Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities Project Code

Project Name: Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities

Project Code - WR1201

Final Report

April 2008

This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the author’s interpretation. The inclusion of or reference to any particular policy in this report should not be taken to imply that it has, or will be, endorsed by Defra.

BeEnvironmental Ltd · Suite 213 Lomeshaye Business Village · Turner Road · Nelson · Lancashire · BB9 7DR · 01282 618135 · www.beenvironmental.com

Quality Control

Job Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities

Client Defra

Date April 2008

Report Title Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities (Project Code: WR1201)

Report status Final

Author Dr Jane Beasley Director

Reviewed by Elaine Lockley Director

Client Contact Nick Blakey, Waste Evidence Branch, Defra Details

Be Environmental Suite 213 Lomeshaye Business Village Turner Road, Nelson Lancashire, BB9 7DR Phone 01282 618135 Fax 01282 611416 [email protected]

Disclaimer: BeEnvironmental (the trading name of BeEnvironmental Limited) has taken all reasonable care and diligence in the preparation of this report to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. However no guarantee is provided in respect of the information presented, and BeEnvironmental is not responsible for decisions or actions taken on the basis of the content of this report.

BeEnvironmental Ltd · Suite 213 Lomeshaye Business Village · Turner Road · Nelson · Lancashire · BB9 7DR · 01282 618135 · www.beenvironmental.com

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 6

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION ...... 7

3.1 Local Authority Classifications ...... 7

3.2 Collection of Aluminium ...... 8

3.3 Collection Systems Used and Range of Aluminium Products Collected ...... 8

3.4 Reasons for Collecting Aluminium Products ...... 14

3.5 Capacity to Collect More Aluminium ...... 16

3.6 Ways to Improve Collection ...... 17

3.7 Barriers to Collection ...... 20

4. DISCUSSION & SUGGESTIONS ...... 23

4.1 Key Findings ...... 23

4.2 Key Issues & Suggestions ...... 23

APPENDIX 1: LOCAL AUTHORITIES INTERVIEWED ...... 26

APPENDIX 2: DETAILS OF THE INTERVIEWS ...... 27

APPENDIX 3: CODED RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ...... 71

3 Executive Summary Defra is committed to taking forward work to increase levels of aluminium recycling in England. As part of this ongoing work BeEnvironmental were commissioned to undertake a research project to identify and review aluminium collection practices amongst a sample of local authorities, considering opportunities and barriers to increasing capture of aluminium.

Forty authorities were selected from across England to take part in telephone interviews; this included 20 authorities identified as collecting aluminium (indicated by their WasteDataFlow returns), and 20 authorities who appeared to not be collecting aluminium (no returns for this material had been submitted to WasteDataFlow). The purpose of these interviews was to establish the level of aluminium collection services currently available, reasons for supporting and/or promoting the collection of aluminium within the authority, whether there was the potential to collect more aluminium material and if so how this could be achieved, and any barriers which may prevent an improvement in collection volumes.

The authorities interviewed were defined according to whether they were a Waste Collection Authority or Unitary authority, the type of authority they were (based on the Defra classification of urban and rural authorities), and their size (population, number of households and population density).

The key findings from the telephone interviews were:  100% of respondents confirmed that they collected aluminium, regardless of whether they were making any returns for this material to WasteDataFlow;  The 20 authorities that were collecting aluminium but not making any returns to WasteDataFlow, were unable to supply data because either a separate breakdown for aluminium was not available, their contractor only supplied a general percentage in relation to alumium, or aluminium tonnage was only available for mixed cans.  The availability of data in relation to aluminium collection (aside from those already making WasteDataFlow returns for this material) was limited;  Both commingled kerbside and kerbside sort was used to collect aluminium (60:40 ratio amongst the sample);  16 authorities claimed to collect all aluminium products at the kerbside (identified as cans, foil, food packaging and aerosols). 11 authorities were identified as collecting cans only at the kerbside. 10 authorities stated that they accepted cans and aerosols. Only 3 authorities claimed to collect only cans and foil at the kerbside;  Almost three quarters supported their kerbside collection with bring bank/Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) facilities (primarily mixed metals);  The majority of respondents considered there was capacity to collect more. However only two authorities attempted to quantify the tonnage potential;  More than two thirds stated that they collected aluminium as part of a multi-material collection service. Maximising tonnage of recyclables was also a key driver for just under half the sample;  Almost two thirds stated that education and promotion were key to increasing volumes of aluminium collected. Extending the product range and implementing alternate week collection (AWC) could also increase volumes of aluminium collected according to just over a quarter of all respondents;  Material Recycling Facility (MRF) limitations, collection capacity and recognition of aluminium products that can be recycled were the main barriers identified.

Whilst a sample of 40 authorities can only give a general indication of trends or key issues, the study did highlight a number of areas which warrant further discussion and exploration and could feed into the ongoing work within Defra in this area. These included: the need for further quantification of the amount of aluminium currently being collected (as the survey indicated this is currently under reported); better understanding by local authorities of the quantity of aluminium available from the waste stream; targeting of both aluminium as a

4 specific waste stream, and also the range of aluminium products which can be recycled; the role of education and communication in increasing participation and capture in relation to this material stream (including further exploration of different ways to „package‟ the gains to be made from collecting and recycling aluminium); and, support in terms of addressing contractual barriers and increasing awareness of technical requirements for improved recycling.

5 1. Introduction Defra is committed to taking forward work to increase levels of aluminium recycling in England. As part of this study BeEnvironmental have been commissioned to undertake a short research project to identify why a sample of Local Authorities choose to collect some aluminium products and not others, and what they consider to be the main drivers for, or obstacles against, collecting more. 2. Research Methodology Forty local authorities were selected to take part in a telephone interview, including 10 who took part in a pilot survey to test the style of interviews and the questions used for their appropriateness in terms of generating sufficient data and information to meet the needs of the research. The purpose of these interviews was to establish the level of aluminium collection services currently available, reasons for supporting and/or promoting the collection of aluminium within the authority, whether there was the potential to collect more aluminium material and how this could be achieved, and any barriers which may prevent an improvement in collection volumes.

The full sample of authorities who took part can be found in Appendix 1. The majority who took part were pre- selected1 by Defra (34), with 6 replacements being identified due to difficulties in contacting an appropriate representative or as a result of local authorities declining to take part in the survey for a range of reasons.

The interviews followed a free flowing style, centred on a set of key questions, depending upon whether the authority did or did not collect aluminium. The questions used can be seen in Box 1.

Box 1: Interview questions Introduction question:

Question 1 – Do you collect aluminium for recycling? Yes – go to set of questions A No – go to set of questions B

A. For authorities who do collect aluminium: Question 2A – What aluminium products do you collect (prompt: cans/foil/aerosols/food packages)? How do you collect them?

Question 3A - Can you give me an estimate of how much you collect per year?

Question 4A - What are the reasons why you have decided to collect these aluminium products for recycling?

Question 5A - Do you think you could collect more? If yes, how much more?

Question 6A - How do you think you could improve collection volumes? Any barriers to achieving this?

B. For authorities who do not collect aluminium: Question 2B - What are the reasons why you do not currently collect aluminium for recycling?

Question 3B - What could help change this decision?

1 The pre-selection was carried out by Defra to provide a representative sample of local authorities (including type, location, and known quantities of aluminium collected through returns made to WasteDataFlow)

6 The responses to the questions by each Local Authority were recorded and details of each interview can be found in Appendix 2. The results from the interviews were then coded to allow for comparative evaluation and consideration and full details of the coding applied can be found in Appendix 3.

3. Results & Discussion The authorities interviewed were defined according to whether they were a Waste Collection Authority or Unitary authority, the type of authority they were (based on the Defra classification of urban and rural authorities), and their size (population, number of households and population density).

3.1 Local Authority Classifications In total 30 Waste Collection Authorities (WCA) took part in the survey. Of these 18 were considered to be rural authorities, and 12 urban. 10 Unitary Authorities took part, all of which were considered to be urban. Population data, number of households and population density data was collated for each Authority to enable the potential for subsequent evaluation of the impact of local authority characteristics on aluminium collection and performance. To facilitate comparative evaluation the data for population, household number and density were grouped and the basis of these groups were developed following full consideration of the data set. A summary of authority types and their sizes can be seen in Table 1. Full details can be found in Appendix 3 Tables A and B.

Table 1: Local Authority Characteristics Authority Type Population Households Population Density – people/km2 30 – Waste 18 - Rural 12 with: 20 with: 18 with: Collection 12 - Urban less than 100,000 less than 50,000 less than 5 Authorities 16 with: 9 with: 4 with: 100,000 to 200,000 50,000 to 100,000 5 to 10 1 with: 0 with: 6 with: 200,000 to 300,000 100,000 to 150,000 10 to 30 1 with: 1 with: 2 with: more than 300,000 more than 150,000 30 + 10 – 10 - Urban 5 with: 0 with: 0 with: Unitary 100,000 to 200,000 less than 50,000 less than 5 Authorities 2 with: 6 with: 4 with: 200,000 to 300,000 50,000 to 100,000 5 to 10 3 with: 3 with: 2 with: more than 300,000 100,000 to 150,000 10 to 30 1 with: 4 with: more than 150,000 30 +

It is appropriate to consider the authority classification and the type of authority when reviewing the responses to the questions, however in light of the small sample size overall, this evaluation needs to be limited to descriptive statistical analysis and it needs to be acknowledged that where no relationship is found it may be as a result of the sample and sub sample size, rather than an absence of any pattern or link. The size of the sub samples, despite grouping to facilitate comparative evaluation, has meant that it is not appropriate to consider the impact of population size, household number and population density on aluminium collection at a detailed level.

7 3.2 Collection of Aluminium The sample was designed to consider 20 authorities who were evidently collecting aluminium (supported by their WasteDataFlow returns), and 20 who appeared to not be collecting aluminium (no returns for this material submitted to WasteDataFlow). However the first point to note is that in response to the initial interview question „Do you collect aluminium for recycling?‟ all respondents gave a positive response. Therefore 100% of the sample confirmed that they did collect aluminium.

All respondents were asked to quantify the amount of aluminium collected, but only 2 authorities who had not shown returns for aluminium on WasteDataFlow (WDF) could provide tonnage data (Wellinborough and Westminster).

Reasons for not being able to supply data included:  No separate breakdown was available for aluminium  A general percentage covering all aluminium products was supplied by contractor  Tonnages were only available for mixed cans

For a small number of authorities there was a discrepancy between the quantities of aluminium reported on WasteDataFlow and the quantities that the authorities supplied during the interview. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The discrepancies all indicated higher quantities during the interviews than what was submitted to WasteDataFlow. It would be advisable to treat any differences with caution at this stage as it may be that the authority inadvertently provided the most up to date figures (2007/08) during the telephone interview, whereas WDF figures would be slightly older, or there may be a degree of double counting (with the Waste Disposal Authority, WDA) where the authority is a WCA, and some services are supported/provided by the WDA.

3.3 Collection Systems Used and Range of Aluminium Products Collected All respondents were asked how aluminium products were collected and the range of aluminium products collected. Just over 60% used commingled kerbside collection schemes with 40% using kerbside sort. There was no significant difference between Unitary and WCAs and the collection systems supported (Figure 2); it followed a similar pattern. Nor was there any significant difference between Urban and Rural authorities and the use of commingled and kerbside sort (Figure 3).

8 Figure 1: Data provided by Local Authorities (LA) which Contrasts with WasteDataFlow (Defra) Data

180 Defra tonnage 2006/07 LA tonnage 160 154

140

121 120

104 100 100

80 80

tonnesyear per 70 67.2 64 60 50 50 52 42 40

0 Wellinborough BC Westminster City Aylesbury Vale DC Shepway DC North East Luton BC Wycombe DC Council Derbyshire DC Local Authority

Figure 2: Collection systems employed by Unitary and WCA

20 Comingled Collection Kerbside Sort Collection 18

8 Totalnumberof Authorities 6

0 Collection Unitary Kerbside collection scheme used to collect Aluminium by Authority type

Figure 3: Type of authority and collection system employed:

16 Comingled Collection Kerbside Sort Collection 14

6 Total number of Authorities

0 Urban Rural Authority type

In terms of the range of aluminium products collected (Figure 4), 16 authorities claimed to collect all aluminium products at the kerbside (identified as cans2, foil, food packaging and aerosols). However it should be noted that during interview a number of authorities did state that whilst the service in principle accepted all aluminium materials, householders predominantly separated cans for recycling. Therefore in some cases capture of the full range of aluminium products may be low, even if the service can accommodate the full range of materials. This is supported in part by the fact that of the 16 authorities 12 identified a capacity to collect more. In addition 11 identified a need for education, promotion and awareness raising as a means to increase the volume of aluminium collected and 7 specifically identified lack of recognition of other aluminium products (aside from cans) as a barrier to increased collection.

