Carbon assessment Welsh Recycling - FINAL Sep 2016 v3 Impacts Report.pdf · Written by: Ann Ballinger, Laurence Elliott, Andy Grant and Simon Hann of Eunomia Research & Consulting

Final R

ThRe

AnalysServic

ProjectResear

Report

e Clicycli

sis of theces

t code: COLrch date: D

imating S

e Climate

L121-001 December 2

te ChServ

e Change

2015 to Sep

hangices

e Impacts

ptember 20

ge Im in W

s of Loca

016 Dat

mpaWale

l Author

te: Septem

cts oes

ity Recyc

ber 2016

of

cling

WRAP’s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; re-thinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through re-use and recycling.

Find out more at www.wrapcymru.org.uk Written by: Ann Ballinger, Laurence Elliott, Andy Grant and Simon Hann of Eunomia Research & Consulting

Front cover photography: Loader collecting in Conwy CBC. While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, WRAP does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising from reliance on this report. Readers are responsible for assessing the accuracy and conclusions of the content of this report. Quotations and case studies have been drawn from the public domain, with permissions sought where practicable. This report does not represent endorsement of the examples used and has not been endorsed by the organisations and individuals featured within it. This material is subject to copyright. You can copy it free of charge and may use excerpts from it provided they are not used in a misleading context and you must identify the source of the material and acknowledge WRAP’s copyright. You must not use this report or material from it to endorse or suggest WRAP has endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see WRAP’s terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

WRAP - The Climate Change Impacts of Recycling Services in Wales i

Executive Summary This report considers the climate benefits of the systems being used in Wales to collect recyclables, with a focus on the kerbside collection part of the service. In so doing, the performance of kerbside sort collection systems is compared with the performance of co-mingled and two stream systems. The research also considers the climate change benefits of recycling activities in 2014-5, and compares this to the benefits that would be seen in the event that the blueprint were to be introduced across the whole of Wales, and assuming the 70% recycling target were to be achieved. Key datasets used in the assessment include the following: Waste Data Flow data, used as a basis of building the mass flow model looking at the

tonnage of material recycled;1 The WRAP Materials Facility Reporting Portal for the year 2014-5 – this being used to

model the composition of co-mingled materials, and the losses in co-mingled recyclate sent to the re-processor;2

A report on contamination (re-processor losses) in source-separated recyclate streams published by Zero Waste Scotland in 2014;3

Mass flow outputs from the 70% recycling target model were benchmarked against outputs from a report published by WRAP;4

The climate change impacts of recycling the key material streams are largely based on data from Zero Waste Scotland’s Scottish Carbon Metric;5

Data from Defra’s Guidelines for Company Reporting, used in the modelling of transport emissions.6 Results are presented graphically for the different collection systems in Figure E-1; comparisons here are undertaken based on 10,000 tonnes of dry recycling material collected by the local authority (after the initial sorting operations have been undertaken at the MRF). Results for the whole of Wales are presented in Figure E-2 similarly consider the results for the kerbside element of the system only.

1 WasteDataFlow is the web based system for municipal waste data reporting by UK local authorities to government

2 Data is available from http://mfrp.wrap.org.uk/

3 Zero Waste Scotland (2014) Contamination in Source-Separated Municipal and Business Recyclate in the UK 2013, Final Project Report

4 Eunomia Research & Consulting (2015) Implementing the Welsh Government Collections Blueprint, Report for WRAP Cymru

5 Data is available from http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/our-work/carbon-metric

6 Data is available from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/measuring-and-reporting-environmental-impacts-guidance-for-businesses

F

Figure E-1 Compparison of Resuults from the Diffferent Kerbside Collection Sys

WRAP - The

stems – Househ

e Climate Change Im

hold Kerbside S

mpacts of Recycling

ystem Impacts

g Services in Wales

only

ii

F1

Figure E-2 Impro5 - Kerbside Co

ovement in Carollection Impact

rbon Performants Only

nce from Achievvement of the 7

WRAP - The

70% Recycling T

Climate Change Im

Target in Compa

mpacts of Recycling

arison to Perfor

Services in Wales

rmance in 2014

iii

-

WRAP - The Climate Change Impacts of Recycling Services in Wales iv

The analysis undertaken in this study suggests that, where performance is modelled using appropriate assumptions and datasets, the use of kerbside sort collection systems can result in a relatively significant climate change benefit in comparison to the equivalent performance of co-mingled systems. The benefits arise principally from the following: The production of more of the higher paper grades in the kerbside sort system which

has a corresponding additional climate change benefit; Greater use of closed loop re-processing for glass which is more beneficial in climate

change terms than the open loop re-processing outlets predominantly used by co-mingled systems;

A reduction in the transportation to overseas re-processors; A decrease in fuel consumption from the collection system in the kerbside sort

system in comparison to the co-mingled system.

More modest benefits are seen from the following: A reduction in the energy used within waste transfer, bulking and sorting operations; A decrease in the level of loss rates seen at the re-processor for the kerbside sort


In the event that all authorities in Wales were to move across to the blueprint collection system7, and to meet the 70% recycling target, this would result in an additional annual benefit of nearly 86 thousand tonnes CO2 eq. in comparison to the equivalent performance modelled using the data in WDF for 2014-15. This is the equivalent to almost 10% of the annual emissions for the whole of the waste sector for Wales in 2010.8 A clear benefit from the switch to the Blueprint system would be seen even in the case where additional benefits could not be attributable to the production of the higher paper grades in the kerbside sort system, or where the benefit from glass recycling from the kerbside sort system was reduced as a result of more glass being sent to be re-processed at the Knauf glass fibre plant.

7 Welsh Government (2011) Collections Blueprint, Final Report March 2011

8 Committee on Climate Change (2013) Progress Reducing Emissions and Preparing for Climate Change in Wales, January 2013

WRAP –The Climate Change Impacts of Recycling Services in Wales 1

Contents 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Scenarios and System Boundaries .................................................................. 7

2.1 Scenarios .................................................................................................. 7 2.2 System Boundaries ................................................................................... 7

3.0 Climate Change Impacts of Recycled Materials .............................................. 8 3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 8

3.1.1 Approach to Developing the Mass Flow ........................................... 8 3.1.2 Climate Change Benefits from Recycling ........................................ 15

3.2 Results Comparing the Different Collection Systems ................................. 17 4.0 Energy and Fuel Use in Transfer and Sorting Operations ............................. 19

4.1 Methodology Used in the Analysis ............................................................ 19 4.2 Results Comparing the Different Collection Systems ................................. 20

5.0 Waste Collection ........................................................................................... 21 5.1 Methodology Used in the Analysis ............................................................ 21 5.2 Results Comparing the Different Collection Systems ................................. 21

6.0 Onward Transport of Recyclate .................................................................... 22 6.1 Methodology Used in the Analysis ............................................................ 22 6.2 Results Comparing the Different Collection Systems ................................. 22

7.0 Overall Results Comparisons ........................................................................ 24 7.1 Comparison between Collection Systems ................................................. 24 7.2 Impacts for the Whole of Wales ................................................................ 27 7.3 Sensitivity Analysis – Paper Impacts .......................................................... 30

8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 33 Appendices ............................................................................................................. 35 9.0 Assumptions Used to Develop the Mass Flow Model .................................... 35

9.1 Input Composition.................................................................................... 35 9.2 Accounting for the Amount of Actual Recycling ......................................... 35 9.3 Post Sorting Contamination ...................................................................... 36 9.4 Consequences of Contamination in Relation to Losses ............................. 37 9.5 Development of the “All Wales” 70% model .............................................. 38

10.0 Collection System Modelling ......................................................................... 39 11.0 Post Collection Transport Modelling ............................................................. 41

11.1 Modelling Transport from MRFs to Re-processors .................................... 41 11.1.1 Identifying Movements of Waste .................................................... 41 11.1.2 Address Data Collection ................................................................. 42 11.1.3 Distance Calculations ..................................................................... 43 11.1.4 Modelling the Fuel Use from the Onward Transport of Waste by Road ...................................................................................................... 44

11.2 Transport from Depots / Transfer Stations to Onward Processing ............ 44 11.3 Outputs from the Modelling of the Onward Transport Impacts ................ 45

12.0 Climate Change Assumptions ....................................................................... 46 12.1 Benefits of Recycling ................................................................................ 46 12.2 Climate Change Impacts of Energy Use in Transport and Sorting / Transfer . ................................................................................................................ 50 12.3 Climate Change Impacts of Transporting Waste ........................................ 52

WRAP - The Climate Change Impacts of Recycling Services in Wales 2

Figures Figure E-1 Comparison of Results from the Different Kerbside Collection Systems – Household Kerbside System Impacts only ............................................................................... ii Figure E-2 Improvement in Carbon Performance from Achievement of the 70% Recycling Target in Comparison to Performance in 2014-15 - Kerbside Collection Impacts Only ..... iii Figure 1 System boundaries for the Carbon Model ............................................................. 11 Table 1 Mass Flows for 10,000 tonnes Scenarios ................................................................. 13 Figure 2 Approach to the Collection system Comparisons – Kerbside Sort and Co-mingled Kerbside Collection Services ..................................................................................... 14 Table 2 Mass Flow Assumptions for Key Material Streams Collected at the Kerbside .... 15 Table 3 Carbon Benefits from Collecting the Key Dry Recyclate Streams ......................... 18 Figure 3 Carbon Benefits from all Material Streams based on 10,000 tonnes Dry Recycling .................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4 Carbon Impacts of Energy Used in Transfer / Sorting based on 10,000 tonnes Dry Recycling ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 5 Carbon Impacts of Energy Used in Waste Collection based on 10,000 tonnes Dry Recycling ............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 6 Carbon Impacts of Energy Used in Onward Transport based on 10,000 tonnes Dry Recycling ............................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 7 Comparison of Results from the Different Kerbside Collection Systems – All Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8 Comparison of Results from the Different Kerbside Collection Systems – Household Kerbside System Impacts only ............................................................................ 26 Figure 9 Improvement in Carbon Performance from Achievement of the 70% Recycling Target in Comparison to Performance in 2014-15 - All Impacts ......................................... 28 Figure 10 Improvement in Carbon Performance from Achievement of the 70% Recycling Target in Comparison to Performance in 2014-15 - Kerbside Collection Impacts Only ... 29 Figure 11 Sensitivity Analysis – Household Kerbside System Impacts only ...................... 32 Tables Table 4 Output Contamination Assumptions for Kerbside Sort and Co-mingled Collection Systems .................................................................................................................... 38 Table 5 All Wales Collection Impacts – Kerbside Sort (Food and Dry Recyclables) ........... 39 Table 6 All Wales Collection Impacts – Twin Stream (Dry Recyclables) .............................. 40 Table 7 All Wales Collection Impacts – Twin Stream (Separate Pass for Food) ................. 40 Table 8 All Wales Collection Impacts – Co-mingled (Food and Dry Recyclables) .............. 41 Table 9 Analysis of Waste Movements Reported in Question 100 from WDF .................. 43 Table 10: Tonnage of Waste per Truck Load Assumed for Onward Transport Calculations .................................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 11 Climate Change Impacts of Onward Transport by Authority .............................. 45 Table 12 Total Impacts from Onward Transport .................................................................. 46 Table 13 Assumptions Used for Modelling Climate Change Benefits of Recycling Materials .................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 14: Energy usage data for MRFs in WRATE ................................................................. 51 Table 15: Energy use at MRF and transfer facilities – Assumptions Used ......................... 51 Table 16: Climate Change Impacts of Energy Use ................................................................ 51 Table 17: Key Assumptions Used to Model the Climate Change Impacts of Waste Transport ................................................................................................................................... 52


Glossary Target material – the material desired by the facility (MRF and re-processor) Non target material – contrary material (i.e., material not desired by the facility), but which still has the capacity to be recycled (although individual facilities may choose not to recycle the material in practice) Non-recyclable material – contrary material (i.e., material not desired by the facility) that cannot be recycled Sorting reject rate – this refers to contrary materials within material accepted at a MRF Contamination – this refers to contrary materials within material accepted at a re-processor

Acknowledgements Particular thanks are due to operational staff at the Recresco facilities located in Cwmbran and Ellesmere Port, and Berryman’s facility at Knottingley, who hosted the project team during visits to their plant and answered questions. We would also like to thank Paul Jones and Debbie Palfrey at WRAP Cymru for their input into the project throughout the research.


