Paper Recycling Crate Collection Trial (March 2001) · Thornbury and 236 in East Coburg. 1.3 Conduct of the Trial Commencing on the 24th October, the municipal recycling contractor

Paper RecyclingCrate Collection Trial(March 2001)

EcoRecycle VictoriaPublishers National Environmental Bureau

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\PaperCrateTrial March 2001.doc

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared for EcoRecycle Victoria by Nolan ITU Pty Ltd. The views expressed in this reportare not necessarily those of EcoRecycle Victoria.

The contents of the report are provided for information purposes. EcoRecycle makes no claim as to the accuracy orauthenticity of the content of this publication and does not accept liability to any person for the information or

advice provided in this document or incorporated into it by reference. EcoRecycle does not accept liability for lossor damages incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the content of this document. The document is provided on

the basis that all persons accessing it undertake responsibility for assessing the relevance and accuracy of itscontent.

CONTENTS

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\PaperCrateTrial March 2001.doc `

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................1

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................3

1.1 Background 3

1.2 Structure of Trial 3

1.3 Conduct of the Trial 3

2 TRIAL RESULTS ............................................................................................................5

2.1 Participation 5

2.2 Yield 5

2.3 Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 7

2.4 Sorting of paper grades 9

2.5 Litter 10

2.6 Contamination 11

2.7 Cost 12

2.8 Three Month Follow-up Audit 13

3 SURVEY OF RESIDENT VIEWS.............................................................................. 14

3.1 Survey of household views 14

3.2 Responses 14

4 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 15

5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... 16

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\PaperCrateTrial March 2001.doc Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nolan-ITU was commissioned to undertake a trial of a recycling crate for paper and cardboardcollection at a residential level.

The trial took place in Oct – Dec 2000 in the Cities of Moreland and Darebin in Melbourne’s innernorthern suburbs. 530 households were part of the trial.

The survey was conducted in a manner that measured participation, yield, contamination and litterlevels.

It also measured paper grade composition, collection times and costs, worker safety impacts andcompatibility with paper grade separation.

A result of the trial was that participation levels rose by over 50%, from 37% to 56%, with theintroduction of the crate.

The weight of paper presented for recycling in the trial area rose by 72% with the crate introduction,up from 2.5 kg per household per week to 4.3kg. Allowing for the seasonal variation that occursduring that period, the underlying yield increase was estimated to be 48%.

The composition of paper grades with the crate introduction were newsprint/magazine 62.6%,cardboard 19.7% and other grades 16.4%.

Residents were asked to continue presenting newspaper and magazine separate from other grades inthe Moreland area. A high level of sorting occurred in 23% of households and some sorting ofgrades in a further 34% of houses (a total of 57%). This is about the same level as is taking place inother parts of Moreland without crates.

The incidence of litter was very low with the use of crates. This is an improvement on tied andbundled collections.

Contamination levels were 1.2% with the crate. This is minimal and shows a high degree ofresident compliance with quality requirements.

The time taken for each pick-up of paper was marginally longer (5%) to that achieved by thecontractor prior to the crates introduction. Resulting from the significant increases in levels ofresident participation and yield, the collection time increases due to more stops and more frequentunloading of trucks. This is translated through to a 36% increase in overall cost measured perhousehold including savings in garbage disposal costs. On the other hand, the cost per tonnecollected falls by 29% due to the higher volumes collected.

Collecting bundled paper at kerbside exposes workers to a range of injury risks. The provision of acrate reduces or eliminated many of these. This is due to the more secure load, less bending, a moreconsistent weight and less exposure to cuts and abrasions. This assessment is based on a low tippingheight at the vehicle (waist high) in line with the Guide to Preferred Service Standards for KerbsideRecycling in Victoria, November 2000.

Contamination levels in paper collections are traditionally low. Using the crate, contaminant levelswere at 1.22% with most contamination being milk and juice cartons and other recyclables. Nohazardous contaminants were found.


