Somerset Waste Board meeting 19 th June 2015 Report for decision. Paper F Item No PDF Free Download

Somerset Waste Board meeting 19 th June 2015 Report for decision Paper F Item No. 11 Towards a New Service Model for Collection Lead Officer: Steve Read, Managing Director Author: David Mansell, Development & Monitoring Manager Contact Details: 01823 625713 Forward Plan Reference: SWB/15/02/04 This report outlines a process to assess future recycling and refuse collection options Summary: Future options include the potential to recycle additional materials, such as plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons, and changes to collection frequencies, containers and methods. Such changes could affect service costs, satisfaction and performance. The best opportunity to consider introducing any changes is prior to the planned replacement of the current recycling fleet from 2016/17. This report also sets out the results of the Recycle More trials, which tested potential service changes during September- December 2014. These were devised to inform this review process. Recommendations: That the Somerset Waste Board: 1. Notes the results of the Recycle More trials reported in section 2.1. 2. Approves the process for assessing future collection options described in section 2.2. 3. Provides a view as to whether any further trials should be undertaken. Reasons for recommendations: So that members can approve the proposed approach to reviewing the recycling and refuse collection service which will explore the opportunities for service improvements, increased customer satisfaction and performance, and savings. F- 1

Links to Priorities and Impact on Annual Business Plan: This report links to the following actions in the Annual Business Plan 2015-20: 2.1) Recycle More Trials - To report on 2014 trials by June 2015. If report identifies need, to test options for other future collection models, designed to increase recycling and reduce costs, by November 2015. 2.2) Collection system review with Kier including vehicle specification for the new recycling fleet - To recommend a cost effective service model that achieves high levels of waste reduction and recycling for adoption from 2016/17, including identification of costs and operational requirements. Sedgemoor DC has identified a specific savings target from 2016/17 which cannot be achieved without significant changes to the existing service. It is expected that the other partners will also require similar savings during the remaining period of the contract. The indicative cost of appointing external advisers to assist with the assessment of future collection options is 35,000. This would need to be found within existing resources or shared between collection authority partners. Financial, Legal and HR Implications: Waste Collection is the single most expensive service for district council partners. This review is therefore fundamentally important as it will determine direction, performance and, crucially, costs for the period to October 2021. This could potentially run to 100Ks per annum per authority. There are clearly risks and potential loss of savings involved in coming to an erroneous or sub optimal solution. External support for the analysis is therefore considered by SWP officers and the Strategic Management Group (SMG) to be crucial. The assistance will ensure the options are robustly assessed in relation to cost, performance and health and safety with reference to current practice elsewhere, adjusted for the particular nature of operating in Somerset. It is also vital that we have robust indicative costs to support dialogue with the contractor in moving forward. A further trial on the scale of the 2014 trial (c2500 households for 12 weeks) is estimated to cost 50,000 should members wish to pursue this. This cost is not budgeted and would need to be found within existing resources or a further contribution from participating collection authorities. Options for funding these costs will be outlined at the meeting. There are no legal or HR implications arising from this report. It should however be noted that any changes to the service would need to comply with the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended). Details of these requirements were reported to the Board in March 2015. F - 2

Equalities Implications: There are no equality implications arising from this report at this stage. Impacts of future collection options will be considered as part of their assessment and these will subsequently be reported to the Board when a decision on selecting the future collection system is to be taken. Risk Assessment: Key risks are: 1) An assessment of future collection options does not have sufficient information or guidance to make the best choice, resulting in a sub-optimal decision in terms of future costs, performance and customer satisfaction. 2) Decisions on future collections options are not taken in time to allow their effective implementation when the current recycling fleet starts to need replacement, which could impact services due to breakdowns and delay the introduction of a more efficient option. These risks will be managed through a careful selection and procurement process for the appointment of external advisers and by ensuring the project to select a future collection system keeps within its critical path. 1. Background 1.1. Recycling of Somerset s household waste steadily increased during the 2000s from 15% in 2000/01 to 51% in 2007/08, but has plateaued at this level since. The increase was largely achieved through the roll-out of new services, such as Sort It and Sort It Plus collections (introducing kerbside recycling and adding new materials, as well as reducing the frequency of refuse collections to fortnightly) and as a result of a greater range of materials recycled at Recycling Centres. 1.2. Analysis (see background paper in 5.1) of Somerset s refuse has shown that 50% could be recycled through Somerset s current kerbside recycling collections and a further 9% could be recycled at Recycling Centres. Recycling new materials could make a small contribution, with the main opportunities being plastic pots, tubs and trays (4%), cartons (1%) and electrical appliances (1%). In future, it may also be possible to recycle nappies and absorbent hygiene products (5%), other dense plastics (3%) and plastic film (6%), but reprocessing outlets for these are not currently available or imminent. 1.3. During September to December 2014, Somerset Waste Partnership ran a series of trials to test methods for increasing kerbside recycling. A report on these trials is given in the next section, with further information attached in appendices. F - 3

