STUDY OF KERBSIDE COLLECTION OPTIONS FOR ORGANIC …(South Derbyshire); no soil or tree branches (Walsall). Most schemes list materials that are accepted and ... Enfield LBC 8,700

KERBSIDE COLLECTION OPTIONS Page 1

STUDY OF KERBSIDE COLLECTION OPTIONS

FOR ORGANIC WASTE

FIRST PHASE REPORT - CONTENTS

1) INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2

2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3

3) CASE STUDIES IN THE UK ---------------------------------------------------------- Page 4

4) CASE STUDIES OVERSEAS ------------------------------------------------------- Page 21

5) COLLECTION TRIALS IN BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET --------- Page 24


1) INTRODUCTION

This report completes the first phase of a study on kerbside collection options for household organic

waste. It presents results of desktop and case study research on composting collections and proposals for

collection trials in Bath & North East Somerset.

Section 2 of the report acknowledges those who have supported or assisted with this research.

Section 3 presents the results of case study research of kerbside collections for household organic waste

in the UK. It also includes some comparison data on current services for Bath & North East Somerset.

Section 4 presents the results of a literature review on kerbside collections for household organic waste in

other countries.

Section 5 gives details and costs for the proposed composting collection trials in Bath & North East

Somerset, which will comprise the second phase of this study.


2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Avon Friends of the Earth gratefully acknowledges the funding support of SITA Environmental

Trust and Bath & North East Somerset Council to undertake the research for this report.

Thanks are also due to the following who were most helpful in providing information or otherwise assisting

with this study:

Richard Robertson - Bath & NE Somerset Council

Carol Tunnard - Bath & North East Somerset Council

Esther Williams - Bath & North East Somerset Council

Lynn Clarke - Island Waste Services

Will Gardiner - Enfield London Borough Council

Daniel Kingsley - Enfield London Borough Council

Kate Radford - Hounslow London Borough Council

Bruce Carpenter - Taunton Deane Borough Council

Chris Downing - Colchester Borough Council

Claire Dorans - Melton Borough Council

Penny Spirling - Sutton London Borough Council

Derek Selway - Dundee City Council

Marion Bailey - East Hertfordshire District Council

Keith Hayes - Forest Heath District Council

Lewis Jones - Ipswich Borough Council

Mark Holden - Lichfield District Council

Justin Foster - Medway Council

Mark Christie - St Edmundsbury Borough Council

Sandra Pell - St Edmundsbury Borough Council

Gillian Coates - South Derbyshire District Council

Mick Kibble - Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Heather Growcott - Walsall Metropolitan BC

Ian Gothard - Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Claire Neely - Braintree District Council

Ian Haines - Braintree District Council

Bryan Thompson - Castle Morpeth Borough Council

Sue Reed - Daventry District Council

Peter Bignall - Northamptonshire County Council

David Brown - Rochford District Council

Julie Hambling - Rochford District Council

Alison Redman - Wealden District Council

Dave Glover - Wealden District Council

Andrew Richmond - East Sussex County Council

Richard Boden - WyeCycle

Neil Davies - Bexley Council

Beth Sowden - Lewisham London Borough Council

Emily Nichols - The Composting Association

Margaret Williams - The Composting Association

Angus Cunningham - Hinton Organics

John Gibson - Wyvern Waste

Rachael Jarrett - Network Recycling

Dominic Hogg - Eunomia Research & Consulting

The responsibility for any errors or omissions remains with the author:

David Mansell BSc MIWM

Development Manager

Avon Friends of the Earth

6 September 2001


3) CASE STUDIES IN THE UK

Twenty five local authority and community sector composting collection schemes were contacted to

request information on their services. An initial telephone interview was followed by sending a survey form

to contacts to obtain statistical information. The following collection schemes have also been visited by the

report author: Bexley, Medway, Melton, St Edmundsbury, Taunton Deane, Wealden and Wye.

The schemes contacted are listed in Tables One and Two that follow on pages 5-7. Table One shows

data supplied on their composting collections and Table Two shows data supplied on recycling and waste

sent for disposal in each area. Table Three shows early results from a range of trials in Bexley.

Information and conclusions on key issues for kerbside composting collections from this survey are

summarised below.

Materials Accepted

Most schemes contacted collect food (except cooked and meat) and garden waste. Some collected

garden waste only. One collected food waste only and three accepted cooked food and meat.

None of the schemes accepting cooked food and meat waste are currently supplying the compost

produced for use on land. The Isle of Wight processes their organic waste for use as landfill cover.

WyeCycle processes their kitchen waste in an in-vessel system and leave it to mature for at least three

years, but none is currently being supplied to end-users. It cannot be marketed in the same way as their

other compost produced from garden waste, because it contains shards of bone and corks which take a

very long time to degrade. However, there has been interest from local strawberry growers in using this

well-matured compost. Bexley's organics are delivered for in-vessel composting at Cleanaway's waste

management facility at Rainham in Essex. As Bexley's trials started in June 2001, end-use compost has

not yet been produced and site operators were not aware how it would be used. The only approved option

at present would be as landfill cover (see section 5).

Restrictions on garden waste collected included: no braches over 2' long (Braintree); no stones, gravel or

soil (Hounslow); no soil, logs or branches over 3" in diameter (Ipswich); no branches over 2" in diameter

(South Derbyshire); no soil or tree branches (Walsall). Most schemes list materials that are accepted and

leave it to the common sense of householders not to include unwanted materials.

Materials typically listed as acceptable are:

ß Fruit

ß Vegetable peelings

ß Salad

ß Tea bags and coffee grounds

ß Egg shells

ß Ash

ß Dead flowers and plants

ß Grass cuttings

ß Hedge prunings

ß Leaves and bark

ß Plants

ß Feathers

ß Straw, sawdust and untreated wood

... /continues on page 8


TABLE ONE: UK Case Studies - Information on Kerbside Organic Collections 2000/01

Ho

use

ho

lds

Ser

ved

(1)

Lau

nch

Dat

e

Fre

qu

ency

Par

tici

pat

ion

Mat

eria

ls

Wee

ks C

olle

ctD

uri

ng

Yea

r

Kg

Co

llect

edp

er H

ou

seh

old

Veh

icle

s

Ave

Ro

un

d S

ize

(Ho

use

ho

lds)

Ave

. No

. S

taff

per

Veh

icle

Ave

. To

nn

es p

erD

ay p

er V

ehic

le

Ave

. To

nn

es p

erS

taff

per

Day

BUCKET

Isle of Wight (A) 62,000 Jan-99 W 25% Fd,M 52 15 Split

MINI BIN

Enfield LBC 8,700 Feb-00 F 12% Fd,G 52 4 Split

CHARGED SACK

Hounslow - 50p (B) 9,492 1999 F 7% G 26 10 RCV 237 1.0

Taunton Deane - 40p 36,500 1992 F Fd,G 39 22 RCV

REUSABLE SACK

Colchester BC (C) 4,550 Jun-00 W 50-70% Fd,G 52 132 RCV 910 3 2.3 0.8

Melton BC (D) 20,123 May-99 F G 52 77 RCV

Sutton LBC 60,000 1999 F G 30 67 RCV 1,500 4 6.7 1.7

WHEELED BIN

Dundee CC (E) 14,904 1993 F Fd,G 30 95 RCV 745 4.7

East Herts DC 2,500 F Fd, G 46 201 RCV 1,250 3 10.9 3.6

Forest Heath DC 17,000 May-97 F 75% + Fd,G 52 302 RCV 850 2.75 9.9 3.6

Ipswich BC (F) 12,766 Sep-98 F Fd,G 52 196 RCV 1,277 3 9.6 3.2

Lichfield DC 25,400 Apr-98 F 65-70% Fd,G 50 237 RP 1,270 3 12.0 4.0

Medway Council 17,000 F 69% G 44 207 RCV 850 3 8.0 2.7

St Edmundsbury BC 27,000 Nov-93 F Fd,G,C 52 321 RCV 1,080 2.75 13.3 4.9

South Derbyshire Statistics unavailable as Recycling Officer went on long term sick leave shortly after initial interview

