Comparing Co-mingled and source separated run side by side.

By Eric Randall, of Brysion Recycling

Bryson Recycling - Background

Bryson Recycling runs two depots in Northern Ireland collecting and recycling 52,000 tonnes of material per year.  We currently have a 60% market share of household collected recyclables in the province, have a turnover of £7 million and employ 180 plus staff.  In the last two years we have won six regional recycling tenders.

We provide box collections to 25% of NI homes. 

We also collect and reprocess co-mingled material from 35% of homes in Northern Ireland.

Bryson Recycling provides further commercial collections to more than 500 businesses and schools in the region.

The combination of running source separated box based systems and commingled systems by the same company places Bryson Recycling in an ideal situation to compare the two systems.

The Carrickfergus experience.

In April 2007 Bryson Recycling introduced, on behalf of Carrickfergus Borough Council, a weekly two box system for dry recyclates.  At the same time the Council introduced fortnightly refuse collection, and a free fortnightly brown bin garden waste collection service. This affected approximately 16,000 houses in Carrickfergus.

Carrickfergus BC use 240 litre wheeled bins for rubbish and garden waste collection.

Bryson operated a 55 litre black box for paper, plastic bottles, glass, cans, textiles, aluminium foil and old hand tools.  The second box was also 55 litre, but red, and was for card and cardboard.  The public were asked to separate materials into specific boxes.  An intensive PR campaign was launched to inform the public of the new system (see appendix 1 for details).

Initial operational issues

There was some disruption to the normal pattern resulting from rounds being rebooted, and the higher than expected volumes. This cause an initial increase in customer complaints.
 
There was a surge in box requests, many for people who had previously received a box but had clearly used it for something else.  A no questions asked policy was used, as the cost of an extra box is low compared to the landfill savings achieved.  From March 1st to June 8th, a total of 1845 extra boxes were delivered, and a further 670 are awaiting delivery.  The bulk of the 1845 boxes were delivered in late April, to May, accounting for the significant improvement in Mays performance.  With extra boxes still to go out, volumes are expected to rise further (as of June 07). 

Enforcing the placement of materials in the correct boxes required work with the crews to ensure a consistent message, particularly in defining what an acceptable mistake is. 

Assumptions at start of operations

Bryson saw the Carrickfergus example as an ideal opportunity to compare two box performance with the already established commingled collection areas.  Our previous experience told us that:
• Quality of MRF materials would be low
• Boxes would collect more because of glass
• Boxes provided the best value for money for local authorities
• Co-mingling fails to educate public effectively

Strategy Aims
With the current debate about collection methods Bryson wished to strengthen its marketing position by mastering both source separated and commingled collection systems.  We were also interested in maximizing performance from both our own viewpoint and that of the local authority.

The Results

Please note that the comparator Councils are all on AWC.  

The following tonnages were recorded for Carrickfergus between April 2006 and May 2007:

Comparing April and May 2007 with the previous year. Note that % increase figures have been worked out pro-rata to reflect the number of week days in each month – April 06 had 21 days, April 07 had 22.

Our expectation is that the 82% level of growth will be maintained, and even improved due to the steady request for more boxes, and as of June 21st, the pro-rata increase on June 06 is at 83%.

Comparing Carrick with other Councils

All Councils included below use the services of Bryson Recycling.  Figures are our own weighbridge weights, and housing numbers are taken from one standard source, except for Belfast and Castlereagh which is only partly on co-mingled.  Castlereagh is shown under both co-mingled and source separated, as the both services are provided across borough.  Please note that 10% has been deducted from the weight of co-mingled deliveries to take account of the wastage sent to landfill from the site (7.5%), and a proportion (2.5%) of the contamination / cross contamination remaining in materials that are sold.

Key to colours – from the left

• Pale blue represents co-mingled under AWC (in total to around 220,000 houses).  
• Navy blue – 2 box kerbside sort (Carrick only)
• Sky blue – other Councils on single box kerbside sort.

March 07 – kilos per house per month
Carrick performance standard for non AWC Councils, but worse than all on AWC.

April 07 – kilos per house per month

May 2007

June 07 – kilos per house per month

Comparing Carrick with the average performance of co-mingled collections, in May 07 it outperformed them by 27%.  This is almost exactly equal to the proportion of glass in the mix collected in Carrick.

Impact on total waste handled

Figures showing total wastes handled by Bryson Recycling and Carrickfergus Borough Council.

Overall Conclusions

Quantities
• Limiting factor for boxes – capacity
• Limiting factor for co-mingled – diversity of materials
• Socio-economic factors – biggest determinant
• Residual waste fortnightly collections – second biggest determinant
• Higher volumes can be collected from a two box kerbside sort system.

Quantities – materials collected
Kilos per house per month

Quality – MRF results
• 7% sent to landfill
• 7% loads delivered rejected (above 10% contamination)
• Average contamination about 10%
• 5 – 10% contamination in materials sold
• Significant problems selling paper into UK markets – we have invested in plant to improve paper quality
• Councils ability to improve
• Optical sort equipment – great potential
• Aluminium quality hard to achieve
• LA’s require intensive effort to maintain quality
• Communication with public is less direct
• Alternate week collections of residual can cause major problems with quality.

Economics – what we found
• Rotate studies found box collection system very favorable economically
• Trading on the export market is risky
• Long term UK outlets with stable prices are good
• Average value of a tonne of co-mingled £44
• Average value of a tonne of source separated £52
• 18% higher – Equates to £400,000 per year for our 50,000 tonne facility or
• £4 million over a ten year contract
• Marginal capacity of MRFs can undercut anything.

Local Authority Choices …

Option One : Co-mingled Recycling
• Lower yields
• Higher costs
• Risky on quality

Option Two : Single box full sort
• Limit yields
• High quality
• Vehicles are limiting

Option three : Three – five stream recycling
• Hybridise
• Keep fibres separate
• Use technology to sort
• Maximise yields
• Maximise material value
• Maximise range of materials

Warning !
How are decisions are sometimes made
• HSE
• Unions
• Consultants
• Boxes too small
• Lids come off
• Boxes blow down streets
• Public are lazy and love wheeled bins
• Stillage vehicles cause more litter
• Staff don’t put boxes back properly

Appendix 1

PR campaign outline

Promotional input
Promotion included the following

A canvassing team visited every house in the borough once, and was able to speak to 46% of households directly informing them of the changes that were to be introduced.

Local press coverage was encouraged, with a number of positive and negative stories about the introduction of the service changes. This was assisted by Inform, a Belfast based PR company.

Carrickfergus Borough Council sent calendars to every household which included details of the new services.

Sorry cards left in boxes when householders present wrong materials, and intermediate “last warning” leaflet for properties that fail to use the new arrangements.

A newsletter was also produced and distributed to all households.

Implementation
Boxes were delivered during a three week period over the latter half of March, and first week of April 07.  The timing coincided with the two other major changes by the Council and the canvassing campaign