Residents were asked for their views on whether the provision of crates was beneficial or not. 95%found the crate a benefit, mostly citing convenience, neatness, ease of use and litter reductionreasons.

90% followed this by saying they supported a rise of up to $5 per year in their waste charge to fundcrate provision across their municipality.

If a crate was provided to all inner urban and rural households, as recommended in the Guide toPreferred Service Standards for Kerbside Recycling in Victoria, November 2000, paper recyclingvolumes would rise by an estimated 30 – 40,000 tonnes per annum in Victoria.

SUMMARY OF PAPER RECYCLING CRATE TRIAL OUTCOMES

Participationhh/wk

Yieldkg/hh/wk

Yield (perparticipatinghousehold)kg/hh/wk

Yield(seasonallyadjusted)kg/hh/wk

Cost$/hh

Cost$/tonne

Before cratedistribution

37% 2.5 6.6 2.9 10.25 95.30

After cratedistribution

56% 4.3 7.6 4.3 13.70 67.60

CHANGE +51% +72% +15% +48% +34% -29%

Note 1: The Yield without crates has been adjusted to reflect the expected rise in paper volumes at this time of year.


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In late 2000 EcoRecycle Victoria and the Publishers National Environment Board resolved toconduct a trial of a recycling crate for paper and cardboard at a household level. Nolan-ITU wasengaged to conduct the survey across two municipalities during Oct to Dec 2000.

The survey arose out of the Guide to Preferred Service Standards for Kerbside Recycling in Victoria,completed by EcoRecycle Victoria in November 2000. The Standards recommended the use of acollection container for all recyclables. In most areas this is recommended as a wheeled bin capableof mechanical lifting. In some areas a wheeled bin is considered impractical. These are:

q inner urban areas where on site storage and on street parking and narrow streets makebins less practical and,

q small towns and rural areas where the cost of operating a large compaction vehicle overa dispersed area is too costly.

1.2 Structure of Trial

The trial was designed to measure the impact of the introduction of the crate on the following areas:

o Participation – the percentage of households who put paper out for collection in a givenweek.

o Yield – the amount of paper collected by weight.

o Contamination – the percentage of non-paper material placed in the paper recycling.

o OH & S – the health and safety of collection staff in picking up, carrying and puttingmaterial in the vehicle.

o Collection time – the time taken to undertake the collection including emptying ofvehicles.

o Composition – the ratio of different paper grades in the recycling stream.

o Source separation – the degree to which residents, when asked, present newspaper andmagazines separate from cardboard and other grades.

Two areas were chosen to conduct the survey. The first was in Thornbury in the City of Darebinand the second in East Coburg in the City of Moreland. Both areas are typical of inner urban areaswith relatively narrow streets and a majority of detached houses on small to medium frontages.

Distinct neighbourhoods were chosen for the trial so as to avoid collector or resident confusion at theboundaries of the survey area. For this reason, 530 households were part of the trial, 294 inThornbury and 236 in East Coburg.

1.3 Conduct of the Trial

Commencing on the 24th October, the municipal recycling contractor collected and weighed thevolumes of paper to give a total weight for each collection area. In addition, Nolan-ITU recorded


the number of households presenting material for collection each week of the trial period. Thisenabled data on participation levels and yield levels per average household.

The data collection commenced two weeks prior to the issuing of the crate to provide baseline data tomeasure the impact of the crate introduction. Unfortunately, on the first night of collecting baselinedata, over 50 mm of rain fell, making the weight of water soaked paper extraordinarily high. Inorder to provide a meaningful assessment of the true yield it was assumed to be the same weight ofpaper presented by each household the following week. This weight of 2.7kg was in line withaverage yields across Darebin at that time.

Residents then received a letter explaining the trial just prior to the distribution of the crates. Thecrates were provided to residents in the week prior to their use and included information on what torecycle and how to present it. The City of Moreland normally asks its residents to present papergrades separately for collection. This was continued during the trial in Moreland to test thecompatibility between source separation requirements and the use of the crate.