Walsall MBC 21,500 Apr-96 F 98% G 48 270 RP 1,433 3 16.1 5.4

CHARGED BIN

Kirklees (G) - £10/yr 650 Aug-00 F/M 75-80% G 52 138 RCV 650 2 5.3 2.6

ALTERNATING

Braintree DC (C) 9,600 Oct-00 F 79% Fd,G 52 121 Split 960 3 4.5 1.5

Castle Morpeth (H) 3,500 1995 F Fd,G 52 500 RCV

Daventry DC 30,000 Aug-98 F 90% Fd,G,C 52 315 RCV 1,091 2.83 13.2 4.7

Rochford DC 1,500 Feb-00 F Fd,G 52 166 RCV

Wealden DC 21,000 Jun-98 F Fd,G,C 190 RP

OTHER

Wyecycle (C, I) 1,000 W Fd,M,G 52 190 Tractor

VARIOUS TRIALS

Bexley Council 4,172 Jun-01 W/F 69% Fd,M,G 52 203 Split 1,192 3 9.6 3.2

Lewisham LBC Trials at early stage (started end of June 2001) - data not yet available

KEY: Follows Table Two


TABLE TWO: UK Case Studies - Information on Waste Recycling and Disposal 2000/01

Total Arisings Kerbside Recycling CA Site Bring

Ho

use

ho

lds

in D

istr

ict

Bin

-K

g/H

ou

seh

old

CA

Sit

e -

Kg

/Ho

use

ho

ld

Ho

use

ho

lds

Ser

ved

Lau

nch

Dat

e

Ser

vice

Mat

eria

ls

To

tal C

olle

cted

Kg

/Ho

use

ho

ld

Pap

er R

ecyc

led

Kg

/Ho

use

ho

ld (

2)

Rec

ycle

d -

Kg

/Ho

use

ho

ld

Co

mp

ost

ed -

Kg

/Ho

use

ho

ld

Kg

/Ho

use

ho

ld

BUCKET

Isle of Wight (A) 62,000 62,000 Mar-99 F - Box P, G, T 37 37 44 105 35

MINI BIN

Enfield LBC 113,500 8,700 Feb-00 F - Basket P 71 71 36 72 33

CHARGED SACK

Hounslow - 50p (B) 86,000 914 267 73,034 Sep-96 W - Box P,O,C,G,S,A 108 72 61

Taunton Deane - 40p

REUSABLE SACK

Colchester BC (C)

Melton BC (D) 20,123 Jun-98 W - Sack P,O,G,S,A,F,Pl,T 102

Sutton LBC 75,500 764 233 60,000 1997 F - Bin P,O,C,S,A,Pl 126 50 19 18 49

WHEELED BIN

Dundee CC (E) 69,000 49,483 1991 W - Bin P,C 3

East Herts DC 53,000

Forest Heath DC 24,786 17,500 May-96 F P 45 45

Ipswich BC (F) 53,000 -

Lichfield DC 38,500 38,500 Mid 96 F - Sacks P,O,C,G,S,A 101

Medway Council 94,200 94,200 30 28 37 11 35

St Edmundsbury BC 42,451 1,066 171 24,000 Jul-96 F P, O 64 64 23 38 40

South Derbyshire Statistics unavailable as Recycling Officer went on long term sick leave shortly after initial interview

Walsall MBC 106,515 1,115 213 - 10 34 32

CHARGED BIN

Kirklees (G) - £10/yr 170,000 775 258 116,500 1994 M - Bin P,O,C,S,A,Pl 80 42 28 24

ALTERNATING

Braintree DC (C) 55,000 1,032 53,811 Oct-95 F - Sack P,O,C,S,A,Pl,T 52 49

Castle Morpeth (H) 21,500 1,070 2,000 1993 F - Bin P,O,S,A,Pl 195 60 79

Daventry DC 30,000 1,115 509 30,000 1995 W - Box P,O,G,S,A,Pl 153 91 170 46 0

Rochford DC 33,000 909 1,500 Sep-99 W - Box P,O,C,S,A,Pl 168 36

Wealden DC 61,000 1,028 252 23,500 Oct-95 F - Box P,C,S,A 82 77 33 33 59

OTHER

Wyecycle (C, I) 1,000 W - Box P,O,C,G,S,A,T

VARIOUS TRIALS

Bexley Council

Lewisham LBC Trials at early stage (started end of June 2001) - data not yet available

KEY: on next page


KEY FOR TABLES ONE & TWO NOTES FOR TABLES ONE & TWO

Fd - Uncooked food P - Newspaper & mags (1) Average served in 2000/01 (adjusted for any expansion during year).

O - Other paper (2) Excluding MRF rejects (excluded paper only, total includes rejects).M - Meat & cookedfood waste

C - Cardboard

G - Garden Waste G - Glass containers (A) Data for Nov 1999 to Oct 2000.

C - Cardboard S - Steel cans (B) Paper recycled through kerbside collections includes cardboard.

A - Aluminium cans (C) Projection from estimate of quantities collected monthly or quarterly.

W - Weekly F - Foil (D) Kerbside recycling quantities include mini-recycling centres.

F - Fortnightly Pl - Plastic bottles (E) Organics collection data for 1999/2000.

M - Monthly T - Textiles (F) Data for period September 2000 to August 2001.

(G) Collect fortnightly in Summer and monthly in Winter.

(H) Also make special collections for large quantities of garden waste,which are excluded.

RCV

RP

Split

- Standard Refuse Compaction Vehicle

- Rotopress Refuse Collection Vehicle

- Split Chamber RCV(I) Refuse collection is fortnightly, food waste collected in bins with liners,garden waste collected in reused paper sacks with tags (25p each).

TABLE THREE: Early Results of Bexley Trials

Bexley selected the areas for their seven trial rounds (see table) at random, but did not ensure the

households covered were controlled for socio-economic variations. The data shown in the following table

applies to the period from 11 June to 6 August 2001. The annual projections are adjusted on the basis

that 23.5% of the annual total is typically collected during these 2 months (see page 11-13).

Average KG per Household Served

CollectionFrequency

BinSize

Numberof

House-holds

AverageTonnes

PerCollection

PerCollection

AnnualProjection

UNADJUSTED

AnnualProjectionADJUSTED

ParticipationRate

(adjusted to beequivalent to4-week rate)

Average Kgper Week perParticipatingHousehold

50 613 2.7 4.4 226 161 65% 6.7

140 602 4.9 8.2 426 302 73% 11.2Weekly

180 586 4.4 7.5 388 275 75% 10.0

AVERAGE 6.7 6.7 71% 9.3

50 608 3.0 5.0 128 91 61% 4.0

140 593 4.6 7.8 200 142 66% 5.8

180 583 7.5 12.8 333 236 70% 9.1Fortnightly

240 587 6.8 11.6 300 213 73% 7.9

AVERAGE 4.6 4.6 68% 6.7

CONCLUSIONS FROM BEXLEY DATA: The 50 litre bin (not wheeled) restricts the quantity of organic

waste put out, but there is no clear pattern in participation for the other (wheeled) bins by size and it is

likely that other factors have a greater influence on participation between these areas, such as socio-

economic factors. The average participation rates in the weekly collection areas is slightly higher (by 4%)

than in the fortnightly areas and the average quantity put out by participating households is much higher

(by 39%), suggesting households with a weekly service separate more of their organic waste for the

composting collections. These conclusions are weakened by the lack of control for socio-economic

variables and because they apply only to the early collection period of the trials.


/continued from page 4 ...