11 authorities were identified as collecting cans only at the kerbside and of these 10 stated that there was capacity to collect more. Limitations at the Material Recycling Facility (MRF) were identified by 7 of these authorities as a barrier to collect more, in addition to lack of collection capacity identified by 5. Lack of recognition of other aluminium products was also identified as a barrier by 5.

2 It should be noted that cans is used as an all encompassing term to include drink cans and food cans

10 Figure 4: Kerbside collection system used and range of aluminium products collected

Comingled Kerbside sort 10

Total number of Authorities 4

0 All products Cans only Cans & aerosols Cans & foil Range of aluminium products collected at the kerbside

10 authorities stated that they accepted cans and aerosols. This effectively means that the authority is accepting mixed metals which in the main have not been contaminated by food (e.g. food containers and other foil products) since it is relatively common practice to rinse out cans. Of this group 9 stated that they had the capacity to collect more and the need for education and promotion was identified by 7 as a means to increase the volumes collected. However, MRF limitations (identified by 7), collection capacity in terms of current infrastructure (identified by 6) and the marginal nature of the material (identified by 5) were all raised as barriers to increasing collection.

Interestingly few authorities specified the collection of cans and foil only. Many saw foil as a marginal product with potential problems occurring through contamination of other aluminium products (such as cans), difficulty in separating the two aluminium products, potential contamination issues if the foil was used as food packaging and residents had not washed the product before separation, and the small quantities of this aluminium product. In addition there was concern that depending upon the recovery/reprocessing facility foil could fall through the screens or be too light to be separated in the eddy currents therefore some felt it was not a viable material to collect with their current systems.

In terms of whether there were any differences between WCAs and Unitary authorities in the collection of different aluminium products a slight variation can been seen with Unitary authorities in that collection of all products did not appear to be predominant. However the sample size (10) is so small it is difficult to make any conclusive comments (Figure 5).

11 Figure 5: Range of aluminium products collected by Unitary and WCA

Collection Unitary 12

6 Total number of Authorities

0 All products Cans only Cans & aerosols Cans and foil Range of Aluminium products collected at kerbside by Authortiy type

A slight difference was exhibited with rural authorities appearing to favour the collection of cans and aerosols, although the difference in statistical terms is marginal (Figure 6).

In terms of bring bank/Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs), all products were generally collected as mixed metals (Figure 7). A small number of cans only or foil only banks were serviced by charities for their financial gain. Only 11 authorities in the sample (8 WCAs and 3 Unitary authorities) did not state that there were bring bank/HWRC facilities for the collection of aluminium products. Amongst these authorities the sample was too small to show any pattern as to the kerbside service offered and the range of materials collected through the kerbside. In addition the range of tonnages being collected using just kerbside was varied: 16 tonnes to 147 tonnes.

12 Figure 6: Range of aluminium products collected by rural and urban authorities

Urban Rural

Total number of Authorties 4

0 All products Cans only Cans & aerosols Cans and foil Range of aluminium products collected

Figure 7: Bring bank/HWRC collection of aluminium products

8 Number of Authorties 6

0 All products Cans only Foil only Range of Aluminium materials collected at bring banks/HWRCs

3.4 Reasons for Collecting Aluminium Products The reasons local authorities stated that they collected aluminium products for recycling could be grouped under the following main headings:

 Part of a multi-material collection service; the collection of aluminium products was just one of many materials collected, all considered to be important as part of a comprehensive multi material collection service. In addition cans were often the first material to be collected and the current service for some was built upon this basis.  Maximise capture / tonnage of recyclables; all materials were considered important to ensure that as much tonnage as possible of recyclable material could be collected.  Householder demands / needs; there is a certain degree of public awareness, specifically in relation to aluminium cans, of the environmental benefits/energy saving potential of recycling this material. Therefore householder demand may have resulted in the authority targeting this waste stream.  End market consideration; some considered the ease with which this material could be recycled in terms of reprocessors‟ demand for aluminium products as a key reason for its collection.  High market value (financial benefit); the financial gains from recycling aluminium products were identified as a specific reason for collecting this material  High environmental/energy value; the environmental benefits and energy saving potential of recycling aluminium were specifically recognised by some authorities.  Easy for residents / product recognition; the ease with which residents could participate in recycling aluminium in terms of the recognition factor of, for example, cans meant this was a straight forward product to promote and was simple for residents to separate from the waste stream.

Respondents were free to identify as many or as few reasons as they chose, and figure 8 clearly shows that amongst the sample more than two thirds stated that collecting aluminium was part of a multi-material collection service. Maximising tonnage of recyclables was also a key factor for just under half the sample.

Figure 9 shows that both WCAs and Unitary authorities followed the same pattern, and again urban and rural authorities demonstrate no difference in their main reasons for collecting aluminium (Figure 10). Clearly, whilst the environmental and economic benefits have been recognised by some (and acknowledged by a number of respondents during interview although not necessarily identified as the main reason for collection) they are not a main factor in targeting this material. Of greater importance was ensuring that householders had access to a multi-material collection service where a wide range of dry recyclables were being targeted in order to maximise tonnage. Therefore there is limited consideration of the targeting of this material in its own right. The reason for this could be the limited quantities, in terms of tonnage, available as highlighted by a number of authorities in their discussions.

14 Figure 8: Reasons Authorities Collect Aluminium

15 Total number of Authorities 10

0 Part of multimaterial Maximise capture / Householder End market High market value High Environmental/ Easy for residents / collection service tonnage of demands / needs consideration (financial benefit) Energy value product recognition recyclables Reasons Authorities collect Aluminium

Figure 9: Reasons identified by WCA and Unitary Authorities

30 Collection Unitary

Total number of Authorities 10

15 Figure 10: Reasons by Authority Type

20 Urban Rural 18

8 Total number of Authorities 6

0 Part of multimaterial Maximise capture / Householder End market High market value High Easy for residents / collection service tonnage of demands / needs consideration (financial benefit) Environmental/ product recognition recyclables Energy value Reasons Authorities collect Aluminium

3.5 Capacity to Collect More Aluminium The majority of respondents stated that they considered there was capacity to collect more aluminium (Figure 11) although it should be noted that a number of them did raise capacity, specifically in relation to collection vehicles, as a barrier. Therefore it appears that the majority acknowledge that perhaps they are not capturing as much of this material as they could, but there are some challenges to this. Only two authorities attempted to quantify the tonnage potential (refer to Appendix 3 Table D).

Of those who said there was no capacity to collect additional material (5 authorities), one authority felt that this would change in the longer term when the authority moves to fortnightly collection thereby increasing the opportunity for residents to recycle more aluminium. Another authority had only just started to separate out its aluminium from mixed metals and therefore expected an increase in reported tonnage as the data more accurately reflected the performance. However the respondent did consider that they were capturing a significant quantity of aluminium already, it was just not being separately identified from mixed metals until now. Therefore they were not convinced that there was the capacity to collect more but more of a need for better management of the collection process to enable more accurate reporting of performance. The remaining three authorities considered that their capture rates were already good and therefore capacity to collect more was limited.

Two authorities were not sure whether there was the capacity to increase collection, and one stated that their current collection rounds were under review.

16 Figure 11: Capacity to collect more aluminium

15 Total number of Authorities

0 Yes No Under review/ Don't know Capacity to collect more Aluminium

3.6 Ways to Improve Collection The ways in which local authorities considered that they could improve collection of aluminium products for recycling could be grouped under the following main headings:

 Extend product range; essentially to increase the amount of aluminium products which could be collected by the service.  Residents to crush cans; to ensure that vehicle capacity, bring bank, or collection container does not become a limiting factor, a number of respondents stated that they could focus on asking residents to be more diligent about crushing cans prior to setting out the material for collection.  Separately collect aluminium products; this was both an accounting benefit (in terms of ensuring that all aluminium products could be recorded as such) and to ensure capture of all aluminium products through separate collection. Clearly this depends upon the collection system in place, product recognition and participation by residents.  Education, promotion & awareness raising; this encompassed direct campaigns specifically targeting aluminium products, raising awareness of the environmental benefits associated with recycling, and also more general indirect campaigns focused on increasing capture across the board. The issue of education also considered good housekeeping/good practices to minimise contamination.  Extend service to other recyclables; the idea that by introducing another material to the collection service (plastic was specifically mentioned), there would be an increase in capture associated with all recyclables as householders gained renewed vigour in taking part, or perhaps received new containers. This issue is also associated with education, promotion and awareness-raising, in that as information is distributed in relation to the new recyclable, it will serve as additional motivation to recycle all materials covered by the scheme.

17  Extend current service to more households; opportunity to recycle is important and if the service is extended then it is anticipated that tonnage, including that of aluminium, will increase.  Extend capacity; provision of new containers or a new collection service may increase capture of aluminium.  AWC; limiting the availability of residual collection and/or increasing the frequency of recycling service will have a positive impact on recycling rates and potentially on capture of aluminium.  Increase opportunity to recycle; provision of banks specifically collecting aluminium products may increase quantity of aluminium collected.

Respondents were free to identify as many or as few ways to improve collection as they chose, and Figure 12 clearly shows that amongst the sample almost two thirds stated that education and promotion was key to increasing volumes of aluminium collected. Extending the product range and implementing alternate week collection were identified by just over a quarter of all respondents.

Figure 12: Ways to improve the volumes of Aluminium collected

Total number of Autorities 10

0 Extend product Residents to Separately Education & Extend service Extend current Extend capacity AWC Increase range crush cans collect Al promotion to other service to more opportunity to products recyclables households recycle Ways Authrorities could improve volumes of Aluminium collected

A similar pattern was shown by WCAs and Unitary authorities in terms of the identified ways to improve collection (Figure 13). Similarly with urban and rural authorities education and promotion came out on top, followed by extending the product range and moving to alternate week collection. Proportionally more respondents from urban authorities stated that getting residents to crush cans was a means to increase collection volumes (Figure 14).

18 Figure 13: Ways to improve collection identified by WCAs and Unitary authorities

Collection Unitary

10 Total number of Authorities

0 Extend product Residents to Separately Education & Extend service Extend current Extend AWC Increase range crush cans collect Al promotion to other service to more capacity opportunity to products recyclables households recycle Ways Authorities could improve volumes of Aluminium collected

Figure 14: Ways to improve collection identified by urban and rural authorities

14 Urban Rural

6 Total number of Authorities 4

19 3.7 Barriers to Collection The barriers to increasing collection identified by local authorities in the sample could be grouped under the following main headings:

 WDA or Contractor restrictions; in effect limiting the range of aluminium products which could be collected for reprocessing.  MRF Limitations; operational limits on what could be collected and how, including capacity issues at the MRF to separate and store aluminium products other than cans.  Collection capacity; vehicle or collection container capacity, restricting the range of products to be collected.  Cost; the cost of offering a collection service which accommodates for example the separate collection of a wide range of aluminium products, or the cost in changing a collection service to address the collection capacity issue.  Market issues; a lack of confidence by some authorities in markets for materials other than cans.  Contamination issues; contamination of cans by other aluminium products and other recyclables as a result of collecting aluminium which has been in contact with food waste. In addition this is linked to a lack of confidence in householders to wash food related aluminium products prior to separation for collection.  Marginal material; consideration that aluminium accounts for such a small tonnage of the waste stream and is therefore a marginal material.  Participation / recognition of other aluminium products; this is linked to the fact that cans are considered easy to recycle in recognition terms, but other aluminium products are not, particularly if the collection service does not require composite aluminium products. There may be an issue in recognition of a wider range of aluminium products which would need addressing.

Respondents were free to identify as many or as few reasons as they chose to, and Figure 15 clearly shows that MRF limitations, collection capacity and recognition were the main barriers identified.

The collection capacity is an interesting one as all those who identified this as a barrier stated that there was the capacity to collect more aluminium products. Therefore there appears to be an acceptance that there is more aluminium available in the waste stream, but a restricting factor may be vehicle capacity or container capacity. 5 of those authorities who identified collection capacity as an issue also stated that crushing cans may be a way to increase collection volumes.