1.4. From 2016/17, the recycling collection fleet will reach the end of their normal life expectancy after being 7 years in service. This will commence from summer 2016, peaking in the summer of 2017 and be completed by October 2018. It is therefore timely to consider options for the future service 1.5. This also coincides with the need for savings from 2016/17 identified initially by Sedgemoor DC and expected to be required by other partners in the remaining period of the contract. Any changes therefore may be expected to deliver significant savings along with any service enhancements. 2. Options Considered 2.1. Recycle More Trials a) The Recycle More trials were launched during September 2014 on nine recycling rounds in Taunton Deane and ran for twelve weeks until December 2014. b) On all trial rounds plastic pots, tubs and trays, cartons (Tetra Pak being the most well-known brand), small electrical appliances and household batteries were added to materials accepted for recycling. During the trials these materials were dropped off for sorting and bulking at the Viridor Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at Priorswood in Taunton. Special arrangements were made to individually weigh each material before and during the trials. c) There were three main variations tested on different rounds, as follows: SP1 Current collection frequencies with recycling and food waste every week and refuse every fortnight. Householders were offered the option of an additional box or a blue reusable sack for the additional materials recycled. SP2 Recycling collections were changed to every fortnight, food waste continued weekly and refuse continued fortnightly. Clear (disposal) sacks were provided to householders for plastics and cans. SP3 Recycling and food waste collections remained weekly, but refuse was changed to every three weeks. Householders were offered the option of an additional box or a reusable sack for the additional materials recycled. d) The number of rounds with each of the main trial options were: SP1 Three rounds, all in Taunton. SP2 Four rounds, two in Taunton and two in Wellington. SP3 Two rounds which covered the main town area of Wiveliscombe and Langley Marsh, which is about 13 miles outside of Taunton and a small town with a range of housing types, including flats, old housing and small new estates. e) The following communication initiatives were also tested on selected rounds: i) On one SP2 round in Wellington no food waste please reminder stickers were attached to refuse bins and packs of free caddy liners provided. F - 4

ii) iii) On one SP1 round and one SP2 round in Taunton, intensive doorstepping was undertaken, with discussions held with 69% and 64% (respectively) of all households to ask about recycling, identify any potential barriers and see if these could be overcome. On one SP1 round in Taunton, households not recycling or only infrequently were identified and targeted mailings sent to provide information, including a container form, and to encourage future recycling. f) On SP3 rounds, inspections aimed to identify potential problems and address these immediately, which it is believed made a difference in ensuring threeweekly refuse collections worked well. g) On the first occasion when a previous fortnightly refuse collection would have been due on the SP3 rounds, it was observed that about 50 households had put their refuse out, even though the collection was not due until the following week. These residents were called upon or a pre-prepared notice left, where no-one was home, to explain the new collection arrangements and ask that the refuse be taken back in. It was found that many people, who had put their refuse out on the wrong week, were not aware of the trial arrangements, so full details were provided. A number also needed recycling containers, for which orders were taken. h) Inspections were also undertaken on three-weekly refuse days. Less than 20 households (under 2%) put out extra refuse alongside their refuse bins. Again these residents were visited and notices left to explain the trial arrangements where people were out. In many cases, it was accepted that they should be recycling more and orders were taken for recycling containers where needed. Most did not continue to put out extra refuse on subsequent collection days. i) On SP2 rounds, up to a third of households initially did not understand the change to fortnightly collections and continued to put recycling boxes out on the first weeks when there was not a recycling collection. A mailing was quickly sent to all on SP2 rounds to make the change to fortnightly collections during the trial period very clear and this largely resolved the problem, although a few continued to put out on the wrong weeks. j) Appendix 1 shows results of monitoring the trial rounds including collection weights and, on selected rounds, participation and the composition of refuse. k) The highest performing trials were the two SP3 rounds with 3-weekly refuse, where food waste was up 45% and other dry recyclables up 28%, while refuse was down 27%. l) Some rounds started from lower bases, as they were lower performing before, and a couple were noteworthy for achieving the highest improvements. m) One was the SP2 fortnightly recycling round with no food waste stickers placed on refuse bins and free caddy liners provided, where food waste increased 64% and dry recycling by 29%. F - 5