Materials typically not accepted, in addition to meat, cooked food, oversize branches, soil, and stone,

include:

ß Cooking oil

ß Nappies

ß Vacuum cleaner contents

ß Pet waste and litter (although at least one accepts pet straw)

Three schemes accept cardboard: Daventry, St Edmundsbury and Wealden1. St Edmundsbury deliver to

a large central composting operator, who produces a range of mulches and soil conditioners, and

Wealden deliver to local farmers for on-site processing and use, which is managed by a local consultancy.

St Edmundsbury accept all cardboard except glossy or waxed card packaging and milk or juice cartons.

Wealden ask for all types of cardboard, except waxed and foil-lined cartons, for tape and plastic wrapping

to be removed and for cardboard to be flatten or torn up and mixed with other green waste.

Tackling Contaminants

Several schemes have procedures to reduce the level of contaminants put out by householders.

Bexley has a computer-based system to record households putting out contaminated material. Letters are

sent to remind these householders of materials that can and cannot be accepted. If the problem persists,

collection bins are removed.

St Edmundsbury has a strong enforcement policy. Organics bins with contaminants or which are too

heavy with soil and rubble and refuse bins with green waste are not emptied. A leaflet is left with these

householders to inform them that the bin needs to be properly sorted for collection on the next cycle.

Alternatively the householder can pay for a special collection. Households new to the service receive one

free special collection if required.

Similar strong enforcement policies are adopted in Daventry, Ipswich and Wealden for their composting

collections (but not their refuse service). In Daventry stickers are put on unemptied bins. In Ipswich

organics bins with contaminants are not collected and the householder is sent a letter asking them to

remove the contaminants before the next collection. If a third letter needs to be sent to the same

household then the bin is removed and the service withdrawn from that household. In Wealden council

officers call on householders putting out contaminated bins to explain what can be accepted.

The Isle of Wight admitted to suffering from contamination problems with their collections, which originated

from householders, during loading of their split-compartment RCVs (refuse collection vehicles) and after

unloading at their waste reception depot. The Isle of Wight also accepted food waste in carrier bags,

which all other schemes would have regarded as a serious contaminant.

Collection Frequency

Most schemes collect on a fortnightly cycle, including those accepting food and garden waste.

Of the schemes accepting meat and cooked food waste, both the Isle of Wight and WyeCycle collect

weekly. Bexley are testing weekly and fortnightly services. As a result of receiving a number of complaints

in the fortnightly trial area using 50-litre bins, Bexley inspected and weighed several of those put out.

1 Forest Heath also recently started accepting cardboard but did not during 2000/01.


Problems observed included bins with strong smells, ants, flies and maggots. One bin contained little

kitchen waste and, when interviewed, the resident putting out the bin said that they had stopped

separating their food waste. Consequently bin liners for meat and cooked food wastes have now been

issued to residents in these collection areas.

Other weekly collections are operated in Colchester and Wye. In Kirklees a fortnightly service is provided

for most of the year and a monthly service during the winter months.

Five schemes provide fortnightly kerbside collections for organic waste that alternate with other waste

collection services. In Braintree and Wealden all services are on fortnightly cycles with refuse collected

one week and recyclables and compostables collected the next on the same day (but using different

vehicles). Castle Morpeth has different trials in two areas with composting collections alternating with the

refuse service in one area and recyclables and refuse collections alternating in the other. In Daventry and

Rochford recycling collections are weekly and the refuse and composting collections operate on

alternating fortnightly cycles.

Seasonal Collections

Most schemes provide composting collections throughout the year but a number only collect for part of the

year with operational periods for these ranging from 26 to 48 weeks.

Collection Containers

Most schemes provide standard 240 litre wheeled bins for storing and putting out organic waste for

collection. Braintree provides a 180-litre bin. East Hertfordshire offered the option of a 120-litre wheeled

bin for households with small gardens, with the bin size provided in the first instance matching that

provided for refuse in the area.

Dundee was the only scheme to provide special aerated wheeled bins (240-litre), which are marketed for

composting collections. However, they had not compared their performance with standard bins and had

simply continued to use the same type of bin that was first provided when the scheme started in 1993.

Wheeled bins for organics are provided in all of the alternating collection areas, Braintree provides 180

litre bins, Castle Morpeth and Daventry provide 240 litres, Rochford provides 120 litres and Wealden

provides 240 litres with the option of 120 litres. It is interesting to also note the range of containers

provided for kerbside recycling in these areas. Braintree provides clear plastic sacks, Castle Morpeth

provides 240 litre bins, and Daventry, Rochford and Wealden all provide boxes.

Isle of Wight provides a 10 litre kitchen bucket for its food waste collections and encourages these

compostables to be put out in carrier bags. A number of their residents find the bucket to be too small. On

request a second bucket is provided and, if this is still insufficient, a recycling box with lid is provided.

Two schemes provide small non-wheeled bins that are designed for food waste collections. These have

smooth internal surfaces, a lid that seals the bin and a handle that locks the lid until it is moved to the right

position, which reduces the potential for spills, especially when put out for collection. Bexley provide the

50 litre version and have experienced problems with the pins running down the hinge of the lid. The pins

can come loose preventing the lids from closing correctly. Enfield has provided the smaller (but same

height) 25 litre version and have not experienced similar problems. The supplier has said that any design

problems will be corrected in new stock that is manufactured.

Both Bexley and Enfield accept garden and food waste in their bins. As the bin size is limited, this may


have the effect of encouraging residents to mainly use the bin for garden waste that is easier and less

messy to keep separate than food waste. In Bexley, where bins were inspected, most bins contained both

food and garden waste, but some did mostly or entirely contain garden waste.

Six schemes provide sacks. Hounslow and Taunton Deane charge for paper sacks that need to be used

for their services. Colchester, Melton and Sutton provide reusable heavy-duty plastic sacks, which are

emptied and returned. As many bags as required are provided with some households using up to 15 in

Colchester and Melton. Some problems from returned bags blowing away were reported.

WyeCycle sell tags that residents attach to bags for putting out garden waste. They are encouraged to

buy the compost produced by WyeCycle and reuse the reused fertilizer and feed sacks that are used by

WyeCycle. These sacks are emptied and returned to the householder. Any paper sacks put out are not

emptied but also taken for composting.

Lewisham are testing the effect of providing different biodegradable collection sacks through a 16-week

trial covering 5,000 households, half of which have been provided with paper sacks and the other half

plastic sacks. Data from these trials are not available but local authority officers report that it is going well

with a lot of material collected on all rounds.

In addition to containers for putting out organic wastes, Ipswich, St Edmundsbury and WyeCycle provide

10-litre kitchen buckets or caddies to encourage the collection of food waste. Forest Heath provided

kitchen buckets to the first 10,000 households served but found that they were not being used by many

households, so decided not to continue to provide them as the service expanded further.

Apart from Bexley (see above under collection frequency), WyeCycle was the only scheme contacted to

provide kitchen bin liners for food waste collections. WyeCycle previously provided paper bag liners but

has now switched to plastic liners as these were found to be more popular. The bags are the right size to

line the kitchen caddy provided and once full the bags can be transferred to an external 35-litre bin, also

provided by WyeCycle to put out food waste for weekly collection. The 35-lire container has been found to

be big enough for all households served. Previously WyeCycle provided a 24-litre bin for putting out food

waste but this was found to be too small for some households (N.B. accept cooked food and meat).

Some of the schemes collecting food waste, such as Bexley and St Edmundsbury, advise householders

that wet or smelly kitchen waste can be wrapped in newspaper if necessary.

Some contacts also suggested that putting torn-up cardboard in the bottom of bins helped to enable them

to be fully and easily emptied, but none seemed to include this advice in their leaflets.

Scheme Performance

Judging from the data supplied, the highest diversion performance was achieved by Castle Morpeth

where 500 kg of organic waste was collected per household in 2000/01 (see chart below - page 11).

When questioned about this, the contact said that the small collection area (3,500 households) included a

number of high value properties, some of which had gardens of several acres. Also Castle Morpeth does

not have a civic amenity site in the borough and the next nearest site accepting bulky household and

garden waste is some distance away.