A similar pattern was shown by WCAs and Unitary authorities in terms of the main barriers identified (Figure 16) and also amongst urban and rural authorities (Figure 17).

20 Figure 15: Barriers to Improved Collection

Total number of Authorities 6

0 WDA or MRF Limitations Collection capacity Cost Market issues Contamination Marginal material Participation / Contractor issues recognition of restrictions other al. products Barriers to Aluminium collection

Figure 16: Barriers to improved collection identified by WCAs and Unitary authorities

Collection Unitary 12

6 Total number of Authorities 4

0 WDA or MRF Limitations Collection Cost Market issues Contamination Marginal material Participation / Contractor capacity issues recognition of restrictions other al. products Barriers to Aluminium collection

Figure 17: Barriers to improved collection identified by Urban and Rural authorities

21 12

Urban Rural

Total number of Authorities 4

22 4. Discussion & Suggestions

4.1 Key Findings  100% of respondents confirmed that they collected aluminium  Ability to provide data in relation to aluminium collection (aside from those already making WasteDataFlow returns for this material) was limited. Plus there were a small number of data discrepancies  Both commingled kerbside and kerbside sort was used to collect aluminium (60:40 ratio amongst the sample)  16 authorities claimed to collect all aluminium products at the kerbside (identified as cans, foil, food packaging and aerosols). 11 authorities were identified as collecting cans only at the kerbside. 10 authorities stated that they accepted cans and aerosols. Only 3 authorities claimed to collect only cans and foil at the kerbside.  Almost three quarters supported their kerbside collection with bring bank/HWRC facilities (primarily mixed metals)  The majority of respondents considered there was capacity to collect more. However only two authorities attempted to quantify the tonnage potential, with 38 authorities being unable to offer a value.  More than two thirds stated that they collected aluminium as part of a multi- material collection service. Maximising tonnage of recyclables was also a key factor for aluminium collection for just under half the sample  Almost two thirds stated that education and promotion was key to increasing volumes of aluminium collected. Extending the product range and implementing alternate week collection were identified as key ways of increasing aluminium collection by just over a quarter of all respondents.  MRF limitations, lack of collection capacity and lack of recognition of other aluminium products were the main barriers identified. 4.2 Key Issues & Suggestions It should be noted, and all the discussion points below carry this caveat, that a sample of 40 can only give a general indication and highlight trends or key issues. It does not accommodate detailed sub sample analysis or formal statistical testing but it gives a flavour of current attitudes and levels of activity amongst those authorities who took part. That said there are a number of factors identified from the sample which warrant further discussion and exploration and should feed into the ongoing work within Defra in this area.

1. Non recyclers The telephone interviews were successful in securing evidence that the authorities identified as not collecting aluminium are actually collecting aluminium. The research was not successful in finding an authority who was not actively engaged in the collection of this material at some level. This evidence is important in any discussions relating to data and current performance and the need to increase the levels of aluminium collected. It is clear that based on WasteDataFlow information alone a comprehensive picture of current levels of performance cannot be obtained and there is potentially a considerable amount of aluminium collected which is recorded as mixed metal. Quantifying how much additional aluminium is being collected is difficult (and many authorities interviewed were not forthcoming with any data to support their comments), although assumptions can be made about the percentage of mixed metal which may be aluminium. It should be noted that those authorities who are not separating out this material are not maximising the economic

23 returns they can make through aluminium recycling, nor are the full environmental and economic benefits being realised. However a number of authorities did acknowledge this fact in the telephone interviews but were of the opinion that changing their collection processes to facilitate the separation of aluminium was more costly than the economic benefits they would get from the sale of this material.

It is suggested that any further work that Defra lead on in relation to developing aluminium collection takes into consideration the issue that potentially all authorities are currently collecting aluminium and therefore undertakes some modelling or further investigation to quantify the potential amounts being collected.

2. Data It is clear from the reluctance to provide data, and/or the lack of available data, that the interviewed authorities do not have a clear understanding of the aluminium tonnage that is available within their waste streams and therefore are not fully aware of the quantity of material that can be successfully captured. In addition those who stated that they were capturing a significant proportion of aluminium did not reflect this in the tonnage being recorded on WDF.

It is suggested that any national work in relation to waste composition, and particularly to the aluminium fraction of the waste stream, is fed back to authorities in order to improve their understanding of how much of this material is potentially available. This may allow better targeting of this material, and provide a basis for decision making in terms of quantifying more accurately the economic benefits of separating this material from the waste stream compared to collection costs. In addition, good practice case studies or case studies with good recycling rates for a typical local authority of a certain type should be made available; this would address the problem that not all authorities in the sample seem to be aware of what constitutes high levels of aluminium collection.

Other data issues concerned discrepancies between the data that a small number of authorities reported during interview and the corresponding WasteDataFlow returns, and this may require further investigation (although only a small number of authorities were involved in this issue). It may be that the authorities inadvertently provided the most up to date figures (2007/08) during the telephone interview, whereas WDF figures would be slightly older; or there may be a degree of double counting where the authority is a WCA, and some services are supported/provided by the WDA.

3. Range of aluminium products A number of authorities stated during interview that not only were residents potentially unaware of the range of aluminium products which could be recycled, but so were some respondents. There was also some confusion about the technical issues relating to the recycling of some aluminium products, particularly composite products.

It is suggested that support is given to local authorities to clarify not only what can be recycled and therefore targeted for collection, but also the proportions of the waste stream they represent (linked to any national waste composition data), and provide key facts in relation to reprocessing different aluminium products.

4. The role of education and promotion This was highlighted as important by a significant number of authorities and could address a number of barriers identified, such as product recognition. Capture of aluminium, particularly the range of aluminium products, was considered to be limited and therefore education and promotion was seen as essential in maximising capture

24 rates and addressing those who seem to be partially separating this material for collection. Those authorities interviewed who had undertaken waste composition analyses had found aluminium in the residual waste stream, therefore action needs to be taken to raise awareness and increase motivation to separate out the full range of products where a collection service supports this.

Communication should also address contamination issues. This could have a positive impact on the development /securing of end markets.

Some authorities actively promote the environmental benefits of recycling aluminium. Therefore it is suggested that good practice examples of communicating with residents with the aim to increase participation, and more importantly capture, are promoted and supported.

5. Contractual issues Whilst contractual issues may be significant barriers for some authorities, and could be difficult to address, there was some confusion amongst some respondents as to what materials the reprocessors would take and in what form. Therefore improved communication on the technical aspects of recycling aluminium needs to be supported. This should include consideration of contamination both from and by aluminium products with other aluminium products and other recyclables in commingled collections.

In addition, ways to address contractual limitations should be promoted, for example using charities to collect foil from specialised foil banks.

6. Specific targeting of aluminium As identified in the reasons for collecting this material, few authorities specifically target aluminium, with some viewing it as a marginal material. When it is considered as mixed metals it is difficult for authorities to draw on the specific benefits of capturing aluminium and to consider it as a valuable material to collect separately. The focus for local authorities is primarily attaining tonnage based targets and with aluminium representing such a small proportion of the weight-based waste stream it is clear that it is not a priority for some. Therefore the environment and energy related benefits (linked potentially to the climate change agenda) plus the economic gains from recycling this material need to be reinforced and perhaps presented in a different way which enables local authorities to consider targeting this material.

It is suggested that a different way of „packaging‟ the gains to be made from collecting and recycling this waste stream be considered to support any activities which aim to increase aluminium collection and recycling.

25 Appendix 1: Local Authorities Interviewed

Pilot Main Sample Authority Survey Survey selection Tynedale District Council  Defra list Nottingham City Council  Defra list Gedling Borough Council  Defra list Harrow LB  Defra list Eastbourne Borough Council  Defra list Kennet District Council  Defra list Wycombe District Council  Defra list Derby City Council  Defra list Leeds City Council MBC  Defra list Braintree District Council  Defra list Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council  Defra list Manchester City Council MBC  Defra list Chorley Borough Council  Defra list Wakefield City MDC  Defra list Wellingborough Borough Council  Defra list Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council  Defra list Dudley MBC  Defra list Ipswich Borough Council  Defra list Babergh District Council  Defra list Westminster City Council  Defra list Wokingham Council  Defra list Waverley Borough Council  Defra list Swindon Borough Council  Defra list St Helens MBC  Defra list South Bucks District Council  Defra list South Norfolk Council  Defra list Exeter City Council  Defra list Aylesbury Vale District Council  Defra list Scarborough Borough Council  Defra list Shepway District Council  Defra list North East Derbyshire District Council  Defra list Horsham District Council  Defra list Hyndburn Borough Council  Defra list Luton Borough Council  Defra list Chelmsford Borough Council  Replacement St Albans City & District Council  Replacement Christchurch Borough Council  Replacement Ryedale District Council  Replacement Preston Borough Council  Replacement West Devon Borough Council  Replacement

26 Appendix 2: Details of the Interviews Authority Derby City Council

Date/Time Interview 07/04/08 15:10 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 28.41 Population 221,708 Number of households 92,405 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected Yes Estimated tonnage or percentage From Kerbside: of waste stream 2005/06: 94.17 tonnes (776.21 tonnes commingled of which 682.04 tonnes was steel). 2006/07: 147 tonnes (1073 tonnes commingled of which 926 tonnes was steel). 2007/08: 207.23 tonnes (1443.95 tonnes commingled of which 1236.72 tonnes was steel). They also collected at HWRCs but no data on this is available Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi-material collection system. The main reason is to maximise tonnages; the financial value of the material is acknowledged but is not a key consideration (although they do get a percentage of the market value back and are currently making a profit from aluminium recycling). Currently Derby has 2 systems which collect aluminium: kerbside recycling and HWRCs. The kerbside system only collects cans not foil; as cans and foil cannot be recycled together they would require separating and they do not currently have the capacity/ability to do this (cans are currently collected commingled with glass and plastics). Could more be collected?/ How could collection volumes be improved? More could be collected, although no quantification was given. Their MRF is looking to bring foil and tetrapaks on line soon – at which point they will collect these materials as part of their collection, therefore increasing the volumes of aluminium collected. Derby keep paper separate so there is no issue with contamination. They cannot collect pans and other large aluminium products due to worries that “one person‟s small bit of metal will become another person‟s Cortina gearbox” – i.e. they would start getting hazardous waste in the recyclate if they allowed all aluminium products to be collected. Instead they suggest to residents that they take large aluminium products to Raynesway for recycling (or any other metal merchant) or rag and bone / Scrap metal merchants in the area.

Authority Eastbourne Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 07/04/08 14:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 20.31 Population 89,667 Number of households 40,918 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected Yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of the %/tonnages of aluminium of waste stream collected was available at the time of interview Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium cans are collected with steel through the kerbside commingled collection system and bring sites as part of a multi-material collection service. The focus is on maximising tonnages. They do not discourage other aluminium products but they don‟t tend to get a lot of it. Could more be collected? They will take anything that they can and have a contract with SITA for them to take all commodities which the council collects and find appropriate markets. With a new plastics collection starting up this year, Eastbourne believes it will have a knock on effect in increasing recycling levels for all other materials. They do not collect aluminium and steel separately as tonnages are too small and therefore it is not considered to be a „big win‟. Barriers to improving collection volumes No specific barriers had been considered or identified although there is the consideration that the tonnages involved are so small that this could have a bearing on whether more could be collected.

Authority Gedling Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 07/04/08 13:45 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 9.32 Population 111,787 Number of households 47,556 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of the %/tonnages of aluminium of waste stream collected was available – they just receive a general percentage recycled from the processors (no breakdown) Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium collection is offered as part of a multi-material collection service. They currently collect cans commingled with paper, card and steel cans. They do not encourage foil or food packaging to go in on advice from their WDA as food residue left on this type of metal waste contaminates the paper. Could more be collected?/ Barriers to improving collection volumes Contamination issues have been identified as a barrier to collecting more aluminium products. It is considered that the majority of residents are willing to rinse food waste from packaging and do participate in any recycling initiative rolled out to them. They already have a 4 bin system in some cases (glass box, green bin, residual bin as well as commingled bin) and use it well in most cases. However with contamination being a big issue education into the quality of the material they place in the commingled bin would need to be addressed if they were to start taking other aluminium products. Restrictions imposed by the WDA in terms of what they are prepared to accept is a significant issue affecting whether more could be collected. The WDA are in an agreement with the contractor who will not deal with marginal materials, which they consider different fractions of the aluminium waste to be. In conversation with the contractor it has become apparent that they aren‟t prepared to find markets for marginal materials like this – therefore the districts can do very little. The bring sites in the district do take aluminium other than cans: foil, food packages and tetrapaks. It is considered that the residents would respond well and the district would be prepared to alter its collection system if the WDA and contractor would take other aluminium products i.e. they would ask residents to put metal into the glass box to prevent the issue of paper contamination. It is considered that central government may need to play a role in encouraging market development.