About the Authors Ann Ballinger has played a leading role on much of Eunomia’s work in the area of waste management and climate change since 2008. She developed the environmental performance module of Eunomia’s European Waste Model, outputs from which were used by the European Commission to assess the benefits associated with updates to the targets contained in the European waste directives as part of the Commission’s recently issued Circular Economy package. Following on from this, Ann co-authored a paper for Zero Waste Europe that considered the potential contribution of waste management to a low carbon economy. She developed the model behind the Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) for the Greater London Authority in 2009, and has been responsible for developing analysis on the annual performance of the London authorities against the EPS that has been undertaken every year since that point. Laurence Elliott is an experienced model builder. He has used these skills on a number of projects undertaken for the European Commission, including three projects looking at the potential for environmental fiscal reform for a significant number of Member States. He also played a leading role in developing the calculation engine for Eunomia’s European Waste Model. He has also been involved in updating the Welsh Local Government Association’s Toolkit model, as well as previous work for the Welsh Government modelling the end destinations of Welsh recyclate. Andy Grant has worked in local authority waste management for the past twenty years. He has gained a wide range of operational experience during this time - from driving collection vehicles, through to planning and delivering waste management logistics and managing waste orientated companies and consultancies. Andy is Eunomia’s technical expert on secondary materials reprocessing, previously utilising this expertise in work undertaken for Welsh Government to build detailed maps of process losses and facility rejects of a number of Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs) in the earlier study comparing the performance of kerbside sort and co-mingled systems. He was also the Project Director on recent work for Welsh Government which undertook the end destinations of materials from local authority recycling schemes, and has provided technical leadership on a considerable number of projects modelling the environmental performance of waste collection schemes. Simon Hann is Eunomia’s Life Cycle Assessment specialist. He joined the company in 2013 and is the author of Eunomia’s Carbon Index. This work has used Waste Data Flow data to assess the climate change performance of all local authority recycling systems in England and Wales every year for the past three years. During this time he has also worked with Ann on London’s EPS, as well as undertaking more in-depth work assessing the climate change performance of recycling services for individual authorities in England and Scotland.

The Climate Change Impacts of Recycling Services in Wales 5

1.0 Introduction In 2009, Welsh Government confirmed its commitment to reducing the climate change impacts of its economy in One Wales: One Planet.9 This document included a commitment to reduce the climate change impacts associated with resource use and waste management – climate change being a key component of the ecological footprint indicator being a key component of the ecological footprint used to measure the performance of Welsh Government against its environmental objectives. Since that time, climate change has also been used by others as a key indicator to assess the environmental performance of waste management systems. The Greater London Authority set its Emissions Performance Standard in 201010 which gives London Boroughs a target to meet in respect of reducing the GHG emissions of their waste management services, and following this, Zero Waste Scotland developed its Carbon Metric which considered the carbon impact of waste management activities undertaken by Scottish authorities11. Leading on from this, since 2013, Eunomia has published (on an annual basis) its Carbon Index, which compares the performance – in terms of the carbon saved by recycling - of authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland12. Similar work has subsequently been undertaken by Ricardo AEA13. The changes proposed in the Environment Bill will give Welsh ministers additional powers to set carbon reduction targets, and as such, the importance of performance against this key indicator in Wales is unlikely to decrease in future years. Welsh Government has also had a long standing interest in understanding the relative performance of different collection systems. It developed its Collection Blueprint in 2010, in so doing indicating a clear preference for kerbside sort systems, this conclusion being developed on the basis of evidence from WRAP and the results of tenders awarded in England in the period immediately prior to the issuance of the blueprint.14 However, some Welsh authorities have publicly disagreed with the government’s conviction in this respect. This difference in opinion led, in part, to earlier work undertaken by Eunomia, Resource Futures and HCW Consultants on behalf of WRAP, which considered the issue in some detail: the outcome of which supported the government’s position.15 The National Assembly for Wales’s Environment and Sustainability Committee completed its own review of the evidence of the performance of the different systems in late 2014 and indicated that the government needed to do

9 Welsh Government (2009) One Wales: One Planet – the Sustainable Development Scheme of the Welsh Government, May 2009

10 The most recent results are due to be published shortly

11 Information available from http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/our-work/carbon-metric

12 The website for the Index is available at http://www.eunomia.co.uk/carbonindex/

13 Information available from http://www.recyclingwasteworld.co.uk/in-depth-article/which-local-authorities-would-be-the-winners-and-losers-if-we-moved-to-a-carbon-league-table-rather-than-the-traditional-recycling-table/86709/

14 Welsh Assembly Government (2011) Municipal Sector Plan Part 1 – Collections Blueprint, March 2011

15 The report is available for download from http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/kerbside-collections-options-wales/


more ‘if it is to convince local authorities, and us, that the benefits of the blueprint are beyond question’.16 A further review of the Blueprint in March 2016 on behalf of Welsh Government has since concluded that it offered benefits in terms of cost and material quality, but did not consider the environmental benefits in detail. This report therefore considers the climate benefits of the systems being used in Wales to collect recyclables, with a focus on the kerbside collection part of the service. In so doing, the performance of kerbside sort collection systems is compared with the performance of co-mingled and two stream systems. The research also considers the climate change benefits of recycling activities in 2014-15, and compares this to the benefits that would be seen in the event that the blueprint were to be introduced across the whole of Wales, and assuming the 70% recycling target were to be achieved. In this context, it is important to confirm that the use of the kerbside sort system for the collection of dry recyclables is only one component of the collections blueprint. Other supporting policies include: the restriction of residual waste volumes; recycling targets setting performance expectations at Household Waste Recycling

Centres (HWRCs); the separate collection of food waste from households.

These other factors have also been taken into account when determining the climate change performance that may be expected from the achievement of the 70% recycling target. The report starts by setting out the scenarios and system boundaries used within the analysis, in Section 2.0. The report then considers the climate change impacts of different aspects of the collection system in turn, as follows: Section 3.0 outlines the approach taken to assessing the benefits associated with

recycling materials; Section 4.0 looks at the energy used in waste transfer, bulking and sorting operations; Section 5.0 considers the impact of the fuel used in waste collection; and Section 6.0 considers the impact of the fuel used in the onward transport of recyclate

from the transfer station or sorting facility to the final re-processor.

In each case, the section summarises the methodology used within the assessment, and then sets out a comparison of the performance between the three types of collection system being considered in the analysis. In Section 7.0, the results from the previous four sections are brought together to provide an overall assessment of the performance of the three collection systems. Results are also presented for the whole of Wales – comparing performance of all Welsh local authority recycling services in 2014-15, in climate change terms, to the anticipated

16 National Assembly for Wales Environment and Sustainability Committee (2014) Inquiry into Recycling in Wales, December 2014, http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s35167/Report%20-%20December%202014.pdf


performance if all Welsh authorities adopt the blueprint and achieve the 70% recycling target. 2.0 Scenarios and System Boundaries 2.1 Scenarios The following scenarios are considered in the analysis of the climate change benefits of local authority recycling schemes in Wales. (1) Kerbside collection methods comparison: A comparison of kerbside collection systems based on sending 10,000 tonnes of material (post primary sorting) for reprocessing. This is used to compare the performance of the following systems with respect to the collection of dry recycling at the kerbside: Kerbside Sort; Co-mingled; Two stream systems, with glass being collected separately.

(2) Performance for the whole of Wales involving the consideration of the following scenarios: Performance of all Welsh authorities as a whole during 2014-15; Achievement of the 70% recycling target assuming the full blueprint is adopted by all

authorities in Wales.

For the co-mingled system, materials targeted by the co-mingled collection that are collected from HWRCs, bring banks, and commercial collections operated by local authorities are also assumed to be collected co-mingled, with impacts modelled accordingly in terms of losses and contamination.17 These same materials are assumed to be collected by a separate collection system for the collection system comparison. The captures of organics (food waste and garden waste) and the associated carbon impacts are treated exactly the same in each of the three systems. Other materials collected for dry recycling that are not collected in the co-mingled system (e.g. textiles) are similarly treated the same across all three collection system models. 2.2 System Boundaries All scenarios consider the following waste streams when calculating the climate change impacts of the different local authority recycling services: Kerbside collection (dry recycling and organics); Recycling from HWRCs; Other recycling impacts, including; Commercial waste collected by local authorities; and Bring sites.

17 Waste Data Flow data indicates that some authorities collect material from HWRCs and bring sites using co-mingled collection systems


The impacts of the fuel and energy used to collect and process the waste is also considered for the following components: Within waste collection systems; Post collection transport; Waste transfer and sorting.