In addition to Castle Morpeth, three of the schemes contacted and one of the trials in Bexley diverted over

300 kg per household in 2000/01. Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury provide fortnightly composting

collections using wheeled bins throughout the year. Daventry also provides a fortnightly bin service but

this alternates with the refuse service. In Bexley it is projected that one of the weekly wheeled bin

collections will divert just over 300 kg per household this year.


Eight of the schemes contacted diverted 190-270 kg per household in 2000/01. Except for Braintree and

one of the Bexley trial rounds, all of the schemes diverting less than this collected food waste only (Isle of

Wight), charged for the collection of garden waste (Hounslow and Taunton Deane), provided small 25 or

50 litres bins (Enfield and two Bexley trial rounds), provided reusable plastic sacks (Colchester, Melton

and Sutton) or provided a restricted seasonal service (Dundee, Hounslow and Sutton).

Seasonal Variation

There are large seasonal variations in the quantity of garden waste collected during the year. This is

illustrated in the following charts, which shows for each scheme the quantity of organic waste collected

each month as a proportion of the total collected during the year.

DAVENTRY TRIALS - Food & Garden Waste Collection

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Mo

nth

ly Q

uan

titi

es a

s %

of

Qu

anti

ty C

olle

cted

An

nu

ally

1998/99 1999/00

SCHEME PERFORMANCE - Yield in Kg per Household in 2000/01

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Enfiel

d

Houns

low

Isle

of W

ight

Taunt

on D

eane

Sutto

n

Melt

on

Dunde

e

Braint

ree

Colche

ster

Kirklee

s

Rochf

ord

Wye

cycle

Wea

lden

Ipsw

ich

East H

ertfo

rdsh

ire

Bexley

Med

way

Lichf

ield

Wals

all

Fores

t Hea

th

Daven

try

St Edm

unds

bury

Castle

Mor

peth

Kg

per

Ho

use

ho

ld in

200

0/01

Food only or small bins Charged service OtherComposting alternates with refuse collectionsReused bags


LICHFIELD - Food & Garden Waste Collection

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

2000/01

Mo

nth

ly Q

uan

titi

es a

s %

of

Qu

anti

ty C

olle

cted

An

nu

ally

MEDWAY - Garden Waste Collection

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

Mo

nth

ly Q

uan

titi

es a

s %

of

Qu

anti

ty C

olle

cted

An

nu

ally

1998/99 2000/011999/00


These charts show that the quantity of organic waste collected in peak months (May-June) can be twice

that of the monthly average throughout the year and more than fives times more than is collected during

low months (December-March). This has considerable implications for the effective use of collection

resources.

The next chart shows the variation in quantities of organic waste collected in St Edmundsbury throughout

the seasons and as the service has expanded with bins provided to more households.

WEALDEN TRIALS - Food & Garden Waste Collection

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Mo

nth

ly Q

uan

titi

es a

s %

of

Qu

anti

ty C

olle

cted

An

nu

ally

1998/99 1999/00

ST EDMUNDSBURY - Green Waste Collection (April 1995 - March 2001)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Ap J A O D F Ap J A O D F Ap J A O D F Ap J A O D F Ap J A O D F Ap J A O D F

Qu

anti

ty c

olle

cted

(to

nn

es)

Trial

9,400bins

12,000 bins20,000bins 22,000 bins

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

32,000 bins


The chart below shows the seasonal variation in the quantities of garden waste collected at Household

Waste and Recycling centres in Bath & North East Somerset. The pattern is similar to those shown for

kerbside collections apart from a smaller secondary peak in the autumn, which suggest autumn leaves are

more likely to be put out for kerbside collections than taken to a Civic Amenity Site.

Household Response and Participation

Several schemes quoted participation rates for their composting collections. For free garden waste

collections these ranged from 50-98%, although in most cases these were estimates rather than

measured or monitored rates. Participation (over 4-week periods) has been measured in Bexley,

Braintree, Colchester and Medway. In these areas the average participation rate varied from 60-79%.

In Hounslow where residents pay a fee to use the service, the participation rate in 2000/01 was only 7%.

The two schemes focusing on food waste (Isle of Wight and Enfield) achieve participation rates of 25%

and 12%. In Wye, where food and garden waste are collected separately, it is estimated that about a third

of households put out food waste for collection.

All the schemes reported that the majority of householders responded positively and often enthusiastically

to their composting collections. Although those providing services that alternated with refuse collections

reported that an often vocal minority persistently complained about receiving refuse collections on a

fortnightly cycle.

The Effect of Charging

Four of the schemes contacted charged for their organic waste collections. From this limited sample, it

appears that householder participation may be sensitive to the size of the charge levied. Hounslow and

Taunton Deane have the highest charges (50p and 40p per sack respectively) and have the lowest

diversion rates (10 and 22 kg per household in 2000/01).

BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET - Garden Waste Collections at Civic Amenity Sites

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

2000/01

Mo

nth

ly Q

uan

titi

es a

s %

of

Qu

anti

ty C

olle

cted

An

nu

ally


Hounslow previously charged £1 per sack and have found the quantity collected has more than doubled

after halving the charge.

Kirklees charge £10/year (equivalent to 20p per week) for a wheeled bin service and WyeCycle charge

25p for tags that have to be attached to garden waste sacks put out for collection. The diversion rates

achieved by both these schemes are much better than the other two higher-charging schemes at 138 and

190 kg per household in 2000/01.

This suggests many householders are willing to pay a fee of up to 25p per sack for garden waste to be

collected for composting but less are willing to pay 40p per sack or more.

One advantage of charging for garden waste collection is that this retains a financial incentive for

householders to home compost their organic waste, which is the best environmental option.

Collection Vehicles

Most of the schemes contacted use refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) with compaction for their

composting collections. Most use standard RCVs without any special modifications, although some (such

as Ipswich and St Edmundsbury) have additional traps fitted to capture any liquid draining from the

organic waste. Daventry also have additional traps fitted and a system to recirculate liquid from these back

into the collected organic waste.

Several scheme contacts said that adding cardboard to the materials accepted helped to absorb liquid

from collected organic waste.

Three of the schemes contacted use Rotopress RCVs, which are particularly suited to composting

collections as they have a sealed rotating drum in which waste is shredded, mixed and compressed rather

than just compacted.

Four of the schemes contacted use split-compartment RCVs for their composting collections. It is

questionable whether this is an efficient option for the collection of garden waste due to the wide seasonal

variations in quantities arising for collection, which would not be matched or compensated for by other

waste streams that might be collected.

The Isle of Wight only collects food waste in the smaller compartment of their split-RCVs. Enfield limit the

quantity of organic waste put out by providing a 25-litre bin for their service and alternate their composting

collections with recycling collections for paper. Both these schemes use the larger compartment on their

split-RCVs to collect refuse for disposal. Bexley and Braintree currently use both compartments on their

split-RCVs for their composting collections. Bexley plan to start using the smaller compartment for a new

plastic bottle collection service. Braintree had planned to use the smaller compartment for contaminated

organics put out for collection but have found that so much clean material is put out in summer months

that they need to use both compartments for this.

Few schemes reported any problems with their vehicles. Those described were loaders putting

contaminants in the compostable section of split-chamber vehicles, faulty retrofitted bin-lifts and one

scheme said they had very occasional problems from liquid compressed from the waste leaking onto the

road.

Round Sizes

Daily round sizes per vehicle vary considerably. For schemes without charges or reusable sacks they vary


from 745 to 1,433 households. Sutton rounds average 1,500 households with reusable sacks but the

diversion rate was only 67 kg per household in 2000/01 suggesting that the participation rate is low.

Round sizes seem small in Hounslow (possibly because they only collect for part of the day on Saturdays)

and Kirklees (where collections are only made during the morning on Saturdays).

