Análisis general

green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in

reusable garden

sacks, HMOs co-

mingled £7,249,400 £528,208 £2,717,913 £10,495,52 1 £435,00 0 £3,037,4 26 tbc £3,472,426 £13,967,947 BAU3 - monthly residual, weekly recycling comingled, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in

reusable garden sacks £5,503,900 £1,363,544 £5,430,519 £12,297,96 2 £435,00 0 £293,25 0 tbc £728,250 £13,026,212 TWIN3 - monthly residual, weekly recycling 2 bags,

weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners

free, further wheeled £7,023,900 £557,410 £2,896,968

£10,478,27 9 £435,00 0 £693,82 9 tbc £1,128,829 £11,607,108

61 bin expansion, opt in

reusable garden

sacks

KERB3 - monthly

residual, weekly

recycling kerbisde 2 box & bag, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin

expansion, opt in

reusable garden

sacks, HMOs co-

mingled £6,367,900 £618,227 £3,253,569 £10,239,69 7 £435,00 0 £1,692,9 62 tbc £2,127,962 £12,367,659 BAU4 - 3 weekly residual, weekly recycling comingled, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in

reusable garden sacks £5,446,800 £1,101,310 £5,430,519 £11,978,62 9 £435,00 0 £12,000 tbc £447,000 £12,425,629

62

Appendix E: Cardiff Council position on compliance with the separate collections guidance and TEEP

For clarity, ‘separate collections’ means the gathering of waste, including the preliminary sorting and preliminary storage of waste for the purposes of transport to a waste treatment facility where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment. There is debate over what constitutes ‘separate collection’ that has been the subject of legal argument in the UK and the (England & Wales) Waste Regulations were amended as a result of legal challenge.

The WG guidance on the revised waste framework was only published on 22nd December 2014. The guidance aims to clarify key debates around what constitutes high quality and the necessity test and will take time to consider.

Cardiff has always strived for high quality recycling in order to maximise recycling and secure the best market prices. Legal compliance is also an absolute priority. Yet, we have always balanced these needs with local solutions that the residents of Cardiff support.

Collections Options Modelling and Appraisal

One of the key consideration of the work to date has been the need to baseline the current kerbside collection service against WG’s preferred ‘collections blueprint’ (kerbside sorting). Equally, the lack of public support identified in the initial December 2013 waste strategy consultation also must be considered in developing future service options. Although under the current WG guidance public opinion is outlined as not a factor, low participation for recycling can significantly increase service cost and increase the risk of failing future recycling statutory targets.

The high level modelling that has been undertaken looks to identify the best options and to explore these in more detail. The work to date has provided a Outline Business Case which is subject to further assessment and market testing. This will be followed by a submission of a Final Business Case before an absolute decision is made on any form of collection change in relation to dry recycling collections.

High level summary of the modelling sample costs – first year only

option Total service costs Total set up costs Total first year costs Achieve future recycling

63 targets

BAU1 - fortnightly residual, weekly recycling comingled, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free

£12,787,109 £0 £12,787,109 NO

BAU2 - fortnightly residual restricted, weekly recycling comingled, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in reusable garden sacks

£12,789,040 £2,072,714 £14,861,754 YES

TWIN2 - fortnightly residual restricted, weekly recycling 2 bags, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in reusable garden sacks

£11,051,585 £2,473,293 £13,524,878 YES

KERB2 - fortnightly residual restricted, weekly recycling kerbside 2 box & bag, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in reusable garden sacks, HMOs co-mingled

£10,495,521 £3,472,426 £13,967,947 YES

BAU3 - monthly residual, weekly recycling comingled, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in reusable garden sacks

£12,297,962 £728,250 £13,026,212 YES

TWIN3 - monthly residual, weekly recycling 2 bags, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in reusable garden sacks

£10,478,279 £1,128,829 £11,607,108 YES

KERB3 - monthly residual, weekly recycling kerbisde 2 box & bag, weekly food, seasonal green, bags & liners free, further wheeled bin expansion, opt in reusable garden sacks, HMOs co-mingled

£10,239,697 £2,127,962 £12,367,659 YES

The modelling considers ‘whole life costs’, so treatment costs (the process after collection e.g. composting, anaerobic digestion, energy from waste etc.) have also been determined for each collection option. Additionally, a piece of work was undertaken to determine what affect each collection option would have on the requirements on the Materials Recycling Facility and potential market prices for recyclate.

64 It is a high level model that shows indicative costs based on the vehicles used and method of treatment. They are used to show a comparison between collection methods, rather than determined budgetary values. In terms of the potential material income associated with each collection method and processing costs, average price per tonnes were used. These prices are a guide only and subject to market fluctuation.

Once further work is completed on the current options a range of sensitivities will be explored against the preferred option to fully understand the risks. These sensitivities include;

• Kerbside sort creates a 10% decrease in participation: Research has shown that Councils which switched from

comingled collections to kerbside sort face a risk of reduced participation. This is due to the highly acknowledged fact that comingled collections collect a higher yield of recyclate from its residents. The most significant costs associated with this are an increase in disposal costs, due to materials being put back in the refuse collection, and the risk of fines should the reduction in tonnage collected result in Cardiff not meeting its targets.

