Technical report templates - wrap.org.uk€¦ · Web viewFinal version . Collection of food and drink cartons at the kerbside. Guidance for local authorities and waste contractors

Final version

Collection of food and drink cartons at the kerbside

Guidance for local authorities and waste contractors

Project code: RCY-125-002Research date: March – July 2017Date: October 2017

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.wrap.org.uk

Document reference (please use this reference when citing WRAP’s work):

[WRAP, Year, Town, Title of Report, Prepared by xx]

Written by: Sally Scholefield, Will French and Ed Cook

Front cover photography: Ed Cook

While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

This document is uncontrolled if printed

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

MR40 – Version 17 WRAP - Collection of food and drink cartons at the kerbside

Page 3

IntroductionFood and drink cartons are collected at the kerbside by two-thirds of local authorities in the UK. They make up 0.2% of the municipal waste stream and have a historically low value in secondary markets.This guide is aimed at local authority policy-makers, waste operations managers and those interested in collecting food and drink cartons from households for recycling. Its purpose is to provide information on the economic, operational, environmental and policy aspects of kerbside carton collections so that officers can make informed decisions on the best way to handle and market this material for effective recycling.This guidance has been developed by WRAP as part of its Framework for Greater Consistency in Household Recycling in England1 which includes cartons as one of the eight materials to be collected by local authorities.Advice is based on observations of local authorities with existing carton collection and sorting systems as well as interviews carried out with local authorities and other waste carton stakeholders.Further information about carton recycling can be found via The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE) UK.

1 http://static.wrap.org.uk/consistancy/Read_more_about_the_framework.pdf

http://www.ace-uk.co.uk/

http://www.ace-uk.co.uk/

Contents 1.0 Context......................................................................................52.0 Types of carton..........................................................................5

2.1 Chilled.................................................................................................52.2 Aseptic................................................................................................5

3.0 Cartons reprocessing..................................................................64.0 How many cartons to expect.......................................................75.0 Markets.....................................................................................7

5.1 Domestic.............................................................................................75.2 Exports................................................................................................8

6.0 Collection and sorting options.....................................................96.1 Separately collected in a dedicated compartment............................106.2 Mixing with other containers.............................................................106.3 Comingled with containers, fibre and other materials......................116.4 Mixing with cardboard/fibre grades..................................................11

7.0 Headline cost benefit................................................................137.1 Scenarios..........................................................................................137.2 Summary of scenarios......................................................................147.3 Reprocessors....................................................................................14

8.0 Storage & transport..................................................................168.1 Loose cartons....................................................................................168.2 Storage of bales................................................................................168.3 Transport..........................................................................................17

9.0 Communicating the service to residents.....................................18Appendix A. Assumptions for collections cost model.................................20Appendix B. Analysis of different collection methods for food and drink cartons

21

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all the authority officers and contractors who took part in interviews, and allowed us to study and photograph their operations and in particular: Bryson Recycling, Torfaen CBC; South Gloucestershire Council; SUEZ; Conwy CBC; South Cambridgeshire District Council; Amey; Confederation of Paper Industries; DS Smith; Saica Natur; Nigel Homer for the Environment Agency.Thanks also go to ACE UK and Sonoco for their help with this guide.


Page 5

It’s a myth!It is a myth that cartons contain wax. The semi matt external polyethylene layer may feel like a waxed surface but food and drinks cartons have never contained wax.

