an economic evaluation

This paper reviews different methods of glass recovery and notes that virtually all glass recovered from domestic sources is obtained by bottle bank schemes. The possibility of developing a full economic costing system for glass recovery systems is discussed and a practical approach to economic evaluation is suggested. Empirical data collected from a number of local authorities was evaluated using an existing costing scheme and using a fuller scheme developed in the course of this research programme. The conclusion derived from this analysis was that the majority of local authority glass recycling schemes either broke even or returned modest surpluses.

Robert Ball is a lecturer in the Department of Business and Management, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK; Rolf Matthews is an energy economist with the Cornwall Ener- gy Project, Truro, UK.

The authors would like to acknowledge the ESRCSERC Joint Committee for supporting this research.

‘R. Ball and R. Matthews, ‘Current state of glass recycling in Britain’, Recycling Inter- national, Vol 3, 1986, pp 14451452. ‘J. Vogler, Muck and Brass, OXFAM, Oxford, 1978. 3R.K. Turner, ‘An economic evaluation of recycling schemes in Europe and North America’, in T. O’Riordan and R.K. Turner, Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, John Wiley, Chichester, 1981.

Glass recycling by local authorities

An economic evaluation

Robert Ball and Rolf Matthews

Local authorities in the UK have a legal responsibility for organizing the collection and disposal of household wastes. There is, however, no statutory responsibility for a local authority to undertake the recycling of any waste material, including glass. This decision is the responsibility of each local authority. It is thus essential that the costing system adopted should reflect the true costs and benefits of such schemes, because only then can elected members make decisions about future operations in the light of realistic costing information. This is particul- arly important considering that an earlier study’ has indicated that an important reason for local authorities supporting glass recycling is the supposed economic advantage.

In spite of this, the above study revealed that few local authorities keep separate financial records of their glass recycling operations and even those that do, do not maintain meaningful costing systems. The objective of this study is to develop a standard costing system and to use it to assess local authorities’ existing operations.

Glass recovery schemes

Glass recovery schemes fall into two broad categories:

0 at source segregation schemes in which the glass is separated at source and collected separately; and

0 separation from the waste stream by physical or mechanical means (secondary separation).

At source segregation schemes

The obvious advantage of at source segregation schemes is that the waste can be recovered in a form close to the original product with little contamination. Source segregation schemes generally involve less capital expenditure than mechanized secondary separation plants.* Success or failure, however, depends on the level of public participation achieved; this will be influenced by social conditions, education and the self discipline of the population.” We will now outline the two main types of scheme.

0301-4207/88/030205-15$03.00 0 1988 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd 205


%edfern National Glass, G/ass Confainer Recovery: Its Viability, RNG, Barnsley (no date). 5Op tit, Ref 2. %. Blackmore and R.K. Turner, ‘A cost benefit analysis of the Oxfam “Waste- saver” scheme’, MRP Discussion Paper, No 78-02, University of East Analia, 1978. 7Friends of the Earth, Avon, Recycling Forum. Bristol. 2-3 March 1985. ‘J.R. Barton,. Waste Sorting and RDF Production in Europe, Elsevier Applied Scientific Publishers, London and New York, 1985.

Household collection. In this type of scheme households are asked to separate their glass into sacks or bags which are then collected separately. Redfern National Glass (RNG)4 have reported on a trial household collection scheme which they undertook at York in conjunc- tion with York District Council. This trial showed that it was too expensive to reclaim glass in isolation from other household wastes although it did show the willingness of the public to participate. It was felt that collection from households was likely to be viable only if other recoverable materials were reclaimed - paper, metals and plastic as well as glass.

The Oxfam Waste Saver Scheme” attempted to do this. In this scheme each household was supplied with a steel stand that held four different coloured plastic sacks. The householder was expected to deposit in each of the four sacks newspapers; mixed waste paper and magazines; glass bottles, plastics and textiles; and ‘jumble’ - clothes, books and toys. This scheme was eventually discontinued on cost grounds, although Blackmore and Turner6 found that the scheme was economically positive if a full social cost-benefit appraisal was used.