Vehicle and Staff Performance

Table One includes an indication of the average quantities collected in a day per vehicle and per staff

member. An attempt has been made to adjust this indicator for partial or over deployment of vehicles and

staff, so that all apply to a normal working day. However, this was only a rough-and-ready adjustment and

so these indicators should only be regarded as providing an approximate, and possibly, inaccurate guide.

There is a strong association between the performance of both vehicles and staff members (as indicated

by tonnes collected per day) and the scheme yield (as measured by kg collected per household in

2000/01). This is shown on the chart below (on page 16). As the scheme yield increases so does the

performance of both the vehicles and staff members, indicating that productivity improves with increases

in the yield of collection schemes. The Coefficient of Determinations (R2 values) for these relationships are

0.68 and 0.76, indicating a statistical association of 68% and 76% in the variation between these

indicators (if Colchester, Sutton and Walsall data is excluded the associations increase to 79% and 78%).

Schemes without charging collect an average of 8-16 tonnes/day per vehicle and 2.7-5.4 tonnes/day per

staff member (loaders and drivers) over the year. Schemes with charging and reusable sacks collect less

than this.

Vehicle & Staff Performance Association with Yield Performance

y = 0.0398x + 1.0335

R2 = 0.6789

y = 0.0166x - 0.3465

R2 = 0.7604

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Yield in Kg per Household in 2000/01

Ve

hic

le &

Sta

ff P

erf

orm

an

ce

in

To

nn

es

pe

r D

ay

Vehicle (Ave) Staff Member (Ave) Vehicle Performance Trendline Staff Performance Trendline


It should be noted that these vehicle and staff performance indicators reflect average performance

throughout the year and will vary seasonally with the quantity of garden waste put out. Due to this

variation, several schemes reported that they reduced crew sizes during winter collections and that

overtime was worked during peak months. This is reflected in calculation of these indicators and the data

presented in Table One.

Vehicle and staff performance is also low in Braintree and Dundee and it is likely that this partially or

entirely reflects the low diversion rates in both areas. This could be caused by households in these areas

putting less out per collection and/or a low set out rate causing collection teams to travel further between

collections.

Contribution from Food Waste

Most of the schemes accepting food waste did not know how much this contributed to the total quantity of

organic waste that they collected, although this had been measured or estimated for some collections.

The Isle of Wight only collects food waste, which amounted to 15 kg per household in 2000/01.

WyeCycle collect food and garden waste separately and estimate they collect 215 kg of food waste per

participating household per year or 72 kg per household served (as only about a third put out food waste).

Braintree commissioned a waste audit to analyse the composition of the waste in their 3-stream collection

services in one week in February 2001. This found that 160 households in the representative sample

analysed produced the following quantities of kitchen waste (annual projections from audit in one week).

AVERAGE KG PER HOUSEHOLD PER ANNUM

Composting collections Refuse collections Total Arising

Home compostable

materials38.7 35.9 74.6

Other (meat, bones,

dairy, cooked food)0.5 37.2 37.7

It is possible that February is not a representative time of the year for the generation of food waste and

that more may, for instance, be generated during summer months when more salad and other fresh

vegetables are consumed. However, assuming the annual projections shown above are close to the

actual annual arisings in Braintree, then, if all food waste were collected for composting (as in Wye) at the

same diversion rate, the total quantity composted would be 58 kg per household per annum. Using the

same logic, the quantity of food waste, excluding meat and cooked food, put out in Wye is 48 kg per

household per annum.

Effect on Garden Waste Collected at Civic Amenity Sites

Garden waste is collected for composting at civic amenity sites in many of the areas contacted. The

quantities collected are shown in Table Two. It should be noted that these apply to all households in the


District whereas the kerbside composting collections may only cover a small proportion of these

households. Therefore, the main depositors of garden waste at civic amenity sites in these areas may be

those not served by the kerbside collections.

The Daventry data is the most interesting in this respect as the whole District is served by their

composting collections and this achieves one of the highest yields at 315 kg per household in 2000/01. At

the same time the quantity of garden waste collected for composting at civic amenity sites in Daventry was

46 kg per household in 2000/01 (the recycling rates achieved at the 2 civic amenity sites in Daventry are

46% and 27%, with each having different contractors with differing abilities to service recycling facilities).

The quantity of garden waste collected for composting at Household Waste and Recycling Centres in Bath

& North East Somerset was 57 kg per household in 2000/01.

Several of the schemes believed that garden waste collections had not been reduced as a result of the

introduction of a kerbside collection service, but most of these were not well placed to judge as both

collection services were often introduced or expanded at a similar time or the kerbside composting

collections only covered a relatively small part of the district.

Link to Recycling Performance

Some data was collected on the performance of kerbside recycling collections in the areas of schemes

contacted. Many schemes also provided multi-material kerbside collection for dry recyclables although

there is a wide variation in the range of materials accepted and in the convenience of service provided.

The highest quantities collected per household in 2000/01 for recycling were in Castle Morpeth (195 kg),

Daventry (153 kg) and Sutton (126 kg). All operate fortnightly refuse services which alternate with either

recycling or composting collections. However, contacts in Castle Morpeth and Sutton admitted that they

suffered from high contamination levels in their recycling collections, both of which alternate with the

refuse collections. This is illustrated by the quantities of paper sent for recycling, which in both cases is

less than half what would be expected from the total quantity collected. This suggests that the reject rate

at the Materials Recovery Facilities where their kerbside recyclables are sorted could be over 50%.

Daventry does not appear to suffer from the same problems. The quantity of paper recycled by their

kerbside collections (91 kg per household per annum) is in line with what would be expected with glass

being included in the materials accepted and a low reject level (which is typical for box services).

Daventry provides a weekly recycling service and alternates their refuse and composting collections. Their

low contamination levels, compared to Castle Morpeth and Sutton, suggests this is an effective option for

their residents.

Kerbside recycling yields achieved in Bath & North East Somerset are similar to those in Daventry. In

B&NES the green box recycling service collects an average of about 140 kg per household served per

annum and recycles about 90 kg of paper per household served per annum.

The performance achieved by composting collections in B&NES might be expected to be slightly lower

than in Daventry, as B&NES is less rural and scores slightly higher on deprivation indicators (which are

associated with quantities of garden waste arising and recycling participation).

Recycling Rates

Sufficient data has been supplied for recycling rates to be calculated for some of the schemes contacted,


which are as follows:

RECYCLING RATES FORKERBSIDE SERVICE AREAS

Hounslow 16%

Sutton 28%

St Edmundsbury 39%

Kirklees 30%

Daventry 42%

Wealden 31%

Except in the case of Daventry, these are not actual or officially defined District-wide recycling rates as

they have been calculated to reflect the performance of the composting collections. This has been done

by using the quantities collected per household for all waste collections that apply just to the households

that they serve (as shown in Tables One and Two and including civic amenity sites). This may understate

the actual recycling rates achieved as the refuse disposal quantities include households not served by the

composting collections, which means the refuse put out by these households is not reduced by the

amount that could be put out for composting. On the other hand, it is also likely that sub-district

composting collections are provided in areas most likely to produce high quantities of garden waste.

Again the Daventry information is the most interesting as all services operate District-wide and it is known

that the disposal data supplied by Northamptonshire County Council includes all household waste (refuse,

street sweepings, litter, fly-tipping, etc) that should be used to calculate official recycling rates. Therefore,

the recycling rate indicated for Daventry of 42% is especially impressive. As it includes civic amenity site

data it is also comparable to the official definition of recycling rates for Unitary Authorities, such as Bath &

North East Somerset, which achieved a recycling rate of 21% in 2000/01.

WyeCycle have found that the quantity of refuse put out for disposal by households they serve averages

250 kg per household per year. As it is estimated that they recycle or compost about 450 kg per

household per year, this is equivalent to a bin waste recycling rate of 64%.