1.0 Context Historically, local authorities have focussed their efforts on collecting recyclates that are plentiful, heavy or have a high value. Following increasingly successful capture rates for many of these materials, officers are moving their attention to other materials to help achieve recycling targets and in response to requests from residents. In a survey carried out to produce this guide around 50% of authorities who responded collected food and drink cartons due to demands from householders.The carton industry2 is also keen to see their packaging recycled and advocates for better facilities and increased collection through the trade association, The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE) UK.Historically, facilities for collecting cartons for recycling have been scant. From 2007, bring banks started to appear in a large number of local authority areas around the UK, the majority of them being funded by ACE UK via investment from the beverage carton industry.More recently these have been complemented by, and in many cases replaced by, the collection of cartons at kerbside, which is now carried out in around 65% of local authority areas across the UK.2.0 Types of cartonCartons are designed to keep the contents fresh by protecting the product from deterioration by oxygen, sunlight, odour and bacteria. The square shape of cartons also lends itself to the efficient storage and transport of food and drinks, as the shape enables efficient use of space. There are two broad types: chilled, which make up about a third of the cartons placed on the market, and aseptic (also called long life or ambient) which make up the other two-thirds.2.1 Chilled Cartons that are used to contain chilled produce, have a polyethylene (PE) layer on the inside and outside which is bonded to the fibre. Average composition of 85% fibre and 15% PE.2.2 AsepticAseptic cartons, used to contain long-life products, also have a very thin layer of aluminium foil on the inside of the carton. The aluminium layer prevents oxygen from entering the carton as this causes the product to deteriorate. Composition is approximately 75% fibre, 20% PE and 5% aluminium (by weight).

Figure 1: Structure of chilled carton Figure 2: Structure of long-life carton

2 Tetra Pak, Elopak and SIG Combibloc


Page 6

3.0 Cartons reprocessing The PE and aluminium layers in cartons are designed to prevent liquid from accessing the fibre layer of the packaging, this means that they require a longer pulping time than unlaminated paper and additional screening equipment to remove the non-fibre materials from the pulp.To separate the plastic (including lids) and aluminium from the fibre, the cartons need to be stirred with water in a batch pulper for about 20 minutes (Error: Reference source not found). Once the fibres have been broken down and pulped, the mixture is flushed with water to clean off the laminating materials; leaving the fibre separate from the combined PE/aluminium.


Page 7

It’s a fact!Cartons mixed with cardboard/fibre grades may not be recycled by paper-mills and have to be screened out, representing a potential cost to the reprocessor.

There are strong and well-established markets for the long fibres present in cartons, for example as cores for reels of paper as shown in Error: Reference source not found. However, the PE/aluminium fraction is more challenging as markets are still developing. Some innovative processes exist in China which produce outputs (Error: Reference source not found) suitable for use in building materials, foam, concrete, garden furniture and play mats.Whilst older paper mills may still use batch pulpers which can process laminated paper such as cartons, most modern plants use a continuous process which lasts about eight minutes. It is for this reason that cartons included in other fibre grades may not be recycled and have to be screened out of the process in the pulper, representing a cost in terms of logistics, removal and waste disposal.Some cartons may be screened before they enter the pulper via a positive manual pick but it is understood that in the UK the majority are screened directly from the pulper. In both cases, the screened materials are either landfilled or sent for energy recovery (sometimes on-site) which will elicit some value from the material; however this does not constitute recycling.


Page 8

Figure 3: Cartons being processed inside the batch pulper at Sonoco/ACE UK facility near Halifax

Figure 4: Tubes and cores produced by Sonoco

Figure 5: Aluminium ‘flake’ and pelletised plastic separated from the PE/aluminium fraction of recovered cartons

4.0 How many cartons to expectCartons represent approximately 0.2% of the municipal waste stream (around 60,000 TPA in the UK) and although capture rates are not known for England, the data from a recent compositional analysis study in Wales indicated that their national kerbside capture rate was approximately 48%3 .Table 1 provides an indication of the weight of cartons that might be collected by authorities of different sizes and with different capture rates. Table 1: Typical weight of cartons collected for different sized authorities and capture rates, (tonnes)

Authority size (households)

25% capture rate 50% capture rate 75% capture rateMonth Year Month Year Month Year