Friends of the Earth, Avon7 have successfully experimented with a similar scheme, asking householders to separate glass, paper and rags which are then collected door to door. This scheme, as with RNG’s, indicates the willingness of people to separate waste at source and to meet collection dates. Similar schemes in operation are Save Waste and Prosper (SWAP) based in Leeds and the Community Recycling Opportunities Programme (CROP) in Milton Keynes.

Voluntary return to a central site. This method of source separation involves asking the public to bring their separated wastes to a central site. This reduces the costs of collection so long as the trip to the site does not involve the consumer in additional expenditure.

The most common scheme of this type is the bottle bank scheme, usually operated by the local authority. According to the Glass Manufacturers’ Federation (GMF) statistics, by the end of 1986 there were over 2 800 such sites operated by 377 district councils. Almost all of the glass recovered from domestic waste in the UK comes from such schemes, which will be considered in the next section.

Mechanical separation

Mechanical separation involves the reclamation of the recyclable constituents of domestic waste by automatic separation in a complex technological plant. Such plants have the objective of reclaiming other material such as ferrous metals and may also convert the residue from the separation process into a fuel called refuse derived fuel (RDF). An excellent description of the current state of the art is given by Bart0n.s Of the plants operated in the UK only one (that at Doncaster) was constructed with a facility for glass recovery. This was installed with the objective of demonstrating the technical feasibility of recovering glass from domestic waste on a realistic scale.

An optical sorting system is used to produce the final mixed colour product. Product specifications are, however, strict with an overall purity of 99.7% coarse glass and specific limitations on selected impurities required. To meet this specification the feed to the optical sorting system must be clean and dry and already 95% glass. A large number of additional operations are required to provide optical sorter

206 RESOURCES POLICY September 1988


feed of required quality. It has been found possible to meet these specifications only under carefully monitored and controlled test conditions using trained technical staff. Even then only about 25% of the glass present in the feedstock is recoverable.

Jackson’ feels that the further development of mechanical sorting of glass is unlikely in the short term apart from the area of composting, where removal of the glass component improves the quality of the final product. Barton, lo however, rep orts rather more encouraging progress with optical sorting at the Revalord plant at Nancy, France.

Bottle bank systems

This method accounts for virtually all the glass recycled from domestic waste in the UK; it relies on members of the public taking their glass to a central point. There are two basic types of bottle bank systems in operation.

The large bottle bank scheme

The main features of this scheme are:

1. The bottle bank containers have to be removed from the site to a central storage site or processor, where they are emptied.

2. The containers are usually large, with internal partitions to separate the three glass colours (clear, brown, green).

3. The containers are emptied by tipping the glass through hinged flaps at the back of the skip or out of the top.

4. An ordinary skip vehicle is used to transport the container.

The large bank system can be operated with or without storage. One option is for the local authority to take an empty skip to the site in exchange for the full skip, thus maintaining service to the site. Otherwise it can pick up the full skip, transport it to the processor and then return the empty skip to the site. This, of course, leaves the site unserviced for a time.

The other option is to use storage so that the cost of transport of the cullet to the processor can be spread over larger tonnages. This involves, of course, incurring storage costs.

The modular system

The main features of this scheme are:

1. The modular banks are emptied on site into the back of a vehicle/truck via a crane/mechanical lifting arm.

2. The modular banks are smaller and hold only one colour of glass each.

3. The glass is discharged through the base/top of the container. 4. A specialized collection vehicle is normally required.

Modular systems were originally introduced by private companies but have now been taken up by some councils. Where a private operator is used a contribution is normally made towards the local authorities’ costs, based on the tonnage of glass recovered.

‘D.V. Jackson, Head of Materials Re- clamation Recovery Division, Warren Spring Laboratory, private correspond- ence, 13 November 1984.