Authority Kennet District Council

Date/Time Interview 07/04/08 16:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 80 Population density (people per ha) 0.77 Population 74,838 Number of households 29,566 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 118 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as one material in a multi-material collection system. A wide range of aluminium materials is collected from the kerbside in a kerbside sort system. These include:  foil  aerosols  cans  food packaging Could more be collected? Kennet believes they can always collect more but would not like to hasten a guess in terms of tonnages. Ways to improve collection They could improve their collection by encouraging residents to crush cans. They have a problem with capacity of the vehicles – residents want to recycle but they recycle so many cans without compaction that the vehicles are always fully loaded before the round is complete. Promotional material now always contains instructions to crush metals. They use promotional material to also encourage residents to wash out food packaging – but they are not aware of any contamination problem. Foil is passed onto a local charity as their disposal authority/their service provider does not take it.

Authority Tynedale District Council

Date/Time Interview 07/04/08 13:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 80 Population density (people per ha) 0.27 Population 58,808 Number of households 24,585 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected Yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of the %/tonnages of aluminium of waste stream collected was available at the time of interview – but some county level waste composition work did consider 2 Tynedale areas so some estimate could be made from this as to the % of aluminium in the waste stream. Reasons for collecting aluminium Tynedale collect aluminium as part of a general metal collection offered through bring sites or as part of the twin bin household collection scheme delivered to every household in the authority. At bring sites, mixed aluminium and steel drinks cans are collected; in the commingled collection (including paper, plastic and can), mixed metal and aluminium cans are collected. Could more be collected? The WDA has a waste PFI contract with SITA and is therefore restricted in what materials it will take. Also Northumberland is becoming a single Unitary Authority next year so all districts are trying to keep their collection systems in line with those of their neighbours in order for a smooth transition. This means that bespoke service is not an option available to Tynedale currently. Barriers to improving collection volumes With Tynedale being a geographically large but sparsely populated authority, collections are very limited by cost. Only around £80 of each household‟s council tax goes to waste collection, however it costs £1500 in reality. Therefore quick wins are focused on, which gives everyone the opportunity to recycle to some extent. It is their belief that the WDA & SITA are influenced by market forces, restricting what they will take but this is speculation; at a district level they collect what the WDA and the service providers will take. The infrastructure is not considered to be at a stage where all material collections can be offered to everyone – local processing is needed in order to make it cost effective.

Authority Wycombe District Council

Date/Time Interview 08/04/08 10.20 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Significant Rural Population density (people per ha) 4.99 Population 162,105 Number of households 63,504 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected Yes Estimated tonnage or percentage The following tonnages are for Jun-Jan of waste stream 2007/08  Foil banks: 4.75 tonnes  Mixed can bank: Al makes up around 15% of the total weight which for this period was 71 tonnes (Al therefore approx. 10.5 tonnes)  Black box scheme: Al makes up around 10% of the total weight which for this period was 992 tonnes (Al therefore approx. 100 t) Year total is approx. 154 tonnes Reasons for collecting aluminium Wycombe have not targeted aluminium specifically in the kerbside collection scheme – they wanted to capture all cans and as much material from as many sources as possible so offer plenty of options to recycle all materials (excluding glass). They are consumer not market driven. Some residents wanted a foil bank and in line with trying to offer as much opportunity for total capture, they installed them. This wasn‟t specifically trying to get aluminium for either financial or other reasons, simply to meet the needs of the residents. Wycombe have 3 systems where aluminium can be captured: - 17 foil banks (as of March 2007), anything foil based can be paced in these dustbin size receptacles which are hand sorted by WDA - 29 mixed can banks - Kerbside commingled collection of mixed cans and plastics from 51,550 households Could more be collected?/ Barriers to improving collection volumes They believe that if residents crushed the cans they would be able to capture more. They do ask residents to do this for the black box scheme and it is encouraged at the bring sites but they may then run into weight problems if over compacted. Collection volumes could be increased by pressing home the environmental benefits of recycling aluminium and the big gains of carbon emissions. They believe that education is key as they already offer a service able to capture all the material, its just participation which could improve this.

Authority Nottingham City Council

Date/Time Interview 08/04/08 11.00 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 35.78 Population 266,988 Number of households 116,112 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate could be given of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Nottingham have not specifically targeted aluminium, they are just keen to capture as much material in the collection system as possible and therefore collect all aluminium and steel cans as part of their multi-material collection service. They currently collect mixed cans through their kerbside commingled scheme with plastic. They also collected mixed cans at bring banks and HWRCs. Could more be collected/ How could the scheme be improved? Other steel and aluminium products, such as foil, aerosols and food containers have not been collected in the past as they did not have a fixed contract with the MRF and were concerned that if the contract went elsewhere there may be restrictions on the range of aluminium products they could collect and householders would have to change their practices. However a contract for the MRF has just been awarded for 5 years and the MRF is happy to take any material the authority collects. Therefore the authority will now ask residents already in the commingled scheme, and when the scheme is rolled out to new residents, to include all metals. The MRF are confident that they can find markets for just about anything. The authority believes that they will increase the amount collected by keeping the message simple. “If its metal put it in”. That way they will have the highest possible chance of capturing everything and then separating it at the MRF. They will also try to separate metals at the HWRCs due to financial incentives of delivering sorted waste; the bring banks will remain as mixed metals as there is no room to sort them. The authority is slightly hesitant to collect foil with food waste on. Whilst they have said that they would never stop people putting this out for collection, as the MRF has said they will take it, Nottingham are not actively encouraging it at this stage. They aim to firstly assess how well this system of taking everything operates at the MRF and make sure contamination does not become an issue.

Authority Leeds City Council

Date/Time Interview 08/04/08 9.50 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 12.97 Population 715,402 Number of households 301,614 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected Yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Jun-Jan 2007/08 93.1 tonnes from commingled of waste stream collection Reasons for collecting aluminium Leeds has not specifically set out to capture aluminium; it is considered to be a big win in terms of recycling to capture all cans (steel and aluminium). It is an easy hit for residents, easy for them to do and considered to encourage recycling. Leeds collects cans in their commingled monthly collection. They also take all other scrap metal at their HWRCs. Could more be collected? Under the current system the authority does not consider that more could be collected, without increasing the number of collections and points of collection. However when the authority moves to fortnightly collection (between now and 2010) it is expected that they will capture more aluminium. Barriers to improving collection volumes They currently do not collect any other aluminium products (aside from cans) in the commingled collection, primarily due to issues with the reprocessor and availability of end markets. The MRF will not currently accept food packaging due to hygiene issues. They do not believe the residents will wash out containers and they are concerned about potential vermin and levels of contamination. They have no end market for foil. The MRF has just been awarded a Novelis Certificate of Excellence for the quality of their cans for recycling– as part of this they have a dedicated employee who picks out all bits of foil and other contaminants. There will be an aluminium percentage of the scrap mental; the authority gets a break down from the reprocessors of ferrous and non ferrous. Aerosols can be put in the HWRCs but not in the commingled collection. The authority has stated that the big wins in terms of climate change and financial incentives to recycle aluminium will not encourage them to include more aluminium in their collection until the end market infrastructure is in place to take it.

Authority Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 08/04/08 9.30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 8.75 Population 178,408 Number of households 72,953 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Only have an overall tonnage for mixed cans of of waste stream 302 tonnes (for 2007/08 excluding March) Reasons for collecting aluminium Stockton collects mixed tins and can in a kerbside sort system. They also take metal food containers and foil but not aerosols. They primarily target cans as they are one of the easier materials to get residents to recycle; they are used regularly in the home and are well associated with recycling. Stockton will take all other food containers and foil but consider it to be much harder to get residents to recognise these and include them in their recycling materials. They promote cans to keep it simple for residents. Could more be collected? Barriers to improving collection volumes Stockton does not have very good recycling levels so keeping it as easy as possible for residents is a priority. Also the other aluminium products are not considered to be as big wins in terms of tonnage so they keep the focus on the larger material sources. They do not have a problem in terms of collection capacity; the rounds have been organised in such a way that every compartment fills equally.

Authority Chelmsford Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 08/04/2008 3pm Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Significant Rural Population density (people per ha) 4.64 Population 157,072 Number of households 64,564 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 96 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Chelmsford collects cans, foil, aerosols and food containers at the kerbside in a commingled collection and through their bring bank system. They collect aluminium because it is a recyclable material and they currently collect all recyclables apart from food waste. They collect it mixed with other metal for ease of use for residents. It is offered as part of a multi material collection system. Could more be collected? Barriers to improving collection volumes Chelmsford are currently reviewing their collections rounds and assessing commingled against kerbside sort collection to assess which can get them higher tonnages of all materials and for various other operational reasons (e.g. efficiency, cost etc.). Their promotions team actively encourage residents to recycle all material through a series of initiatives. The MRF will take all materials so they have no problem in collecting everything. No quantification was given in terms of additional aluminium which could be recycled, and aluminium is not specifically focused upon – their current review is looking at all recyclable material that they collect.

Authority Swindon Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 09:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 7.82 Population 180,051 Number of households 75,154 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 2 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Aluminium collection is positively received by the public; feedback from community forums is testament to this. It is economically positively viewed by the authority to collect this material; it is also the contractor‟s choice to support collection and recycling of aluminium. Mixed metals (including anything aluminium, although actively promote cans and foil) are collected via a kerbside sort scheme. Aluminium foil banks are also provided and serviced by the authority, mixed can banks are provided by their contractor and voluntary organisations operate aluminium only bring banks. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority has only just started to separate out its aluminium from mixed metals, therefore they are expecting an increase in reported tonnage collected as the figures more accurately reflect performance. In addition they feel that through better management of the collection of this material, i.e. ensuring separation so that minimal aluminium is processed as mixed metal, more could technically be collected (the figures would improve). They do consider that they are capturing a significant quantity at the kerbside (evidence for this is anecdotal as opposed to through monitoring and evaluation), it‟s the collection process which could be improved Barriers Resources are a barrier in that if the volume of recyclables coming through the system is high, there is more chance that they will not have the resources to ensure adequate separation of aluminium from mixed metals and therefore the data will not accurately reflect the performance being achieved.

Authority Harrow

Date/Time Interview 08/04/08 14.00 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 40.98 Population 206,814 Number of households 79,112 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage of Total mixed can tonnage only waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium A key reason for collecting aluminium is to capture as much material as possible from the recycling collection. Currently a range of aluminium products is collected (cans, aerosols, food containers) commingled through the kerbside and at bring sites. The MRF separates aluminium products from steel, but no figure could be given at the time of the interview in relation to quantities collected. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection It was considered that more aluminium could be collected but no estimate of tonnages could be given. It is anticipated that as only 85-90% of households are currently on the kerbside scheme, when this is rolled out later this year the tonnages will increase. They are open to the range of aluminium products collected and want to keep it as simple as possible in terms of collecting commingled. Barriers None were identified.

Authority North East Derbyshire District Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 11.30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 50 Population density (people per ha) 3.52 Population 96,940 Number of households 40,692 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage of Approx 70 tonnes annually waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Cans (both steel and aluminium) are collected as they are considered an easy product in terms of end markets. Cans, food packaging and foil are collected through kerbside sort and also mixed in bring sites. The processing is relatively simple and contamination is rare (particularly when the recyclables are predominantly cans). There were some problems initially, glass shards in the containers causing contamination and leading to rejection of large amount of aluminium, however these problems have subsequently been addressed. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection It is considered by the authority that there is always scope for improvement in terms of collecting more material. To address this they are utilising door-steppers, supported by an ongoing educational and promotion programme. Whilst this does not focus specifically on aluminium, it does aim to encourage residents to recycle all possible materials and raise awareness that the council collects more than just cans in terms of aluminium. The message the authority aims to deliver is to recycle as much of everything as possible, and does not actively emphasise one material over another for either financial or environmental benefit. They do however try to raise awareness of those materials which people aren‟t as conscientious about recycling due to a lower awareness e.g. residents generally know that cans are recyclable, but they perhaps are not as aware that they can recycle food packaging, foil and tetra paks. The council focuses on reaching harder to reach areas to increase the tonnage of recyclable materials in general which will help increase aluminium tonnages. They have recently gone to AWC which has led to an increase in recycling due to limited refuse capacity, but again this is for all material not just aluminium. Barriers Being quite rural in some areas, collection can be an issue in terms of vehicle capacity, with large volumes of cans requiring collection specifically if residents do not crush them sufficiently. It can lead to increased collection trips when lorries are only half full in terms of weight. This is an issue also to do with demographics as some more deprived areas have different waste composition (for example more beer cans and less wine bottles) than other more affluent areas.