In addition, the scenarios considering impacts for the whole of Wales also include the recycling from incinerator bottom ash, as this is included within the 70% recycling target.18 The system boundaries for the model are presented in Figure 1. The carbon model does not include the carbon impacts of residual waste treatment. The rationale for this is that authorities may differ at present in the approaches taken to residual treatment. This, in turn, has an impact on the climate change benefits from the system. However, the approach taken here has no link to how the collection system is operated as far as the climate change performance of recycling services is concerned. In addition, current differences in the methods of managing residual waste are also much less likely to differentiate performance in the future, when all Welsh authorities are anticipated to be sending residual waste to incineration facilities meeting the European Commission’s R1 designation in respect of energy generation performance.19 It is, however, recognised that there is a climate change benefit in diverting material from residual waste treatment, and these impacts are considered in respect of the potential benefits in Wales of achieving the 70% recycling target. 3.0 Climate Change Impacts of Recycled Materials This section considers the climate change impacts resulting from recycling the source segregated materials collected from the various collection systems operated by local authorities (including kerbside collection systems, as well as HWRCs and bring sites). The starting point when considering these impacts is to develop a mass flow model considering the tonnage of collected materials. This process is summarised in Section 3.1.1. An overview of the approach taken to considering the climate change impacts is provided in Section 3.1.2. Results are set out in Section 3.2. 3.1 Methodology 3.1.1 Approach to Developing the Mass Flow In undertaking the comparisons between the different types of kerbside collection systems, the aim was to develop representative assumptions with respect to the performance of the different systems. A number of datasets exist which can be used to build up the mass flow model accounting for the tonnage of recyclate in the different

18 The benefit in climate change terms of this recycling is focused on the recycling of steel and aluminium from bottom ash

19 The standard is intended to denote facilities with a higher energy generation performance


systems. However, there are some inaccuracies in the data that is available. These inaccuracies need to be taken into account when undertaking this type of analysis.20 In order, therefore, to be able to make meaningful comparisons between the different approaches that can be used to collect dry recyclate at the kerbside, the current analysis compares the performance of the different systems on a tonnage basis. Performance is considered on the basis of 10,000 tonnes of material sent for re-processing by the authority, after primary sort rejection (including the non-kerbside elements, such as dry recycling from HWRCs, bring and commercial collections, as well as re-use). Included within the scope of the analysis are the following waste streams: Household kerbside recycling; Recycling taking place at household waste recycling centres; Recycling from bring banks; Commercial and other non-household recycling; Reuse.

The relative contribution of the dry recycling to organic material collected was determined based on previous modelling undertaken by WRAP for Welsh Government in respect of determining the achievement of the 70% recycling rate.21 A similar approach was taken to determine the relative contributions of the other non-kerbside, non-household and non-recycling streams (bring, HWRCs, commercial waste collected by local authorities, reuse, etc.). Recycling in this context includes both dry recycling and material (food waste and garden waste) collected through source-segregated organics recycling schemes. The approach taken to modelling the different systems is as follows: For co-mingled systems, an initial sorting process takes place at a Materials Recycling

Facility (MRF). More material is collected upfront from the co-mingled system than is the case for the kerbside sort system, but there is also material rejected from this sorting process. This means that the total amount of recyclate initially collected by the authority operating a co-mingled system exceeds the 10,000 tonnes.

For kerbside sort systems, minimal initial sorting process takes place, so the total amount of material collected by the system is 10,000 tonnes, including the material from the streams not collected at the kerbside. Contamination that does occur in these systems can be visually detected and is therefore left at the kerbside.

The two stream system is treated the same as the co-mingled system for all materials except glass, the latter being treated the same as for the kerbside sort system.

The overall mass flow is set out in Table 1.

For each type of system, the model accounts for the impact of losses (i.e. non-target materials) included in the tonnage accepted at a re-processor. Where this non-target material is subsequently recycled, these benefits are accounted for in carbon terms in the model, along with the benefit of recycling the target material. No carbon impact is

20 The data inaccuracies are discussed further in Section 8.0 and Section 9.3

21 Eunomia Research & Consulting (2015) Implementing the Welsh Government Collections Blueprint, report for WRAP Cymru


attributed to the non-target non-recyclable material as disposal impacts are outside the system boundaries. Different assumptions are used to account for this depending on the system. The above approach is shown diagrammatically for the kerbside sort and co-mingled systems in Figure 2: the data presented here relates only to the amount of material collected from households at the kerbside (relating to the figures presented in row 5 of Table 1).

F

Figure 1 Systemm boundaries foor the Carbon MModel

The CClimate Change Imppacts of Recycling SServices in Wales 111


Impacts for the performance in 2014-15 are considered based on Waste Data Flow data for each of the different authorities, and the same data source was also used as the basis for developing an “all Wales” composition dataset. Other key data sources used in developing the mass flow include the following: Data on the output tonnage from Welsh Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs) from the

WRAP Materials Facility Reporting Portal for the year 2014-5 – this being used to model the composition of co-mingled materials, and the losses in co-mingled recyclate sent to the re-processor;22

A report on contamination (re-processor losses) in source-separated recyclate streams published by Zero Waste Scotland in 2014;23

Mass flow outputs from the 70% recycling target model were benchmarked against outputs from a report published by WRAP.24

The development of the mass flow model is discussed in more detail in the Appendix, which sets out in more detail the approach to accounting for re-processor losses within the kerbside collection systems (see Section 9.0).

22 Data is available from http://mfrp.wrap.org.uk/

23 Zero Waste Scotland (2014) Contamination in Source-Separated Municipal and Business Recyclate in the UK 2013, Final Project Report

24 Eunomia Research & Consulting (2015) Implementing the Welsh Government Collections Blueprint, Report for WRAP Cymru


Table 1 Mass Flows for 10,000 tonnes Scenarios

Waste stream(s) Row #

Material type Kerbside sort system

Co-mingled Two stream

Recycling collected (prior to sorting)

1 Dry recycling + organics 14,921 15,836 15,309

Recycling post sorting 2 Dry recycling + organics 14,921 14,921 14,921

Collected at kerbside from households

3 Dry recycling 5,246 5,950 5,466 4 Organics 3,884 3,884 3,884 5 Dry recycling + organics

(row 3 + row 4) 9,129 9,834 9,350

HWRCs, bring, commercial, other recycling and reuse

6 Dry recycling 4,754 4,965 4,922 7 Organics 1,038 1,038 1,038 8 Dry recycling + organics

(row 6 + row 7) 5,792 6,002 5,959

Total dry recycling collected (from all waste streams)

9 Dry recycling (row 3 + row 6)

10,000 10,915 10,388

Total sorting losses across all streams

10 Dry recycling (row 1 – row 2)

0 915 388

Household kerbside – collection / sorting losses

11 Dry recycling 0 704 210

Household kerbside - re-processor losses

12 Dry recycling 236 523 361

Figure mingled

Data prewell as d

2 Approachd Kerbside

esented here dry recycling

h to the Co Collection

relates to th

T

ollection sys Services

at collected f

The Climate Ch

stem Comp

from househ

hange Impact

parisons – K

holds at the k

ts of Recycling

Kerbside So

kerbside, incl

g Services in W

ort and Co-

luding organ

Wales 14

-

ics as


Key assumptions resulting from the mass flow modelling approach are set out in Table 2. This shows the assumptions in respect of key recyclable materials collected from households at the kerbside, representing the main source of variation across the three collection system scenarios.

Table 2 Mass Flow Assumptions for Key Material Streams Collected at the Kerbside

Mass flow in tonnes for dry recyclate streams at the kerbside

Kerbside Sort Co-mingled Twin Stream Paper and Card 2,725 2,680 2,687 Plastic 478 398 399 Ferrous Metal 142 181 184 Non-ferrous Metal 59 63 64 Mixed cans 46 0 0 Glass 1,465 1,305 1,465 Other materials1 95 95 95 Sorting losses 704 210 Re-processor losses 236 524 361

TOTAL 5,246 5,950 5,466 Notes:

1. Main contributors are textiles and WEEE

Quantities of material recycled are, in general, slightly higher for the kerbside sort systems as the amount of re-processor contamination is higher in the co-mingled system. Quantities of ferrous and non-ferrous metal are higher for co-mingled, but the kerbside sort system also results in the collection of the mixed cans stream, meaning the total amount of metal collected from this type of system is also slightly higher. The rationale for the assumptions used to model the performance of the different systems is discussed further in the Appendix (see Section 9.0). 3.1.2 Climate Change Benefits from Recycling For the most part, the benefit in climate change terms of recycling activities has been modelled based on data from Zero Waste Scotland’s Carbon Metric.25 The exception to this is where impacts relating to paper/card recycling are considered. Here, impacts have been modelled using data from the WRATE database.26 This allows a distinction to be made between the different grades of paper produced through the different collection systems. 25 Data is presented in Appendix 12.0. More information on the Scottish Carbon Metric is available from http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/our-work/carbon-metric

26 The WRATE database is a life cycle assessment tool originally developed by the UK Environment Agency. Available from http://www.wrate.co.uk/


There are only two values available in WRATE and they apply to papers that are send for reprocessing: Newsprint production: where the raw pulp that would otherwise be required is

derived from mechanical extraction. The value from WRATE relating to the climate change benefits of recycling newsprint is a carbon benefit of 0.338 tonnes CO2 eq. per tonne of material.

Packaging production: where the raw pulp that would otherwise be required is derived from mechanical extraction. The value from WRATE relating to the climate change benefits of recycling papers into packaging is a carbon benefit of 0.062 tonnes CO2 eq. per tonne of material.

The collection scenarios modelled include the production of various grades of papers and it was necessary to attribute the benefit of newsprint production or packaging production to each of these grades: Where News and Pams grade paper is produced, it is assumed that it is all sent for

newsprint production; Where cardboard is produced (including grades such as OCC and Hard Mixed

paper) it is assumed that this is all sent for packaging production; Soft Mixed papers may either be sent directly into packaging production or can be

sorted to derive some paper that may then be sent into a newsprint process or into a packaging process. The exact proportions of the fate of this material are not known, but it is reasonable to assume that - as an average across Wales - 75% of this soft mixed paper would be sent for packaging and 25% would be sent for newsprint. This assumption results in an overall a carbon benefit of 0.131 tonnes CO2 eq. per tonne of Soft Mixed papers recycled.

Impacts relating to re-processing glass are also treated differently where glass has been collected separately rather than collected in a co-mingled mix and sorted into a glass product: 80% of material sent to a glass sorter is assumed to be sent to a closed loop recycling

process when glass is collected separately; 35% of material is assumed to be sent to a closed loop recycling process when

collected in co-mingled systems.

These assumptions have been developed based on research conducted by the project team with several glass processors that are currently receiving tonnage from Wales, involving site visits and structured interviews held with operational staff at the sites concerned. When modelling the twin stream system, the glass is assumed to be treated the same as that of the kerbside sort system. Data on the carbon benefits of recycling glass in both closed and open loop systems is taken from the Scottish Carbon Metric – which was also used to model the climate change benefits of the remaining materials collected for recycling.27 These assumptions are set out and discussed in more detail in the Appendix (see Section 12.0). The Knauf Insulation plant in Cwmbran is an example of re-processing in Wales. The process has similar quality requirements to that of a closed loop process re-processing

27 See http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/our-work/carbon-metric


glass back into containers. The Scottish Carbon Metric does not consider the benefits associated with re-processing glass into this material. An earlier study produced on behalf of British Glass in 2003 found that the climate change benefits from the insulation process were reduced by 12% in comparison to those seen where the glass was re-processed into container.28 It is important to note, in this respect that the British Glass study also assumed a greater benefit was associated with re-processing glass into containers than is the case with the Scottish Carbon Metric dataset.29 The analysis also explores the impact on the results for the different collection systems of changing the assumptions relating to the carbon benefit of recycling for paper. Sensitivity analysis considers the results where the same carbon value is attributed to paper for all paper grades. 3.2 Results Comparing the Different Collection Systems Table 3 presents the carbon benefits from the key dry recyclate streams collected from the kerbside service for the three collection options. The data in this table represents the variable element from the total climate change benefit arising from the kerbside recyclate (for the kerbside sort scheme, for example, this represents 82% of the total benefit). Mass flow data on the tonnage collected for these streams was previously presented in Table 2. From this table, it can be seen that – in respect of the carbon benefits arising directly from the recycling of material - the use of the kerbside sort system results in an additional carbon benefit of 423 tonnes of CO2 eq. in comparison to that seen for a co-mingled system, based on 10,000 tonnes of recyclate sent for re-processing by the authority (including the non-kerbside elements). This is equivalent to the climate change impact of seven journeys to the moon (by car). Kerbside sort also leads to a similar benefit of 265 tonnes CO2 eq. when its performance is compared to that of twin stream on the same basis. The main contributors to the improvement in performance of the kerbside sort system in comparison to the co-mingled system are the relative improvements associated with the paper, cardboard and glass streams: results for kerbside sort show a 39% improvement over the co-mingled system for paper / cardboard, whilst for glass, the kerbside sort systems has a benefit that is 2.5 times that of the co-mingled systems30. There is a more modest increase in the performance of plastics recycling for the kerbside sort system in comparison to co-mingled, whilst overall impacts for metals are very similar for both types of collection system.