Full economic costing of glass recycling schemes

“Op tit, Ref 8. A number of authors have derived full economic costing systems for

RESOURCES POLICY September 1988 207

Glass recycling by locul authorities

waste paper recycling schemes and their basic concepts are equally valid for glass recycling. l1 The approach adopted by these authors is to take account of all the economic implications of recycling schemes. This includes costs of schemes, net revenues generated, changes in collection and disposal costs for the waste disposal system as a whole plus a contribution to allow for any resulting environmental improvements or external benefits resulting from the recycling scheme. Such external factors might include reduction in litter, less pollution, savings in energy and raw materials, import savings, additional employment creation etc.

It would be reasonable to consider the costs of running such schemes to the local authority to be marginal since it already has a duty to collect and dispose of domestic wastes. The size of the authorities’ central administration and the management commitment to the waste disposal operation are unlikely to be significantly affected by the operation or otherwise of a glass recycling scheme. If identifiable extra administration costs are incurred, however (eg employment of a recycling coordinator), then these costs should be allocated to the recycling operation.

There are considerable difficulties in attempting to quantify the externalities mentioned above. A reasonable approach would be to quantify the financial implications for each local authority. If the scheme made a loss on financial grounds then it would be the responsibility of each authority to decide if the external benefits were sufficient to justify continuing to suffer the loss.

Although the UK government has suggested a uniform costing system for assessing waste paper recovery schemes,12 no such initiatives have been forthcoming in the area of glass recycling. So far the most significant effort has been made by the GMF based on the Oxford operations.” This scheme will now be considered in further detail.

“R K Turner, ‘Local authorities and materials recycling’, Journal of Environmental Management, May 1978; D.W. Pearce and C.A. Nash, The Social Appraisal of fro- jects, Macmillan, London, 1981. “Department of Environment, Report on Unifdrm Accounting for Local Authority Waste Paper Salvaue Schemes, HMSO, London, 1676. - 130xford City Council, A Local Authority Appraisal of Glass Recycling, Oxford City Council, 1980.

The GMF/Oxford assessment

This was the earliest costing scheme devised and was constructed in the form of a mathematical model which could be used for calculating breakeven tonnages. Clearly any authority collecting more than the breakeven tonnage would be operating at a profit, while those collecting less than the breakeven amount would be operating at a loss.

The model took the following cost factors into account. (Figures given in parenthesis are those for Oxford in 1977.)

Capital costs

In this model capital costs are written off in equal increments over the lifetime of the equipment (five years). No allowance is made for the cost of capital.

Cost of supplying bottle banks or skips will depend on type of bank, its size and whether it is open or enclosed. The cost will also be reduced, of course, if the council can modify existing units that may be available.

If number of skips/banks is N (6) and cost per unit is C (Z&500) then total skip cost SKC= N x C= (f3 000)

It is necessary to store glass to provide a bulk load. It is recommended that storage sites have concrete walls, concrete base and a capacity for at least 20 tons. It may also be necessary to provide colour separated storage.



Cost of providing storage bays, STC (f500)

Operating costs

Transport costs. These include the cost of uplift and transport to bulk storage:

H (per load) (f8.25)

and cost of bulk transport from store to processor:

TR (per ton) (f3.50)

Publicity costs. These include cost of publicity necessary to maintain public support:

PUB (per year) (El 500)

Site maintenance. This includes cost of tidying up site, removing litter etc:

M (per load) (f3.00)

Other parameters

Price paid for glass P (per ton) (10.00)

Average content of skip, V tons (2 tons)

Breakeven tonnage tons, t*

Annual tonnage (actual), AT (722 tons)

Annual costs of system

Annualization of capital costs = SKC t STC

5

= (Nx C) + STC

5

(Note capital cost written down over five years on straight line basis.)