30,000 1.3 15.8 2.6 31.7 4.0 47.550,000 2.2 26.4 4.4 52.8 6.6 79.1

100,000 4.4 52.8 8.8 105.5 13.2 158.3200,000 8.8 105.5 17.6 211.0 26.4 316.5

Assumptions: UK average waste generation of 1,055 kg per household per year (2.11 kg cartons per hh/yr); amounts will vary considerably according to demographics.5.0 Markets5.1 Domestic There is currently just one facility in the UK (Sonoco/ACE UK near Halifax) that is specifically designed to process post-consumer cartons for recycling. Prior to the construction of ACE UK’s plant in 2013, cartons were exported to continental Europe for recycling where they make up a greater proportion of the waste stream. Historically prices ranged from £0 - £20 tonne (delivered). More recently the carton industry has provided a subsidy for producers that use ACE UK/Sonoco’s Halifax facility resulting in revenue of £55/tonne (delivered). The profitability in the context of transport costs is discussed further in Section 8.3. A potential issue that arises from including cartons with fibre grades is that they have been previously used to contain food and beverages. Although not directly stated, the Confederation of Paper Industries4 alludes to the recommendation that paper which has been previously contaminated with foodstuffs should not be intentionally mixed with other fibre that is to be used in food containers. As this applies to all cartons, the intentional mixing of cartons with fibre grades could be considered a breach of these standards, thus affecting value of materials.Another practice that is carried out by some operators has been the deliberate blending of cartons with fibre grades following separate collection of each. The Environment Agency has stated that it would be against this activity as it is a breach of Article 10 of the Waste Framework Directive5.5.2 ExportsExporting cartons mixed with fibre grades is permitted under the Basel Convention and they are not considered an out throw per se. However, contrary to the international agreements, countries such as China have implemented their own controls to prevent waste being dumped on them. At the time of

3 NB: 15 of the 22 authorities in Wales collect cartons at the kerbside

4http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/foodcontact/2010/GoodManufacturingPractice(GMP).pdf

5 Article 10(2) - ‘Where necessary to ensure and facilitate waste recovery, waste shall be collected separately if technically, environmentally and economically practicable and shall not be mixed with other waste or other material with different properties.


Page 9

Key Acceptable level of out throw Unacceptable level of out throw

http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/foodcontact/2010/GoodManufacturingPractice(GMP).pdf

writing, the Chinese authorities have announced the ‘National Sword’ campaign to tighten up enforcement of import regulations to prevent foreign exporters from dumping unwanted waste.Chinese National Standards6 infer but don’t specifically describe cartons as an out throw; rather they set a maximum threshold of 1.5% for ‘waxed paper, waxed dipped paper ….. etc.’ Discussion with UK regulators during the production of this guide highlighted the lack of clarity from the Chinese authorities over the acceptability for import either mixed with other fibres or as a single stream.If cartons are to be considered an out throw, then, depending on the capture rate and the amount of card being collected by a local authority, mixing with card deliberately could potentially result in this threshold being breached (Figure 67). According to ACE Europe, there are 20 plants across Europe actively recycling food and drink cartons. Since there are currently no restrictions within the EU on the movement of waste cartons these plants could offer potential markets for separated cartons from the UK. 6.0 Collection and sorting options WRAP’s framework for greater consistency in recycling sets out three systems for collections, each of which include the collection of cartons8. A wide range of approaches for kerbside collection of cartons exist across the UK (see Appendix B for detail on how they are applicable to each of the three collection systems outlined in the framework). For simplicity, these have been grouped into four categories according to the handling and sorting activities that are required for the type of mixing involved:

1. Separately collected in a dedicated compartment; 2. Mixed with other containers;3. Partially or fully comingled (i.e. including containers and other non-container

materials); 4. Mixed with cardboard/fibre grades.

The following sections describe each of the four scenarios which are mapped in the material flow in Figure 7.

6 Through GB16487, which is The People’s Republic of China’s Environmental Protection Control Standard for imported solid wastes as raw materials. The standard states that ‘carried-wastes (such as waste wood, waste metal, waste glass, waste plastic, waste rubber, waste sorbent, wall paper, waxed paper, wax dipped paper, carbon paper, etc.) shall be restricted and their total weight shall not exceed 1.5% of the weight of the imported waste paper.” The inference is that cartons are likely to be included as ‘etc.’ as there are less erroneous out throws listed.