• Increased participation as we move towards 70% recycling: any model needs to be tested against current participation of capture of recyclate, but also how a scheme performs if residents recycle more.

• Changes in market prices: there is a need to further understand the market prices that can be achieved by the

various collection methods. The theory remains that by achieving high quality better market prices can be secured despite the risk of market instability.

Sustainability modelling (Carbon footprint)

With support from WRAP, a sustainability model was undertaken on the various high level options. The report made the following recommendations for Cardiff to improve our carbon footprint;

• increasing recycling and avoidance of disposal;

• using collection vehicles with a different fuel source or lower consumption; • less vehicle movements;

• considering reusable containers instead of the single use green bags; • high quality recyclables to local markets; and

65 • reducing the energy consumption to process the recyclables collected.

• Make use of energy from waste instead of landfill disposal.

Many of the points above will be addressed in 2015 through restricting the residual waste to drive up recycling; MRF improvements; continually rebalancing the rounds to drive out efficiencies and diversion of residual waste to the Project Gwyrdd, Viridor energy recovery facility.

Necessity

WG have determined that LAs should seek to achieve the best overall environmental outcome, and that where possible, should look to achieve ‘closed loop’ recycling. This for example, would mean to turn a glass bottle back into a glass bottle and not into road aggregate.

Under the necessity test, Cardiff must consider whether it actually needs to separate materials further in order to achieve high quality recycling. A simple benchmark for this test was to compare the quality of our materials, at the point that they are recycled, with ‘good’ kerbside sort authorities. Unfortunately, terms such as ‘high quality’ and ‘good kerbside sort authority’ are not defined by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the WG guidance was only provided 22nd December 2014. As a starting point waste officers compared the top destinations for Cardiff’s recycling in 2012/13, to those used by Welsh kerbside sort authorities in the All Wales End destinations report.

Reviewing the All Wales End destinations report showed that Cardiff achieved the same if not higher standards in recycling than some kerbside sort authorities. Until the guidance is interpreted by the NRW, it could be argued that Cardiff already meets high quality standards when compared to other kerbside sort authorities. Such fundamental points should be considered prior to making changes to a highly effective, high performing, highly efficient service which enjoys high levels of public satisfaction at this time. In addition the MRF regulations, which came into force in October 2014, will assist with mapping out the various “quality” standards achieved through the different collection methods used across Wales. The regulations require MRFs to undertake detailed sampling on material as it is received, and again after it has been through the sorting process. It will enable Cardiff to ascertain the true quality of our material, and how it is, or isn’t, affected by the MRF process. Cardiff will then be in a better position to compare the quality of the material it provides to reprocessors to that of kerbside sort authorities.

66 Currently, our contamination rate is between 8-10% of inputs, which is below the industry standard. As the MRF regulations only came into effect in October 2014, more data is required across the industry to establish “what is quality”.

TEEP Test

Cardiff must also consider whether it is TEEP to do so.

• Technically practicable: Given that separate collections operate in cities similar to Cardiff – such as Belfast, it is likely to be concluded that such collections are also practicable within Cardiff. Equally, WG recognise that flats may require an alternative approach than kerbside sort.

• Economically Practicable: The benchmark for whether collections are economically practicable is that they must not be ‘excessive’ in comparison to non-separate collections. The final whole life costs of the different options will need to be assessed fully to determine this. The Council will also need to consider the “cost of change” in light of other investment priorities that need to be delivered. This also needs to consider current contracts and penalties from changing these procurements early. Far more data is required around the use of reusable containers for dry recycling as the timings of a collection cycle is the most significant factor in the collections modelling. Equally, the authority does not have sufficient data on the current composition of the waste collected or how this may change after the general waste has been restricted. The last compositional waste survey was funded and completed in 2002 by WG. The compositional split of the recycling can hugely influence the future vehicle requirements and configuration and therefore costs.

• Environmentally Practicable: Although high level sustainability modelling has been undertaken the final preferred option will need to be modelled as part of the full business case. Various changes such as restricting residual waste, further round balancing and the use of energy from waste will all improve our carbon footprint. Local Government Measure 2009

In addition to the necessity and TEEP tests, the Council is subject to the requirements under schedule 2 of the Local Government Measure 2009. Under this, Cardiff must “Make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions”. In doing so, the authority must have “regard in particular to the need to improve the exercise of its functions in terms of;

67 • Service quality; • Service availability; • Fairness; • Sustainability; • Efficiency; and • Innovation.

Any decision to alter the service must also be justified when considering the above points. Further consideration will need to be given (and will be done so over 2015) to how we apply these 7 requirements to the service, but examples include:

• Strategic Effectiveness: where does the service sit within Council priorities and is it currently meeting LA and national performance targets. Is there a major strategic case for investment in change compared to other Council priorities; • Service Quality: does the service meet the needs of its residents, satisfaction ratings, participation ratings etc. The