28 Enviros (2003) Glass Recycling – Life Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions, A life cycle analysis report for British Glass

29 There have been no more recent studies into the climate change impacts of re-processing glass into fibre insulation

30 The approach to modelling the paper and cardboard streams is set out in Section 3.1.2


Table 3 Carbon Benefits from Collecting the Key Dry Recyclate Streams Carbon Benefits in tonnes CO2 eq. for key dry recyclate

streams after accounting for losses at the re-processor Kerbside Sort Co-mingled Twin Stream Paper / Card 655 470 472 Plastic 559 466 467 Ferrous Metal 260 332 336 Non-ferrous Metal 511 546 559 Mixed cans 241 94 241 Glass 113 0 0 TOTAL 2,340 1,908 2,074 For both paper/card and glass, the benefit is largely driven by the improvements in the carbon performance associated with the different products arising from the re-processor. In the case of paper, there is only a slight increase in the amount of re-processor losses assumed in respect of the co-mingled system in comparison to the kerbside sort system, as can be seen with reference to the tonnage figures previously shown in Table 2 which show only a 2% increase in the amount of paper sent for reprocessing in respect of the kerbside sort system. For glass, the differential in loss rates between the two systems is greater, but this still only amounts to a tonnage increase of 12% for the kerbside sort system in comparison to the co-mingled system. It is important to note that both materials make up a significant proportion of the total tonnage of recyclate collected at the kerbside: for example, paper accounts for 55% of tonnage collected at the kerbside (for the kerbside sort system) whilst glass accounts for 30%. The approach to managing these two materials therefore has a significant impact on the overall performance of the system. This is the case even though the benefits associated with recycling materials such as aluminium are much higher, when viewed on the basis of the impact per tonne of material recycled. Metals are only found in relatively small amounts in the kerbside collection stream collected from householders, limiting the overall benefit of that can be achieved from collecting greater amounts of this material with respect to household kerbside collection scheme operation. The table confirms that the twin stream has similar impacts to the co-mingled system for most materials except glass. This leads to an improvement in performance in respect of the carbon performance over the co-mingled system. Results for the three collection options for all of the materials – including those collected from HWRCs and bring sites as well as that collected from householders at the kerbside - are presented graphically in Figure 3, which shows the results based on 10,000 tonnes of dry recycling collected (post sorting) through each type of collection system. These results confirm that the most significant contributor to the material-based climate change benefits are associated with the kerbside collection component of the system. Materials recycled from HWRCs are the next most significant contributor. In this case

there isthe collrecyclinand reu

Figure Recyclin

4.0 E 4.1 M Electricthe MRmodel.

aroundmachinof sortiuses anaccounset out

31 The datsee Append

s a minor dection of c

ng materialused mater

3 Carbon Bng

Energy and

Methodolo

ity and dieF sorting p 31 The avai 2-3 times

nery requireng process

n average fiting for bo in the App

ta suggest that bdix (Section 12.0

ifference ino-mingled from the o

rials – make

Benefits fro

d Fuel Use

gy Used in

sel are conrocess; botlable data that used wed to sort tses being uigure acrosth electricitendix (see

both diesel and 0) for more info

T

n performamaterials f

other catege only a mi

om all Mate

in Transfe

the Analys

nsumed witth types of suggests thwithin a trathe materiandertaken

ss all types ty and dies Section 12

electricity consurmation on mod

The Climate Ch

ance betwefrom these gories – inclnor contrib

erial Stream

er and Sor

sis

thin both th impacts arhat electricansfer statial – the vari at the MRF of sorting fsel consum2.0).

umption is highedelling these im

hange Impact

een each of sites. Beneluding thatbution to th

ms based o

ting Opera

he transfer re accounteity use per on, as a resiation beingF and the sfacilities toption. Assu

er for the MRF tmpacts

ts of Recycling

f the three sefits associ collected f

he total.

n 10,000 to

ations

and bulkined for withi tonne at asult of the ag dependenize of the fa estimate t

umptions in

han is the case f

g Services in W

systems, reated with from bring

onnes Dry

ng operatioin the carb

a MRF is typadditional nt upon th

facility. The the impactsn this respe

for the transfer

Wales 19

elating

sites,

ons and on

pically

e type model s, ect are

r station;


In estimating the impacts of performance in 2014-15, the tonnage being treated through transfer and MRF processes for Welsh authorities is considered based on WDF data from question 100, which details the movements of the waste from after it has been collected, to its final destination (taken here to be the final re-processor). Where the data shows that materials go through several bulking or sorting processes, this is accounted for in the calculations. These impacts are scaled up when the results for the 70% recycling scenario are considered. Average impacts have been developed for kerbside sort and co-mingled services, based on the available data from Welsh authorities for 2014-15. 4.2 Results Comparing the Different Collection Systems Figure 4 shows graphically the carbon impacts of the energy used within the transfer, bulking and sorting operations. The bars on the graph in this case are negative as these impacts make a contribution to climate change – as opposed to the impacts associated with recycling materials, which result in a climate change benefit, or a reduction in emissions. The results show that there is a reduction in the impacts associated with energy use at sorting facilities for the kerbside sort system in comparison to the co-mingled system. The energy used within the sorting processes is greater than that required at the transfer station where these impacts are considered on the basis of energy used per tonne of material processed.32 Average impacts for the kerbside sort and co-mingled systems have been calculated respectively, based on the data contained within question 100 in WDF from 2014-15. In some cases, the data from WDF indicates that material is also sent initially to a transfer station prior to being sent on to the MRF. Taken together, these different impacts mean that the carbon impacts associated with the sorting / transfer energy use impacts in the co-mingled systems are almost double those of the kerbside sort system. Impacts are slightly less for the twin-stream system when compared to the co-mingled system, as there is no need for the glass tonnage to go through the sorting process.

32 The data suggests that both electricity and diesel consumption is higher for the MRF than is the case for the transfer station; see Appendix (Section 12.0) for more information on the approach taken to modelling these impacts

Figure Dry Rec

5.0 W 5.1 M The imphousehstudy; tmodel cwaste ( 5.2 R Figure collectiomateriathe enenegativemissio

4 Carbon Icycling

Waste Coll

Methodolo

pacts of fueholds have this is discuconsiders tincluding b

Results Com

5 shows gron systemsal collectedergy used fove, reflectinons.

mpacts of

lection

gy Used in

el used witbeen estim

ussed in mothe fuel useboth food a

mparing th

raphically ts, where th via the difor transferg the contr

T

Energy Use

the Analys

hin the collmated usingore detail ined to collecnd garden

e Different

he climate is is consid

fferent colle, bulking anribution be

The Climate Ch

ed in Trans

sis

lection systg a high levn the Appect dry recyc waste coll

t Collection

change imdered in resection systend sorting

eing made t

hange Impact

fer / Sortin

tem used tvel collectioendix (see Sclables and ection serv

Systems

mpacts of thspect of 10ems. As witoperationsto climate c

ts of Recycling

g based on

o collect wan model de

Section 10.0 source seg

vices).

e energy u,000 tonneth the resus, the bars ochange ass

g Services in W

n 10,000 to

aste from eveloped fo0). The collegregated o

used withines of dry rec

lts consideon the charociated wit

Wales 21

nnes

or this ection rganic

waste cycling

ering rt are th these

Figure Dry Rec

The reseither osort as efficiennumbe 6.0 O 6.1 M This secfrom thlatter inrelated modelleinformaprocessdifferenmodel. calculat 6.2 R Figure onward

5 Carbon Icycling

sults confirmof the othe the fuel effcy is such tr of vehicle

Onward Tr

Methodolo

ction consihe bulking /ncludes bot impacts. Fed based oation on thsed. This dant collectio The Appenting the on

Results Com

6 presentsd transport

mpacts of

m that kerbr two systeficiency of tthat a bettees required

ransport o

gy Used in

ders the im/ transfer sth road tra

For performon the infore final destata has been systems, ndix also haward trans

mparing th

s graphically of recyclat

T

Energy Use

bside sort ims. Impactthe vehicleer perform for the ke

f Recyclat

the Analys

mpacts of futation or Mnsport to t

mance in thrmation inctination inden used to which havas more infsport impac

e Different

y the resultte when co

The Climate Ch

ed in Waste

s associatets are high

es is higher ance is seerbside sort

e

sis

uel used toMRF. Where

he port wite year 2014

cluded withdicating (by calculate ae then alsoformation octs (see Sec

t Collection

ts comparimpared on

hange Impact

e Collection

ed with lower for co-m for the latt

en despite tt system.

transport e material isthin the UK4-15, these

hin Questioy postcode)average trao been usedon the appction 11.0).