Authority Shepway District Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 10.30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Significant Rural Population density (people per ha) 2.70 Population 96,238 Number of households 41,155 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Approx. 80 tonnes annually of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi material collection service. Cans are only collected at present through kerbside sort and approximately 80 tonnes per year are collected. They are limited as to the range of aluminium materials which can be collected as the MRF only has capacity to bale cans at present. Could more be collected? / Barriers The authority is currently facing some financial difficulties at the moment so cannot look to further develop or expand their service in any way. They accept that there is probably the scope and capacity to collect more but no changes can be made at present.

Authority South Bucks District Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 13.15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 50 Population density (people per ha) 4.38 Population 61,945 Number of households 24,781 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage WDA data 15 tonnes (2006/07) of waste stream 2007/08 data: April 07 – 0.978 t.; May 07– 1.284 t.; June 07 – 1.063 t.; July 07– 1.140 t.; August 07 – 1.577 t.; September 07 – 1.296 t.; October 07– 1.276 t.; November 07 – 1.980 t.; December 07 – 1.634 t.; January 08 – 2.409 t.; February 08 – 1.414 t.; March 08 – 1.054 t. Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi material collection scheme. Cans are collected through kerbside sort and at bring sites. They currently do not collect other forms of aluminium due to restrictions from the reprocessor. In addition as they have a kerbside sort scheme in place they do not have capacity to separate additional materials. There is a scheme in the north of the county where adults with learning difficulties take mixed metals and sort out the foil fraction so it can be sent for reprocessing separately. The authority is looking to source a similar scheme in their area. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection In terms of increasing tonnage in ways other than additional materials, they are aware that they are not capturing all the cans and they believe that education and promotion of the service needs to address this. They intend to highlight the environmental benefits of recycling aluminium specifically and an article has been placed in the council magazine dealing with this subject. They do receive an income from the aluminium fraction so they acknowledge that it is in their interest to collect as much of it as possible. Barriers One issue they consider to be a problem is that they believe the householder would prefer to throw away dirty food cans than wash them out and place them in the box for collection. This again is something their communication activities need to address.

Authority St Albans City and District Council

Date/Time Interview 08/04/2008 15.30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Significant Rural Population density (people per ha) 8.00 Population 129,005 Number of households 52,659 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage WDA data 82 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi material collection service, to maximise tonnage. Cans, aerosols, foil and food containers are collected commingled from kerbside and also in bring banks. Residents are not required to separate metal products, the MRF processes all materials. They get good returns on the amount of aluminium they recycle. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection They already offer a comprehensive kerbside service to nearly all households, with the exception of just a few flats which will be getting the service sometime this year. The authority is switching to AWC in September to try to increase the general recycling rate to above 40%. They do consider that their capture rate is already good therefore there is limited scope to improve collection aside from the points raised above. Barriers There is an issue in terms of capacity of the vehicles as metals are collected with plastics; however this problem is primarily caused by the large volume of plastics rather than as a result of the metals. They have a compaction facility on the van now which is helping to address this problem.

Authority Westminster City Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 12.30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 84.41 Population 181,286 Number of households 91,172 Database classification Non recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage of Approx 100 tonnes through collection waste stream Approx 500 tonnes through disposal recovery Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi material collection service, to maximise recycling tonnage and cans have a high recognition rate amongst residents so it‟s easy for them to maximise capture of this material. All cans are collected through the kerbside commingled service and through bring sites. It is estimated that aluminium makes up 1% of their total 11,000 tonnes collected; equivalent to around 100 tonnes. Aluminium is also recovered from the residual waste stream at the incinerator. Annually they capture 500 tonnes of aluminium through this disposal recovery. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority considers that it captures the vast majority of cans from the waste stream and they are starting to think about collecting foil but at the moment have not taken this any further. It would depend of the MRF specification and investigating what they would and would not take. At this stage they have not considered the potential role of charities as they are at the early stages of considering extending collection to include foil. Barriers Collection capacity is not an issue as the collection vehicle has a compactor on board. However there is a very large variation in the types of properties they serve and participation amongst hard to reach groups is not as high as it could be. Some communications activities do focus on the life cycle of products which will consider the environmental benefits of recycling aluminium, but this is generally targeted at the „long term‟ residents. Communications targeted at „short term‟ residents is focused on motivating to participate and recycle rather than focusing on specific materials or products.

Authority Exeter City Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 15.50 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 23.62 Population 111,076 Number of households 46,573 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 32 tonnes (with additional 57.3 tonnes from of waste stream additional MRF) Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected due to its high market value. Aluminium is considered to be a clean, dry, high value material which can be hand sorted into good quality material. Cans, foil, food container and aerosols are collected via commingled kerbside collection. The MRF hand sort the recyclables and the remaining fines are sent to a larger mechanical MRF (mainly to extract those materials with an aluminium fraction). Last year aluminium hand sorted at the MRF equated to 32.41 tonnes, whilst 57.3 were extracted from the fines at the larger mechanical MRF. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority does not consider that they are currently capturing all the aluminium possible. In a recent residual waste composition analysis the following results were obtained (different methodology was used so the 2 waste composition studies have not been combined)  For a 3 season sample the following quantities of aluminium were left in the residual waste (kg/hh/wk): Cans: 0.77; Foil: 1.14; Aerosols: 0.86  For a 1 season sample the following quantities of aluminium were left in the residual waste (kg/hh/wk): Cans: 0.03; Foil: 0.02; Aerosols: 0.02 Barriers From the analysis of the residual waste it is clear to the authority that they could capture more but they are not sure how to achieve this. Campaigning and education may help; however they mainly focus on promoting the collection of a range of recyclables. The smaller bits of foil go to the larger MRF so they could possibly capture some more of this. Also the paper reprocessor does not want the paper to be contaminated with food waste so they only collect clean materials – some residents may not be putting some aluminium food waste containers out for collection if they are not keen on prewashing; this may prevent some of the aluminium being recycled.

Authority Hyndburn Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 09/04/08 15.15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 11.16 Population 81,496 Number of households 32,976 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No breakdown – just get general tonnage of of waste stream material recycled (52 tonnes on WasteDataFlow) Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi material collection service, in order to maximise tonnages. Cans, foil, food containers and aerosols are collected through kerbside commingled collection. Other scrap metal can be collected at the HWRC. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection In terms of collecting more, the authority is not sure what fraction of aluminium they are not capturing. They cannot increase collection frequency and already accept a range of aluminium products. Barriers The authority believes there is a slight problem with recognition as only cans are seen as recyclable so the authority try to increase awareness that other aluminium materials can also be recycled. They make sure they promote the environmental benefits of recycling all materials but as aluminium is so high on this agenda, it is often pushed more.

Authority Aylesbury Vale District Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 11:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 50 Population density (people per ha) 1.84 Population 165,748 Number of households 64,526 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 64 tonnes at kerbside of waste stream 3.2 tonnes from foil banks Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected at the kerbside in a comingled collection of mixed metals and plastics in a 35lt box. Tins and cans as well as aerosols are collected in terms of aluminium. This is bulked up at a transfer station and sent for reprocessing. ARRC (Aylesbury Reuse and Recycling Centres) run by Bucks County Council have foil banks at their centres where any foil containers can be taken. Aylesbury collect this material at the kerbside to make it convenient for residents to recycle as much as they can. With the facilities offered by ARRC and their contractor having specification on what they will take, they see no reason to expand the aluminium collection to include foil and food packages. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority believes they could collect more aluminium if they expanded their collection to include foil and other aluminium products. They believe they would (speculatively) double what is currently collected at the foil banks as it would be more convenient for residents to recycle it. However the small tonnages which would be achieved combined with the capacity issue of the kerbside containers does mean that they are not currently looking to expand the service in this way. It is a high volume, low weight material and as they just get a set rate per tonne for mixed plastic and cans, there is no financial incentive to increase the amount of this material and potentially cause an increase in round loads and/or times. In terms of communications and promotion the district is currently concentrating on other material where there is a higher demand for action as they are not as well addressed as metals (i.e. cardboard – installing more bring sites for this stream). Barriers Capacity of the kerbside collection boxes is seen as a barrier. The authority currently uses a 35lt box for plastics and cans and a 55lt for glass. A number of complaints have been received that the 35lt box does not offer enough capacity for both these materials. The authority believe that the residents could be educated to compact more of their cans and plastics; this would enable them to recycle more as capacity would not be such a limiting factor.

Authority Chorley Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 10:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 4.95 Population 100,449 Number of households 41,027 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Mixed metals including anything aluminium are collected via a kerbside sort scheme and at bring banks. The authority is happy to collect anything recyclable that they can find a market for. Their current contractor will take mixed metals and sort them to go to end markets. They want to make it as easy as possible for residents to recycle so keep it simple by letting them put anything metal in the collection scheme. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection They actively encourage residents to recycle all types of aluminium through literature and education and they do not believe there is a problem with recognition of this material. Therefore the only way to increase the amount they collect is through increasing capacity to take more. They will be doing this next year as part of a new collections contract which will include the collection of glass as a new material in the mixed collection scheme, and a larger wheeled bin provided for this. The authority thinks it would be very difficult to get residents to separate aluminium form other metals and they currently have no justification for doing so as their reprocessors will take it mixed and get the financial benefit of sorting it. Barriers There is some confusion among residents with regard to multi-material products such as tertra paks and take away lids. This may be an area which needs addressing as it could increase tonnages (although they do not believe it will have a significant impact).

Authority Wellingborough Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 10:45 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Significant Rural Population density (people per ha) 4.45 Population 72,519 Number of households 30,084 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 64 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Mixed cans, including aluminium are collected via a kerbside sort scheme. They do not take any other types of metal. Their current processor will only take cans for baling; they will not deal with other mixed metals therefore the authority does not offer them as part of their collection service. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection They have a limited publicity campaign but are looking to expand this in the coming year. This will hopefully go someway to increasing tonnages through increasing householder recognition. The campaign will focus on all material but as part of increasing overall recycling rates, aluminium tonnes should increase proportionally. A new MRF being built for the County next year will dictate to Wellingborough if they can add any more materials to their current collection system. They will take any material that this new MRF will allow. They have had some resident enquires as to where foil can be recycled. They have no facilities in the borough so point them towards neighbouring Northampton where foil banks are in place. They are not currently looking to install any additional facilities in their district. Barriers They do not believe that pushing aluminium in particular will significantly increase their tonnages; it is a matter of what the reprocessor will take as to the materials they can collect.

Authority Wakefield City MDC

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 09:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 9.31 Population 315,172 Number of households 132,212 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of the authority AWC commingled kerbside multi material collection system which is currently being rolled out across the district. Previous to this aluminium could be recycled at bring banks or HWRC in mixed metal containers. Wakefield will take cans primarily but will also accept clean foil. In order to achieve their recycling targets they introduced AWC for recyclable materials and as metal is easily recognisable by the public this is included. They don‟t target aluminium specifically, but want to capture as much of the metal in the waste stream as possible, so collect it mixed. The public have positively received the AWC and are achieving a high recycling rate (47%). The financial implications for collecting Aluminium are a benefit but not the main reason for instigating aluminium collection as they receive a payment per tonnage of recycled material from the MRF they send it to. They also acknowledge the environmental benefits of aluminium. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority is expanding its AWC from the 40,000 households already on the scheme to an additional 30,000 households this spring and the remaining 70,000 later in the year. They are expecting an increase in reported tonnage collected as the figures more accurately reflect performance. A new PFI contract which will come into effect later this year will see a new MRF built in the District giving more scope for aluminium to be separated from other metal and giving the authority the chance to get a clearer idea on what is being captured. In addition they feel that through better management of the collection of this material, i.e. ensuring separation so that minimal aluminium is processed as mixed metal at the HWRC, more could technically be collected (the figures would improve). This would have the additional benefit of raising public awareness of the differences in materials and the benefits of recycling aluminium in particular. Barriers Capacity of the kerbside recycling container is already considered a problem, but one which could be overcome with more education work on better management of waste (crushing cans).

