Memorandum by Bryson Recycling (RC 18)
ABOUT BRYSON
RECYCLING
Bryson Recycling is a social enterprise company
that recycles from 60% of NI households. The company employs over
170 staff and will recycle over 52,000 tonnes of materials this
financial year. Bryson Recycling is a joint venture company between
the Belfast charity, Bryson Charitable Group, and ECT, a social
economy company with significant recycling activities across the
UK.
Bryson Recycling collects directly form 180,000
households using a kerbside sort box scheme, where we separate
materials at the kerbside into different stillages on the vehicle.
We also receive materials in a mixed, co-mingled form a further
250,000 houses.
We are therefore in a unique position to contribute
to the debate about the pros and cons of kerbside sort recycling
versus co-mingled recycling. We also have no particular axe to
grind, as we operate both systems and are proud of both wings
of our business.
Materials collected include:
|
| Co-mingled | Source Separated
|
|
| Paper | Paper
|
| Cardboard | Cardboard*
|
| Plastic bottles | Plastic bottles
|
| Cans | Cans
|
| Glass |
| Alu foil
|
| Old hand tools
|
| Textiles
|
| Batteries*
|
|
| * in some areas | |
PROS AND
CONS
In our experience there are pros and cons to both systems.
These are briefly outlined below, along with our comments drawn
from our experience.
QUANTITY COLLECTED
We have compared the performance of around 220,000 properties
on co-mingled collections, and 70,000 properties on source separated
schemes. All areas are also on fortnightly refuse collection systems.
The argument for co-mingled systems which in NI use wheeled bins
is that they enable larger volumes of materials to be collected.
Where as source separated box systems usually collect a wider
range of materials and therefore should have greater scope to
maximise volumes collected.
These figures were taken from NI councils that we serve directly,
the figures are our own weights. Household numbers were taken
from the NI Dept Social Development and are used by the Environmental
Heritage Service.
Table 1
KILOS PER HOUSE PER MONTH
|
| Houses
| All | Jan
| Feb | Mar
| April |
|
| Source separated | 70854
| 11.5 | 13.5
| 10.2 | 11.2
| 11.1 |
| Co-mingled | 220592
| 11.1 | 12.3
| 10.1 | 11.2
| 10.7 |
| Variance (SS v CoM) | | 3.2%
| 9.8% | 1.3%
| -0.3% | 4.0%
|
|
The figures show that the systems are broadly comparable,
with the performance of Source Separated collections marginally
outperforming co-mingled collections.
However, the very recent changes that have been introduced
in Carrickfergus Borough Council, where a second box has been
added to incorporate cardboard and increase box capacity, along
with a move by the Council to fortnightly collections of rubbish.
The combined effect was to move Carrick from an a poor ranking
position, to a situation where, based on early May results is
likely to settle down at around 25-30% better performing than
the average co-mingled collection also under fortnightly refuse
collections. This is a very significant result that should totally
dispel the myth that co-mingled collections yield more recyclables
than kerbside sort systems.
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
QUALITY AND
CONTAMINATION
Kerbside sort materials consistently achieve high levels
of quality. The emphasis is on the crew to sort material, and
anything that is not correctly presented in the box is returned
to the householder in the box. This engages the householder, and
rapidly improves and reinforces the quality message.
Our experience with co-mingled collections is quite different.
Wheeled bins are not as easy to quality assessed by the crew,
and often result in contaminants being mixed among the recyclables.
This problem is exacerbated by Councils that move to alternate
week collections (AWCs), with some reluctant recyclers deliberately
hiding rubbish under recyclables. At our MRF, we sample and measure
any suspect loads. It took us some time to realise that the contamination
we were experiencing daily was in fact above the 10% allowable
within our contract. One Council produced material that had levels
consistently of around 25% contamination (after several months,
it was able to reduce this to around 10%). Another Council had
a large low income area it was collecting from—contamination
regularly reaches around 30—45%, with the worst example
actually reaching over 50%, despite strenuous efforts to improve
the situation. At this level, there is nothing that can be done
with the material, and it is fit only for landfill.