Transport costs per ton (H + TR)

V

Total transport costs for t tons = (H + TR).t V

Publicity costs = PUB

Total site maintenance costs = E” V

Revenue generated = P.t

Therefore schemes will break even when

Nx C+STC 5 ( f+TR j.t+I$t +PUB=P.t

ie where

te = N x C + STC +PUB P-TR-

I

(H + M) 5 V



Example of model use

Using data for Oxford, given in text, we get

6 x 500 + 500 t = + 1 500 I 10 3.50 (8.25 + 3.0) -

5 2.00

2 200 2 200 2 000 = =

2528 = - = 10.00 - 3.50 - 5.63 10 - 9.13 0.87

Since actual tonnage was 722, this scheme failed to break even. The most important reason for this was the comparatively low skip tonnage and comparatively high transport costs.

Applicability of model of Scottish local authorities

The model outlined above was used to assess the performance of 24 Scottish district councils who were surveyed. Data are based on a survey undertaken in 1983. Results are presented in Table 1.

It can be seen that when analysed on the basis of this model only 6 of the 24 local authorities operations surveyed failed to break-even (reduced to 5 if contributions from the United Glass scheme in Glasgow are considered). Breakeven tonnages are, in general, found to be relatively low, reflecting the small scale of the schemes. Edinburgh is the largest scheme surveyed with 25 banks and has a comparatively high breakeven figure of 230 tons per annum. The local authorities failing to break even are:

Banff. A comparatively high capital cost and relatively low volumes collected (this is a very rural area far from the site of the processing plant).

Dumfermline. Large containers involve heavy capital costs and also high costs of uplift to storage. This level of investment requires considerably higher volumes of glass collection to prove economic.

Table 1. Scottish local authorities (Oxford model).

Tayside Fife

Basic data Annual tonnage (AT) Average contents of skip (tons) Number of skips (N)

Capital (f) Cost per skip (C) Cost of providing

storage bay (SK) Total capital cost Annual capital charges

Operating costs (f) Uplift and transport to

storage (per load) (H) Bulk transport to

processor (per ton) (TR) Publicity (per year) (PUB) Site maintenance

(per load) (W Price paid for glass

(per ton) (0

Breakeven tonnage (t) Actual - breakeven/tonnage

Aberdeen Banff

361 110 3.0 3.0

10 4

750 1 750

600 600 8 100 7 600 1 620 1 520

Gordon Kincardine

100 139 350 185 107 191 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5 5 6 4 3 8

650 302

1 900 300 5 150 1810 1 030 362

10.0 12.0 15.0 10.0

8.3 7.5 7.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5

235.9 217.1 158.5 47.2 125.1 -107.1 -58.5 91.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 750 1 200 2 800 6 600 4 750

240 560 1 320 950

11.16 6.0 40.0 22.0

5.6 4.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0

18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5

26.3 44.8 528.0 132.6 323.7 140.2 421.0 58.4

Perth

700 2 200

North-east Fife

continued on p 211

RESOURCES POLICY September 1988


Table 1. Continued.



storage bay (SKC) Total capital cost Annual capital charges



processor (per ton) (TR) Publicity (per year) (PUB) Site maintenance

(per load) (M Price paid for glass

(per ton) (0

Breakeven tonnage (f) Actual ~ breakeven/tonnage



storage bay (SKC) Total capital cost Annual capital charges



processor (per ton) (TR) Publicity (per year) (PUS) Site maintenance

(per load) (nn) Price paid for glass

(per ton) (p)

Breakeven tonnage (1) Actual - breakeven/tonnage

Dumfries and Galloway

Lothians

Nithsdale Edinburgh East West Lothian Lothian Ettrick Roxburgh Falkirk Stirling

151 1 300 130 213 98 220 145 140 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2 25 8 6 4 1 4 5