Authority St Helens

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 14:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 12.97 Population 176,843 Number of households 72,697 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No update to WasteDataFlow data of 3 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi material collection service – it is not the result of a conscious effort to collect aluminium specifically, more to offer a comprehensive service and potentially to maximise tonnages of recyclables. Aluminium cans are collected at the kerbside as part of a commingled collection service. Aluminium cans (and potentially other aluminium products) are also collected as mixed metals at bring sites. Separate tonnage for aluminium from the kerbside is provided to the authority from the contractor, but not from the contractor for the bring sites. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection It is assumed that more could be collected, and the range of products collected could be extended, however the overall tonnage is considered to be very low. The authority is using more targeted promotion and education this year to target specific products (rather than materials) to maximise capture and increase recognition rates. Barriers One potential barrier is possible contamination if they move to collect foil food containers and householders are reluctant to wash the products prior to collection. The range of products available which are aluminium is also seen as a barrier from both the local authority perspective and also the householder. In addition the relatively small tonnages could also be considered as a barrier in terms of focusing activity to increase collection.

Authority Braintree District Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 13:00 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 50 Population density (people per ha) 2.16 Population 132,179 Number of households 54,330 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No update to WDF data of 373 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Aluminium collection is positively received by the public; public demand has influenced their decision to collect all aluminium types, not just cans. They have made their service as user friendly as possible and have been led by consumer demand to recycle more. A new MRF contract has enabled them to recently expand their aluminium collection to take foil as well as aerosols and cans. This is collected through kerbside commingled scheme. Bring banks were previously provided but as the kerbside scheme has expanded these bring banks have been cut back and are now only at large supermarket car parks Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority has always offered as wide a range of material as possible. The limiting factor in the past has been the capacity of the MRF to take mixed materials. A new MRF contract has enabled them to expand the range of aluminium materials they collect. Recent waste compositional analysis of their residual waste indicated that there is still more they could capture. This is an issue to be addressed through promotions and communications as the capacity of their containers (residents can put out as many sacks of recyclable material as they want) and vehicles is not an issue. Promotions in the past have shown some life cycle information of recycled products and the council is keen to inform residents of the environmental benefits of recycling all materials. AWC has led to better housekeeping – residents are more likely to rinse out and crush cans than in neighbouring boroughs where waste is collected weekly and it is therefore thought that through the collection process and communications that improvements can be made.

Authority Christchurch Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 14:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 8.91 Population 44,865 Number of households 20,613 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No data of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi-material kerbside sort collection. Only cans and household aerosols (not spray paints) are collected – this is the same for bring banks. Foil banks are supplied throughout the council area and are managed and maintained by a „learning and housing unit‟ at Poole Council. The authority tries to capture the majority of the metal fraction through the kerbside collection system and consequently have fewer bring banks which have to be regularly emptied when full but not up to weight capacity. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority believes that in order to collect more aluminium materials it would have to start collecting foils and food packaging. Due to constraints placed upon them by the MRF, these would have to be collected separately. They currently do not have capacity to do this on their kerbside sort vehicles. The authority is currently running a trial AWC service as well as a number of other changes to its collection system. This trial area has significantly higher recycling levels than the rest of the district. However the council is hesitant to attribute this to AWC as they also offer a wider range of collection materials and different container capacity. The authority did however think that by increasing the overall range of materials collected they would see increased tonnages of metals; however they are not at the moment looking to do this. They also believe that the weekly refuse collection and fortnightly recycle collection may prevent some recyclable material being recycled – but this applies to all recyclables, not just aluminium. Barriers Food contamination is considered to be a barrier, although residents who use the foil bins are thought to be „committed recyclers‟ and therefore practice good housekeeping in terms of washing out foil containers. If this service was offered at the doorstep, the concern is that residents would place contaminated waste out for collection. The county run MRF restricts what they can collect, more sorting would be required if more aluminium materials were collected. This would also require new vehicles with more sorting compartments.

Authority Ryedale District Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 15:40 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 80 Population density (people per ha) 0.34 Population 50,872 Number of households 21,451 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Foil bring banks: 1 tonne of waste stream Only mixed data for cans/aerosols Reasons for collecting aluminium Ryedale collects mixed cans and aerosols at the kerbside through a kerbside sort scheme. They also collect separated foil at bring banks. They offer these as part of a comprehensive range of materials for recycling. They have to collect foil separately due to specification of Novelis who take the council‟s can fraction and class foil as contamination. The financial implications of recycling aluminium are not a consideration, but tonnages are. They do not believe that focusing on increasing the collection of aluminium products at kerbside will effect their tonnages as they already offer an opportunity to recycle other aluminium products (other than cans) at bring banks. The council believes that residents find it easy to recycle materials like cans at the kerbside as they are commonly associated with recycling. It was decided to keep the kerbside collection scheme simple and provide the additional bring bank facility for those more dedicated recyclers. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection A focus on metal lids and caps could increase tonnages slightly – residents often put out the main section of the can in but not the lid. It is anticipated that when a new collection scheme to take plastic (and possibly tetra paks in the future) is rolled out, tonnages of other material may also increase. Compaction needs to be addressed due to the high mileage of collection rounds; they are hoping to compact collected materials when the new system comes on line. They also need to address this at bring sites. They are not sure this would increase tonnages but it would make collections more efficient. Barriers In order to collect more aluminium they would have to collect foil at kerbside, they are not looking to do this for 2 reasons:  It would only increase tonnages marginally  They would have to separate it out and there is no compartment on the lorry to do this Due to the environmental impacts of additional rounds, it would be hard to justify collecting more aluminium at kerbside in such a rural district.

Authority Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 09:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 31.15 Population 305,155 Number of households 124,988 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Mixed metal cans are collected via a kerbside sort scheme; aerosols are also accepted in this waste stream. Aluminium foil is not accepted due to processor specification and there seems to be no demand from residents to expand the collection system to include this. This was indicated through a pilot collection scheme which gave a number of residents the opportunity to recycle mixed aluminium products. Very small returns of foil and food containers were obtained– no tonnage data was available however. Mixed can banks are also provided and serviced by the authority. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority runs an opt-in scheme for recycling. As the number of residents partaking in the scheme increases they expect an increase in tonnage of all collected recyclables. The authority believes there is a significant amount of aluminium still available for collection but is focusing on getting all households onto the current recycling scheme and target low participating areas – focusing on one waste stream is not currently viable. Barriers The small tonnages received during the trial collection of a range of aluminium types have indicate that the cost in collecting these would be too high compared to the return they would receive. A separate compartment on the collection vehicles would be needed in order to separate this fraction out. This would be costly and time consuming for little tonnage return.

Authority Ipswich Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 10:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 29.70 Population 117,069 Number of households 49,869 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a multi-material, commingled collection scheme. Mixed metals (including anything aluminium, apart from aerosols) are collected via AWC. Aerosols are thought to be too much of a fire risk at the MRF. During renewal of their waste contract in 2007, the preferred bidder proposed to use a MRF which would take all aluminium goods; it is the contractor‟s choice to support collection and recycling of aluminium. The council supported this as it makes it easy for residents to recycle all metals. In order to make AWC as efficient as possible, the council wants to remove the largest volume of recyclables from the residual waste; in order to do this they have to offer as many materials as possible for recycling collection. It makes the system more efficient if the large recycling bin is full therefore the wider the range of materials residents can put out for recycling, the better. It is economically positively viewed by the authority to collect this material. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection In order to use AWC effectively, residents are asked, and are willing, to wash out cans and food trays and place them in the recyclable bin, rather than have them sitting contaminated in the residual bin. The capacity of the residual bin has also encouraged them to place more in the recyclable bin. They do not actively push aluminium products as such but through these changes to their collection system (AWC and taking all materials), tonnages of aluminium are also thought to increase. They could capture more aluminium if they included aerosols in their scheme but perceived health and safety issues are preventing them from doing so at the moment. Barriers Generally getting non recyclers to recycle: they offer to take all aluminium apart from aerosols to make it as easy as possible for residents to recycle.

Authority Wokingham Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 09:45 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 8.39 Population 150,229 Number of households 57,272 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No Estimate of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected commingled at the kerbside. Mixed cans are collected with aerosols. Aluminium foil is not accepted due to processor specification. Aluminium foil banks are however provided and serviced by a local voluntary organisation. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority would be happy to collect foil and food containers if the MRF would accept it. The council was under the impression that this was not possible with most reprocessing technology. Due to the collection being commingled, collecting additional materials, if they could be extracted at sorting, would not be an issue in terms of collection but it could pose a problem in terms of capacity of recycling containers. Additional bulky foil items may mean that the container used in the home for recycling would not have sufficient capacity. The authority believes however that they are capturing a significant amount of aluminium through their kerbside scheme and the foil banks. They do however acknowledge that there is still foil to capture from those households not as committed to recycling, who will not take foil to a bank, and therefore still have foil products going into their residual waste. They also believe that they could push the recycling of aerosols more as these are not as readily identifiable by householders as a recyclable material and there is probably therefore a lot left in the residual waste. Barriers The requirements of the reprocessor are the biggest barrier they face. Wokingham would take more materials if their reprocessor would accept them.

Authority Scarborough Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 10:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Significant Rural Population density (people per ha) 1.30 Population 106,243 Number of households 46,726 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Just WFD - 42 tonnes of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Scarborough collects mixed cans and aerosols at the kerbside thought a kerbside commingled AWC service. There is no provision to collect foil in the borough They collect these as part of offering a comprehensive range of materials for recycling. Their current MRF will not take foil and the council is unaware of any local charities to supply this service. The financial implications aren‟t a consideration as the council does not get returns for its recyclable material, but tonnages are. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection There is a belief that there is still a lot of Al material which could be captured (although there was no data to back this up). As they are restricted by their MRF as to what they can take, the only way they see to increase tonnages is through communications and motivating people to use the system effectively. Educating residents as to how to use the AWC service effectively will increase tonnages across all material types. Barriers There are other areas where bigger tonnages could be gained more easily. Although the environmental benefits of Aluminium are proven, if they do not have a processor to take it they will not collect it. As this district is quite rural, separate collection of aluminium is not considered to be a viable option.

Authority Luton Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 10:50 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Unitary Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 42.53 Population 184,371 Number of households 70,755 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 2006/07 – 104 tonnes of waste stream WDF – 52 tonnes Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Mixed metals are collected via a kerbside comingled scheme. They take a range of Aluminium goods including:  Cans  Foil  Aerosols  Food containers This range of aluminium products is collected partly as a result of resident demand. Aluminium collection is positively received by the public. The economic and environmental benefits of collecting this material are also positively viewed by the authority; it is also the contractor‟s choice to support collection and recycling of aluminium. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection Although they have no waste analysis for their residual waste, they believe that there is still a lot of aluminium which could be collected. This is an issue of residents using the service efficiently and not a matter of improving the collection service offered as they feel this is quite comprehensive. Barriers Luton has a large ethic minority population. The language barriers associated with this can cause problems in communicating the correct way to use the recycling service. Door stepping is constantly being carried out to encourage residents to partake in the scheme. Feedback suggests that foil is often one of the materials that residents are unaware that they can recycle. When they have been alerted to this, capture is much higher.

Authority Waverley Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 10/04/08 15:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 50 Population density (people per ha) 3.35 Population 115,665 Number of households 47,176 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No data of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Waverley collects aluminium in their kerbside sort scheme. Mixed cans and aerosols are collected and sent as a mixed load for reprocessing. They collect this range of materials as they are easily identified by the householder and are thought to be quick wins in terms of high tonnage materials which can be easily collected. The MRF will not take any other aluminium products mixed in with them. Bring banks for the separate collection of foil products are provided and maintained by the council. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection They believe they are already collecting all the Al materials possible through kerbside or bring site. They do not think they have a problem with capacity of the collection boxes, if people wanted to put more in they could. Therefore the only way they believe they could increase tonnages of aluminium is through promotional and educational material. Increasing participation in all materials would increase tonnages of aluminium. Barriers They are limited in what they can collect through their current kerbside sort scheme by their MRF. More sorting would be required or a MRF which could take mixed metals other than cans. This is not something they have looked into.