7 Modelling assumes 17.7% cardboard and 0.2% cartons as a proportion of total municipal solid waste

8 http://static.wrap.org.uk/consistancy/Read_more_about_the_framework.pdf


Page 10

http://static.wrap.org.uk/consistancy/Read_more_about_the_framework.pdf

http://www.beveragecarton.eu/beverage-cartons/recycling/collection

Figure 7: Material flow of cartons collected at the kerbside using different collection, sorting and marketing methods6.1 Separately collected in a dedicated

compartmentThe principal benefit to collecting separately at the kerbside in a dedicated compartment is that the material will be of a very high quality and require no further sorting. However separate collection increases collection time. It’s hard to definitively say how much extra time this would take, but modelling9 carried out during the production of this guide indicates that collecting via this method could typically add around 8-minutes to the average round10.The issue of storage on the vehicle is also important. Un-compacted cartons occupy approximately 26 kg/m3 on a kerbside sort vehicle. A typical round capturing 3.5 tonnes

9 The KAT tool, estimated that an additional 2.5 s is required to visit each additional compartment and 0.7 s to load each additional item. Our observations of operations in South Gloucestershire, Antrim, and Torfaen validated those assumptions 10 Based on a total load of 3.5 tonnes, 650 houses, 2.5 operatives including the driver who is 40% utilised for loading


Page 11

Fibre material recycled in UK

Density sort

Ad-hoc compartment (e.g. bag)

Separate compartmen

t

Export

Domestic fibre

reprocessor

No sort

Baled

Fibre pulp

Mixed aluminium and plastic laminate

Pulping and

separation

Transport to UK carton

reprocessor

Baled

Optical sort

Manual sort

Separately collected

Mixed with other

containers

Mixed with card

Fully or partially

comingled

Material unlikely to be recycled in UK and unknown end destination if exported

Figure 8: Dedicated compartments in kerbside sort vehicle

of recyclate with a 50% capture rate could expect to collect around 30 kg – meaning a compartment of approximately 1m3 would be needed.

6.2 Mixing with other containers Cartons are commonly collected with other household packaging containers at the kerbside and then separated out at the depot or by a third-party contractor or reprocessor. Collection methods are fairly similar for each. It is common practice to mix cartons with the following, three-dimensional (3D) materials:

Plastics; Cans and plastics; and Cans, plastics and glass.

Whilst metals can be magnetically separated, the remaining fractions can only be sorted practically (in a small depot) by sight, as the cartons and plastics are of a similar shape and density. The implication therefore, is that the carton fraction must be manually picked from the other materials. Stationing a picker on the line also presents an opportunity to remove contaminants which would otherwise enter the plastic stream.Eddy currents are often used in small MRFs to separate the aluminium. Depending on the configurations, they can also select aseptic (aluminium lined) cartons, causing them to ‘jump’ into the aluminium stream where they become a contaminant.Another option is to employ an optical separation unit. Typically, this would be used to select fibre from a household packaging container mix (i.e. not with card). Due to the cost of these units (typically £150k - £250k), it is usually only cost effective to include this technology in larger MRFs. Collecting cartons with cans and plastic containers is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as it is advised in the Household Recycling Charter.6.3 Comingled with containers, fibre and other materials The benefit of comingling the cartons with a greater array of materials is that residents’ confusion about which container to put the cartons in is reduced. However, as cartons are mixed with a more complex list of materials, more sorting steps are necessary.Cartons collected in a compacting vehicle will generally become more two-dimensional (2D), meaning that they will behave in a similar way to other fibre fractions during 2D/3D separation. This leaves MRF operators with the option to either:

Leave the cartons in the fibre stream and market as is; or Carry out a positive manual pick to remove the cartons separately.