n) The SP1 round where doorstepping was undertaken had a 45% increase in food waste and 50% increase in dry recycling. However, the SP2 round doorstepped did not have similar increases, so either the fortnightly recycling suppressed similar increases in recycling or circumstances associated with the SP1 round led to the increase recycling with doorstepping. o) The difference for the SP1 round doorstepped may simply have been that, before the trials, this round had a below average recycling performance and the doorstepping served to encourage more households to recycle more of their waste. This was also more straightforward as collections frequencies were unchanged and residents just had the benefit of additional materials being recycled. p) The SP2 round doorstepped had a higher initial level of recycling and discussions on this round focused more on remembering and storing recycling for fortnightly collections. q) The targeted communications to non and low recyclers on the SP1 Wednesday round only had a limited impact, but weight data indicates had a small effect in increasing recycling. r) Overall, the biggest positive results from round weight data were associated with the 3-weekly refuse collections and also the no food waste stickers and free liners. s) Householder participation by material was recorded over 3 and 4-week periods for selected rounds, with results as shown in appendix 1. A very high level of households (83-93%) were found to recycle to some extent, with participation lower for cartons and, most notably, food waste (57-77%). t) Surprisingly, given the increases in some round weights, significant increases in participation from before to during the trials were not found. This suggests extra recycling mostly came from existing recyclers, who previously were only partly using SWP recycling services. u) Appendix 1 also shows results from a small and limited composition study of refuse put out on SP3 rounds in Wiveliscombe. Non recyclers were found to put out the most recyclable material in their refuse (50%), followed by low recyclers 1 (39%) and then mid recyclers 2 (28%). Those recycling but not using the food waste collections, had the second most food waste in their refuse (average of 3.9 kg/wk), but otherwise had low levels of recyclable materials in their refuse. v) Samples taken from shared piles of refuse sacks, which were mostly put out at single collection points by people living in flats nearby, found only low levels of recyclable materials. w) Appendix 2 gives results and analysis of an end of trial survey, which proved very interesting and provided good feedback on the trial options tested. 1 Low recyclers put food waste and/or other recycling out only once during the monitoring period. 2 Mid recyclers did not recycle a full range of materials or put out twice or less during monitoring period. F - 6

x) The response rate was typical for this type of postal survey for SP1 (15%) and SP2 (17%) rounds, but high for SP3 rounds (30%). y) Satisfaction levels were high on all trial rounds, but lowest for SP2 rounds, which appeared to be mainly due to the need to store recycling for longer with fortnightly collections. 91% of SP1 respondents thought the trials were better than previous collection arrangements, as did 72% of SP2 respondents and 81% of SP3 respondents. 6% of SP3 respondents thought the trial collections were worse as did 12% of SP2 respondents. z) On SP3 rounds, difficulties in remembering refuse collection days were identified by more people as a problem than storage of refuse between collections, but, in both cases, most respondents found these easy or OK. aa) Most respondents were happy with the service from collection teams, with most negative comments being about litter left after collections and the mishandling of recycling boxes. bb) One of the most telling questions asked which recycling service was preferred. On SP2 rounds, 82% of respondents said they preferred fortnightly recycling collections with plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons accepted to weekly recycling collections without these additional materials being recycled. On SP3 rounds, 86% of respondents said they preferred three-weekly refuse collections with recycling that includes plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons to fortnightly refuse collections without these additional materials being recycled. In both cases, this illustrates how keen people are to be able to recycle additional materials, especially plastics, and that this can more than compensate for changes to collection frequencies. cc) Many respondents provided comments on the trials. The most common comment from over 300 people was that they appreciated the trials and would like them to continue. The next most common comment was how recycling more materials allowed a noticeable reduction in their refuse. dd) On SP3 rounds, a number of people said that they were initially concerned whether they would manage with less frequent refuse collections, but found their refuse reduced so much that three-weekly collections were frequent enough. Several people expressed how pleased they were with the extra recycling and big reduction in their refuse. ee) There were also a few comments from families with young children in disposable nappies who remained concerned about these being collected every three weeks, especially during the summer. ff) Additional surveys, as reported in appendix 2, also covered the reusable blue sacks provided on request on SP1 and 3 rounds, garden waste collections and some households living in flats that were covered by SP3 collections. These give good feedback on these aspects. gg) Overall, SP3 collections, with three weekly refuse and weekly recycling, were widely accepted and achieved the biggest increase in recycling. They also offer a significant opportunity for savings, both in reducing collection costs and disposal costs by diverting more away from landfill. However, they also F - 7

led to concerns for some households, especially those with young children using disposable nappies (see more on this in section 4). hh) The collection of additional materials, especially plastic pots, tubs and trays, was very popular on all rounds. SP2 rounds with fortnightly recycling collections were the least popular trial option and resulted in the most dissatisfaction and complaints to SWP, mainly relating to the storage of recycling between collections, although most households did not report difficulties with this. 2.2. Assessing Future Collection Options a) A programme of work is proposed to assess future kerbside recycling and refuse collection options, which will cover: i) End-use markets to recycle new materials, particularly for plastic pots, tubs and trays. ii) Quality requirements for materials recycled, sorted or reprocessed in the UK, accepting some may need to be exported for recycling overseas, although UK recycling will be preferred where practical. iii) Compliance with the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended) which require separate collection of glass, paper, plastic and metal. iv) Visits to view and learn experience with potential new collection options. These may include kerbside sort collections using a new three-box and trolley stacking system (which has been used in some Northern Ireland boroughs and rolled out in Conwy and Gwynedd) and co-mingled collections using wheeled bins (which have been adopted by a number of English local authorities). v) Whether fortnightly collections of nappy and absorbent hygiene product waste could be cost-effectively maintained alongside threeweekly refuse collections. vi) The costs, performance and health and safety implications of new collection options. b) SWP officers will arrange or undertake items i) v) above, while it is proposed to appoint external advisers to assist with item vi). (see rationale under Financial Implications) c) Communal recycling collections from flats, garden waste collections, and bulky and clinical waste collections, will be excluded from assessments of new kerbside collection options, unless it is identified that their integration with the provision of other collection services would allow efficiency improvements and a saving to SWP. d) For future recycling collection options involving kerbside sort, it will be assumed that either the current vehicle design (plus any subsequent evolutions) or close equivalents would continue to be used. A comparison of these vehicles for use in Somerset will be provided as part of the assessment for item (vi). F - 8

