers on Streets more Often for Recycling. Negative Perception of monthly residual collections. Need to provide additional collection service for nappies and medical waste Legal Challenge under TEEP likely. Poor Quality materials for recycling, even higher risk of contamination due to monthly collections of residual waste. Increased chance of load rejection by MRF. Cost of recycling bin rollout. Need to provide additional collection service for nappies and medical waste Less of a chance of legal challenge from option 2, but risk still remains. Risk of contamination remains and MRF rejection. Cost of recycling bin rollout. Need to provide additional collection service for nappies and medical waste

22 High Risk - Option C AWC A Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Residual & Garden No Food C No Food - Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden B weekly Food Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden D Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Garden Monthly Residual E Weekly Residual Fortnightly Basic Recycling Chargeable Garden No Food Kerbside Sort 2,576,094 3,016,288 2,607,198 2,421,336 N/A Fully Comingled 3,322,246 3,304,601 2,756,326 2,957,488 N/A Dual Stream 3,117,046 3,077,801 2,529,526 2,698,288 N/A Basic Recycling N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,815,253

23 High Risk - Option C Benefits & Kerbside Sort Fully Comingled Risks Benefits Current system residents used to for recycling Increased Recycling rate might just offset that lost from separate food waste collections, therefore disposal cost would not rise significantly Risks Separate Food waste may become mandatory in England after 2015 ban on Food Waste to Landfill. Separate food waste collections mandatory in Wales and is proposed in Scotland and NI. Higher residual waste tonnage for disposal increased disposal costs. Separate Food waste may become mandatory in England after 2015 ban on Food Waste to Landfill. Separate food waste collections mandatory in Wales and is proposed in Scotland and NI. TEEP as set out in previous options remains a large risk Dual Stream Increased Recycling rate might just offset that lost from separate food waste collections, therefore disposal cost would not rise significantly Keeping paper separate increases income for materials. Separate Food waste may become mandatory in England after 2015 ban on Food Waste to Landfill. Separate food waste collections mandatory in Wales and is proposed in Scotland and NI. TEEP still a risk but not as high as with a fully comingled service.

24 Low Risk - Option B AWC with weekly Food A Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Residual & Garden B weekly Food Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden C No Food - Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden D Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Garden Monthly Residual E Weekly Residual Fortnightly Basic Recycling Chargeable Garden No Food Kerbside Sort 2,576,094 3,016,288 2,607,198 2,421,336 N/A Fully Comingled 3,322,246 3,304,601 2,756,326 2,957,488 N/A Dual Stream 3,117,046 3,077,801 2,529,526 2,698,288 N/A Basic Recycling N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,815,253

25 Low Risk - Option B Benefits & Risks Benefits Risks Kerbside Sort Fully Comingled Dual Stream Current system residents used to. Pods on vehicles reduces need for additional food waste vehicles. Increased Recycling rate, lower residual waste. Simple 3 bin system easy for residents to understand. Food waste remains separate. Just legally compliant under existing government guidance. Reduced disposal costs through less residual tonnage Higher value paper kept separate meaning better income potential. Dovetails with neighbouring authority collection systems. 3 bin system easy for residents + separate paper and Food. More legally compliant than under option 2, under current government guidance. Reduced disposal cost through reduced residual tonnage Lower recycling rates, range of containers / bags required. Replacement costs of bags & boxes. Media perception. More involved service for residents Legal Challenge under TEEP likely. Poor Quality materials for recycling, higher risk of contamination. Increased chance of load rejection by MRF. Cost of recycling bin rollout Less of a chance of legal challenge from option 2, but risk still remains. Risk of contamination remains and MRF rejection. Cost of recycling bin rollout.

26 Low Risk - Option A Weekly Recycling & Food A Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Residual & Garden B weekly Food Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden C No Food - Fortnightly Recycling Residual & Garden D Weekly Recycling & Food Fortnightly Garden Monthly Residual E Weekly Residual Fortnightly Basic Recycling Chargeable Garden No Food Kerbside Sort 2,576,094 3,016,288 2,607,198 2,421,336 N/A Fully Comingled 3,322,246 3,304,601 2,756,326 2,957,488 N/A Dual Stream 3,117,046 3,077,801 2,529,526 2,698,288 N/A Basic Recycling N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,815,253

27 Low Risk - Option A Benefits & Risks Benefits Risks Kerbside Sort Fully Comingled Dual Stream Maximises quality and income. Completely legally compliant. Future proof for TEEP. Flexibility of service for future changes More capacity provided by weekly collection should reduce likelihood of contamination. Recycling Rate should increase by 5%. Even lower disposal tonnages and savings in disposal costs Higher value paper kept separate meaning better income potential. Dovetails with neighbouring authority collection systems. 3 bin system easy for residents + separate paper and Food. More legally compliant than under option 2, under current government guidance. Reduced disposal cost through reduced residual tonnage More Containers on Streets more Often Legal Challenge under TEEP likely. Poor Quality materials for recycling, higher risk of contamination. Increased chance of load rejection by MRF. Cost of recycling bin rollout Less of a chance of legal challenge from option 2, but risk still remains. Risk of contamination remains and MRF rejection. Cost of recycling bin rollout

28 Proposed Collection Service Week 1 Week 2

29 Cost Why not just three bins? Mixing food and garden waste will cost an additional 200,000 per year in treatment costs. Collecting recycling material together in one bin, would cost the Council 750,000 per year in lost income. Providing every household with a new bin compared with 2 additional boxes would cost 800,000 more. Recycling Rate and Material Quality When collecting recycling material together in one bin about 14% can not be recycled because of the quality, leading to a lower real recycling rate. When collecting recycling material together in one bin the end quality of the recyclate tends to be poor and can be difficult to be reused in the UK.

30 Reduction in the number of vehicle passes Dry Recycling and Food Waste Single pass with driver plus one or two loaders with kerbside sort vehicle Garden Waste collected fortnightly with standard Collection Vehicle Residual Waste collected fortnightly with standard Collection Vehicle

31 Closing thoughts - what can we do? Get smarter with the way we communicate Invest further in reprocessing equipment to achieve better quality products Standardise the range of materials we collect, plastics being the main problem. Engage more with industry and retailers, so consumers see the same message presented in a consistent way Look at more focused communication taking account of social behaviour and demographics

32 Closing thoughts - what can we do? WFD 12 (TEEP) & MRF regulations will help raise quality as an issue which needs to be tackled Look seriously at Waste Prevention, introduce a residual waste reduction target, rather than recycling targets. Redistribution of Landfill Tax revenue could fund necessary infrastructure and collection processes. Look at how a reformed PRN system can help us all in the supply chain.

33 Questions? Thank you