Another option is to employ an optical separator to select the cartons from the fibre stream; however this option is unlikely to be used as it would require employing the optical separator to select just cartons from the fibre; a potentially costly solution. One operator explained that approximately 60% of the cartons processed at their facility remain in the mixed paper output, despite having manual pickers at two stages in the process.Positively manually picking the cartons from other fibre streams is possible; however it is difficult for the sorter to capture all the material as the containers are easily concealed between the sheets of fibre.6.4 Mixing with cardboard/fibre gradesIt has become more common practice to include cartons collected at the kerbside with either OCC grade cardboard or mixed paper grades (hard and soft mix). Many councils choose this method because of the reduced costs and simplicity; however, the cartons may not be recycled and hence may not be included in recycling statistics. Furthermore, the practice carries the risk of repercussions from residents, who retrospectively discover that their cartons have not been recycled.


Page 12

http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/content/charter-household-recycling

As mentioned in earlier sections, this practice could also burden the reprocessing industry with additional costs and effort.


Page 13

CASE STUDY Bryson RecyclingBryson Recycling collects and/or processes recyclate from approximately 60% of the households in Northern Ireland.Since 2012, the company has collected cartons at the kerbside and their MRF near Belfast accepts material from both comingled and kerbside sort collections.Comingled materialThe cartons processed at the MRF are mostly 2D by the time they arrive at the facility which means that they behave in the same way as other fibre processed at the plant. Therefore the manual pickers have to sort through sheets of paper and card to identify them which happens at three stages during the sort process.The result is a capture rate of approximately 40% from the overall process. Kerbside sorted material Some of the inputs to the plant are via a kerbside sort in which cartons are mixed with cans and plastic containers. This stream is automatically sorted at night, by an optical separator which positively selects fibre. Since the materials are carefully screened at the kerbside, the optical sort process is thought to capture almost 100% of the cartons. StorageFollowing the sorting process, the cartons are stored in stillages outdoors until 4 -5 are filled which is enough to make a bale. The bales are stored for several months until enough have been collected to fill a curtain-side artic (approximately 50 bales weighing 26 tonnes). MarketingOnce enough bales have been prepared, the cartons are loaded onto an artic and sent to ACE UK’s plant near Halifax. This revenue stream has helped to support the ongoing business case for Bryson’s carton recycling efforts.


Page 14

Figure 9: A kerbside sorting operative loads cartons onto a vehicle in Newtownabbey

7.0 Headline cost benefit Increasing pressure on local authorities to cut costs is driving them to consider more cost-effective solutions to achieve statutory recycling targets.7.1 ScenariosThe cost model in Figure 90 compares three collection models with a baseline where cartons are collected in residual waste and sent to an energy from waste plant. For each of the scenarios, the following costs associated with cartons collection are shown below the horizontal axis:

additional collection (on top of normal collections costs); sorting (from cans and plastic containers); and transport to the reprocessor.

Above the horizontal axis, shows the income generated from the sale of cartons. The white dot shows the net cost/benefit from carton collection.

1: Separatelycollected

2: Mixed withother containers

3: Collected with fibre

(£300)(£250)(£200)(£150)(£100)

(£50)£0

£50 £100 £150 £200

Collection Sorting Transport (downstream) Material income Total cost (-) or income (+)

Cost

(-) /

inco

me

(+) p

er 1

,000

hou

seho

lds

per a

nnum

Figure 90: Cost effectiveness of different collection options11

1. Separately collectedAlthough this scenario doesn’t involve any post collection sorting, the modelling indicates a net annual cost of approximately £150 per 1,000 households for collecting cartons separately. This is driven by the additional time associated with moving between compartments on the kerbside collection vehicle; whilst the material income is similar to the other two scenarios.

2. Mixed with other containersThe net cost for this scenario is approximately £82 per 1,000 households. The annual income of £150 is offset by the cost of manual removal of cartons from the other containers. In contrast to Scenario 3 (below), manual separation ensures that a single stream is produced that can be recycled. Furthermore, the manual sorter will be available to remove contaminants from the plastic containers, increasing potential revenue for this stream.