Costs

Few of the schemes contacted were willing or able to supply financial information on their collections

(often because they were a small part of a larger contract) and only St Edmundsbury and Walsall were

able to provide an indication of the net costs for their composting service.

Daventry said that the total net cost for their 3-stream waste collection services is about £40 per

household per annum and that no additional collection cost, except for bin provision, has been incurred for

their composting collections as a result of switching from a weekly refuse service to alternating

composting and refuse collections. They also benefit from the payment of Recycling Credits which are

slightly higher than the cost of haulage and the gate fee for composting.

Wealden report that the net cost for their 3-stream waste collection services is about £45 per household

per annum (taking into account Recycling Credits at £23/tonne) and that, before alternating collection

services were introduced, their refuse collection costs were £30-35 per household per annum. This


suggests that the additional net cost of their recycling and composting collections is £10-15 per household

per annum or £37-55 per tonne.

Several scheme contacts observed that their costs could be estimated from the staff and vehicle

resources committed to their operation and were willing to indicate their gate fees and haulage costs for

composting, which mostly varied between £20-25/tonne, and their Recycling Credits, which varied

between £22-37/tonne.

St Edmundsbury quote a net cost to their Council Tax payers of £4.77 per household per annum for their

composting collections. Although this should be increased by about 50% as all households pay Council

Tax but not all are yet covered by the composting collections. Also this cost does not include bin provision,

which has been funded through the Landfill Tax credit scheme. Therefore, the true net cost may be closer

to £8.50 per household or £27 per tonne.

Walsall reported that the cost of their composting collections are about £100,000 per annum, which is

equivalent to £4.65 per household or £17.20 per tonne. This may not include the capital cost of providing

bins or vehicles.


4) CASE STUDIES OVERSEAS

A literature review was undertaken to obtain information on overseas composting collections forhousehold waste.

Information on case studies in other European countries and North America are presented in Tables Fourand Five. Some studies quoted yields per inhabitant which have been multiplied by 2.5 to convert to yieldsper household.

In Italy it has been estimated that 30-70 kg of garden waste per person per year can be collected bykerbside collections. With the collection of food and garden waste up to 150 kg can be collected perperson per year, which, in UK terms, is equivalent to 375 kg per person per year for average UKhousehold with 2.5 persons2.

In the Netherlands half of all household waste has been found to be vegetable, garden and fruit residualsand all Dutch municipalities have been legally obliged to separately collect these organic wastes since1994, with the only exceptions being high-rise buildings and city centres. Wheeled bio-bins are used formost collections, which are undertaken either weekly or fortnightly on alternate cycles to refusecollections. Participation rates are more than 80% and contamination levels less than 5%3. Split dual-compartment bins have also been used but the separation quality tends to be lower than for separatebins3. In 1999 the national average in the Netherlands for the collection of household organic waste was95 kg per inhabitant (equivalent to 238 kg per household)3.

There are a number of points to note from these overseas case studies:ß Home composting is commonly promoted in most countries, including in areas with composting

collections.ß In Italy a number of schemes collect food waste only, which does not require compaction.ß Bin liners are sometimes provided to encourage food waste to be separated for composting. This was

tested during trials in San Francisco but appeared to have little influence on participation and wasdiscontinued in favour of residents using their own paper bags and newspaper if they wanted to wraptheir food waste4.

ß In San Francisco composting collections are also provided to multi-family housing but only after thishas been requested by a resident who volunteers to take responsibility for the proper use of collectionfacilities.

ß Some problems from fruit flies, smells and maggots are reported in Nova Scotia during hot summerswhere organic wastes are collected fortnightly. To minimise these problems, residents are encouragedto empty kitchen food waste bins daily, wrap meat in paper or cardboard, locate bins away from thehouse, clean bins after emptying and be willing to tolerate some smells and flies as a natural result ofcomposting. Managers sat that they have been able to use extensive media coverage of theseproblems as an opportunity for free communication on the benefits of composting and what to do toresolve these problems5.

It should also be noted that there are differences in culture, climate, consumption patterns and wastecollection services in many of these countries when compared to the UK. Separate charging for wastecollection is common and charges are often variable related to quantities put out for disposal. In somecountries, such as Italy, refuse is collected from communal on-street bins and pick-up points withcollections from these are often made several times per week. Nevertheless, there are some usefullessons and pointers that can be gained from overseas composting collections, but care should be takenin thinking that lessons from these can be directly translated to the UK.

2 Slater RA & Frederickson J (2001) - Composting municipal waste in the UK: some lessons from Europe; Resources,Conservation & Recycling 32, pp. 359-374.3 Bart van Weenen (2000) - The Netherlands: Collection, Sorting and Composting Household Organics; BioCycleMagazine, April 20004 San Francisco takes Residential Organics Collection Full-Scale (2000) - BioCycle Magazine, Feb. 20005 Landfill Ban Stimulates Composting Programs in Nova Scotia (2000) - BioCycle Magazine, March 2000


TABLE FOUR: Kerbside Composting Collections in Other European Countries

MATERIALS SERVICE VEHICLES YIELDS COMMENTS

Bapaume,France 6

Kitchen(includingmeat), garden,paper, nappies

120 litreBin, Weekly

Compactorvehicles

500Kg/Hh/Yr(mayincludenon-household)

Collection costs arecalculated to be thesame as for ordinaryrefuse, but compostingprocess is cheaper thandisposal.

Gironde,France 6

Kitchen &garden

Bin, Weekly Kitchen waste: veg. &fruit peelings only

Niort,France 6, 7

Kitchen (inc.meat) &garden

Kitchenbins &120/240 lbins,Weekly

Smallcompactorvehicles

375Kg/Hh/Yr(210 viakerbside)

4-bins accepted by 95%of households.Promoted as a servicenot a responsibility.Compost processingcost is half landfill cost.

Limerick,Ireland 6

Kitchen &garden

140 litrebin,Fortnightly(alternateswith refuse)

Compactors(on-boardtanks fittedfor leachate)

340Kg/Hh/Yr

Problem with wastesticking to bottom of bins- resolved by providingbiodegradable plasticbags or ventilated bins.Participation ~ 90%.

Tralee,Ireland 6

Food (notmeat), garden& paper

Kitchencaddy &ventilatedbin,Fortnightly

Roto-pressvehicles

280Kg/Hh/Yr

Wood chips put in truckbefore each collection.Plan to reduce refusecollections to fortnightlyso services alternate.

Cupello,Italy 6

Food (inc.meat)

Kitchenbuckets(put outkerbside), 3collections/week

Small (3m3)tipper truckwith bin-lift(nocompaction)

190Kg/Hh/Yr(contributes25% torecyclingrate)

Buckets emptied intoslave bins which tippedinto truck. Bring systemfor garden waste.Savings by reorganisingrefuse rounds.

Monza,Italy 6, 7, 8

Kitchen (foodwastes only)

10l bucket& liner bags(100/yr/hh),2collections/week

Small (3m3)tipper truckwith bin-lift(nocompaction)

140 (food)& 70(garden)Kg/Hh/Yr

Buckets put out onkerbside and emptiedmanually. Bins providedfor apartments. Gardenwaste collected civicamenity sites.

Padua,Italy 6

Kitchen &garden

6.5-10lbuckets &liners(initiallyfree thenbuy), 2 or 3collectionsper week

Bulk lorries 200Kg/Hh/Yr (+homecompostingestimatedat 75Kg/Hh/Yr)

51% recycling rate inarea (pop. 205,000).Buckets put out onkerbside. Fee for gardenwaste collection ordeliver to eco-centres.Reduced fees if homecompost (35% claim).

6 European Commission (2000) - Success Stories on Composting and Separate Collection; Directorate-General forthe Environment7 Dept. of Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) - Research Study on International Recycling Experience;ERM8 Favoino E (2000) - Best Practice in Source Separation; The Journal of the Composting Association, Vol. 4 (3-4),Winter/Spring 2000, p. 14.