Systems

ng the climn the basis

ts of Recycling

n based on

wer collectiomingled thater. The imthere being

waste to ths exported

K as well as e impacts hn 100 of W) where mansport impd within theroach take

mate changeof 10,000 t

g Services in W

10,000 ton

on emissionn for kerbsproved fueg a greater

he re-proce overseas, the shippiave been

WDF which iaterials werpacts for the 70% targ

en with rega

e impacts otonnes of d

Wales 22

nnes

ns than side el

essor the ng

ncludes re re-e et ards to

of the dry

recyclinassociaconsidechart arwith theco-mingdeterm

Figure Dry Rec

As withcontribkerbsid2014-15more lisignificaconfirmseveral equatincontrassort sys

33 A breakd

ng materialted with po

ering the enre negativeese emissiogled system

minant in th

6 Carbon Icycling

the modelution of po

de sort and 5. This datakely to senant propor

ms that som thousand

ng to a carbst, the contstems.

down of these im

. The resultost-collectionergy usede, reflectingons. The dams in compe relative p

mpacts of

lling of the ost-collectio co-mingleda indicates d materials

rtion of the me authorit tonnes of mbon impactribution fro

mpacts is provid

T

ts confirm on transpo for transfe

g the contriata confirmparison to kperformanc

Energy Use

energy useon transpord systems u that authos overseas total impaies operatimaterial to of 0.2 tonnom sea tran

ded in Appendix

The Climate Ch

there is a sort for co-mer, bulking bution bein

ms there is akerbside soce of both s

ed in Onwa

ed throughrt is modelusing data

orities oper for re-procct from thing co-ming

o Shanghai,nes CO2 eqnsport is m

x 11.0.

hange Impact

significant imingled syst and sortingng made toa six-fold in

ort; as such,systems.

ard Transpo

h the sortinled based o from Quesating co-mcessing, ans element

gled collect for examp. per tonne

much less si

ts of Recycling

ncrease in tems. As wg operationo climate chncrease in t, this is an i

ort based o

g processeon the averstion 100 iningled colled this accoof the systeion system

ple: a journee of materiagnificant fo

g Services in W

the impactwith the resu

ns, the barshange assothese impaimportant

on 10,000 to

es, the rage impac

n WDF for tections areunts for a em. WDF d

ms are sendey of 10,30al sent.33 Bor the kerb

Wales 23

ts ults s on the

ociated acts for

onnes

cts for he year much

ata ding 05 km, y

bside


7.0 Overall Results Comparisons 7.1 Comparison between Collection Systems Figure 7 presents the results of the different kerbside collection systems, based on 10,000 tonnes of recyclate sent for re-processing by the authority. The graph shows all impacts of the system, including the impacts relating to the non-kerbside and non-household elements, such as bring sites, commercial waste, HWRCs, as well as reuse. The graph shows the carbon benefits attained through recycling as a positive number, and as such, the bigger the number, the better the outcome. Energy expenditure required as part of the process – such as the fuel used in collection and sorting processes – is shown on these graphs as a negative number (i.e., below the horizontal axis of the graph). The graph shows that the kerbside sort system outperforms the other systems, by virtue of the following: The benefits from the kerbside collected material are higher, as a result of a reduction in the losses at the re-processor for the key recyclate streams

collected; higher carbon benefits being attributed to the recycling of paper and glass on a

per-tonne basis for the kerbside sort system in comparison to the co-mingled system. In the case of paper, a greater proportion of the paper stream is assumed to be re-processed into the News and Pams grade for kerbside sort systems in comparison to the co-mingled system;

The impacts associated with the post-collection transportation of recyclate (including where materials are sent overseas for recycling) are reduced with this type of system;

Energy used within the transfer and sorting processes is reduced in comparison to that seen in the co-mingled and twin-stream systems;

There is also a reduction in the collection impacts, although this has less of an impact on the results, as this aspect makes only a modest contribution to the overall output.

Impacts relating to the recycling of materials through bring sites, commercial waste, HWRCs, as well as reuse are modelled in the same way across all systems, as the performance of these elements is not assumed to be influenced by the type of kerbside collection system in operation. Figure 8 therefore shows the results previously shown in Figure 7, focusing only on the variable elements associated with the kerbside collection system.

F

Figure 7 Compaarison of Resultss from the Diffeerent Kerbside Collection Syste

The C

ems – All Impac

Climate Change Imp

cts

pacts of Recycling SServices in Wales 2

25

F Figure 8 Compaarison of Resultss from the Diffeerent Kerbside Collection Syste

The C

ems – Househo

Climate Change Imp

ld Kerbside Sys

pacts of Recycling S

stem Impacts on

Services in Wales 2

nly

26


Figure 8 shows more clearly the contribution made to the overall results from the kerbside element of the system as it excludes elements such as HWRCs and bring. From this it can be seen that the performance reduction in co-mingled systems when compared to kerbside sort is made up of both (1) a reduction in the benefits associated with recycling and (2) greater amounts of energy being used for transport (both during and after collection) and within the sorting processes. The rationale for the differential in performance is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. 7.2 Impacts for the Whole of Wales Figure 9 presents the results for the whole of Wales. The results shown here confirm the impacts in respect of recycling activities undertaken by local authorities in 2014-15, alongside the results seen where the 70% recycling target is achieved, the latter being modelled assuming the Welsh Government’s Collection Blueprint is adopted by all authorities. The graph includes impacts relating to bring site, HWRCs, commercial waste and reuse as well as the impacts associated with the kerbside collection part of the system. Figure 10 shows the same results, focusing solely on those impacts associated with the kerbside collection from householders. Both graphs show that there is a considerable increase in the benefit that is anticipated to be achieved assuming the 70% target is reached. The change in collection activities results in the net benefit associated with the recycling activities undertaken by local authorities in Wales increasing from 227 thousand tonnes CO2 eq. to 306 thousand tonnes CO2 eq. – an additional benefit (or emissions reduction) of nearly 86 thousand tonnes CO2 eq. – or just slightly over 1,200 journeys to the moon (by car). This is the equivalent to almost 10% of the annual emissions for the whole of the waste sector for Wales in 2010.34

34 Committee on Climate Change (2013) Progress Reducing Emissions and Preparing for Climate Change in Wales, January 2013

F-

Figure 9 Improv All Impacts

vement in Carboon Performancee from Achievement of the 70%

The C

% Recycling Tar

Climate Change Imp

rget in Compari


son to Perform

Services in Wales 2

mance in 2014-1

28

5

F1

Figure 10 Impro5 - Kerbside Co

ovement in Carbollection Impact

bon Performants Only

ce from Achievement of the 70

The C

0% Recycling Ta

Climate Change Imp

arget in Compa


rison to Perform

Services in Wales 2

mance in 2014-

29


The recycling rate in 2014-15 was 50%. However, the results suggest that an increase in the overall recycling rate to 70% will result in a 47% increase in the climate change benefits associated with recycling, when compared to the impacts for 2014-15. This increase is brought about by the following factors: An increase in the tonnage of material collected for recycling. This includes an

increase in some of the materials such as aluminium for which the climate change benefits are proportionately greater.

The transition of twelve authorities to kerbside sort systems from co-mingled. This results in the following additional benefits beyond those seen in respect of the increase in tonnage: An increase in the amount of higher grade paper produced; An increase in the amount of container glass produced, through greater amounts

of closed loop recycling taking place; A reduction in the levels of loss rates at the re-processor.

Alongside the increase in the benefits of recycling, a decrease is also seen in the carbon impacts related to transport: A small decrease in the impacts associated with collection impacts. Although the

tonnage collected for recycling is increased, there is a reduction in the collection impacts per tonne of material collected, as a result of the shift of some authorities to kerbside sort collection systems from co-mingled system;

A greater decrease in the impact associated with post-collection transport. This is as a consequence of a significant reduction in the transport of materials overseas for re-processing; again, a result of the shift of some authorities to the kerbside sort collection system.35

In addition to the impacts related to transport, there is also a slight decrease in the energy used for waste sorting and transfer. Although more tonnage is treated in the scenario where the 70% target is met, there is a reduction in the energy used to sort recyclables; the latter is sufficient to more than offset the impacts from treating a greater tonnage overall. 7.3 Sensitivity Analysis – Paper Impacts The results in this section confirm the impacts where the same values are used in respect of the impacts associated with recycling paper. Results are shown for the household kerbside element of the system only, in Figure 11, with the paper impacts being modelled using the same impact irrespective of the type of paper being recycled (using the value from the Scottish Carbon Metric dataset). Where this approach is used, the impact is such that a smaller differential is seen between the kerbside sort system and the co-mingled system as far as the benefits from recycling materials is concerned. There is also an overall increase in the total carbon benefit associated with each system, which occurs as the value from the Scottish Carbon Metric is higher than that used in the central case (modelled using data from WRATE). However, the relative improvement 35 In the absence of legislation aimed at keeping materials within Wales (or the UK), the end destination of recycled material will be dictated by market conditions, such as supply and demand, the price differential between UK and export prices, and the value of sterling.

in perfosystem

ormance is s.

insufficien

T

nt to close t

The Climate Ch

the gap bet

hange Impact

tween the c

ts of Recycling

co-mingled

g Services in W

d and kerbs

Wales 31

side sort

F Figure 11 Sensittivity Analysis – Household Kerrbside System I

mpacts only

The CClimate Change Imppacts of Recycling SServices in Wales 3

32


8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The analysis undertaken in this study suggests that, where performance is modelled using appropriate assumptions and datasets, the use of kerbside sort collection systems can result in a relatively significant climate change benefit in comparison to the equivalent performance of co-mingled systems. The benefits arise principally from the following: The production of more of the higher paper grades in the kerbside sort system which

has a corresponding additional climate change benefit; Greater use of closed loop re-processing for glass which is more beneficial in climate

change terms than the open loop re-processing outlets predominantly used by co-mingled systems;

A reduction in the transportation to overseas re-processors; A decrease in fuel consumption from the collection system in the kerbside sort

system in comparison to the co-mingled system. More modest benefits are seen from the following: A reduction in the energy used within waste transfer, bulking and sorting operations; A decrease in the level of loss rates seen at the re-processor for the kerbside sort


In the event that all authorities in Wales were to move across to the blueprint collection system, and to meet the 70% recycling target, this would result in an additional annual benefit of 86 thousand tonnes CO2 eq. in comparison to the equivalent performance modelled using the data in WDF for 2014-15. A clear benefit from the switch to the Blueprint system would be seen even in the case where additional benefits could not be attributable to the production of the higher paper grades in the kerbside sort system, or where the benefit from glass recycling from the kerbside sort system was reduced as a result of more glass being sent to be re-processed at the Knauf glass fibre plant. The above analysis has been undertaken based on publicly available datasets. However, some of the available data is subject to some inaccuracy. The methodology has been designed in order to minimise the impact of these data quality issues, but some impacts are likely to remain. Key weaknesses in this respect include the following: A key dataset is the data for local authority collected recyclate included within WDF.

The data for some authorities operating co-mingled systems does not appear representative when benchmarked against either that of other authorities in Wales or across England as a whole. These figures could not be excluded from the performance figures for 2014-15, potentially overestimating the performance for this year;

The data in Question 100 on the end destinations of recycled materials is not fully and accurately completed for the year that the data used within this analysis was derived. A comprehensive discussion on the inaccuracies in this dataset has already been published by Welsh Government;36

36 Eunomia (2016) Recycling Destinations Data Review, Final Report, March 2016


Data from WRAP’s Material Facility Reporting Portal similarly has figures for some authorities which appear to be very different to the others. These have been excluded from the analysis. Although performance is steadily improving, more work needs to be done in respect of quality assurance for this data before it can be considered a reliable source of information;

A key dataset on the contamination (re-processor loss rates) within the kerbside sort streams is the work undertaken by Zero Waste Scotland. This appears to overestimate the contamination from the metals collected at the kerbside. The data has been excluded from our analysis.

It is recommended that Welsh Government, WRAP and Natural Resources Wales undertake further work to improve the quality of the data included within these sources as appropriate.