3. Collected with fibre

11 The reader should bear in mind the assumptions (Appendix A) made to generate these results and use the results of this modelling as a guide only


Page 15

This option appears to be the most cost effective as it potentially benefits from a higher income for the cartons because they are treated as card. However, although this option seems attractive, the cartons may not be recycled and potentially cannot therefore be reported as such; bringing into question the rationale for this method of collection and leaving local authorities open to criticism from residents and the media.7.2 Summary of scenariosCartons collected and sent for reprocessing with fibre are not generally recycled. Both separate collection and mixing with containers incur a net cost. An indication of the typical cost to authorities of different sizes is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Indicative financial impact of collecting cartons by different methods12

Authority size (hh)

Separate collection Mixed with other containers Mixed with fibre

-£150 -£82 £15230,000 -£4,500 -£2,460 £4,56050,000 -£7,500 -£4,100 £7,600100,000 -£15,000 -£8,200 £15,200200,000 -£30,000 -£16,400 £30,4007.3 ReprocessorsReprocessors should also be considered when deciding on the collection method. Deciding to leave the cartons in the fibre stream will result in passing on a cost to remove and dispose of the cartons to the reprocessors.Whilst it might be tempting to take the view that this is a problem for the reprocessing industry, failure to account for this cost could lead to an ineffective business model and potentially losing the buyers altogether.Therefore it is important to consult reprocessors and exporters before choosing your method of collection.

12 The assumptions (Appendix A) use fixed income prices and fixed operating costs, which will vary subject to individual scheme conditions, and the modelling should be seen only as a guide


Page 16

CASE STUDY

AMEY - CambridgeshireAMEY’s MRF at Waterbeach near Cambridge processes over 100,000 tonnes per annum of co-mingled and twin stream materials collected from households across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s six districts. Cartons have been included in their comingled materials collections since 2013. The notable difference of AMEY’s approach to carton separation is that only the aseptic cartons (foil lined) are targeted for separation. AMEY’s eddy-current separator is configured to separate foil-lined cartons as well as aluminium cans. The result is a stream of cartons and cans from which the cartons are positively picked in a cabin where other contaminants are also removed. The non-foil lined cartons either remain in the mixed paper stream or in the facility’s rejects stream. The result of this method is that a very clean stream of foil lined cartons is collected with minimal effort.


Page 17

Figure 101: Cartons being positively picked from the aluminium line at AMEY’s Waterbeach MRF

8.0 Storage & transportA common reason cited for not collecting cartons as a separate stream, is the space that they occupy in the depot. Although the amounts collected are likely to be small, they need to have space allocated for storing the loose cartons and further space to store them once baled.8.1 Loose cartons If collected as a separate, uncompacted stream, cartons will have an approximate bulk density of 26 kg per m3 13 although this volume can be reduced considerably with a shovel loader while they await baling. Cartons which have been compacted with a specialist kerbside vehicle (e.g. Romaquip, Terberg) will occupy slightly more space than those from comingled collections that have been compacted in an RCV.Once they have been delivered to the depot and sorted if necessary, there are several approaches to storage:

Roll-on-offs; Skips; Push-wall bays; and Stillages.

Handling is important. If stored in a bay, then the bay needs to be wide enough for a shovel loader to scoop from. A stillage allows the cartons to be stored in a more compact space, as they can be squashed and manoeuvred with a forklift. A skip or roll-on-off usually needs to be emptied into a clean bay before it can be shovelled into the baler. 8.2 Storage of balesBryson Recycling in Northern Ireland reported that four to five full stillages like those shown in Figure 112, are required to make a single bale of cartons.As the cartons arise in small quantities, it can take a long time to store enough to make a bale which typically weighs around 500 kg. Some examples of potential arisings are shown in Table 1. A medium sized authority could expect to produce between one and two bales per week. Once the bales have been produced, they need to be stored until a full load is ready to transport to a reprocessor. Approximately 50 bales will make up a full load, the weight of which can vary between 20 and 26 tonnes depending on the baling operation.Other options are available to transport the baled material including using a smaller vehicle (say half the payload); or, as has been implemented in North Wales, a ‘milk round’. This involves several local authorities communicating over the number of bales which they have stored at their depots and to determine when they have enough between them to fill a lorry. An extended period of storage has the following issues for cartons:

Similar to other food packaging types, the food and drink residues could attract vermin if stored for extended periods and the issues associated with controlling them.