e) For all future recycling collection options, improvements to current sorting and material bulking arrangements at collection depots will be considered and included within cost assessments. This may include enhancements to current arrangements or the provision of one or more Material Recovery facilities, which will need to have suitable sorting capacity to supply the next stages in material reprocessing chains and meet requirements of end-use markets. f) It is proposed to assess the following future collection options and compare these to the current collection system (weekly recycling with kerbside sort and fortnightly refuse): i) Weekly recycling as currently with the following materials added to collections: plastic pots, tubs and trays, cartons, small WEEE and household batteries. Additional box or reusable sack offered on request to householders (as tested during Recycle More trials). Refuse service as currently. ii) iii) iv) Recycling as in (i), but with the three-box stack system provided to replace current boxes. Refuse service as currently. Weekly co-mingled dry material recycling with wheeled bins provided and boxes only used where properties are not suitable for wheeled bins. Materials recycled as in (i), but excluding textiles and shoes, small WEEE and batteries. Glass to be collected separately in boxes. Weekly food waste collections to continue with current containers. Refuse service as currently. Recycling as in (iii), but with collections every fortnight on alternate weeks to refuse. Weekly food waste collections to continue with current containers. Refuse service as currently. v) Recycling as in (i). Refuse service using current containers but collected every three weeks, which would be expected to increase recycling performance by householders (tested Recycle More trials). vi) vii) As 5), but with refuse collected every four weeks. Other option(s) suggested by the external advisers or others may also be considered where it could be expected that these would offer performance, efficiency and financial benefits. g) The timetable for this work will include a report and presentation to an informal meeting of the Board in October 2015 and a final report, when a decision on future collections should be taken (for subsequent ratification by the partners) as part of the Business Plan to the Board meeting in December 2015. 2.3. Further Collection Trials a) As detailed in section 2.1, a number of collection options were successfully tested during the Recycle More trials in 2014. This included 3-weekly refuse collections in Wiveliscombe, which were accepted by most households where this allowed additional recycling, including for plastic pots, tubs and trays. b) Wiveliscombe is a rural town in Taunton Deane with a strong community ethos and a generally high level of interest in environmental issues. Many residents who expressed serious reservations about the reduction in F - 9

frequency actually reported no problems and changed their view as the trial progressed. c) Members may wish to trial the option in one or more other areas. As outlined above, there is a cost involved in this. d) Alternatively or additionally it may be possible to gain sufficient experience and understanding of the implications from the growing number of local authorities who are rolling out 3 and 4 weekly refuse collections. These include: Bury, Blaenau Gwent, Gwynedd and Falkirk. SWP officers could provide a report on these as part of the work programme assessing future collection options and, if possible, we might invite representatives from these areas to relay their experiences directly to members. 3. Consultations undertaken 3.1. Consultation was undertaken with the 5,200 households covered by the Recycle More trials, who all received a survey form at the end of the trials. Results of this are reported in section 2.1 and appendix 2. 3.2. In October 2013, a focus group was held with invited service users to discuss future collection options and, specifically, material, container, and frequency options. Results were used to inform options tested as part of the Recycle More trials. 4. Implications 4.1. If a decision is not taken on future options for recycling and refuse collections, the current system will remain in place and the same vehicle types will replace the current recycling fleet at the end of their normal operational life. This would result in an opportunity being missed to implement service improvements, increase performance, and/or achieve savings. 4.2. The indicative cost of appointing external advisers to assist with the assessment of future collection options is 35,000. This would need to be found within existing resources or shared between collection authority partners. Options for funding this support will be outlined at the meeting. 4.3. A further estimated cost of 50,000 would arise should members wish to pursue further collection trials to test 3-weekly refuse collections in a range of areas, which would be shared between district council (collection authority) partners. This cost is not budgeted and would need to be found within existing resources or a further contribution from participating collection authorities. 4.4. Impacts of future collection options will be considered as part of their assessment and these will subsequently be reported to the Board when a decision on selecting the future collection system is to be taken. 4.5. As an indication of savings that might be achieved if 3-weekly refuse collections were introduced, Gwynedd s business case for moving to three-weekly refuse collections envisages that annual savings of 349,000 would be achieved by the F - 10

authority, which serves about 60,000 households. 4.6. A report on the potential health implications of extending the frequency of nonrecyclable waste collections has been commissioned by Zero Waste Scotland. Conclusions included that the availability of simple precautions means the risk for householders is little changed from that experienced with existing weekly and fortnightly collections. 4.7. During the Recycle More trials, SWP allowed households on three-weekly refuse collections with extra nappy or sanitary waste to have sufficient capacity for their refuse and advised that this should be double-wrapped for storage and collection. 5. Background papers 5.1. Somerset Waste Composition Study November 2012, Somerset Waste Partnership (available at: http://www.somersetwaste.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/somerset-waste-composition-results-nov-2012.pdf) 5.2. Report to Somerset Waste Board of 20 February 2015, Paper A, Item 5 Draft Business Plan 2015-20 5.3. Gwynedd Council, 2014: Waste Strategy Changes to Residual Waste Collection: Final Business Case (available at: https://www.gwynedd.gov.uk/en/council/ Councillors-and-committees/Meetings,-minutes-and-agendas/Meetings,-minutesand-agendas.aspx?pwyllgor=/2013-14/Cabinet_Cabinet/2014-04-29) 5.4. Zero Waste Scotland, 2014: The potential health implications of extending the frequency of non-recyclable waste collections (available at: http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/content/report-potential-health-impactsreducing-frequency-non-recyclable-waste-collections-0) F - 11

