Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
As Seen In
WasteAdvantage
The Advantage in the Waste Industry
Considering how the focus in the UK waste management sector has shifted from tonnage to quality, and how to ensUre feedstoCKs reaCh their end marKets.
UK mUnicipal waste recycling rates have just hit 40 percent, but with new targets asking for 70 percent diversion through recycling and composting in Scotland and Wales, and with the EU Landfill Directive demanding a 75 percent reduction on 1995 levels of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, there is still a big push on for more collection of recyclables, whether it be through curbside programs, or through bring sites and segregation at the local tip. We are experiencing the development of new Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) systems to help segregate additional recyclable materials from the residual
stream to improve recycling tonnage to ensure EU targets are met. However, the last two years has also seen a massive swing in local authority activity away from focusing purely on recycling tonnage (necessary to meet targets) to recycling quality, a reflection that we now have local collection schemes and processing facilities that are achieving 70 percent diversion, with the emphasis now more about securing markets and income generationboth of which are reliant on quality materials. This is in part a reaction to global trends in commodity prices, the increasing tonnage of recyclates within the UK market, and the filling of capacity of traditional market outlets, all of which have resulted in recycling loads being rejected at the paper mill or aluminum plant. But
38
As Seen In
Case Study
AEA is currently working with the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)the UK Governments delivery agent for support to local municipalities on waste management issueson a project to improve the input quality of commingled recyclables to MRFs. This project involved a literature review to assess what work had already been undertaken in this wide-ranging area, drawing on more than a decade of UK-based research and application. Many of the key findings from this have been reported in this article. AEA was also responsible for developing a trial to use in Crawley Borough to help reduce the non-target materials reaching their MRF, drawing on the best practice identified in the research. The authority has seen non-requested material levels rise from 4 percent to 16 percent over the last 18 months, with the problem materials being residual waste, textiles, wet paper and ice cream tubs.The local authority and its waste contractor monitor the quality of material on a regular basis.The monitoring includes data on the number of recycling bins rejected at the curbside by the crews due to high levels of contamination, loads of collected material rejected at the MRF, as well as compositional analysis data on material accepted by the MRF. As discussed in the article, communication and crew training are key factors in improving the quality of material and, as a result, two parallel programs have been developed for use in Crawleycrew training (of one target) to help them recognize non-target materials and to empower them to leave behind contaminated loads as a reminder to residents about the contamination, and a bin sticker trial (in one crew area) to help reinforce messages about the materials accepted by the recycling scheme (all target households received a letter explaining this as well). This trial is currently underway, and the data will be available June 2011.
40
Commingled collection.
what is quality, how do we improve it and who is ultimately responsible for ensuring quality materials are segregated and delivered to end-users?
Making a Shift
Ultimately, quality materials are those that are provided in a form that an end market is prepared to accept, at a price that is more advantageous then alternative material streamsin particular raw resources. In the UK, with the prevalence of commingled collections and developed as a cheap means of collecting high tonnage rather than quality feedstock, there has been a key role for materials recycling facilities (MRFs) in taking these mixed recyclate streams and pulling out materials prior to sending them on to UK and wider markets. Over the last five years, MRFs have been held up by parts of the UK waste sector and the national media as the ones responsible for producing low quality material, but the production of quality material from curbside recyclables needs to be more accurately considered as a supply chain providing materials to the end usersthe markets. As such, the public is ultimately responsible for placing the correct materials into their recycling containers, and the waste collectors (recycling crews) are responsible for ensuring that only material of good quality is collected and delivered to the MRF. So, you can see there is inherent tension in the UK between curbside collection system design, with its historic focus on tonnage and its prioritization of commingled collections because of ease of public use and the end market users who want quality feedstock at an appropriate price.
of the end markets they supply, the feedstock they receive from the public and the local municipalities they serve. MRFs are essentially a manufacturing The Advantage in the Waste Industry operation producing segregated recyclate from the material delivered to them. So, the old adage rubbishin rubbishout remains very true for MRF operators in the UK, as it is harder to produce a quality output (an output required to meet the specification of a glass bottle manufacturer or paper mill) when commingled collections are contaminated with unrequested materials such as food, diapers, some hard plastic packaging, etc. Therefore, focusing on the quality of materials presented at the curbside will not only improve the level of quality throughout the supply chain, but it will also minimize the costs incurred at the MRFdisposal of residues, returned loads from end users, sorting streams for a second and third time, etc. This has become a key focus for municipal authorities over the last two years as local authority waste managers have begun to recognize that quality is becoming the limiting factor on service efficiency and value for moneysomething that is even more obvious in the current global recession with UK municipalities being asked to make cuts in budgets without impacting on service level. However, this has also led to many local tensions between operational staff and budget holders as addressing quality concerns at the curbside often involves targeted communication campaigns that educate and instruct households about what not to put in their bin/box/bag. But as we all know, public communication funding is always the first to be hit during cuts in municipal budgets.
WasteAdvantage
42
As Seen In
Operations Communications Aspects of in the Waste Industry scheme design which can impact the quality of recyclables collected The Advantage include: Container typeopen bins or boxes can be compromised via littering from passers or will result in wet paper. To minimize this lids or lidded containers can be used, which may or may not be lockable. Provision of free recycling bagsblack bags for residual waste must be purchased by the household and can lead to contamination of the recycling loads. Use of transparent recycling sacks for easy identification of contamination at the point of collection by crews. Border effectsthe impact of a neighboring authoritys scheme which may encourage residents to put out non-target materials because their friends and relatives are recycling them. Frequency of residual waste collection, which may encourage contamination of the recycling bins once the residual bin is full. Range of recyclable materials collected, with a fuller coverage of materials resulting in less non-target materials ending up in the recycling stream. Bin typecommingled collections that use wheelie bins are traditionally more contaminated than systems that use bags or boxes because they are easier to check at the curbside. Studies completed in the UK suggest that the addition of new materials to the recycling service can reduce the presence of non-target materials, quite simply because the materials causing issues previously become target materials (glass, tetrapaks, plastics, etc). However, this is dependent on whether the receiving MRF is able to
WasteAdvantage
2011 Waste Advantage Magazine, All Rights Reserved. Reprinted from Waste Advantage Magazine. Contents cannot be reprinted without permission from the publisher.
WasteAdvantage Magazine
April 2011
43
Training
The key operational factor that can impact the levels of non-target materials within commingled systems is crew training. This training can be focused on recognizing non-target materials in order to reject bins at the curbside, or training of the staff to more effectively engage with householders and encourage them to recycle correctly. The collection crews regularly come into contact with residents when collecting materials during the day and can help provide positive feedback about what can and cant be recycled. A number of UK local authorities have undertaken crew training programs designed to address non-target materials and contamination and monitored the impact of the training provided to crews. Portsmouth City Council found that providing crew training in the recognition of non-target materials reduced the levels from 11 percent to 5 percent for materials delivered to the local MRF. Similarly, one London borough has implemented a crew training program and found that the levels of non-target materials declined from 22 percent to 13 percent. So, clearly a small investment in crew support and local delivery can have significant benefits, and these are much easier to implement than whole-scale changes to the collection system or the containers in use.
Communication Campaigns
Not surprisingly, communication campaigns have been the most common
44