The longer cartons are stored outside, the more moisture they could potentially absorb. This has issues for the off-taker who is paying for unwanted water.

As with all material streams, cartons are subject to contamination from other materials which may stray into their storage area and vice versa.

13 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Bulk%20Density%20Summary%20Report%20-%20Jan2010.pdf


Page 18

Figure 112: Cartons stored in stillages at Bryson Recycling in Northern Ireland

Figure 123: Bales of cartons ready for transport from Bryson Recycling 8.3 TransportAs with all low value recyclates, the economics of marketing the material are strongly influenced by the cost of transport. However, with the subsidised rate offered by ACE UK, the economics are comparable to other low value commodities such as glass. Table 3 shows some typical revenues achievable from locations around the UK after transport costs are covered.Table 3: Typical income from carton loads transported over different distances

Example haulage distance (miles)

Typical transport cost (assumes urban environment)

Typical income(24 tonne load)

50 -£150 £1,170100 -£200 £1,120200 -£350 £970300 -£450 £870400 -£650 £670

* assumes urban environment with easy access9.0 Communicating the service to

residentsHaving established the need for and the feasibility of collecting cartons, how the message is communicated with residents needs to be considered.It is important to state what the reasons are for collecting cartons both on the local authority or waste management company’s website and if possible via a service leaflet or flyer.


Page 19

Figure 134: Use clear images to help get your message across

Using clear images helps to get the messages across, particularly in areas where English is not always a first language.

Communications should cover the following points:1. Clarify whether residents are expected to rinse and

flatten their cartons and explain the reasons for this. Householders appreciate explanations.

2. Clearly advise them which container to put the cartons in.

3. If collecting the cartons in with plastics, explain to residents why, as they will generally consider cartons and cardboard to be a more ‘natural’ fit.

4. You may want to inform residents about the constituent parts of the cartons and how they are recycled. Information to support this can be found on the ACE UK website and from WRAP.

5. Consider the end destination of the cartons and how this will be reported to your residents; including the impact of unwitting mis-reporting.


Page 20

https://www.recyclenow.com/recycling-knowledge/how-is-it-recycled/cartons

http://www.ace-uk.co.uk/images/uploads/6603_ACE_UK_Recycling_Factsheet_Low_Res.pdf

MAKING THE CASESomerset Waste PartnershipFollowing trials in 2014, Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) identified several potential materials to add to their household collections portfolio as well as exploring the case for reducing the frequency of residual waste collection. As part of the production of this guide, SWP were supported by WRAP to investigate whether cartons should be included in the list of materials collected, and if so what would be the best method of collection. Three scenarios were investigated:

1. Separate collected in a dedicated compartment;

2. Mixed with other containers;3. Mixing with cardboard.

Modelling was carried out using assumptions from the WRAP Kerbside Assessment Tool which had been validated by observing collection teams.Since SWP wanted to guarantee that cartons would be recycled, they discounted the option to mix with cardboard. In agreement with the cost modelling described in Section 7.0, mixing with cans and plastic containers emerged as the most financially advantageous method as it involved using sorting staff that were already in place to remove contaminants.


Page 21

Appendix A. Assumptions for collections cost model

General

Number of hh (functional unit) 1,000Capture rate (% cartons collected separately)14 50%Set out rate (%/hh presenting cartons) 15 40%Expected yield (kg/hh/yr) 1.06Cartons collected per 1,000 hh (tonnes) 1.055Weight of a carton (g)16 34Yield (kg/hh/yr) 1.06Number of cartons (items/hh/yr) 31

Material (income/cost)

Residual - landfill17 -£102Residual - EfW17 -£86Mixed papers18 £58Cartons19 £55

CollectionLoader cost (per annum)20 -£28,000Time taken to move between compartments (s)21 2.5Time taken to load each item (carton) (s)21 0.7

SortingMaximum pick rate (items per minute) 35Belt speed (tonnes per hour)22 1.75Sorter cost (per annum)20 -£28,000