The crate distributed was the 60L Nylex paper packer. This has been designed specifically for paperrecycling. It features slats in the sides to allow collectors to see the crates’ contents and to provide alighter weight container with similar strength characteristics. One of the outcomes of the openslated style is that wind tends to flow partially through the crate and reduces the incidence of paperbeing ‘sucked out’ of the top of the crate. The crate is usually made from 100% recycledpolypropylene derived from auto bumper bars and auto battery casing. Due to the small volume andshort notice for the trial, Nylex provided a white crate made from virgin material.

In addition to the weighing of material on an aggregate basis each week, an individual audit of eachcrate was undertaken towards the end of the trial in both collection areas. This involved weighing oftotal paper and weighing of paper grades, newspaper and magazine, cardboard and other grades.Contamination was also identified and weighed during this audit. The degree to which residentswere separating grades was also measured in the City of Moreland at this time.


2 TRIAL RESULTS

2.1 Participation

The level of households presenting paper for recycling in the collection area prior to cratedistribution was 37% across the two areas. This is lower then the state average for all recyclablesbut according to the collection contractor, is slightly higher than the average across these twomunicipalities.

While this figure represents the number of households who presented paper for recycling on a givenweek, the level of participation over a longer period may be higher as some households store theirpaper and present it on a fortnightly or less frequent basis. Observations during this trial andprevious recycling audits suggest this is the practice in 20-25% of households.

When the crate was introduced, this weekly presentation rate per week increased to 56% ofhouseholds. This represents an average increase in the presentation rate of 51%. After three monthsthis was measured again and showed a 52% participation rate.

Fig 2.1 : Participation per week

2.2 Yield

The purpose of paper recycling collections is to divert significant quantities from the garbage streaminto recycling facilities.

The yield of paper recovered in the collection area was 2.45kg per household per week prior to theintroduction of the crate. Following the introduction of the crate, the weekly average for allhouseholds climbed to 4.27kg per household per week

This represented an increase in paper recycling for both collection areas of 1.82 kg per household perweek (94kg per annum) or 72%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Weeks 1-9

Per

cen

tag

e o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Before Crate After Crate


Fig 2.2: Yield per household per week

Fig 2.3: Yield per household

2.45

4.27

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Before crate distribution After crate distribution

Ave

rag

e yi

eld

(kg

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Weeks 1-9

Ave

rag

e Y

ield

(kg

)


During the collection period, the wastepaper recycling yields across all of Darebin/Morelandincreased by 20%. This was in line with the seasonal variation from the two previous years in thelead up to Christmas. The yield from houses in the area without crates was estimated to be 2.9kgper week. When this was factored into the trial results, the increase in seasonally adjusted termswas 48%. This was measured again after three months and the average household yield was 3.9kgper week.

If this result were sustained across the whole municipality, the crate would yield in an additional3,450 tonnes per annum in Darebin and 3,700 tonnes collected per annum in Moreland.

The estimated increase in paper recycling across the inner metro area would be 34,000 tonnes perannum. This assumes a crate introduction in the following councils.

q Bayside

q Boroondara

q Darebin

q Glen Eira

q Hobsons Bay

q Maribyrnong

q Melbourne

q Moonee Valley

q Moreland

q Port Phillip

q Stonnington

q Yarra

The number of households to be serviced in rural areas is unknown and therefore the impact of theintroduction of a paper crate on yield is not possible to establish.

2.3 Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S)

In the development of the Guide to Preferred Service Standards for Kerbside Recycling in Victoria,November 2000, an OH&S audit was undertaken for the collection of bundled paper and cardboardin metropolitan areas. A similar audit was conducted for the collection of bottles and cans using acrate.

The audit identified a range of OH&S risk exposures for bundled paper. Many of these related to theuneven distribution of weight, and the lack of integrity of the stack of paper, and the need to bend toground level to pick up.

