Modelling WCA Collection Systems Costs, Performance and

0,77

MB

Outputs

117

stron

5210

ID

Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd

2006

rok

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary .1

1.1 Selecting Which Services to Investigate1

1.2 Study Findings and Recommendations Arising 2

1.2.1 Existing Participation Rates are Good2

1.2.2 Kerbside Collected Waste Recycling Rates of 50% are Realistic and Affordable 2

1.2.3 Reduced Frequency Refuse Collections are Central to High Performing, Low Cost Systems.2

1.2.4 Co-mingled Recycling Services will Offer Limited Performance Gains in Surrey. .3

1.2.5 Garden Waste Services Need Not be Provided Free of Charge3

1.2.6 Full Alignment of WCA and WDA Interests is Critical and Urgent .4

2.0 Model Description and Methodology.5

2.1 Introduction .5

2.2 Description of Model.5

2.2.1 Baseline Modelling.5

2.2.2 Scenario Modelling 8

2.3 Performance Assumption Guidelines 9

2.3.1 General Modelling Assumptions .9

2.3.2 Cost Assumptions.11

2.4 Notes on Interpretation of Cost & Performance Data 13

3.0 Appraisal of System Configurations for Long Term Modelling and Option Selection .15

3.1 Introduction .15

3.2 Development of a Long List of Fully Optimised, Longer Term Scenarios15

3.2.1 Residual waste .15

3.2.2 Dry Recyclables 16

3.2.3 Organic material.16

3.2.4 Service Combinations and Early Stage Short-Listing 17

3.3 Shortening the Long List of Options 19

3.3.1 Qualitative Appraisal of All Possible Service Combinations – Internal Eunomia Workshop 19

3.4 Producing a Final Short List – Scenario Modelling for a Generic Authority 20

3.4.1 Results from Generic Authority Modelling20

3.4.2 Recycling System Performance Comparisons .21

3.4.3 Organic System Performance Comparisons 22

3.5 Ranking System Methodology25

3.6 Ranking the 19 Long Term Models .26

3.7 Ranking System Sensitivity Analysis28

3.8 Selecting which Long-Term Options to Model Using the Ranking System and Other Practical

Considerations.28

3.8.1 Reasons for Including (and Excluding certain) Scenarios in Further Detailed Modelling.28

3.9 Development of Possible Intermediate Scenarios .30

4.0 Detailed Modelling Outputs.32

4.1 Elmbridge Borough Council 34

4.2 Epsom & Ewell Borough Council 39

4.3 Guildford Borough Council .42

4.4 Mole Valley District Council 45

4.5 Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 48

4.6 Runnymede Borough Council 51

4.7 Spelthorne Borough Council 54

4.8 Surrey Heath Borough Council 57

4.9 Tandridge District Council . 60

4.10 Waverley Borough Council . 63

4.11 Woking Borough Council 66

5.0 County-wide Implications of Modelling Long-Term Services.69

5.1 Costs and Performance under a County-wide Roll-out of any Single System 69

5.2 Preferred Scenarios with Cross-County Costs and Performance Outcomes 73

5.3 Incentivising the WCAs to make Optimal Service Selections and the Costs of Kitchen Waste

Collections 76

5.4 Recycling and Residual Waste Compositions Outputs 77

6.0 Long Term Option Sensitivity Analyses83

6.1 Weekly Residual Waste . 84

6.2 Substitution for Stillage Recyclable Vehicles . 84

6.3 AD Treatment of Kitchen Waste 85

6.4 Single Pass for Recyclables and Kitchen Waste 85

6.5 Changing Waste Growth Rate . 86

7.0 Conclusions .90

7.1 Doorstep Recycling Performance and Alternate Week Collection of Refuse. 90

7.2 Dry Recycling Participation Rates . 91

7.3 Co-mingled Collections vs. Kerbside Sort. 91

7.4 Green Waste Collections . 92

7.5 Kitchen Waste Collections. 92

7.6 The Need for Joined up Working. 93

Appendix 1: Waste Composition Data Used .95

Appendix 2: Commodity Prices Used 96

Appendix 3: Description of the Nineteen Scenarios Modelled for a ‘Generic’ Authority98