Appendices 9.0 Assumptions Used to Develop the Mass Flow Model 9.1 Input Composition The composition dataset is limited to the need to understand only the exact amounts for materials recycled – it was not necessary to develop a total final composition. An All Wales composition was therefore developed in respect of the quantities of recyclate collected by each system, using the following method: Tonnage data from WDF was used directly for kerbside sort collected recyclables. WDF provides a figure for the overall amount of co-mingled material that is recycled

via kerbside and HWRCs, but this does not confirm what the composition of this co-mingled recycled material is. A breakdown of the material streams comprising this tonnage was developed using output composition data from WRAP’s Materials Facility Reporting Portal. This was done using most of the MRF data for the various authorities operating a co-mingled service, excluding data from four MRFs where the data appeared to be unrepresentative. The resulting data was used to develop an average MRF composition.

WDF data confirms that mixed paper is a product from kerbside sort systems. The total mixed paper was assumed to be 2/3 News and Pams and 1/3 cardboard (Hard Mixed papers). This assumption was used in the composition model to reapportion the mixed paper stream collected through kerbside sort systems in the kerbside collection system comparisons model, and in 70% recycling scenario. The relative contribution of the dry recycling to organic material collected was determined based on previous modelling undertaken by WRAP for Welsh Government in respect of determining the achievement of the 70% recycling rate.37 A similar approach was taken to determine the relative contributions of the other non-kerbside, non-household and non-recycling streams (bring, HWRCs, commercial waste collected by local authorities, reuse, etc.). For the materials collected from the non-kerbside household streams – including the HWRCs, bring sites, and materials that are re-used - WDF was again the source of the composition data. The total amount of material from these streams is kept constant across the three collection system models, as is the amount of organics collected for recycling. 9.2 Accounting for the Amount of Actual Recycling

37 Eunomia Research & Consulting (2015) Implementing the Welsh Government Collections Blueprint, report for WRAP Cymru


In accounting for the amount of actual recycling taking place, a distinction needs to be made between: Target material – the material desired by the facility (MRF and re-processor); Non target material – contrary material (i.e., material not desired by the facility), but

which still has the capacity to be recycled (although individual facilities may choose not to recycle the material in practice);

Non-recyclable material – contrary material that cannot be recycled.

The carbon model accounts for recycling of both the recycling of target and non-target material. Various terms can be used to describe the losses from the system. In the methodological description that follows, the following key terms are used in this respect: Sorting reject rate – this refers to contrary materials within material accepted at a

MRF; Contamination – this refers to contrary materials within material accepted at a re-

processor.

In both cases, the contrary materials can include both non-target and non-recyclable material. The carbon model accounts for the recycling of non-target material from the contamination stream. The same approach is used both for co-mingled materials collected at the kerbside as well as co-mingled materials collected via HWRCs. The available data suggests a wide range in the reported figures for the MRF sorting rate for the Welsh authorities. The benchmarking of this data with that from other sources (including that of other European countries) suggests that the sorting rate is underestimated in many cases. The mass flow model for the collection system has been developed in such a way as to make it unnecessary for the accounting of the sorting reject rate, as the comparisons between the different systems have been made on the basis of the kerbside collected material post-sorting. However, in accounting for the potential benefits from the achievement of the 70% target, the All Wales model uses an estimate of the sorting reject rate across all Welsh authorities based on that included within question 100 of WDF. 9.3 Post Sorting Contamination This refers to contrary materials in the material streams accepted at the re-processor. Assumptions have been developed on a material by material basis, with different contamination rates being applied to the kerbside sort and co-mingled systems where appropriate. The model accounts for the non-target material that is recycled. No carbon benefit is applied to material that is sent for disposal from the re-processor. For kerbside sort systems, assumptions in respect of the contamination from the various material streams are largely taken from a Zero Waste Scotland study.38 The exception is the figures for metals, which look unrepresentatively high. Figures in this case have been cross checked with industry with the aim of obtaining more representative data. 38 (ZWS) Contamination in Source-separated Municipal and Business Recyclate in the UK 2013, Final Project Report, March 2014


For co-mingled materials, assumptions relating to the levels of contamination in material streams coming out of the MRF are based on the measurements of output contamination derived from data in WRAP’s MF reporting portal for a number of Welsh Authorities. It should be noted that the data on the portal was clearly incorrect for several authorities and so that data was excluded from the analysis. Our experience suggests that this underestimates the levels of contamination in many cases. However, there are few other publicly available sources of information in this respect, and as such, this source has been used in the absence of any other alternative sources. For co-mingled systems, a mass balance was produced which considered the Input Contamination (in terms of the sum of non-target and non-recyclable material), as accounted for in the data from WRAP’s MF reporting portal. This considered the reported amounts of outputs, the associated contamination figures and the reported amount of rejection from the MRF. These mass balances provided a check that the amount of contamination in outputs was within a plausible range. 9.4 Consequences of Contamination in Relation to Losses The amount and nature of contamination for each material in all collection scenarios has a relationship with the amount of target material (and other recyclable material) that is ultimately recycled into new material. A model was produced which estimated the amount of losses in relation to the measured input contamination and subsequently considered the consequences of that contamination on the downstream sorting and processing of that material. The consequences differ depending on the material being recycled. For example, non-fibre contamination in paper products does not result in any of that contamination being recycled, and results in further loses of pulp. By contrast, metal contamination in the plastics and glass recyclate streams will typically be retrieved and sent for recycling for the most part. The assumptions used to model the output contamination in kerbside sort and co-mingled collection systems are presented in Table 4.


Table 4 Output Contamination Assumptions for Kerbside Sort and Co-mingled Collection Systems Kerbside sort Co-mingled

Non target - recyclable

Non target - non recyclable

Non target - recyclable

Non target - non recyclable

Aluminium cans

0.8% 0.8% 1.4% 0.6%

Steel cans 0.8% 0.8% 2.6% 0.4% Other Scrap metal

0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.1%

Mixed Plastic Bottles 1.5% 1.5% 5.0% 1.7%

LDPE [4] 1.5% 1.5% 3.3% 2.6% Mixed paper & card

0.5% 0.5% 2.8% 0.8%

Paper 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% Card 2.1% 2.1% 3.2% 0.4% Mixed glass 0.2% 0.2% 4.3% 6.9% Notes Twin stream system is modelled using the same assumptions as co-mingled for all materials except glass, where kerbside sort assumptions are used. 9.5 Development of the “All Wales” 70% model In developing the All Wales model, it is necessary to consider recycling from the non-kerbside streams which will contribute towards the target. This includes recycling taking place at HWRCs and the recycling of bottom ash from Welsh incineration facilities. Other less significant contributors to the total 70% target include re-use, recycling at bring sites and recycling from commercial waste collected by local authorities. Key assumptions relating to the development of the overall mass flow include the following: An examination of the top 10 performing Welsh authorities (based on current WDF

data) in respect of HWRC recycling suggested that a recycling rate of 80% across all sites would be reasonable.

For incinerator bottom ash, it was assumed that all of the remaining non-recycled material was sent to incineration, and that 22% of this incinerated material would be recycled.


10.0 Collection System Modelling Collection impacts for the current system were modelled based on previous work undertaken by Eunomia for Welsh Government.39 The starting point for developing the collection impacts was to consider the impacts for the whole of Wales, with values being developed assuming the whole country was operating each of the system in turn. The rationale for doing this is that there are different impacts depending on whether the collection system is operating in an urban or rural environment, or in the valleys. The output from the All Wales collection models was scaled down to calculate commensurate impacts assuming 10,000 tonnes of recyclables sent for re-processing. The output – in terms of litres of fuel used – was then converted into the climate change impacts using the assumptions presented in Section 12.3. Assumptions with respect to mileage and pass rates for each collection system were derived from the results of a number of options appraisal projects delivered by WRAP Cymru. Assumptions used to model the kerbside sort collection impacts are set out in Table 5. These assumptions were also used to model the collection impacts for the All Wales - 70% scenario. The fuel used here covers the collection of both food and dry recyclables; assumptions for the fuel used for the garden waste collection were taken from the previous work undertaken by Eunomia.

Table 5 All Wales Collection Impacts – Kerbside Sort (Food and Dry Recyclables) Urban Valleys Rural Households served 439,662 403,402 506,349 Pass rate 724 574 484 Miles per vehicle 12,350 10,010 15,600 Miles per gallon 8 8 9 Number vehicles 121 141 209 Total annual miles 1,499,952 1,408,214 3,267,443 Gallons of fuel used 187,494 176,027 363,049 Litres of fuel used per annum 852,365 800,234 1,650,455

Total fuel used, litres (All Wales) 3,303,053 For the twin stream system, the model assumes food collection takes place in a separate vehicle from that of the dry recyclables. The assumptions used to model this system are set out separately in Table 6 (for the fuel used to collect the dry recyclables) and Table 7 (for the separate pass for food waste). The combined total fuel use across both parts of the system is 5,390,796 litres for the whole country.

39 This has included work supporting a number of individual Welsh authorities, as well as earlier work undertaken for WRAP on behalf of Welsh Government, see Eunomia (2011) Kerbside Collection Options: Wales


Table 6 All Wales Collection Impacts – Twin Stream (Dry Recyclables) Urban Valleys Rural Households served 439,662 403,402 506,349 Pass rate 1,311 1,410 795 Miles per vehicle 13,780 11,180 19,500 Miles per gallon 4 4 5 Number vehicles 67 57 127 Total annual miles 924,615 639,721 2,483,976 Gallons of fuel used 264,176 159,930 551,995 Litres of fuel used per annum 1,200,967 727,058 2,509,418

Total fuel used, litres (All Wales) 4,437,442

Table 7 All Wales Collection Impacts – Twin Stream (Separate Pass for Food) Urban Valleys Rural Households served 439,662 403,402 506,349 Pass rate 2,424 2,609 1,471 Miles per vehicle 17,604 14,282 24,911 Miles per gallon 12 13 14 Number vehicles 36 31 69 Total annual miles 638,484 441,753 1,715,286 Gallons of fuel used 53,207 33,981 122,520 Litres of fuel used per annum 241,884 154,481 556,989

Total fuel used, litres (All Wales) 953,354 Fuel use assumptions for the co-mingled system are set out in Table 8. As with the kerbside sort system, collection is combined for both the food waste and dry recyclables.