During the current trial, visual observations were made on collection method to assess any impactson risk exposure. Utilising a low height rear load compactor, the gains in reduced risk exposurewere evident. These included the greater integrity of the load, elimination of bending to ground level,more even load weights, less exposure to cuts through elimination of direct handling of paper.

The weight of the presented crates is an important issue. For participating households, the averageload prior to the crate was 6.6 kg per household per week. This increased to 7.59kg per householdper week for participating households after the crate was distributed.


Fig. 2.4: Yield per participating household

Below is a summary of the weights of each crate, which shows 88% were below 10kg, and 93%below 12kg. 57% of households presented less than 5kg. Where large volumes of paper werepresented this was usually in the crate and an addition stack and the collector was collecting theseloads separately.

Table 2.1: Yield per Participating Household.

Yield %

Less than 2.5 kg 23.4%

2.5 – 5.0 kg 33.3%

5.0 – 7.5 kg 17.2%

7.5 – 10.0 kg 13.9%

10.0 kg – 12.5 kg 5.2%

Over 12.5 kg1 6.8%

Note 1: Presented in more than one container.

Two issues of health and safety arose out of the trial. Firstly, to avoid having to return to the naturestrip of each household before moving to the next household, the collection staff regularly rolled orthrew the crate back to the nature strip/footpath. While the empty crate weighs only 1.8kg, thisthrowing method needs to be evaluated for risk exposure or completely excluded during contracting.

During the first few weeks of collection, a side-loaded cage vehicle was used for the trial. Thetipping of recyclables above the head could represent a serious risk exposure from both a weight andwrist deviation perspective. In addition, the open slatted crate leaves an opportunity for some of thecrate contents to spill onto the collector. This occurred with laundry washing powder which tippedout of packaging and caused an eye hazard to the collector. For these reasons the paper crate shouldonly be used with low load height vehicles for paper collection. (e.g. rear loading compactor)

6.60

7.59

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Before Crate distribution After Crate Distribution

Ave

rag

e yi

eld

(kg

)


2.4 Sorting of paper grades

The trial was conducted across two municipalities to assess its impact in an area where fullcommingling of paper grades was acceptable and also in an area where residents were asked to keeppaper grades separate. In the City of Moreland where this grade separation is sought, newspapersand magazines are kept separate from cardboard and other packaging grades using a split rear loadcompactor vehicle.

The proportion of paper grades during the trial is outlined below in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Content of Paper Crate by Paper Grade

Newspaper andmagazine

Cardboard andpackaging

Other grades(printing and writingpaper, phone books,

books)

Contamination (milkand juice cartons,plastic film etc)

Total 62.6% 18.7% 16.4% 1.2%

The level of resident separation across the municipality is lower than average with some residentspresenting as required and many others making little or no attempt at separation. The collectioncrews then attempt to build on this with some quick sorting at the rear of the vehicle. This enablesone compartment of the split vehicle to have a reasonably ‘pure’ stream of newspaper and magazinesuitable for use at the Norske Skog Mill in Albury or for export to newsprint manufacturingdestinations.

During the trial, paper presented for collection in Moreland was monitored to identify the degree ofgrade separation. Residents were asked to place flattened cardboard under the crate and other gradesin the crate. Certainly a proportion of households maintained a high commitment to separation ofgrades but this was generally undertaken with cardboard being placed on top of other grades in thecrate.


Photograph 1 Some sorting of paper grades occurred within the crate

Towards the end of the trial, an audit of crate contents was conducted, included an assessment of thedegree of paper grade separation. This was recorded as either high level of separation, someseparation or no separation.

The results of this audit are recorded below and show that while a majority of households undertooksome sorting, the degree of complete sorting was very low and the number of householdsundertaking no sorting was large.

