Development and Testing of Recyclable Transport Packaging Collection Concepts 2 Summary and conclusions2.1 Summary2.2 Conclusions 2.1 SummaryINTRODUCTION Recycling of waste from institutions, trade and offices is according to “Waste 21” too modest compared to the Danish Government objectives. The target is 50 %, and only 35-40 % has been realized in the years 1997-2000. According to Environmental Project no. 441 ”Barriers for recycling of waste suitable for incineration”, some of the reasons are limited space plus the fact that the costs of waste disposal are so small that they have only little effect on what type of waste disposal a company chooses. For that reason, the aim has been to establish a collection system that can promote the collection of recyclable transport packaging for direct recycling. The objective of the project is to test and gather knowledge on collection schemes, focusing on increased recycling of transport packaging, especially from trade companies. The collection schemes tested were:
TIME SCHEDULE The time schedule for the complete project is shown in fig. 2.1.1
Collection areas were selected in the municipalities of Brøndby and Glostrup. The selection has gone through several modes, but as a starting point, areas of the following character were in focus:
After this, areas of modest size and areas in isolated places were opted out and finally the following areas were selected:
The locations of these areas are shown in fig. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 in section 4.1. The KRAK address guide identified the companies in the area, and after a quick sorting, the number of potential participants for the collection scheme were approx. 265 companies. The companies received an information brochure signed by the municipalities, informing them about the project. Together with the brochure a questionnaire was distributed, with the objective of clarifying each company’s waste situation before enrolment to the project. Of the questionnaires sent, approx. 10% were returned due to unknown addresses, and of the remaining, only 48 companies replied corresponding to only approx.20% of the questionnaires. And in these, some were dismissive because of “closure”, “moving out” or “has no waste”. Afterwards visits were made to the remaining approx. 240 companies with the objective of clarifying any questions concerning the experimental collection scheme. On the visiting round, some companies holding the same address appeared to be the same company (or a sister company), and the list of potential participants therefore dropped to approx. 200. Results of the enquiries are shown in fig. 2.1.2
Beside the 68 companies expressing a direct interest in participating, approximately the same number of potential participants was identified. After some persuasion the final number of participating companies was approx. 100.The reasons why a great number of companies did not want to participate, were for example:
It should be emphasized that none of the participants have experienced extra costs resulting from the experimental collection scheme. COLLECTION METHODS During the company visits a need for the establishment of 7 different collection concepts was identified:
COLLECTIONS Generally, the collections were carried out without complications, and the quantities varied according to the sector and the size of the business. In the preparations of the collections it has not been possible to get sufficient data to make a conclusion on the development of the quantities of collected transport packaging, only outlines have been made. The figure below shows the variation in the quantities collected by the different collection schemes (fig. 2.1.3), another figure shows the type of business compared with the type of transport packaging collected (fig. 2.1.4).
It appears that the quantities vary considerably. Cardboard varies between 0.3 kg to more than 1 ton per week, most from goods forwarding and wholesales and less from banks and small stores. The quantities of plastic wrapping vary between 0.1 and 300 kg per week, again wholesale and forwarding of goods are responsible for the larger quantities. Some of the smaller stores, all serviced by the Environmental pilot scheme, with one to nine employees and a waste quantity of 0.1 to 4 kg per week, found the collection scheme too troublesome compared with the small quantities of transport packaging collected and dropped out prematurely. In the end of the collection period, the participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire. 40% responded and were mainly satisfied, though it should be kept in mind that these companies are used to sorting their waste. The economy depends on the quantity of transport packaging each company may have. If the cardboard is disposed of along with the waste suitable for incineration, an incineration fee and waste tax must be paid. If, on the other hand, the cardboard is collected for direct recycling, no waste tax is charged, and the fee for handling the cardboard is usually positive. The company may need an extra container; the savings on incineration fee and taxes should finance rental and service of the container. Companies with a larger quantity of cardboard waste, i.e. more than approximately 1,200 kg per year/ approx. 25 kg per week, will almost always experience a cost reduction. Companies with 600 to 1,200 kg cardboard waste per year will also experience cost savings, though this will depend on the price of the cardboard, the need for extra containers and whether the frequency of emptying the container is adjusted to the needs. Companies with less than 600 kg cardboard per year (10 kg per week), will in most cases experience extra costs when joining a cardboard scheme, though this depends on the scheme the company otherwise would have used, at the building (joint waste container) or in the area. 2.2 ConclusionsThe conclusion focuses on two aspects, partly concerning the project period itself and partly concerning the possibilities to increase the amount of transportation packaging collected for direct recycling. The interest in participating in the project was limited, the main reason being reluctance towards new ways of doing things. This reluctance has probably triggered the arguments voiced in many of the places that increased expenses were the reason why they did not want to participate. This assumption is