Arnhem,Holland 7

Organic Weeklykerbside

Nearly all householdsparticipate. Ban onhousehold organic wasteto landfill.

TABLE FIVE: Kerbside Composting Collections in North America

MATERIALS SERVICE VEHICLES YIELDS COMMENTS

NovaScotia,Canada 9

Food (includesmeat &bones),garden

Wheeledbins(taggedand notcollected ifcontaminated),Fortnightly

Ban on landfilling &incinerating organicsintroduced in 1998. Pop.of 935,000 - 70% withkerbside organiccollections in 2000.Cardboard accepted insome areas but causesproblems by lengtheningcompost times. Stepsare suggested to avoidproblems with odoursand flies.

Peel,Ontario,Canada 9

All food waste(inc. meat,bones, dairy)& garden

Kitchenbuckets &wheeledbins

Three stream trial(organics, dryrecyclables, refuse)achieved 65% diversion,which now beingimplemented province-wide

SanFrancisco,USA 10

Food (allscraps),garden &soiled paper

120 litrewheeledbin & 7.5litre kitchenbucket (canbe linedwith ownpaper bagsor news-paper)

Singlecompartmentside-loadingcompactors(not split dueto seasonalvariation).Cover~5,500houses/wk

~ 190Kg/Hh/Yr(weeklyset-outratesaverage40%, totalparticipation rateshould behigher)

Fantastic Three(recycling, composting &refuse) programmelaunched in 1999,following a series oftrials from 1996. Trialsincluded providingbucket liners. Multi-family units only servedif request and nominatea responsible resident.Main contaminant isplastic bags but reducedover time.

9 Landfill Ban Stimulates Composting Programs in Nova Scotia (2000) - BioCycle Magazine, March 200010 San Francisco takes Residential Organics collection Full-Scale (2000) - BioCycle Magazine, February 2000


5) COLLECTION TRIALS IN BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET

A number of findings have emerged from the study of composting collections in the UK and overseas.Those relevant to the collection trials to be operated in Bath & North East Somerset are:

ß Few schemes have attempted to maximise the collection of food waste, apart from Wye in the UK andsome collection schemes in Italy.

ß There are two approaches to the collection of garden waste: i) Provide a convenient accessible service to collect as much as possible. This is likely to lead

to an increase in total waste arising in areas, such as Bath & North East Somerset, wheregarden waste is not accepted through refuse collections, as some garden waste is likely tobe put out that did not previously enter the municipal waste stream.

ii) Provide a small barrier, such as a charge, for the collection of garden waste to retain anincentive for it to be home composted, which is the best environmental option for itsmanagement. This also retains an incentive for householders to deliver garden waste tocivic amenity sites for composting.

ß Some food wastes and cardboard can be collected with garden waste for composting.

ß Good communication and strong but fair enforcement policies are required to reduce contamination inwaste put out for composting.

ß Trials in Bexley suggest that a weekly service will result in more organics being collected incomparison to a fortnightly service, but on the other hand it was also found that some fortnightly andalternating collection schemes currently achieve the highest diversion rates in the UK.

ß Food waste can pose more problems for householders when collected fortnightly rather than weekly.

ß Bins provided must be of sufficient size for the materials to be targeted for collection.

ß There have been few controlled comparisons of composting collection methods and aids, such as theprovision of kitchen bins and liners. It would be beneficial to know more about the costs of differentoptions and performance benefits that can result.

ß The use of reusable sacks and restricted seasonal collections significantly reduced participation andquantities collected (WyeCycle being an exception to this with regard to reusable sacks).

ß There is a large seasonal variation in the quantity of garden waste put out for composting collections.

ß The proportion of households willing to separate food waste for composting appears to be much lessthan those willing to separate garden waste.

ß Householders may be sensitive to the size of any charge for garden waste collections, with lowparticipation levels found if a fee above 25p per sack or equivalent is levied.

ß Standard refuse collection vehicles have been found to be suitable for organic waste collections butminor modifications may be required, especially if high quantities of food waste are collected. Thereare some vehicle designs available, such as the Rotopress, which are better suited to organic wastecollections.

ß Split-chamber refuse collections vehicles are not suitable for the unrestricted collection of gardenwaste, due to seasonal variations in arisings, and may present other difficulties, especially when usedfor recycling or composting collections and refuse collections.

ß Food waste does not need to be collected in a compaction vehicle as it naturally has a high density.

ß Kerbside composting collections can make a big contribution to recycling rates and often achievemore than multi-material collections for dry recyclables.


TRIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Taking account of these findings, Avon Friends of the Earth proposes to test a wide range of kerbside

composting collections options in partnership with Bath & North East Somerset Council. As well as testing

a variety of approaches to the collection of food, garden and cardboard waste, it is proposed to monitor a

number of other issues, including:

ß Whether to collect organic waste for composting on the same day as refuse or recycling collections.

ß Variations in the quantities of both food and garden waste put out for composting collections bydifferent socio-economic groups.

Three collection vehicles will be used for the trials:

ß Multi-cage vehicle with bin-lift (part of existing recycling fleet) - to collect food and garden wastemainly on trial rounds comparing different socio-economic groups.

ß Multi-cage 10 tonne GVW recycling collection vehicle (part of existing recycling fleet) - to be used ontrials focusing on the collection of food waste and recyclables at the same time.

ß Hired 7.5 tonne refuse collection vehicle with compaction and bin-lift - to collect food and gardenwaste.

In addition, any suitable demonstration vehicles that are available, such as a Rotopress, will be tested

during the trials.

Each vehicle will cover three trial rounds in a day, which consist of 150-200 households each. In total the

trials will cover 3,700-4,200 households from April 2002 to March 2003 and are expected to result in the

collection of 700 tonnes of organic waste for composting.

The trials will be operated from Council waste transfer stations and recycling depots in Bath & North East

Somerset.

A range of collection containers will be used, as follows: 7 or 10 litre kitchen buckets (or caddies), 25-litre

food waste bins (only to be used for putting out food waste), paper and biodegradable plastic liners for

food bins, paper sacks for garden waste, 140 and 240 litre wheeled bins. One trial round is also allocated

to test the aerated wheeled bins designed by Richard Rand and Associates.

Providing new restrictions are not introduced by the Environment Agency, it is intended to collect food

waste excluding meat, dairy products and cooked food throughout the trial period. The two licensed

composting processors in the area (Hinton Organics and Wyvern Waste) are both willing to accept garden

waste and food waste (excluding meat, dairy products and cooked food) collected by the proposed trials.

Neither can accept meat, dairy products and cooked food waste as this is not allowed by their site licences

and currently they would not be able to market or secure end-uses for the compost produced with these

waste inputs.

Restrictions on the collection of food waste have been introduced as a result of the recent foot and mouth

disease outbreak11. In June 2001, the Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs issued a

statement saying: "The government supports the collection of source separated waste and encourages

local authorities to continue collection of kitchen waste. Until the new regulation comes into force local

authorities will need to be clear that they are using only botanical waste (e.g. plants and vegetable/fruit

wastes) collected in this way in compost which is to be used on land."

11 Confusion Over Catering Wastes - Composting News, Summer 2001; The Composting Association


The Government is currently in the process of awarding a contract to carry out a comprehensive risk

assessment on the use of composting to dispose of catering waste and animal by-products.

On 21 August 2001, the Environment Agency issued a statement saying "... source segregated kitchen

waste as collected by local authorities, cannot be composted or spread on land where birds can get to it.

... Given the implications of [this] Order on the Government’s waste strategy and composting targets,

research has been commissioned to determine the level of risk to animal health from composting and

landspreading .... The [order] will be reviewed in the light of these findings and this work is expected to

take some 3 months to complete." With regard to waste management licenses, the statement says: "If the

Agency becomes aware that existing facilities are operating in a way that may be impacted by the Order it

shall provide relevant details to the local authority. The Agency is working with Government to clarify the

risk posed by such activities. Until such time as we are able to do so, and can provide further guidance to

staff, no action should be taken by the Agency in relation to existing licensed/exempt activities."