TransportWeight of cartons per artic load (tonnes)23 24Haulage cost to reprocessor for cartons (£/artic load)24 -£350

14 Based on un-reported data from the following study http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Wales%20Municipal%20Waste%20Composition%202015-16%20FINAL.pdf15 Loosely based on data from: http://laportal.wrap.org.uk/Documents/ICP%20online%20tool%20assumptions.pdf16 Resource Futures empirical data collected from 500 households in June ,201717 WRAP Gate Fees Report 201618 WRAP Materials Pricing Report – ‘typical’ prices since 200919 http://www.ace-uk.co.uk/images/uploads/Operational_Doc_UBC_to_the_UK_mill.pdf20 Resource Futures in-house data 21 WRAP Kerbside Assessment Tool (KAT) – validated using data collected from Bryson Recycling, Torfaen County Borough Council, and South Gloucestershire Council22 Jonathan, Marston Magnets – belt speed is likely to be considerably less for many authorities because their workers are removing other non-target materials23 Interviews carried out for the production of this guide. The majority of respondents claimed that a 26-tonne load was typical, however it was decided to adjust the figure downwards to account for authorities with low compaction ratios on their balers 24 Based on Resource Futures in-house data collected on behalf of WRAP


Page 22

Appendix B. Analysis of different collection methods for food and drink cartons Table 4: Analysis of multi-stream collection methods for food and drink cartons

Scenario Collection typeCarton separation method

Fate Benefits Drawbacks

BaselineNot collected as recyclate at the kerbside

N/A Residual waste

If incinerated then the energy captured is derived mainly from biogenic carbon (fibre) – and embodied energy is lost

If landfilled, the fibre fraction will generate methane

MS 1a Multi-stream

Separately collected

Dedicated compartment

Marketed separately

Requires no further separation and produces a high level of purity Occupies space on collection vehicle

MS 1bAd-hoc container/bag/bin

Can piggy-back on an existing container’s volumetric space

MS 2a

Mixed with fibre grades

Do not sort

Remains in card*/paper (mixed papers) stream

Likely to be accepted in the fibre grades and hence will receive the same price for the weight

May not be recycled and will be disposed of or possibly sent for energy recoveryMay reduce value of the fibre if quantities increase

MS 2bManually separated at MRF

Marketed separately

Achieves a clean stream of materialCan be positively picked along with other materials (e.g. non-target)

Difficult to positively select from fibre due to concealment between sheetsAdds cost through increased touch time

MS 3aMixed with cans and plastics

Manually separated at MRF

Marketed separately


Adds cost through increased touch time

MS 3b Optically separated at MRF

Reduces manual sorting costsBelts can run faster (more material

High capital expenditure if dedicated to cartons

processed)

Table 5: Analysis of twin and single stream collection methods for food and drink cartons

Scenario Collection typeCarton separation method

Fate Benefits Drawbacks

SS 1

Single-stream

Mixed with full range of dry recyclate

Shape/density separated at MRF

Remains with card/paper fractions


May not be recycled and will be disposed of or possibly sent for energy recoveryMay reduce value of the fibre if quantities increase

SS 2Manually separated at MRF Marketed

separately



SS 3Optically separated at MRF

Reduces manual sorting costsBelts can run faster (more processed)


TS 1a

Twin-stream

Mixed with plastics, cans and glass

Manually separated at MRF Marketed

separately



TS 1bOptically separated at MRF

Reduces manual sorting costsBelts can run faster (more processed)


TS 2a Mixed with fibre grades

Not sorted Remains in card*/paper (mixed papers) stream


May not be recycled and will be disposed of or possibly sent for energy recovery

MR40 – Version 17 WRAP - Collection of food and drink cartons at the kerbside Page 24

May reduce value of the fibre if quantities increase

TS 2bManually separated at MRF

Marketed separately


Difficult to positively select from fibre due to concealment between sheetsAdds cost through increased touch time

MR40 – Version 17 WRAP - Collection of food and drink cartons at the kerbside Page 25

www.wrap.org.uk/consistency