Authority Babergh District Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 13:10 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 80 Population density (people per ha) 1.41 Population 83,461 Number of households 34,856 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Yearly mixed metal tonnage of 740 of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Babergh collects aluminium in their kerbside comingled collection scheme. This is collected fortnightly as part of an AWC. They collect a range of Al products including:  Cans  Foil  Food containers Mixed cans and foil are collected and sent as a mixed load for reprocessing. Mixed can bring sites were in operation in the district, run through a local charity, however these are thought to be closing within the next week. It is believed that the kerbside scheme is now picking up the large majority of this waste steam. These aluminium products are collected for a number of reasons:  They are popular with the public in terms of an easily recognisable recyclable product  Have high energy saving benefits  Highly recyclable  Not labour intensive to sort Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection They do not believe that they are missing much of the Aluminium fraction. With AWC now in operation across the district, residents have to manage their household waste. They no longer have the capacity in their residual waste bin to throw everything away so they have to recycle. They generally have willing residents who will wash out cans and food containers and recycle the majority of it. Residents are asked to scrunch up foil before placing in their bin in order to make sorting more efficient so these denser, larger pieces of foil can be picked up by eddie currents used to separate the Al fraction of the waste out: small bits of foil get lost though the fines separation at the beginning or the processing. Making sure residents condense the material in this way is one way to pick up even small bits of Al. They do not think they have a problem with capacity of the collection containers; there is room to take everything. Communication to encourage residents to partake in the scheme will help increase tonnage but they believe they already have very willing residents who recycle a lot. Barriers

60 Tetra paks could be a problem in the future: with a rural district, collection costs are already very high (10 vehicles are needed to service just 35,000 homes). Collecting these low weight materials could be difficult. They are looking to install bring banks for these in the next couple of years, the council is however as yet unsure as to weather the benefits of collecting these will outweigh the costs and environmental implications of emptying the banks. The point was made that there should be a shift in focus to trade waste. With landfill charges still not high enough to make it worth the while for pubs/bars to recycle, most either still just have one residual collection or place Al in household bins. Concentrating on picking up Al from here would see huge benefits.

Authority Manchester City Council MBC

Date/Time Interview Received via email 11/04/08 13:19 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Major Urban Population density (people per ha) 33.97 Population 392,819 Number of households 167,451 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No estimate of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Manchester collects foil, cans and aerosols. Collection methods depend on the recycling service the household is on: either in a black box with other dry recyclables, or if on the twin bin service, in a can sack, presented alongside the glass and paper bins. Aluminium is also collected at Bring Sites across the city and in communal can bins for medium and high rise properties. These materials were collected from the outset of the kerbside recycling service. The main factors influencing the decision to collect aluminium are thought to be:  end processors  operational collections  resident feedback Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The council believes that more aluminium could be collected in two ways:  through greater resident participation; this varies significantly throughout the city  promotion of foil as a collected recyclable; the recognition for this is thought to be much smaller than for cans. Barriers It is tonnage rather than volume of recyclable material which Manchester wants to increase. Manchester City Council are currently undertaking a large-scale consultation exercise to find out what waste and recycling services residents want. The results of the consultation will be used to decide how they move forward with waste collection and recycling to meet the needs of residents. The consultation will determine the services they promote more and the materials they collect for recycling.

Authority Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 14:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Other Urban Population density (people per ha) 15:09 Population 119,132 Number of households 48,683 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage No data of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected as part of a kerbside sort multi-material collection scheme. Mixed metals which can be presented for recycling include:  Cans  Foil  Food containers  Aerosols Mixed metal can banks are also provided and serviced by the authority. Aluminium collection is provided to give residents a full range of materials within the collecting service. It is simple to collect and process due to the current contractor taking mixed metals and separating them. It is also seen as a safe way to reach their recycling targets as it is easily recognisable by residents so they recycle a lot of it. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection They believe that they capture a large proportion on the metals fraction by offering to take a wide range of products, but there is still always more which can be captured. They are currently reviewing their promotions and communications material. They want to give information on how and why residents should recycle different materials: this will emphasise the environmental benefits of aluminium recycling. With Plastic collection due to commence next week, they expect to see an increase in tonnage of all materials: it is thought there will be a knock on effect of offering a greater range of materials, increasing tonnages in all material ranges. Barriers Through collecting mixed metals it is thought that the residents pay little attention to what they are recycling. So trying to increase capture of aluminium would be difficult as most residents wouldn‟t notice the difference between steel and aluminium.

Authority Preston Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 14:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Large Urban Population density (people per ha) 9.11 Population 129,633 Number of households 52,970 Database classification Non Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage Mixed metal tonnage for 2007/08 (excluding of waste stream March) - 450 Reasons for collecting aluminium Preston offer a kerbside sort, AWC service which includes the collection of the following aluminium products:  Cans  Foil  Food containers  Aerosols They also provide bring banks for mixed metal waste. They provide a collection service of all metals to ensure they make it easy for residents to recycle and therefore capture as much of the material as possible. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection The authority has undertaken some residual waste analysis which has highlighted that a fraction of even the most obvious metal products (cans) is still ending up in the residual waste. In order to improve capture they are under taking door knocking and communications campaigns to reinforce the message of what can be placed in the recycling bin. The move to AWC has been beneficial in increasing Al tonnages, as in all material streams, due to limited residual waste capacity. Barriers The range of Al products being captured is seen to be sufficient. The focus needs to be on residents using the system correctly.

Authority West Devon Borough Council

Date/Time Interview 11/04/08 15:30 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 80 Population density (people per ha) 0.42 Population 48,843 Number of households 20,188 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 2006/07 – 23.15 tonnes of waste stream 2007/08 (not yet audited) – 14.31 tonnes Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is one material collected as part of a multi-material collection scheme. Mixed metals including cans and aerosols are collected via a kerbside sort scheme. Mixed can banks are also provided and serviced by the authority. The reasons for collecting aluminium are:  The need to deliver the recycling act – cans were the first recyclable introduced in this area in the 1980‟s so collecting mixed metals from the kerbside is a natural progression of this;  Recycling metals makes sense environmental for the energy saving aspect and due to its source of origin (i.e. an over seas commodity and the environmental implications of this);  Aluminium collection is positively received by the public;  It is economically positively viewed by the authority to collect this material. The council would like to collect foil but due to the specifications of the processor they can not: the processor has stipulated that if they started collecting foil and it had food contamination, they would reject the whole load. It seems that the processor does have the facilities to deal with foil but the council can‟t run the risk of there being any contamination and loads being rejected. Therefore they do not offer foil as part of their collection scheme. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection A recent waste survey conducted on residual waste in West Devon has show that there is still some fraction of aluminium waste not being recycled. The need for a two fold approach to address this was identified: 1. A general promotional campaign to support national (Wrap) and regional (Devon wide) recycling campaigns. A recent participation survey has show that only 80% of West Devon residents are participation in the kerbside recycling scheme. Capturing this remaining 20% would increase tonnage of recyclable materials across the board, including aluminium. 2. A targeted educational campaign focusing on aluminium, explaining the environmental and financial benefits of recycling this commodity. They still have capacity on their vehicles to collect more metals and would like residents to fill this. Barriers

65 The issue with reprocessing foil is something the authority will have to look into if it is to capture all the remaining aluminium from the waste stream.

Authority South Norfolk Council

Date/Time Interview 14/04/08 10:15 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 80 Population density (people per ha) 1.22 Population 110,710 Number of households 46,607 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 16 tonnes WDF of waste stream 4.27 tonnes Oct 07, 5.17 tonnes Dec 07 estimate average of 5 tonnes a month = 60 tonnes Al annually. Reasons for collecting aluminium Aluminium is collected thought a commingled AWC kerbside scheme in South Norfolk. This includes the collection of aluminium in the form of cans and aerosols but not foil. They collect these products for the following reasons:  primarily: to ensure they get tonnages for their recycling targets  as part of a multi-material collection scheme  they are products which are easily sorted at the MRF via a V-screen  they have a good market value  the council have good end markets for them The MRF facility dictates what they can take in their comingled collection system. No bring banks are in operation across the district. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection Although they do capture the majority of the recyclable material they collect, the council believe they could collect a higher tonnage of aluminium. In a recent waste analysis undertaken on their residual waste, 0.03kg/hh/wk of aluminium cans were found to still be in the residual waste stream. Coupled with the foil which they do not collect, there is still a significant amount of material available. Without changing the range of materials collected due to processing barriers (see barriers section below) and the fact that foil products are a marginal material which they are not going to change their current system for, education needs to be used to address capturing the remaining fraction of aluminium. They need to increase participation from non committed recyclers and reinforce the recycling message and the range of products they take with those already recycling. AWC does increase the need for residents to use the kerbside recycling facility. The environmental benefits of recycling aluminium are acknowledged by the authority and they do try to emphasis this in order to get residents to include as much of this as possible in their recyclable waste stream – however this is done generally while trying to increase tonnages of all recyclable materials. Barriers Barriers to increasing the range of aluminium products they collect i.e. why they can not take foil and food containers, is primarily an issue of the MRF specification. The

67 system currently used to sort the recycled material can not deal with foil. Foil would have to be collected separately: this is not a suitable option for their commingled collection system. They are also concerned with food waste contamination if this product was to be included in the recyclable waste stream.

Authority Horsham District Council

Date/Time Interview 14/04/08 10:45 Authority Type (collection/unitary) Collection Authority character (Urban/Rural) Rural 50 Population density (people per ha) 2.30 Population 122,088 Number of households 50,037 Database classification Recycler Aluminium collected yes Estimated tonnage or percentage 50 tonnes WDF of waste stream Reasons for collecting aluminium Horsham offer a kerbside commingled collection service which includes aluminium in the form of cans and aerosols. They currently do not take foil or food containers but this is due to change with a new collection system commencing February 2009, when residents will be given a wheeled bin instead of basket collection container and will be able to include foil and food containers. This is due to the contract the County has with Viridor and the new MRF which will have the capacity to take this material. The range of aluminium products the council recycle is primarily due to historic reason: as part of a multi-material collection scheme, the current system has been in place since 1995 with the only change been the addition of aerosols. They collect these primarily to reach their recycling targets and as a result of what the county council can find end markets for. It is economically positively viewed by the authority to collect Al; the environmental benefits of collecting this product are also a consideration. Mixed bring banks were offered until the kerbside scheme was rolled out. These have subsequently been removed in an effort to get residents to use the kerbside scheme. Could more be collected? /Ways to improve collection Aerosols: Due to the fact that this material was added on to the scheme at a later date, the recognition rate is not as high as it is for cans. This needs to be addressed through further promotions. The council are constantly reinforcing the kerbside scheme with articles and information on how to use the scheme. They do also push the “why” message i.e. the environmental benefits of recycling aluminium. Horsham is quite an affluent area and the council believes that educating its residents as to why they can and can‟t recycle certain materials will aid resident buy in to the scheme. In the past the focus has been solely on recycling targets but now they are trying to address the environmental issue as well e.g. waste prevention and high environmental value of some recycled goods. The county has recently signed up with Alupro, another reason why Al recycling is being pushed at kerbside. All other districts in the council have made the move to change collections to take advantage of this and the MRF facility‟s ability to take mixed Al goods – Horsham is the last to do this. Barriers

69 Capacity is not seen to be a barrier as residents can currently put out as many baskets for recycling as they like and next year will have a much larger container for recyclables. Some isolated properties do pose an issue as they can not currently be included on recycling rounds. When the bring banks were removed, these properties no longer had access to any recycle service or facilities. This is hopefully going to be addressed through the new system.