Kg per household per week Kg per household per week (Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015) Appendix 1 Recycle More Trials Weights and Participation CHART A Average Extra Material Recycled per Week 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Chart A shows the extra material recycled on average each week during the trials from all rounds, with the new materials shown in orange, which includes plastic pots, tubs and trays. Food waste showed the biggest increase in weight, followed by glass, card and then paper. It should be noted that the contribution of the new materials was much smaller than the increase in existing materials already recycled before the trial. CHART B Average Recycled on Each Round 5.0 4.0 Food Dry 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 SWP SP1 Mon SP1 Tue SP1 Wed SP2 ThA SP2 ThB SP2 FrA SP2 FrB SP3 Tue Chart B shows the average total weights of food waste and dry materials collected for recycling per week on the trial rounds as well as for Somerset as a whole. The totals F - 12

Increase in Materials Recycled (Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015) are comparable as they show the average weight per household and so are not influenced by varying round sizes. The trial round with the highest performance is the combined result for the two SP3 rounds with 3-weekly refuse collections. The highest performing for food waste was a SP2 round (fortnightly recycling) on Thursday A cycles, where no food waste please reminder stickers were placed on refuse bins and free liners delivered with service leaflets. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CHART C Increase in Materials Recycled on Each Round Food Dry -10% SP1 Mon SP1 Tue SP1 Wed SP2 ThA SP2 ThB SP2 FrA SP2 FrB SP3 Tue Chart C shows the % increase in materials recycled on each round during the trials. The biggest increases were on the SP3 rounds with 3-weekly refuse, the SP2 round (Thursday A) with refuse bin stickers and the SP1 round (Monday) where intensive doorstepping was undertaken. There is further discussion and analysis of these findings in section 2.1of the main report. The table below shows the average kilogrammes per household per week collected before and during the trials on all rounds by material, together with the % increase on each round. Also shown are the equivalent weights of refuse, where these could be obtained due to recycling and refuse rounds coinciding sufficiently. The kg per household measure allows a direct comparison between rounds regardless of the number of households served. F - 13

ROUND WEIGHTS Trial SP1 SP2 SP3 Day Mon Tues Wed Thu A Thu B Fri A Fri B Tues Households 711 565 517 730 397 585 477 1231 Refuse B 9.4 6.6 Food 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 Card 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 BEFORE TRIALS (kg/hh/wk) Plastic/cans 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 Glass 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6 Paper 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.9 DRY TOTAL 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.6 TOTAL RECYCLING 3.9 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.3 5.1 4.9 4.9 Refuse 9.1 4.8 Food 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 Card 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 Plastic/cans 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 DURING TRIALS (kg/hh/wk) Cartons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Batteries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SWEEE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glass 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.9 Paper 0.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 DRY TOTAL 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.6 3.6 4.5 TOTAL RECYCLING 5.8 6.0 5.6 6.0 4.7 5.2 5.3 6.4 Refuse -4% -27% Food 45% 2% 5% 64% 5% 19% 12% 45% Card 33% 27% 25% 46% 20% 24% -5% 23% CHANGE Plastic/cans 85% 12% 24% 34% 48% 11% 19% 60% Glass 40% 31% 37% 20% 10% -9% -2% 22% Paper 70% 59% 8% 22% -6% -29% 31% 22% DRY TOTAL 50% 36% 26% 29% 12% -6% 7% 28% TOTAL RECYCLING 49% 24% 19% 38% 10% 1% 8% 32% The following table shows participation rates by material before and during the trials. These rates were obtained by recording, over 3 or 4-week periods, how many times these materials were put out by each household on these rounds. F - 14