Table 8 All Wales Collection Impacts – Co-mingled (Food and Dry Recyclables) Urban Valleys Rural Households served 439,662 403,402 506,349 Pass rate 1,311 1,410 795 Miles per vehicle 13,780 11,180 19,500 Miles per gallon 4 4 5 Number vehicles 67 57 127 Total annual miles 924,615 639,721 2,483,976 Gallons of fuel used 264,176 159,930 551,995 Litres of fuel used per annum 1,200,967 727,058 2,509,418

Total fuel used, litres (All Wales) 4,437,442 11.0 Post Collection Transport Modelling Q100 in Waste Data Flow records the movements of waste post collection against each MRF and transfer station. The work undertaken in this project extended the work previously done for Welsh Government in the project which looked at the end destinations of materials, principally by adding in postcodes to the pre-existing database to allow for calculation of distances. Where there are multiple trips (for multiple sorting stages) this is also captured within the distance calculations. At the time of writing the latest available data in WDF was for the financial year 2014/15. The quarterly responses to Q100 were downloaded from WDF for all 22 Welsh authorities. Given the number of entries the analysis focused only on the main material groups, i.e. metal, glass, paper & card, plastic, organics, textiles, and co-mingled materials. Some entries did not specify the type of material and in these cases we assumed that the entry relates to co-mingled materials. 11.1 Modelling Transport from MRFs to Re-processors In this section we describe the approach taken to identifying the total amount of waste transported between MRFs or re-processors to final destinations. The method used relies heavily on data from Q100, with some additional research required to gather missing address details. 11.1.1 Identifying Movements of Waste Authorities begin all Q100 entries by entering the facility that the waste is first taken to after collection (this is generally a MRF, a re-processor, or a transfer station). Our analysis starts at this point and therefore only looks at transport which takes place after waste collection.


We set up a series of calculations to identify all transportation of waste (including rejects) between facilities, from the first facility in the waste stream all the way to the final destination (assuming that the authority has accurately reported on all movements of waste). For example, for a comingled collection this could track the flow of waste as it transits to a MRF, to a secondary MRF, and then to a number of re-processors. This included waste transported within the UK and also exported waste. This step enabled us to compile a list of facilities for analysis. 11.1.2 Address Data Collection When local authorities report on material flows in WDF they are required to select the facility that the waste is sent to from a predefined list of permitted UK facilities. Historically, this list was managed by the EA, with the facilities database in WDF being updated on an infrequent basis. Each facility in the database has a unique ID and when selected by authorities the details of the facility (e.g. permit number and address) are automatically entered. Where local authorities cannot identify a facility – for example, facilities operating under an exception or facilities located abroad – they can use the catch all category of ‘Other/Exempt’ which provides the option of manually entering address details. The coding of facilities in the 2014/15 dataset is thus made up of a mixture of facility IDs and the use of ‘Other/Exempt’ sites. In order to analyse the movement of waste it was necessary to obtain accurate postcodes for both the origin facility and the destination facility, or, in the case of exported waste, the country that the waste was exported to. Postcode data was already available for entries where authorities were able to select a facility from the facilities database in WDF, however, for facilities reported under the ‘Other/Exempt’ category it was necessary to manually enter the postcode (for UK facilities) or country (for facilities located abroad). For most entries, this data was available from the address details provided by the authority – this sometimes required a brief internet search where postcodes were missing from the address details. A number of entries did not have any address data associated with them – the facility was reported under the ‘Other/Exempt’ category and the reporting authority had left the manual address details blank, or had entered other data not related to the facility address. Without address data it was not possible to include these facilities in our analysis. Table 9 presents a breakdown of the waste movements reported under Q100 by Welsh authorities, and an overview of the number of waste movements that we were able to include in our analysis. As can be seen, we identified a total of 9,951 waste movements based on Q100 data, however, we estimated that 4,627 of these did not actually involve any movement of waste, that is, the ‘origin’ and ‘destination’ facilities are in fact the same facility. This is an artefact caused by the way in which the authorities are required to report end destination facilities in Q100 (see the notes in Table 9 for further details). This leaves 5,324 ‘actual’ movements of waste between two discrete facilities for the analysis. Of these we were unable to analyse 637 waste movements, or 12% of the actual waste movements, due to missing address information (as discussed above).


Table 9 Analysis of Waste Movements Reported in Question 100 from WDF Number of Waste

Movements Total waste ‘movements’ reported 9951 Identical origin and destination facility postcodes 1339 Missing destination facility postcode/country and destination facility is reported as an end destination1

3288

Actual waste movements (estimated)2 5324 Missing origin facility postcode 357 Missing destination facility postcode/country 239 Missing origin facility postcode and destination facility postcode/country

41

Actual waste movements analysed 4687 Notes:

1. No address details were provided by local authorities for a substantial number of material flows reported as sent to a final destination. The main reason for the lack of facility details being reported alongside the final destination is that it is frequently a duplicate entry of the final re-processor. Local authorities should be entering the same facility details twice but seldom appear to be doing so. In these cases no waste is actually being moved – the origin and destination facilities are the same facility – and therefore these waste movements (as well as waste movements for which the postcode of the origin and destination facility are identical), were excluded from our analysis.

2. This is an estimated figure as it is possible that, where a destination facility postcode is missing, the actual postcode of this facility is identical to the origin facility and so there is no movement of waste occurring.

Waste movements were also coded on the basis of whether waste was moved to Wales, elsewhere in the UK, or abroad. For UK addresses, this coding was done using the facility address. The 2014/15 data has already been audited by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and, given the scope of the study, the analysis had to assume that the address provided was correct. It was not possible to cross check all entries although it was noted that in a small number of cases the address provided was for a company head office rather than for the actual location of the sorting / reprocessing facility. 11.1.3 Distance Calculations After gathering addresses, we proceeded to calculate the distance that waste is moved between facilities. For travel between UK facilities, we assumed that waste would be moved by road, and used an excel script which accessed Google Maps to calculate the shortest driving distance between the origin and destination postcodes. For waste exports we calculated the road and sea distance between the UK and Southampton, as knowledge across the project steering group indicated that this is the port from which materials are most likely to be used for materials export out UK.


11.1.4 Modelling the Fuel Use from the Onward Transport of Waste by Road The model uses different assumptions in respect of the tonnage (or load) transported per truck when calculating the fuel used within the onward transport of waste to its final destination (re-processor). The assumptions for the key dry recyclables are set out in Table 10.

Table 10: Tonnage of Waste per Truck Load Assumed for Onward Transport Calculations Tonnage of waste per truck load Glass 26 Paper and card 26 Plastics 15 Mixed metals 21 Ferrous metal 22 Non-ferrous metal 16 Co-mingled materials 16 Assumptions used to model the climate change impacts of the fuel used are set out in Section 12.3. 11.2 Transport from Depots / Transfer Stations to Onward Processing Question 100 data begins at the MRF/re-processor; movements of waste between transfer stations and MRFs/re-processors are not recorded in Question 100. It was therefore necessary to make a separate estimate of the transport impacts from transfer station to the MRF and re-processor. Data held internally by WRAP Cymru was used where possible to identify the locations of the transfer stations for the Welsh authorities (including where different stations were used for different materials, where this was also known). This was supplemented by internal knowledge from Eunomia based on previous work undertaken with Welsh authorities. Where there were gaps in this data, the location of transfer stations was estimated by picking a centrally located town within the authority, and making a distance estimate on this basis. In some cases, it was known that the authorities were delivering material directly to the MRF or re-processor; where this was the case, no further calculations were required. For the other cases, the location of the transfer stations was used to calculate the distance that waste was moved between the transfer stations and MRF/re-processors, using the approach to modelling distances as set out in Section 11.1.3. Tonnage data from question 100 was used, in conjunction with the distance data, to calculate the fuel used within for transport. Emissions from road transport were assumed to be 0.150 kg CO2 eq. per tonne km.40 40 Defra Guidelines for Company Reporting, Conversion factors spreadsheet - 2016 (available from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/measuring-and-reporting-environmental-impacts-guidance-for-businesses)


11.3 Outputs from the Modelling of the Onward Transport Impacts Table 11 presents the output of the modelling of the onward transport of waste, showing the data broken down by authority. The data presented in this table includes impacts relating to the transfer of waste, as well as onward movements from the MRF to the re-processor. The methodology used to model these impacts is set out in Section 11.1 and Section 11.2. Where waste is transported overseas, shipping impacts are also included. Impacts from waste collection are discussed in Section 10.0.

Table 11 Climate Change Impacts of Onward Transport by Authority Climate change impacts, tonnes CO2 eq.

From Depots / Transfer Stations to MRFs/ Re-processors

From MRFS/Re-processors to Final Destinations

Total

Road Travel Road Travel

Sea Travel

Blaenau Gwent CBC 48 28 629 706 Bridgend CBC 125 18 22 165 Caerphilly CBC 133 68 244 445 Cardiff County Council 111 201 2,610 2,922 Carmarthenshire County Council 0 159 1,107 1,266 Ceredigion County Council 56 46 109 211 City and County of Swansea 0 129 1,562 1,691 Conwy CBC 66 33 0 99 Denbighshire County Council 36 14 383 432 Flintshire County Council 22 7 77 107 Gwynedd Council 96 13 56 165 Isle of Anglesey CC 48 5 0 53 Merthyr Tydfil CBC 59 10 396 465 Monmouthshire CC 93 57 944 1,095 Neath Port Talbot CBC 93 1 0 94 Newport City Council 84 48 126 258 Pembrokeshire County Council 0 68 0 68 Powys County Council 63 65 0 128 Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC 66 225 1,556 1,847 Torfaen CBC 55 2 104 162 Vale of Glamorgan Council 122 23 675 820 Wrexham CBC 7 83 90 180 This data indicates that there is considerable variation in the impacts relating to the onward transport of waste. The impact is strongly influenced by shipping emissions, with the road transport impacts being a far less significant contributor to the total impact. The highest impacts in this table relate to authorities that are sending several


thousand tonnes of material to the Far East, to locations such as Shanghai – a distance of over 10,000 km.41 It is important to note that, in calculating these transport impacts, no account is made of the journey from the overseas port to the final re-processor, as there is insufficient data within WDF to model these journeys. As such, the figures presented here may be expected to be an underestimate of the total impact where material is sent for re-processing overseas. The data presented in Table 11 was used in two ways: To develop an overall figure for the impacts from overseas transport for the All Wales

2014-15 model; To develop an average figure for the kerbside sort, co-mingled and twin stream

collection systems. These were used in each of the collection system comparison models for the three systems.

The kerbside sort figure was then used in the All Wales model for the 70% scenario, with impacts being scaled up to reflect the additional tonnage of recyclate under consideration. Assumptions are presented in Table 12 (totals are presented for all onward transport impacts combined). From this it can be seen that the average onward transport impacts for the co-mingled collection system are much higher than for the kerbside sort system, reflecting the greater preponderance of authorities operating this type of system sending materials to overseas re-processors.

Table 12 Total Impacts from Onward Transport Total impact from onward transport,

tonnes CO2 eq. Kerbside sort 72 Co-mingled 454 Twin Stream 398 All Wales model – 70% recycling 4,309 12.0 Climate Change Assumptions 12.1 Benefits of Recycling Data on the benefits of recycling is, for the most part, taken from the Scottish Carbon Metric published by Zero Waste Scotland. The source data is based on UK, European and Far East datasets following a literature review, with the aim being to obtain representative datasets of recycling taking place in Scotland. This is assumed to be generally representative of the current climate change benefits from recycling taking place in Wales.