70 Appendix 3: Coded Responses to the Questions

Table A: Authority Classifications and Coding Authority Type Name Authority Type Coding Coding Tynedale DC Collection C Rural R Nottingham City Council Unitary U Urban U Gedling BC Collection C Urban U Harrow LB Collection C Urban U Eastbourne BC Collection C Urban U Kennet DC Collection C Rural R Wycombe DC Collection C Rural R Derby City Council Unitary U Urban U Leeds City Council Unitary U Urban U Braintree DC Collection C Rural R Stockton-on-Tees BC Unitary U Urban U Manchester City Council Collection C Urban U Chorley BC Collection C Urban U Wakefield City MDC Unitary U Urban U Wellingborough BC Collection C Rural R Nuneaton & Bedworth BC Collection C Urban U Dudley MBC Unitary U Urban U Ipswich BC Collection C Urban U Babergh DC Collection C Rural R Westminster City Council Unitary U Urban U Wokingham BC Unitary U Urban U Waverley BC Collection C Rural R Swindon BC Unitary U Urban U St Helens MBC Collection C Urban U South Bucks DC Collection C Rural R South Norfolk Council Collection C Rural R Exeter City Council Collection C Urban U Aylesbury Vale DC Collection C Rural R Scarborough BC Collection C Rural R Shepway DC Collection C Rural R North East Derbyshire DC Collection C Rural R Horsham DC Collection C Rural R Hyndburn BC Collection C Urban U Luton BC Unitary U Urban U Chelmsford BC Collection C Rural R St Albans City & DC Collection C Rural R Ryedale DC Collection C Rural R Christchurch BC Collection C Urban U Preston BC Collection C Urban U West Devon BC Collection C Rural R

71 Table B: Authority Size and Coding No. of Pop. Pop. Pop. No of Name Pop. households density density Coding households (people Coding sq km) Coding Tynedale DC 58,808 1 24,585 1 0.27 1 Nottingham City Council 266,988 3 116,112 3 35.78 4 Gedling BC 111,787 2 47,556 1 9.32 2 Harrow LB 206,814 3 79,112 2 40.98 4 Eastbourne BC 89,667 1 40,918 1 20.31 3 Kennet DC 74,838 1 29,566 1 0.77 1 Wycombe DC 162,105 2 63,504 2 4.99 1 Derby City Council 221,708 3 92,405 2 28.41 3 Leeds City Council 715,402 4 301,614 4 12.97 3 Braintree DC 132,179 2 54,330 2 2.16 1 Stockton-on-Tees BC 178,408 2 72,953 2 8.75 2 Manchester City Council 392,819 4 167,451 4 33.97 4 Chorley BC 100,449 2 41,027 1 4.95 1 Wakefield City MDC 315,172 4 132,212 3 9.31 2 Wellingborough BC 72,519 1 30,084 1 4.45 1 Nuneaton & Bedworth BC 119,132 2 48,683 1 15.09 3 Dudley MBC 305,155 4 124,988 3 31.15 4 Ipswich BC 117,069 2 49,869 1 29.7 3 Babergh DC 83,461 1 34,865 1 1.41 1 Westminster City Council 181,286 2 91,172 2 84.41 4 Wokingham BC 150,229 2 57,272 2 8.39 2 Waverley BC 115,665 2 47,176 1 3.35 1 Swindon BC 180,051 2 75,154 2 7.82 2 St Helens MBC 176,843 2 72,697 2 12.97 3 South Bucks DC 61,945 1 24,781 1 4.38 1 South Norfolk Council 110,710 2 46,607 1 1.22 1 Exeter City Council 111,076 2 46,573 1 23.62 3 Aylesbury Vale DC 165,748 2 64,526 2 1.84 1 Scarborough BC 106,243 2 46,726 1 1.3 1 Shepway DC 96,238 1 41,155 1 2.7 1 North East Derbyshire DC 96,940 1 40,692 1 3.52 1 Horsham DC 122,088 2 50,037 2 2.3 1 Hyndburn BC 81,496 1 32,976 1 11.16 3 Luton BC 184,371 2 70,755 2 42.53 4 Chelmsford BC 157, 072 2 64, 564 2 4.64 1 St Albans City & DC 129,005 2 52,659 2 8 2 Ryedale DC 50,872 1 21,451 1 0.34 1 Christchurch BC 44,865 1 20,613 1 8.91 2 Preston BC 129,633 2 52,970 2 9.11 2 West Devon BC 48,843 1 20,188 1 0.42 1

Key to the coding: 1 - less than 2 = 100,00 tp 3 = 200,000 to 4 = more than Pop. coding 100,000 200,000 300,000 300,000

72 No. of households 1 = less than 2 = 50,000 to 3 = 100,000 to 4 = more than coding 50,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 Population density Coding 1 = less than 5 2 = 5 - 10 3 = 10 - 30 4 = more than 30

Table C: Collection of aluminium products and tonnages achieved for 2006/07 Kerbside Bring Tonnages

Name Defra LA Collection Products Collection Products tonnage tonnage 2006/07 2006/07

Tynedale DC 1 2 1 2 Nottingham City Council 1 2 1 2 Gedling BC 1 2 1 1 Harrow LB 1 1 1 1 Eastbourne BC 1 1 1 1 Kennet DC 2 1 118 118 Wycombe DC 1 2 1 & 2 1 121 Derby City Council 1 2 147 147 Leeds City Council 1 2 1 1 356 Braintree DC 1 1 1 1 373 373 Stockton-on-Tees BC 2 4 Manchester City Council 1 1 1 1 Chorley BC 2 1 1 1 Wakefield City MDC 1 1 1 1 Wellingborough BC 2 2 64 Nuneaton & Bedworth BC 2 1 1 2 Dudley MBC 2 3 1 2 Ipswich BC 1 4 Babergh DC 1 4 1 2 Westminster City Council 1 2 1 2 100 Wokingham BC 1 3 2 5 Waverley BC 2 3 2 5 Swindon BC 2 1 1 & 2 1 2 2 St Helens MBC 1 2 1 1 3 3 South Bucks DC 2 2 1 2 15 15 South Norfolk Council 1 3 16 60 Exeter City Council 1 1 32 32 Aylesbury Vale DC 1 3 2 5 42 67.2 Scarborough BC 1 3 42 42 Shepway DC 2 2 50 80 North East Derbyshire DC 2 1 1 1 50 70 Horsham DC 1 3 50 Hyndburn BC 1 1 1 1 52 Luton BC 1 1 52 104 Chelmsford BC 1 1 1 1 96 96 St Albans City & DC 1 1 1 1 82 82

73 Ryedale DC 2 3 2 5 1 1 Christchurch BC 2 3 1 & 2 1 Preston BC 2 1 1 1 West Devon BC 2 3 1 2 24 24

Key to the coding:

Kerbside 1 = commingled 2 = sort collection collection Range of 3 = Cans & products 1 = All products 2 = Cans only 4 = cans & foil aerosols collected Bring/HWRC 1 = mixed 2 = separate

collection collection collection Range of 3 = Cans & products 1 = All products 2 = Cans only 4 = cans & foil 5 = Foil only aerosols collected Obtained from Blank cells = no tonnage data Defra Tonnages WasteDataFlow available Obtained from telephone Blank cells = no tonnage data LA Tonnages interview – only available 2006/07 shown

Table D: Capacity to Collect More and Coding Capacity to collect Name Tonnage more Coding Tynedale DC 1 Nottingham City Council 1 Gedling BC 1 Harrow LB 1 Eastbourne BC 1 Kennet DC 1 Wycombe DC 1 Derby City Council 1 Leeds City Council 2 Braintree DC 1 Stockton-on-Tees BC 1 Manchester City Council 1 Chorley BC 1 Wakefield City MDC 1 Wellingborough BC 1 Nuneaton & Bedworth BC 1 Dudley MBC 1 Ipswich BC 1 Babergh DC 2 Westminster City Council 1 Wokingham BC 1 Waverley BC 2 Swindon BC 2

74 St Helens MBC 1 South Bucks DC 1 South Norfolk Council 1 3 season waste analysis (kg/hh/wk): Cans: 0.77; Foil: 1.14; Aerosols: 0.86 1 1 season waste analysis (kg/hh/wk): Exeter City Council Cans: 0.03; Foil: 0.02; Aerosols: 0.02 6.4 (estimate from doubling foil bank 1 Aylesbury Vale DC collection) Scarborough BC 1 Shepway DC 1 North East Derbyshire DC 1 Horsham DC 1 Hyndburn BC 3 Luton BC 1 Chelmsford BC 3 St Albans City & DC 2 Ryedale DC 1 Christchurch BC 1 Preston BC 1 West Devon BC 1

Key to the Coding:

Capacity to 3 = under collect more 1 = Yes 2 = No review/don't know Blank cell = Tonnage no response

75 Table E: Reasons to collect aluminium products (coded responses) Part of multi- Maximise End High market Easy for Householder High material capture / market value residents / Name demands / environmental/ collection tonnage of considerat (financial product needs energy value service recyclables ion benefit) recognition Tynedale DC 1 Nottingham City Council 1 1 Gedling BC 1 1 Harrow LB 1 1 1 Eastbourne BC 1 1 Kennet DC 1 Wycombe DC 1 1 Derby City Council 1 1 Leeds City Council 1 1 Braintree DC 1 1 Stockton-on-Tees BC 1 1 Manchester City Council 1 1 Chorley BC 1 1 1 Wakefield City MDC 1 1 1 Wellingborough BC 1 Nuneaton & Bedworth BC 1 1 1 Dudley MBC 1 Ipswich BC 1 1 1 1 Babergh DC 1 1 1 Westminster City Council 1 1 1 Wokingham BC Waverley BC 1 1 Swindon BC 1 1 St Helens MBC 1 1

76 South Bucks DC 1 1 1 South Norfolk Council 1 1 1 1 1 Exeter City Council 1 1 Aylesbury Vale DC 1 Scarborough BC 1 1 Shepway DC 1 North East Derbyshire DC 1 Horsham DC 1 1 1 1 1 Hyndburn BC 1 1 1 Luton BC 1 1 1 1 Chelmsford BC 1 1 St Albans City & DC 1 1 1 Ryedale DC 1 1 1 Christchurch BC 1 Preston BC 1 1 West Devon BC 1 1 1 1 1 1

Key to the coding All columns 1 = Yes

Table F: Ways to increase volume of aluminium collected (coded responses) Extend Separately Education, Extend Extend Residents current Increase collect promotion & service to Extend Name product to crush service to AWC opportunity aluminium awareness other capacity range cans more to recycle products raising recyclables households Tynedale DC 1 Nottingham City Council 1 1 1 Gedling BC 1

77 Harrow LB 1 Eastbourne BC 1 Kennet DC 1 Wycombe DC 1 1 Derby City Council 1 Leeds City Council 1 1 Braintree DC 1 1 Stockton-on-Tees BC 1 Manchester City Council 1 Chorley BC 1 1 1 Wakefield City MDC 1 1 1 1 1 Wellingborough BC 1 Nuneaton & Bedworth BC 1 1 Dudley MBC 1 Ipswich BC 1 1 1 Babergh DC 1 1 1 Westminster City Council 1 1 Wokingham BC 1 1 Waverley BC 1 Swindon BC 1 St Helens MBC 1 1 South Bucks DC 1 1 1 South Norfolk Council 1 1 1 Exeter City Council 1 Aylesbury Vale DC 1 1 Scarborough BC 1 1 Shepway DC North East Derbyshire DC 1 1 1

78 Horsham DC 1 Hyndburn BC 1 Luton BC 1 Chelmsford BC 1 1 St Albans City & DC 1 1 Ryedale DC 1 1 Christchurch BC 1 1 1 Preston BC 1 1 West Devon BC 1 1

Key to the Coding: All columns 1 = Yes

Table G: Barriers to the increased collection (coded responses) Participation / WDA or MRF Collection Contamination Marginal recognition of other Name Contractor Cost Market issues Limitations capacity issues material aluminium restrictions products Tynedale DC 1 1 1 1 Nottingham City Council 1 1 Gedling BC 1 1 1 1 Harrow LB Eastbourne BC 1 Kennet DC 1 Wycombe DC 1 1 Derby City Council 1 1 Leeds City Council 1 1 1 1 Braintree DC 1 Stockton-on-Tees BC 1 1

79 Manchester City Council 1 Chorley BC 1 Wakefield City MDC 1 Wellingborough BC 1 1 1 Nuneaton & Bedworth BC 1 Dudley MBC 1 1 1 1 Ipswich BC 1 1 Babergh DC 1 1 1 Westminster City Council 1 1 Wokingham BC 1 1 1 Waverley BC 1 Swindon BC St Helens MBC 1 1 1 South Bucks DC 1 1 1 South Norfolk Council 1 1 1 Exeter City Council 1 1 1 Aylesbury Vale DC 1 1 1 1 Scarborough BC 1 1 1 Shepway DC 1 1 North East Derbyshire DC 1 1 Horsham DC 1 1 1 Hyndburn BC 1 Luton BC 1 Chelmsford BC St Albans City & DC 1 Ryedale DC 1 1 1 1 Christchurch BC 1 1 1 1 Preston BC 1

80 West Devon BC 1 1

Key to the Coding: All columns 1 = Yes