Table 2.3: Degree of paper sorting

Level %

High level of sorting 23%

Some sorting of grades 34%

No sorting of grades 43%

2.5 Litter

One of the problems encountered with tied and bundled paper collections is the litter created whenwind blows unsecured piles of paper. Only a minority of residents ties their paper securely. Manyweigh down their paper with a brick.

One of the objectives of the trial was to ascertain through regular observation what level of litter wasgenerated with the use of the crates. Observations of loose paper prior to the crate distributionshowed serious litter levels from a small number of households that had not secured loadssufficiently. Litter levels were observed on collection day both prior to collection and after.


Residents were not asked to tie material within the crate but some (5 – 10%) did so. They wereasked to place a more secure item (folded newspaper or phonebook) on top of the load and this wasgenerally the case.

Photograph 2 The level of litter was reduced except for small fragments of paper

The level of litter from crates prior to collection was minimal and significantly less than in areaswithout the crate. There was a small amount of littering from the actual collections and some fromresidual amounts left in the crate after emptying.

Tests were carried out by CSIRO for Nylex during the crate design phase. These tests showed thatthe open slatted style of the crate was a contributor to litter reduction, as the wind tended to flowthough the crate and not blow the material out the top of the crate. This was borne out in the trialwith very little material blowing from crates.

Some residents cited the reduction in litter as a benefit of the crate's introduction.

There was minor littering of material resulting from the emptying of crates. Collection staff need tobe trained to ensure crates are fully emptied and to recover any dropped material. Residents shouldbe advised not to include small items of paper, such as shopping dockets, in the recycling.

The overall result was a significant reduction in littering of paper.

2.6 Contamination

The inclusion of non-paper material in tied and bundled paper collections has generally been at lowlevels (<2%). Contamination levels in bin based paper recycling collections (split bins) are athigher levels, most commonly the cross contamination of paper with other recyclables.

During the audit of crates as part of this trial, the level and type of contamination was measuredaccurately.


The result was a contamination level of just 1.2% across both collection areas. Contamination wasslightly higher in the Moreland area (1.5%) than the Darebin area (1.1%) but in both cases the levelwas insignificant. Only 20% of households presented any contaminants. Contamination was morethan 2% in 43 (14%) of the 314 crates analysed during the audit.

Contaminant material consisted mostly of liquid paperboard (milk and juice cartons) with smallamounts of other recyclables (bottles and cans) and garbage (plastic film, bags, etc). Most of thecontamination seemed to be unintentional with some residents understandably believing liquidpaperboard, as a paper based product, belonged in the paper recycling fraction. There is a likelihoodthat most of this carton material would be pulped successfully alongside other grades. One residentincluded large quantities of sandpaper in the crate.

Overall the level of contamination was minimal and of a benign nature and showed residentcompliance with quality requirements.

2.7 Cost

The cost of collection was established using Moreland costs as the basis on which to model the costimpact of crate introduction.

Assumptions were as follows

o Tandem axle rear load compactors would continue to be used.

o A one hour round trip from collection area to MRF and back would apply.

o Collection participation rates rose from 40% to 60%.

o Average weight collected per household per week increased by 48%.

o The average value of the paper delivered is $15/tonne.

o The avoided cost of landfill is $30/tonne.

The cost of the crate including distribution is $7 per household, which was factored over the life of a7-year contract period. An allowance was also made for crate replacement at 4% per annum. Thetime spent picking up paper from each household increased by an estimated 5% for a compactortruck with two runners. This was due to the extra time required to return the crate to the front of eachhouse. The increased number of pickups per street significantly affected the travel time across thecollection area. In addition to this, the increased volume meant the truck fills faster and requiresmore trips to the sorting or pulping destination. This results in extra hours per truck or an extravehicle.

The overall cost impact of the crate including the higher yield and the avoided landfall costs is anincrease of $3.45 per household per year. This is not including any further cost savings fromgarbage collection. It gives an indication to councils and contractors of the scale of cost impact,however each municipality will have local issues e.g. yield, participation, distance to MRF, landfillcost, which will influence this figure.