At the other end of the scale, there are some local authorities
that have consistently managed to achieve levels of around 5%,
even with AWC. However almost all local authorities occasionally
experience bad loads, and without consistent pressure from us
on Councils, and Councils reapplying it to householders, it is
likely that this issue would start to slip again.
Contaminants in the MRF have included dead animals, a sofa,
and consistent supplies of clinical waste including drips, colostomy
bags and needles.
We are aware that the system we have for sampling materials
arriving (and leaving) the site is uncommon within the industry.
It is very clear to us that the vast majority of Councils collecting
co-mingled materials have very little idea of the proportion of
contamination that arrives at the site, and therefore can not
accurately state their recycling rates. This issue is exacerbated
by the fact that there is often an unknown percentage of contamination
ending up in materials being sold on the market place. This contamination
is a mixture of non-recyclable materials and other recyclables
that remain in the majority material.
In a well run system, we think it is unlikely that many MRFs
will be able to reduce the rubbish removed from site to below
7%, and the average amount of contamination in output materials
below 5%. We would estimate that the combined average of these
figures within the industry could be around 15-25% in a large
number of co-mingled systems.
If a comparison is being made between both systems of collection,
it is essential that the level of plant wastage and the level
of contamination in the outgoing materials are taken into account.
ALTERNATE WEEKLY
COLLECTIONS (AWCS)
We have a few observations to make about AWCs. In our view
they are absolutely essential for the future effectiveness of
recycling for the following reasons:
— AWCs compel the public to recycle. We have experienced
recycling rates increase by between 20-60% when introduced (more
below).
— It allows local authorities to substantially shift
resources from refuse collection to recycling without significant
additional investment.
— It sends a message that recycling is here to stay
and no longer a voluntary marginal activity.
— The few vocal complainants are mostly the 30%
(approx) of non-recyclers who find that they are now compelled
to recycle.
— Complaints die back after a couple of months once
the system imbeds itself.
Approximately three years ago Castlereagh Borough Council
introduced fortnightly collections to a trial area of around 2200
houses. Volumes increased by 20% overnight.
In 2005-06, Belfast City Council carried out trial in two
inner city Belfast areas, resulting in increases of around 20
and 50%.
In March /April 2007, Carrickfergus Borough Council, with
an initially lower recycling level than Castlereagh, introduced
AWCs, and at the same time introduced a second box, asking the
public to divide some of the material into one, other material
types into another. We also canvassed the area, speaking directly
with 50% of householders prior to the launch of the scheme. Although
early days, the initial increase brought yields level with that
of Castlereagh, with a 60% overnight increase. Both Councils are
likely to be within the top three performing Councils for kerbside
recycling in the region.
COSTS
Many commentators on the subject claim that kerbside sort
systems are more expensive in terms of collection. There is often
a failure to include whole system costs into the equation. If
an accurate assessment is to be made, costs must include container
costs, collections costs and MRF/bulking depot costs.
In two studies made by Rotate of WRAP, cost comparisons were
made between two councils that operate both kerbside sort (run
by Bryson), and co-mingled systems (collections run by Councils
and material received at the Bryson MRF). While there are local
issues that mean that the studies may not be directly comparable
in other areas, both studies concluded that the kerbside sort
systems offer better value for money than the co-mingled option.
While it would be a valuable exercise to carry out a detailed
analysis of why this is—here are a few headline pointers.
CONTAINERS
— Wheeled bins cost about £18 each, against
boxes at about £3.
COLLECTIONS
— Refuse collection vehicles (RCV) cost about £110,000
each, against typical stillage vehicles at around £40,000,
they also cost more to run and maintain.
— While the yields of an RCV is typically around
six tonnes per day against a stillage vehicle of around three
tonnes a day, the lower costs of operating them goes some considerable
way to bridging the overall cost gap.
MRF/DEPOT
— A MRF will typically cost £4 million to construct
(clearly depending on size and technical specification), with
very considerable running costs.