based on Environmental Project 441, ”Barriers to recycling of trade waste suitable for incineration”, where it is concluded that the costs of waste disposal for companies are so small that the companies do not consider changing the existing systems. Furthermore, in some places there have been physical limitations that have been convenient to use as an argument against participating. Generally, the limited participation means that the actual collection activities have not been as comprehensive as expected. On the other hand, companies that are accustomed to separate collection of cardboard (and plastic) have expressed satisfaction with the separate collection(s), which in it self is an interesting result. Considering the actual collection, the following can be concluded for the various collection concepts: Collection of Bulky waste functioned well even, though the quantities were small. Bulky waste schemes, in which cardboard is included, can also allow participation from commercial leases if the quantity is small, i.e. up to a few hundred kg a year. The cost will be equivalent to the cost of the scheme for private households, - DKK 4-500 per year - and even though the savings from the incineration fee and the waste tax must be set off against this figure, extra costs will amount to a few hundred DKK a year. Cardboard and plastic 1 have throughout the experiment functioned extremely well , and in principle analogous with the bulky waste scheme, but with a larger quantity. Thus, the scheme is most suitable for quantities in the order of a few hundred kg per year, but can, if space conditions allow it, function with larger quantities. Cost wise the scheme resembles that of the bulky waste scheme, but with a waste quantity of several hundred kg per year, the extra cost will be approx. DKK 0. Cardboard and plastic II is in principle functioning well, but because the waste contents are mixed, sorting at point can become superficial, which can cause problems. The scheme needs a quantity of 600-1,200 kg per year to be cost neutral. Cardboard and plastic wrapping separately functions well as long as the cardboard and plastic wrappings are collected independently. With a tendency towards emptying according to the need and regardless of container size and accounting the actual quantities of cardboard (and waste), the scheme will be financially attractive for companies with more than 600 – 1,200 kg cardboard per year. The original ideaof collection in a two-chamber compressing vehicle does not seem realistic, because efficient exploitation of the chambers is not possible. The common container is in principal suitable and well functioning for companies with a few hundred kg cardboard per year, or where space is scarce. It is not uncommon that space for the container(s) is missing all together. At short term the space should be rented, giving the possibility to sort the waste at the source into the ordinary recyclable materials such as cardboard, (paper) and perhaps plastic within the existing limits. Building regulations can in the long run provide better space conditions. Other weaknesses can be lack of motivation because payment of the waste fees etc. can depend on the size of the lease or the like. As a start the scheme will be financially viable if the participating companies produce 600-1,200 kg cardboard per year. But the administration fee for the lease must be deducted, and will in many cases offset any financial benefits. Confidential papers are handled as part of an overall solution where all office waste etc. is collected at one time, and is thus an easy, efficient solution for the company. The price for cardboard is about DKK 25 per collection corresponding to about DKK 650 per year with one collection every two weeks. However, special arrangements can be made in cases where the amount is so small that no extra work needs to be done, and therefore no extra money needs to be paid due to cardboard. The amount is often limited to a few hundred kg per year, but what is important for the companies is to have an overall waste solution, not marginal costs. Furthermore, the cardboard will at all circumstances be sorted at source in an overall solution. Environmental pilot has applied to companies with such limited amounts that it has been an annoying experience to the companies. The costs, which in that case should be imposed on the companies, have been higher than justified by the solution. Thus, a number of solutions for cardboard and plastic collection to direct recycling begin to emerge. But it is not possible to conclude that a particular solution is better than another for a specific business. Companies with smaller amounts (200 – 1,200 kg a year) have different options as stated above. Which one is the best depends on the local conditions, including other waste solutions in the area, in the building or in the specific company. In addition to the above, observations indicate that the waste delivery options in the recycling centres are an obvious way for small amount companies (200 – 1,200 kg a year) to increase the amount of waste collected for direct recycling. The limit for how much the companies are allowed to deliver at the recycling stations should depend on local conditions. At any rate there are a number of problems that need to be clarified in connection with the establishment of delivery opportunities for recyclable transport packaging in the recycling centres:
The listed opportunities for collection to direct recycling usually cannot stand alone. It seems that a lot of places need specific guidance concerning which requirements the municipal regulations prescribe combined with guidance on sorting opportunities and resulting economicl opportunities. The guidance ought to be followed up by control of especially the fraction of waste suitable for incineration in connection with delivery in receiving stations. From the point of view of economy, it is often an advantage for the companies to sort out the recyclable transport packaging to direct recycling, and only for the smaller companies it is often a question of extra costs, although usually marginal. In general, it is a question of allowing the companies to get used to the waste collecting solution that suits them best, and ensuring that the concept is developed according to the demands of the time, and seeing to that the companies are up to the mark. |