It was intended to record over 4-week periods in all cases, but this was not possible on the SP1 Monday and SP2 Tuesday rounds, where 3-week periods were monitored. The number of households participating over 4 weeks would be higher than over 3 weeks. A fourth week was monitored for the SP3 after rounds, which increased the participation rates (over the three week period) by 2-4%. PARTICIPATION RATES BEFORE TRIALS (late August to mid September) Trial SP1 SP2 SP3 Day Mon* Wed Thu A Fri A Fri B Tues* Households 711 517 730 585 477 1231 Food 57% 77% 62% 68% Paper 85% 90% 88% 82% Card 88% 92% 91% 82% Glass 86% 90% 88% 82% Plastic/cans 90% 92% 91% 84% ANY MATERIAL 92% 93% 93% 85% Food 52% 71% 62% 62% 65% 71% Paper 70% 85% 75% 80% 80% 80% Card 78% 90% 79% 87% 86% 83% DURING TRIALS (October) Glass 74% 89% 77% 86% 82% 80% Plas. bottles 81% 91% 80% 88% 87% 85% PTT 68% 68% 69% 73% 77% 74% Cans 74% 89% 78% 83% 82% 82% Carton 52% 61% 62% 67% 67% 65% ANY MATERIAL 86% 93% 83% 91% 91% 88% Food -5% -6% +3% +3% Paper -15% -5% -8% -2% CHANGE Card -10% -2% -5% +1% Glass -12% -1% -6% -2% Plastic/cans -9% -1% -4% +1% ANY MATERIAL -6% - -2% +3% * SP1 Monday and SP3 Tuesday rounds had participation measured over 3 weeks both before and after, which would be expected to be about 3% less than 4 week monitored. Fortnightly SP1 and SP2 rounds were measured over 4 week periods. As discussed in section 2.1 of the main report, significant increases in participation were not found, including on rounds where there were large increases in the weights of materials collected for recycling. This suggests the extra was put out by households who already recycled, but not to the full extent possible. F - 15

The following table shows the results of a limited study of the composition of refuse put out on the SP3 rounds, which are discussed in section 2.1 of the main report. Kg per Household (Average) Sample size Paper Cardboard Cartons such as Tetra Paks Cans and aerosols Plastic bottles Pots, tubs and trays Glass bottles and jars Food waste TOTAL RECYCLABLE RESIDUAL LANDFILL Non-recyclers 9 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 5.2 8.8 8.6 Not food waste 10 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.9 5.7 24.3 Low recyclers 11 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.0 2.5 3.9 Mid recyclers 9 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.3 4.8 12.0 Flats & shared piles 5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 2.1 15.0 % of Total Sample size Paper Cardboard Cartons such as Tetra Paks Cans and aerosols Plastic bottles Pots, tubs and trays Glass bottles and jars Food waste TOTAL RECYCLABLE RESIDUAL LANDFILL Non-recyclers 9 6.8% 4.6% 0.7% 2.5% 1.7% 2.8% 1.5% 29.9% 50.5% 49.5% Not food waste 10 2.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 13.1% 19.0% 81.0% Low recyclers 11 5.2% 3.4% 1.0% 5.0% 2.2% 3.9% 2.6% 15.4% 38.7% 61.3% Mid recyclers 9 3.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.9% 0.3% 19.5% 28.3% 71.7% Flats & shared piles 5 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 0.4% 8.1% 12.5% 87.5% F - 16

Appendix 2 Recycle More Trials Survey Results The Recycle More trials involved adding plastic pots, tubs and trays, cartons, household batteries and small electrical items to the existing recycling service. In addition to this, we tested different frequencies of recycling and refuse collections, with service packages as follows: SERVICE PACKAGE Food waste Recycling Garden waste Refuse Households covered SP1 Weekly Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly 1793 SP2 Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly 2189 SP3 Weekly Weekly Fortnightly 3-Weekly 1231 A survey form was sent out to all residents towards the end of the trials along with the end of trial newsletter. Residents were encouraged to complete the survey online or to send the paper one back using a freepost address to encourage responses. The number of surveys returned in total are as follows: SERVICE PACKAGE Households covered Surveys returned Response rate SP1 1793 SP2 2189 SP3 1231 272 (109 online, 163 post) 373 (103 online, 270 post) 369 (126 online, 243 post) 15.2% 17.0% 30.0% Returns were lowest from those in SP1 where there was no service change and just the addition of the new materials to the existing collections. They were slightly higher in SP2 areas, where recycling was collected fortnightly. Almost one third of people in SP3, with the three weekly refuse collections returned their surveys, which is a high response rate for this type of survey. The questions asked were the same of all respondents with a couple of exceptions. Residents in SP2 and 3 were given the option to state whether they would prefer to continue with the trial collection system including the additional materials, or return to the current system without the additional materials. This question was not asked of F - 17

those in SP1 as they did not have a change in frequency of either refuse or recycling collections. Residents who completed the survey online were also given the option to rate the online email service if they signed up, and the delivery of the additional containers, if they requested any. All residents were given the option to freely comment about the trials and make any suggestions for improvements. RESULTS QUESTION 1 Trials compared to previous collections SP1 1. Overall, what did you think of the Recycle More trials compared to the previous collections? 1.9% 0.0% 6.8% 29.5% 61.7% Much better Better Neither better or worse Worse Much worse SP2 1. Overall, what did you think of the Recycle More trials compared to the previous collections? 2.5% 9.9% 16.2% 25.8% 45.8% Much better Better Neither better or worse Worse Much worse F - 18