— A bulking depot associated with a kerbside sort
system can cost very little indeed.
MATERIALS VALUE
— The loss in high value materials, especially plastic
bottles (currently c £150/tonne) and aluminium cans (currently
£840/tonne), as contaminants in higher grade materials can
mean that about 17% of the value of an average tonne of recyclable
materials can be lost. We estimate that this is equal to around
£400,000 in total per year for a 50,000 tonne facility (£4
million over a 10 year period).
While overall costs will in our analysis be more cost effective
with a kerbside sort system, one of the most compelling arguments
is that of risk in the market place. It is clear that the practise
of producing low quality materials which are commonly exported
for sale in developing nations to be resorted, is a risky business
as it trades at the lower end of the value chain. Should the markets
tighten at all, then the Councils using low value co-mingled systems
are most at risk.
HEALTH AND
SAFETY
There has been a determined effort by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) to push Councils down the co-mingled approach.
This was based on a report by the Health and Safety Laboratory
(HSL) that has been widely discredited, but still has made a huge
impact on the perceptions of Councils and others within the industry.
We would like to add two comments to this debate:
— The ECT Group which carries out the vast majority
of its recycling activities via kerbside sort box systems has
an accident rate just of around one third of the industry total.
— While there have been comparisons between the
accident rates of crews collecting with boxes and wheeled bins,
we have never seen a comparison that includes the activities of
the MRF. We have been involved in a study by the HSL which we
understand will go some way towards this, but the brief does not
include the potential health benefits of operating out doors and
being active, against the static activity of sorting materials
for long periods at a conveyor belt.
FUTURE FLEXIBILITY
Many local authorities are failing to meet their required
recycling rates and are under considerable pressure to make changes
that improve their current performance.
The choices for kerbside sort systems are quite wide. In
Somerset for instance, ECT have added kitchen waste as a separate
material for collection, adding around 60% to the weights collected.
In Carrickfergus, as explained above, a second box has been added
to increase the capacity of the collection system and expand the
range of materials to include cardboard. In Banbridge and Armagh,
batteries were added in 2006.
It may be possible to utilise emerging vehicle designs to
co-mingle a few materials where appropriate and add even more
materials (plastic other than bottles, and tetra paks for instance).
Our view is that to achieve this, paper must be kept separate
from everything else, and glass should also be dealt with separately.
So the options for expanding the kerbside sort methods are considerable,
and may indeed involve utilising some MRF technology in order
to achieve high quality end products.
The option for MRFs is less obvious. They too could start
accepting a wider range of materials, and some are now including
glass in the overall mix with the expectation that this can be
sorted from the rest of the materials. Other materials such as
tetrapaks and textiles have also been added to some plants. The
difficulty is that this all exacerbates the already problematic
quality issues.
If there is one issue we would urge the Public Affairs Committee
to investigate further, it is the issue of co-mingling with glass.
Our view is that the issue of mixing glass is particularly problematic.
On one hand there are Councils desperate to see their tonnages
for recycling increase, and there are MRFs willing to incorporate
glass into the mix. By doing this, Councils will achieve higher
recycling rates, but at a high cost. The quality of materials
across the board will be effected, resulting in MRFs resorting
to the lowest common denominator, trading in low quality materials
almost all of which will be bound for the export market, and starving
UK reprocessors of quality material. This is a matter of strategic
importance for the recycling industry in the UK which is being
determined by individual Councils introducing co-mingled systems
and then finding the only way to increase volumes is to compound
materials quality problems and sacrifice quality for quantity.
IN THE
END ...
Having provided all these figures and explanations, it is
very clear to us that the majority of Council decisions are not
made on overall system costs or strategic thinking, but on narrow
and convenient decision making that centres around the ease of
collections (in particular the preference for wheeled bins and
RCVs).
This problem is exacerbated by the separation of collection
authorities and disposal authorities. In Northern Ireland there
is still a unitary authority system which means that the obvious
connections between the method of collection and end results from
processing are linked. If there is no linkage, then there is no
incentive for collection authorities to think beyond the collection
system.
| 