This situation should be resolved by the end of the year, before the intended start of the collection trials.

The trial arrangements proposed are summarised in the following tables. Each row represents a different

trial round and shows the waste materials to be collected for each. Blank shaded boxes indicate that the

material will not be collected. In open boxes the container to be used for collecting each material in the

trial area is described.

All rounds (except where indicated) will be introduced on an opt-out basis with letters delivered to

introduce the trial, which allows householders to ask not to be involved and containers not to be delivered.

The letter will also say home composting is still the best and preferred option and provide details of the

Council's bin offers.

A) SERVICE COMPARISONS - Same Type of Area, Different Services

These trial rounds will all be operated in middle-income areas with gardens and without unusual features

that may restrict participation. Arrangements will be reviewed in May and August with poorly performing

options replaced by options found to achieve more so that the performance of these can be confirmed.

(i) Weekly collections on same day as recycling service - combined recycling and composting collections

using multi-cage 10 tonne GVW vehicle

Objective: Compares different containers and methods of introducing services with a focus on food waste.

CODE FOOD GARDEN - Charge GARDEN - Free CARDBOARD

W1 Bin (1)

W2 Bin & Bucket (1)

W3 Bin & Bucket (1,2)

W4 Bin, Bucket & liner (3)

W5 Bin, Bucket & liner (4)

W6 Bin & Bucket (1) Sacks (5)

(1) No liner provided, suggest householders put cardboard in bottom and can wrap food waste.(2) Opt-in trial. Containers personally delivered by project worker with adult member of household asked to participate.(3) Deliver 6 months supply of 50 liners, then review. Half households supplied with paper and half with plastic liners.(4) Deliver free supply of 25 liners at start and inform residents they can order more by post at cost-price or use

without liners, wrapping wet wastes if necessary.(5) Sacks (25p each) supplied by mail order.


ii) Weekly collections on same day as refuse collections - using multi-cage bin-lift or hired RCV

Objective: Comparison with composting collections on the same day as recycling collections (W6).


W7) Bin & Bucket (1) Sacks (5)

(1) No liner provided, suggest householders put cardboard in bottom and can wrap food waste.(5) Sacks (25p each) supplied by mail order.

iii) Weekly collections on same day as refuse collections - using hired RCV with bin-lift

Objective: Compares the collection of garden waste with and without a charge and tests the collection of

cardboard (compared to C3 & C6).


W8) Bin & Bucket (1) Wheeled Bin

W9) Kitchen Bucket (1) Wheeled Bin In same bin

(1) No liner provided, suggest cardboard in bottom and can wrap food waste.

iv) Weekly collections on same day as recycling collections - using hired RCV with bin-lift

Objective: Comparison with composting collections on the same day as refuse collections (W9).


W10) Bin & Bucket (1) Wheeled Bin In same bin

(1) No liner provided, suggest cardboard in bottom and can wrap food waste.

v) Fortnightly collections on same day as recycling - using hired RCV with bin-lift

Objectives: Comparison of fortnightly collection options; comparison of fortnightly collections with weekly

services (C3, C6, W8, W9); and testing and comparison of aerated bin (Richard Rand & Associates).


F1) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin

F2) Kitchen Bucket Aerated Bins

F3) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin

F4) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin In same bin

vi) Alternating collections with recycling service - both fortnightly (refuse weekly) - using hired RCV

Objective: Testing of alternating services (recycling with composting) and comparison with fortnightly

composting collections (F4).


F5) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin In same bin


vii) 3-stream alternating collections - Composting collections on same day as recycling service, which

alternate with refuse collections. Same day of the week for all collections but different fortnightly cycles

(recycling & composting one week, refuse the next). Voluntary opt-out introduction which could become

compulsory for all from September, if initial results are encouraging. One or more of these alternating

collection rounds may be compulsory from the start.

Objective: Testing of further alternating collection service options (recycling and composting on same

cycle alternating with refuse) with and without the collection of cardboard.


A1) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin

A2) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin In same bin

A3) Kitchen Bucket Wheeled Bin In same bin

B) AREA COMPARISON - Same Service, Different Types of Residents and Collection Areas

These trial rounds will be operated in a variety of areas selected to represent a range of different socio-

demographic factors. Food and garden waste collected in these areas will be measured separately

throughout the year to monitor the variation in quantities put out by different socio-demographic groups.

Buckets and bins to be provided for food waste collections and wheeled bins for garden waste. Containers

not wanted to be taken back and recorded. Multi-cage bin-lift collection vehicle to be used with collections

on the same day as the recycling service. Collection arrangements to remain the same throughout the

year. ACORN profiles and Council Tax bands to be used to assist with round selection and analysis.

Objective: To determine weights of food & garden waste put out for composting collections throughout the

year by different types of household.

CODE LOCATION ** MAIN HOUSING INCOME

C1) Bath - Urban Detached High

C2) Bath - Urban Terrace Low

C3) Bath - Urban Semi &/or Terrace Middle

C4) NE Somerset - Rural Detached High

C5) NE Somerset - Urban Low

C6) NE Somerset - Rural Middle

C) FLATS SERVICE

240 and 360 litre wheeled bins for food waste will be provided at mini-recycling centres or bin stores used

by residents of blocks of flats in Bath & North East Somerset. This service will be tested at a minimum of

two blocks of flats and cover 150-300 households. Residents will be provided with kitchen buckets and bin

liners to encourage their participation.

ROUND MONITORING

A comprehensive monitoring programme will cover all of the trial rounds with objectives of measuring and

assessing the following for all service options:

ß Collection performance - Kg/Team Member/Hour

ß Quantities collected per household (served and participating)


ß Participation rates

ß Service costs

ß Resident satisfaction and problems

ß Barriers to using the service

ß Seasonal variations

ß How waste put out was previously managed

ß Contamination issues

ß Operational issues, including views of collectors

As part of this programme, the following monitoring and surveys will be undertaken:

ß Recycling & refuse weights before and during trials, involving a sample of 50 houses on 3 area

comparison rounds

ß Organic collection round weights, collection times & distances travelled throughout trial period

ß Participation monitoring

ß Postal questionnaire survey with stratified samples of 50 households in each trial area and follow-up

doorstep survey of non-responders and non-participants on selected rounds

ß Full bin waste analysis before and during trials for 3 area comparison rounds

ß Total collected on refuse and recycling collection rounds in Bath & North East Somerset each month

throughout the year

COLLECTION TRIAL COSTS

The trials proposed have been fully costed with quotations obtained for the supply of equipment and

collection containers. These costs are summarised below.

COSTS VAT TOTAL

• Vehicle & equipment costs £ 40,456 £ 7,080 £ 47,536

• Staff & management costs £ 102,724 £ 11,065 £ 113,789

• Collection Containers £ 52,308 £ 9,154 £ 61,462

• Composting & Haulage Fee (@ £23/t) £ 15,994 £ 2,799 £ 18,793

• Waste Analysis £ 8,400 £ 1,470 £ 9,870

• Promotion & Survey costs £ 9,228 £ 1,615 £ 10,843

• Contingency/new arrangements £ 3,500 £ 613 £ 4,113

TOTAL COSTS £ 232,610 £ 33,795 £ 266,406

INCOME VAT TOTAL

• Charges (@ 25p/sack & £20/bin) £ 4,548 £ 796 £ 5,344

• Recycling Credits (@ £27/tonne) £ 18,776 £ 3,286 £ 22,062

TOTAL INCOME £ 23,324 £ 4,082 £ 27,406

NET COST PER ANNUM £ 209,286 £ 29,713 £ 239,000

Documents

STUDY OF KERBSIDE COLLECTION OPTIONS FOR ORGANIC …(South Derbyshire); no soil or tree branches (Walsall). Most schemes list materials that are accepted and ... Enfield LBC 8,700