Importantly, while the cost per household increases by 34%, the cost per tonne collected drops by29% due to dramatically higher yields.


Table 2.7.1: Annual Costs

Cost (includes collection costs, crates andreplacements, council administrationcosts, education costs, sale of paper($15/tonne) and profit (20%)).

Current System

(40%participation)

New CrateSystem

(60%participation)

Change

Cost/household/yr $10.25 $13.70 +$3.45 (34%)

Cost/tonne $95.30 $67.60 -$27.70 (29%)

2.8 Three Month Follow-up Audit

In order to measure whether the results of the trial are likely to be reflected over a longer timeperiod, a follow up audit of participation and volume was undertaken three months after the trial.The number of households participating after 3 months was 52% compared to 37% before the crateintroduction and 56% during the crate trial.

The yield of paper after 3 months was 3.9 kg per household per week compared to 2.5kg beforecrates and 4.3kg after crate introduction. This reduction in yield is, in part, the result of the seasonalcycle that sees paper recycling in March 2001 at levels similar to October 2000 (when the trialbegan) and 20% lower than December 2000 (when the trial finished). The result shows that a smallnumber of households have lost interest or lost their crate over the 3-month period. While notsignificant, (2% of households), it shows the need to maintain participation through education,promotion and container replacement.

No significant changes were noted in relation to paper grades or litter levels.

Table 2.5 Review of Trial Results After Three Months

Before Crate During Trial 3 Months after Trial

Participation rate 37% 56% 52%

Yield (kilo/house/week) 2.5kg 4.3kg 3.9kg


3 SURVEY OF RESIDENT VIEWS

3.1 Survey of household views

In order to identify resident response to the crate trial, a sample of households were door-knocked atthe conclusion of the trial. Between 150-200 households were visited with 60 occupied and willingto respond to the survey. Only 2 residents declined to be interviewed, one due to languagedifficulties and the other due to hearing difficulties.

The householders were asked firstly if they had found the crate a benefit to recycling. They werethen asked to indicate why or why not this was so. The second question was whether they wouldsupport the introduction of the crates on a permanent basis for all residents of the municipality if itcost the council up to $5 per household per year. This figure was based on the likely impact of thecrate introduction including the cost of crate purchase. Residents were then given an opportunity tomake any other comments or raise issues or questions.

3.2 Responses

In responses to the first question, residents overwhelmingly (95%) found the crate beneficial. Whenasked to state why, most responded that the crate was easier to manage, store or handle. Many citeda general convenience benefit including the ability to deposit material neatly throughout the weekprior to collection and the eliminating of tying bundles. A smaller number (20%) nominated litterreduction, waste diversion and general environmental improvement as benefits.

Only three households (5%) said the crate was not a benefit. One stated they did not generate wastepaper and the other two had no interest in recycling.

While the favourable response was not surprising, the strength of this response was unexpected.Almost half of the householders described the crates as very beneficial using phrases such as “great”,“fabulous”, “excellent”, “a lifesaver”, “about time”, “wonderful idea” and “greatly appreciated”.

In response to the second question a similarly high number of residents (90%) expressed anacceptance to pay up to $5 per year more through their council waste charge for the introduction ofcrates across the whole municipality.

A number of households commended their Council for the provision of the crate.


4 DISCUSSION

The results from the collection trial give us an insight into the likely impact of the introduction apaper recycling crate on a more widespread basis.

The level of resident participation and the resulting yield from tied and bundled collections hashistorically been below that achieved by wheelie bins systems. The results of this trial indicate thata move to a two crate system in inner urban and rural/remote areas will bring participation and yieldlevels in line with those obtained from bin systems.

The cost of such a system upgrade based on the modelling undertaken is between $3-4 per householdannually. This level of increase is within the amount residents are prepared to pay through theirwaste charges, based on a post trial survey.