Paper Drinks or food cans Food waste Drinks cartons such as Tetra Pak Plastic bottles Plastic pots, tubs or trays Household batteries Small electrical appliances (Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015) SP3 1. Overall, what did you think of the Recycle More trials compared to the previous collections? 3.3% 3.0% 12.7% 24.1% 56.8% Much better Better Neither better or worse Worse Much worse Overall the trials were generally well accepted. 91.2% of people in SP1 said the trials were much better or better than the existing system. This was followed by 71.6% of respondents in SP2 and 80.9% of those in SP3. Interestingly, the satisfaction rate is lower from those in SP2 with fortnightly recycling, than SP3 where recycling remained weekly but refuse changed to 3 weekly. From the comments provided, it would appear that much of the dissatisfaction comes from storing the recycling for 2 weeks (See later). QUESTION 2 - Materials recycled during the trials. SP1 Which of the following materials did you recycle during the trials (others were accepted too)? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% F - 19

Paper Drinks or food cans Food waste Drinks cartons such as Tetra Pak Plastic bottles Plastic pots, tubs or trays Household batteries Small electrical appliances Paper Drinks or food cans Food waste Drinks cartons such as Tetra Pak Plastic bottles Plastic pots, tubs or trays Household batteries Small electrical appliances (Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015) SP2 Which of the following materials did you recycle during the trials (others were accepted too)? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% SP3 Which of the following materials did you recycle during the trials (others were accepted too)? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% From this we can see that in all cases, over 90% of respondents claim to recycle paper, drinks and food cans, plastic bottles and the new material plastic pots, tubs and trays. Drinks cartons were the next largest category for the new materials, and household batteries and small electrical appliances by comparison were much lower, though this is probably because they are likely to appear less frequently in the waste stream. In all cases, around 80% of respondents claim to recycle their food waste. QUESTION 3 How much do you recycle? SP1 F - 20

Which one of these statements best describes how much you recycle? 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.6% I recycle everything that can be recycled I recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled I recycle sometimes 77.4% I do not recycle Don't know SP2 Which one of these statements best describes how much you recycle? 25.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% I recycle everything that can be recycled I recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled I recycle sometimes 73.9% I do not recycle Don't know SP3 Which one of these statements best describes how much you recycle? 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% I recycle everything that can be recycled 19.2% I recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled I recycle sometimes 80.5% I do not recycle Don't know F - 21

Universally, respondents claim to recycle everything, or a lot but not everything. Only four respondents stated that they recycle sometimes. It is probable that non recyclers chose not to return the survey. QUESTION 4 What is left in the refuse bin? SP1 What would you say are the main materials left over in your refuse? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Plastic bags, wrappers and film Nappies Sanitary products Dog poo Other animal bedding or litter SP2 What would you say are the main materials left over in your refuse? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Plastic bags, wrappers and film Nappies Sanitary products Dog poo Other animal bedding or litter F - 22

Knowing what can be recycled Separating materials for recycling Rinsing bottles Rinsing tins, pots, tubs and jars Storing materials for recycling Storing refuse between collections Remembering recycling collection days Remembering refuse collection days Knowing what can be recycled Separating materials for recycling Rinsing bottles Rinsing tins, pots, tubs and jars Storing materials for recycling Storing refuse between collections Remembering recycling collection days Remembering refuse collection days (Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015) SP2 How easy or difficult did you find the following during the trials? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Very easy Easy OK Difficult Very Difficult SP3 How easy or difficult did you find the following during the trials? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Very easy Easy OK Difficult Very Difficult Overall, respondents seem to have found the trials relatively easy to manage. From the graphs, it is noticeable that those on SP2 have had the most difficulties; with storage of recyclables being a particular problem (over 100 respondents have found storing recyclables difficult, or very difficult. By comparison, less than 50 respondents in SP1 and 3 appeared to have storage issues with weekly recycling. In SP3 with 3 weekly refuse, storage of refuse does not appear to have been a significant problem for most people. The most difficulties here seem to be remembering refuse collection days, and here, around 50 respondents stated that this was difficult or very difficult. Satisfaction levels with different aspects of the service are highest on SP1 where everything remained the same. A few people have stated storage as problems, but otherwise there are few respondents who find anything difficult or very difficult. F - 24

QUESTION 6 Rating different aspects of the trial SP1 300 How did you rate the following during the trials? 250 200 150 100 50 Very good Good OK Poor Very Poor 0 The number of materials recycled Choice of additional recycling containers Delivery of containers (if requested) Leaflets with service details Email updates for trials (if signed up) Service by collection teams SP2 How did you rate the following during the trials? 400 350 300 250 200 Very good Good OK 150 100 Poor Very Poor 50 0 The number of materials recycled Clear sacks for plastics and cans Leaflets with service details Email updates for trials (if signed up) Service by collection teams F - 25

SP3 How did you rate the following during the trials? 400 350 300 Very good 250 Good 200 150 100 OK Poor Very Poor 50 0 The number of materials recycled Choice of additional recycling containers Delivery of containers (if requested) Leaflets with service details Email updates for trials (if signed up) Service by collection teams In the main, respondents are happy with the number of materials recycled, the containers, and the service by collection teams. SP2 residents were asked to rate the clear sacks for recycling the plastics and cans, and most were happy with them. There were a few complaints that the sacks split, and a few complaints that they blow around too easily due to the lightweight nature of the materials in them. SP1 and 3 were asked to rate the blue bag or additional boxes that they could request, and also the delivery of these containers. Again, respondents were mainly satisfied, but there were some complaints about deliveries not being received, some people felt that the blue bag was too lightweight and a few complained that it had gone missing after collection. People were generally happy with the leaflets, and those who have given it a poor rating have not given their reasons for doing so. A few people suggested that they would like to receive a regular collections calendar. Overall, respondents are happy with the service they receive from the collections team. Most negative comments were about litter following collections and the mishandling of boxes. F - 26