41 Emissions factors for road and ship transport are set out in Section 12.3


The data has been updated at various points since the original publication. In some cases, the more recent data has been adjusted to make it more appropriate to the situation in Scotland - for example, in respect of the proportion of materials being sent for closed loop recycling. Where this is the case, the model uses the older, more general data, in order to make it more applicable to the situation in Wales. As such the model uses both data from the 2011 and 2013 versions of the Scottish Carbon Metric as appropriate.42 In addition, as was previously indicated in Section 3.1.2 the model uses assumptions from WRATE to model the climate change benefit of recycling the different paper streams. The Scottish Carbon Metric gives only a central value for the benefit of paper recycling, which is assumed to be representative of recycling both paper and card. However, other data sources suggest a higher benefit may be obtained from recycling paper pulp back into newsprint, whereas paper pulp used in the manufacture of packaging paper or card results in a lower climate change benefit. There are two broad groups of virgin paper manufacture processes: Chemical pulping processes: This involves the removal of lignin from the wood. The

process preserves fibre length which results in the manufacture of a stronger product. The removal of the lignin results in a lower yield of paper such that only 40-50% of the original wood is subsequently converted into useable fibre; as such the process is a relatively expensive one. However, typically most of the significant quantities of heat and electrical energy needed for the virgin manufacturing process can be supplied through the use of steam produced during the combustion of the lignin removed during the pulping. This type of process is typically used to manufacture cardboard (usually made up of three layers of very strong brown ‘kraft’ paper) and other packaging materials, and in the manufacture of other high quality paper products; and

Mechanical pulping processes: In this case the lignin is not removed, so the fibre yield is very high. As such the manufacturing process is relatively cheap, despite the requirement for significant quantities of electrical energy – energy which is more likely to be supplied by an external, fossil fuel-based source than is the case in the chemical pulping process. However, the retention of the lignin results in a weaker product with less tensile strength that has a tendency to become yellowed and brittle over time. Newspaper is typically manufactured using mechanical pulping processes, as is the paper used in mass-market book manufacture.

Whilst relatively little fossil electricity is typically used for the manufacture of virgin cardboard, requirements may be greater where board is reprocessed from collected recyclate. As such, the benefits associated with the recycling of fibre into packaging products are typically reduced in comparison to those of reprocessing fibre into newsprint.

42 Zero Waste Scotland (2011) The Scottish Carbon Metric Carbon Factors, March 2011; Zero Waste Scotland (2013) The Scottish Carbon Metric - A National Carbon Indicator for Waste: 2013


Material from MRFs is more likely to be used in the manufacturing of packaging products, resulting in lower avoided climate change impacts than is the case where the recycled fibre is used in the manufacture of newsprint. It is important to note, however, that the figure for the benefits of recycling paper in the Scottish Carbon Metric is higher than that given by the WRATE data. The aggregated figure for paper and card from the Scottish Carbon Metric indicates that the climate change benefit from recycling is 0.342 tonne CO2 eq. per tonne of material. This is marginally higher than the benefit of recycling paper into newsprint – which, in turn, has a higher climate change benefit than that seen for recycling paper into packaging materials. Given that the value for paper and card should be a combination of the benefit of recycling both types of material; this suggests that the WRATE data – the source of which is the life cycle database ecoinvent – may underestimate the benefits from recycling. Data is presented in Table 13. Values are presented, where possible, for all of the material streams reported as being recycled in WDF. The table confirms there was no value available for some materials; however, these materials account for only a very small percentage of materials recycled in Wales.

Table 13 Assumptions Used for Modelling Climate Change Benefits of Recycling Materials Climate change

benefits of recycling materials, tonnes CO2

eq. per tonne of material

Source for the data

Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) no value available Aerosols no value available Aluminium cans 8.70 SCM 2013 Aluminium foil 8.70 SCM 2013 Automotive batteries 0.49 SCM 2013 Brown glass 0.20 SCM 2013 Card2 0.062 WRATE Composite food and beverage cartons

no value available

Carpets 0.000 no value available Clear glass 0.201 SCM 2013 Gas bottles no value available Green glass 0.201 SCM 2013 HDPE [2] 1.171 SCM 2011 LDPE [4] 1.171 SCM 2011 Mixed cans 2.457 SCM 2013 Mixed glass 0.201 SCM 2013 Mixed paper & card1,2 0.131 WRATE Mixed Plastic Bottles 1.171 SCM 2011


Climate change benefits of recycling

materials, tonnes CO2 eq. per tonne of

material

Source for the data

Other Scrap metal 2.457 SCM 2013 OTHER PLASTICS [7] 1.171 SCM 2011 Paper2 0.338 SCM 2013 PET [1] 1.171 SCM 2011 Plastics 1.171 SCM 2011 Post-consumer, non-automotive batteries 0.487 SCM 2013

PP [5] 1.171 SCM 2011 PS [6] 1.171 SCM 2011 PVC [3] 1.171 SCM 2011 Steel cans 1.829 SCM 2013 Textiles & footwear 5.990 SCM 2013 Textiles only 5.990 SCM 2013 Footwear only 4.085 SCM 2011 Yellow Pages 0.342 SCM 2013 Bicycles no value available Books 0.342 SCM 2013 Bric-a-brac no value available Car tyres no value available Chipboard and MDF 0.412 SCM 2013 for wood Fire extinguishers no value available Furniture no value available Ink & toner cartridges no value available Large vehicle tyres no value available Mattresses no value available Mineral Oil 0.725 SCM 2013 Mixed tyres no value available Other materials no value available Paint no value available Plasterboard 0.067 SCM 2011 Van tyres no value available Vegetable Oil no value available Video tapes, DVDs and CDs no value available WEEE - Cathode Ray Tubes no value available WEEE - Fluorescent tubes and other light bulbs

no value available

WEEE - Fridges & Freezers 0.181 SCM 2013 WEEE - Large Domestic App 0.181 SCM 2013 WEEE - Small Domestic App 0.181 SCM 2013 Wood 0.412 SCM 2013 Soil no value available Composite wood materials no value available


Climate change benefits of recycling

materials, tonnes CO2 eq. per tonne of

material

Source for the data

Mixed garden and food waste 0.042 SCM 2011 Green garden waste only 0.042 SCM 2011 Other compostable waste 0.042 SCM 2011 Waste food only 0.162 SCM 2011 Wood for composting 0.042 SCM 2013 Rubble 0.004 SCM 2011 Mixed Plastics 1.171 SCM 2011 Notes:

1. Mixed paper is assumed to be 25% recycled into newsprint 2. For sensitivity analysis, the benefit from recycling paper is assumed to be 0.342

tonne CO2 eq. per tonne of paper (source SCM 2013) Source: Zero Waste Scotland (2011) The Scottish Carbon Metric Carbon Factors, March 2011; Zero Waste Scotland (2013) The Scottish Carbon Metric - A National Carbon Indicator for Waste: 2013; WRATE is available from http://www.wrate.co.uk/ The model accounts for the climate change benefits of recycling metals from bottom ash, using the benefits (in terms of tonnes CO2 eq. per tonne of metal) indicated in Table 13. It is assumed that 70% of the ferrous metal and 30% of the non-ferrous metal within the residual waste stream is recycled in this way, in line with outputs from an Italian literature review on this subject.43 The composition of residual waste was modelled based on composition data provided from recent work undertaken by Resource Futures on the composition of waste collected by Welsh authorities.44 12.2 Climate Change Impacts of Energy Use in Transport and Sorting / Transfer Our model accounts for energy use at MRF and transfer facilities accepting recyclables collected during kerbside sort rounds. There is relatively little published data available with regard to the energy use at these facilities. WRATE contains some data on energy use at different types of MRF, and this is presented in Table 14. The data contained within the Table confirms that facilities which contain more sorting equipment have greater energy requirements. In addition, larger facilities tend to have lower energy requirements where this is expressed on the basis of impacts calculated per tonne.

43 Grosso, Biganzoli and Rigamonti (2011) A Quantitative Estimate of Potential Aluminium Recovery from Incineration Bottom Ashes, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, pp1178-1184

44 Resource Futures (2016) WAL007-001 – Wales Municipal Compositional Analysis – Phase 2 Data Report


Table 14: Energy usage data for MRFs in WRATE Facility Description1 Throughput

(tonnes / year) Electricity requirement (kWh / tonne)

Diesel requirement (kg / tonne)

‘Small dirty (paper only)’ 25,000 14 0.29 ‘V screen, semi-automated’ 75,000 9 0.58 ‘Including infra-red equipment’

50,000 15 0.93

It should be noted that WRATE does not provide any information on the energy used at transfer facilities that process only recyclable material – the ‘transfer station’ module contained within the tool refers to impacts relating to a transfer station processing residual waste, with energy use figures resulting from the use of bulk compaction that would not be used at a transfer facility that is processing recyclate. Assumptions within the model are presented in Table 15. The MRF values have been obtained using an average from the facilities as presented in Table 14.

Table 15: Energy use at MRF and transfer facilities – Assumptions Used

Diesel use litres / tonne

Electricity use kWh / tonne

Transfer facilities (for recyclables) 1 4

MRF 0.6 13 The climate change impacts of this energy use are indicated in Table 16. For electricity consumption, the emissions factor for marginal electricity is used, in line with the guidance previously published by the Department of Energy & Climate Change and HM Treasury’s Green Book.45 The latter recommends the use of the marginal factor in policy appraisal, whilst the former gives a range of values to be used for the modelling of emissions from electricity generation for various years.

Table 16: Climate Change Impacts of Energy Use Energy Emissions Units CO2 emissions per unit Electricity marginal (2014) kg/kWh 0.313 Stationery engine (Diesel) kg/litre 2.6 Sources: DECC (2015) Green Book Supplementary Guidance: Valuation of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Appraisal – Data Tables 1-20, available from 45 See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-appraisal


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-appraisal ; Defra Guidelines for Company Reporting, Conversion factors spreadsheet - 2016 (available from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/measuring-and-reporting-environmental-impacts-guidance-for-businesses) 12.3 Climate Change Impacts of Transporting Waste Section 5.0 and Section 11.0 confirm the assumptions used when modelling the quantity of fuel used within waste collection and those used to consider the onward transport of waste to the final re-processor, respectively. The fuel use is converted directly into climate change emissions using the relevant assumption set out in Table 17. The same table also confirms the assumption used to model the climate change emission of shipping waste overseas.

Table 17: Key Assumptions Used to Model the Climate Change Impacts of Waste Transport Units Assumption Source Emissions from diesel used in waste transportation (for collection modelling)

kg CO2 eq. per litre of fuel

2.6 Defra

Emissions from road transport

g CO2 eq. per tonne.km

149.9 Defra

Emissions from shipping

g CO2 eq. per tonne.km

16.04 Defra (based on average container ship with 70% loading)

Sources: Defra Guidelines for Company Reporting, Conversion factors spreadsheet - 2016 (available from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/measuring-and-reporting-environmental-impacts-guidance-for-businesses)


www.wrapcymru.org.uk/CarbonImpactsReport

Documents

Carbon assessment Welsh Recycling - FINAL Sep 2016 v3 Impacts Report.pdf · Written by: Ann Ballinger, Laurence Elliott, Andy Grant and Simon Hann of Eunomia Research & Consulting