The reduced cost per tonne of paper collected should enable councils to achieve an overall cost pertonne for recyclables of less than $150 tonne, as recommended in the Guide to Preferred ServiceStandards for Kerbside Recycling in Victoria, November 2000.

The worker safety impact of a crate based paper collection shows an improvement over thecollection of bundled or loose paper. Gains come in reduced bending, and reduced exposure to cutsand abrasions. The containment of the paper makes the carrying of the paper to the vehicle easierwith risks reduced from unexpected forces if loads fall apart. The trial found that collection of papercan only occur safely with a low load height. The issue of returning the crate to the kerbside hasimplications for both worker safety, cost, and residential amenity. Many councils require bottle andcan crates to be returned to the nature strip and placed back in position. This would deliver a workersafety gain from elimination of throwing the crate. It would add to the time taken to collect andtherefore increase the cost of collection.

Contamination levels of the waste paper stream remains satisfactory with the use of a crate comparedto tied and bundled systems and levels of litter are also reduced. Some resident education may beneeded to avoid littering of small pieces of paper.

The results of the survey of resident views showed that householders see the crate introduction as amajor system improvement.

One of the aims of the trial was to assess the impact of the trial on the ability to collect sorted gradesof paper with resident co-operation. The level of separation, in accordance with council guidelines,was low in the City of Moreland using a bundled collection. The introduction of the crate appears tohave had no significant positive or negative impact on this. It seems clear that residents are notwilling to place cardboard outside the crate. It may be possible to achieve a reasonable level ofgrade separation within the crate (cardboard on top of newspaper/magazine), but this will requiresignificant resident education effort.

Of the eleven inner urban councils only Moreland and Yarra currently operate source-separatedcollections. Glen Eira operates a newspaper and magazine only collection. Similarly most ruralcouncil collections are not requiring source separation. If the introduction of crates on a widespreadbasis did not result in an acceptable level of resident sorting, its impact on a state-wide basis wouldtherefore not be significant.


5 CONCLUSIONS

Following the completion of the collection trial, the following conclusions can be drawn on theimpact of collection crates.

o The introduction of crates will lead to a boost in the number of households participatingin paper recycling. An increase in presentation of around 50% should be expected,subject to local issues.

o Crate introduction will increase the yield of paper overall. This will be from higherlevels of participation and also higher volumes of paper being presented fromhouseholds currently recycling. An increase in overall yield of around 45% should beexpected, subject to local issues.

o The overall recycling yield impact of crate introduction in inner urban areas and ruralareas will be significant. An increase in paper recycling of up to 30,000 tonnes perannum is possible with full implementation.

o The use of crates for collecting paper reduces or eliminates a large number ofoccupational health and safety risks. This is from less bending, more secure loads and amore even weight per pick up.

o If the crate is thrown back onto the nature strip, the time it takes a collection contractorto pick up the paper from each participating household will not change significantly. Ifthe crate has to be placed back on the kerb there will be a 5% increase in pick up time.

o The increased level of participation and yield will lead to more stops and more trips tounload trucks. This will result in a 34% increase in cost per household.

o The cost of collection per tonne will drop significantly by approx $27 per tonne or 29%.

o The level of litter generated from paper recycling activities will fall with the provision ofa crate.

o Source separation of paper grades by residents is only going to be possible with crates ifbacked by extensive resident education on the need and method of grade separation.

o Contamination will remain at extremely low levels and will be of a non-hazardousnature.

o Residents find the provision of a crate convenient and beneficial and will welcome anycouncil initiative to introduce them.

o Residents have also expressed a willingness to pay an increased cost of up to $5 perannum for the introduction of a crate service.

Overall, as with other collection containers, (bottle and can crates and wheeled bins), the response topaper recycling crates is positive and likely to enhance recycling outcomes.


Appendix A

Map of collection areas


Documents

Paper Recycling Crate Collection Trial (March 2001) · Thornbury and 236 in East Coburg. 1.3 Conduct of the Trial Commencing on the 24th October, the municipal recycling contractor