QUESTION 7 Rating refuse bin capacity SP1 ONLY IF YOU HAVE A WHEELED BIN FOR REFUSE - During the trials, was your bin: 2.2% 0.4% 25.0% Too big Right size 72.3% Too small - we often had one extra sack Too small - we often had several extra sacks SP2 ONLY IF YOU HAVE A WHEELED BIN FOR REFUSE - During the trials, was your bin: 4.8% 1.5% 22.5% Too big Right size 71.3% Too small - we often had one extra sack Too small - we often had several extra sacks F - 27

SP3 ONLY IF YOU HAVE A WHEELED BIN FOR REFUSE - During the trials, was your bin: 4.0% 6.3% 13.6% Too big Right size 76.1% Too small - we often had one extra sack Too small - we often had several extra sacks In all cases, over 70% of respondents found their refuse bin to be the right size. In SP1 25% of people found it to be too big, and this was also the case for 22.5% of respondents in SP2 and 13.6% in SP3 with 3 weekly refuse collections. A number of people commented about the reduced level of waste attributed mainly to the increased plastics collections. In SP1 only 2.6% found the bin too small, and this increased to 6.3% in SP2 and 10.3% in SP3. QUESTION 8 Did you take any extra refuse to the recycling centre? SP1 During the trials, did you take any extra refuse sacks (containing waste that could normally be put out for kerbside collection) for disposal to a Recycling Centre? 6.1% Yes No 93.9% F - 28

SP2 During the trials, did you take any extra refuse sacks (containing waste that could normally be put out for kerbside collection) for disposal to a Recycling Centre? 8.7% Yes No 91.3% SP3 During the trials, did you take any extra refuse sacks (containing waste that could normally be put out for kerbside collection) for disposal to a Recycling Centre? 7.6% Yes No 92.4% In all cases, over 90% of respondents did not need to take any additional refuse to the recycling centre. For those who did, most of them were taking items that would not normally be collected on the standard service, such as garden waste, furniture and bulky electrical items. One respondent on SP3 took nappies, and 3 took additional bags of refuse. Twelve respondents on SP2 took additional recycling materials due to not being able/wanting to store it. F - 29

QUESTION 9 - Preferred service option SP2 Which recycling service would you prefer from the following two options? 18.0% Weekly recycling service that does NOT include plastic pots, tubs & trays and cartons. 82.0% FORTNIGHTLY recycling collection that includes plastic pots, tubs &trays and cartons SP3 Which recycling and refuse services would you prefer from the following two options? 13.8% Fortnightly refuse with recycling that does NOT include plastic pots, tubs & trays and cartons 86.2% Refuse EVERY 3 WEEKS with recycling that includes plastic pots, tubs & trays and cartons. This question was only asked of those on SP2 and SP3 with collection frequency changes. In both cases, the majority of respondents preferred to keep the reduced frequency of either refuse or recycling collections, but with the collection of the additional materials. This was higher in the SP3 areas, where over 86% of respondents preferred to stay on 3 weekly refuse collections with weekly recycling collections including the new materials. F - 30

A number of respondents who did not want to continue with the trial collection frequency stated that they would prefer the current system but with the additional recycling. Comments and suggestions We gave respondents the opportunity to comment about the trials and make any suggestions for changes or improvement. Most comments fell into a number of main categories these are summarised below. SP1 SP2 SP3 Number of comments 188 214 213 Problems with storage of recycling 10 42 8 Would like calendar 0 3 3 Prefer weekly recycling 0 18 3 Good trial/ continue trial 141 63 99 Lids for boxes 7 8 6 Prefer wheeled bin for recycling 3 15 7 Litter after collection 5 9 9 Don't want to wash items 0 2 3 Reduced refuse due to recycling more 26 13 21 Issues with boxes/ sacks (non delivery, size, sacks blowing away) 8 13 7 Weight of boxes - problem 0 10 0 Service issues (problems with collections) 15 8 6 Recycling boxes look messy (stored and out for collection) 0 3 0 Prefer weekly refuse 1 3 4 Labels on boxes required 0 3 0 3 weekly refuse concerns general 1 0 9 3 weekly refuse capacity concerns 0 0 7 Prefer 2 weekly refuse 0 0 11 Below are a selection of comments, both positive and negative from responses for each of the different service packages: SP1 This has been excellent - we are down to 1 black bag a week and half full bin after 2 weeks. Not sure I will be so committed when I have to store it all - shame it's not continuing. Biggest improvement, plastic and cartons. Bulky to store. Too much litter on road after collection. I am very disappointed to learn that the extra items will no longer be collected. I would pay extra Council Tax to ensure we recycled more. I think it is our moral obligation. F - 31

Somerset Waste Board meeting 19 th June 2015 Report for decision. Paper F Item No. 11