645

500 1 790

358

700 250

_

17500 3 500

_

2 000 400

750 456 800 850 800

_ 900 100 1 000 0.0 4 500 2 724 900 4 400 4oOil

900 544.8 180 880 800

15.0

7.26 _

10.0

5.0

12.0

5.0 _

13.5 10.0

5.0 6.5 _ _

4.0

8.0

10.0

1.2

13.0

70

_ _ - 9 _ 6.0

18.5

57.4 93.6

Strathclyde

18.5

344.3 955.7

18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5

43.2 100.0 62.9 19.6 63.01 71.5 86.8 113.0 35.1 200.4 82.0 68.5

Cumnocka Glasgow Hamilton lnverclyde East Kilbride Monklands Renfrew jtrathkelvin

17 225 60 105 132 20 210 92 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 8 2 7 6 2 7 1

_ 600 683 700 550 500 700

_ _ 1 456b

28.62

4.0 _

_ _

1 200 4 781 240 956.2

4 200 840

_

1100 220

? 000 5 500 I 100

700 140

_

_

60

10.0

3.0 _

10.1

9.7

20.0

3.0

10

4.0 _

4.60 25.0

2.87 2.50 0.0 0.0

_

2.0

30 - 13.0

_ _ 0.0 0.0

18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 1 a.5 18.5

293.5 19.8 176 95.1 19.7 78.0 18.3 - 68.7C 44.2 -71 .o 36.9 0.3 132.0 73.7

Borders

aOperated by Falkirk Glass. bNote skips are rented (fWwWskip gives annual charge of El 456). ‘United Glass collect a further 307 tons from which the council receive f2 per ton. This would be enough to break even,

Inverclyde. Comparatively high bulk transport charges, coupled with only a moderate collection volume.

Gordon. Has relatively high capital cost compared to tonnage recovered (similar problems to Banff).

Cumnock. Scheme is operated by Falkirk Glass Recycling Company receiving income based on tonnage collected. If publicity costs included


Glass recycling by local authoriiies

as part of cleansing promotion were removed this scheme would break even. The problem is low tonnage and distance to processor.

Glasgow. Has failed to promote bottle banks leaving the main collection to United Glass. When return from UG is included, the recovery of glass breaks even.

Even those authorities that fail to break even on this model would, however, appear to have scope to expand their level of operations and reach viability.

Critique of Oxford model

0

a

a

A number of significant running costs such as skip maintenance and administration are excluded. Treatment of capital costs (dividing initial costs in equal instalments across a uniform lifetime) makes no allowance for the cost of capital. It further takes no account of difference in lifetimes of bottle banks and storage facilities. No account is taken of those externalities (savings in disposal and collection costs) which may have direct financial implications for the local authorities.

The Stirling glass recycling model

It was felt that considerable benefit could be derived by constructing a costing system based on previous experience but avoiding the draw- backs mentioned earlier. The approach adopted in this section will involve treating the glass recycling activity as a marginal activity and will take account of only those externalities that may have a direct financial effect on the local authority. Although not included in the formal analysis these other externalities may be sufficiently large to make it worthwhile continuing with schemes whose financial results are nega- tive.

The approach used in this model attempts to be comprehensive in that it takes account of all relevant costs and makes realistic charges for the cost of capital.

The externalities which have a direct financial effect on the local authority are disposal savings and collection savings. The assessment of the level of such savings present considerable difficulty. Taking disposal costs, removal of the glass content will definitely reduce costs in that less glass needs to be disposed, whether by landfill or incineration. It is likely, however, that in general this marginal saving will be less than the average cost of disposal. On the other hand, it might occasionally be the case that postponing an expensive new disposal option results in savings greater than average disposal cost.

Collection costs savings are even more difficult to analyse. In the short run the effect is zero since collection routes are already defined and the presence of less glass in the waste stream will hardly result in immediate changes. In the longer term, however, if glass and other materials are removed from domestic waste, this could result in a significant reduction in waste to be collected and eventually construc- tion of routes and/or collection frequency might be correspondingly affected.

The approach used in this paper, therefore, will be to present an



estimate of overall economics first ignoring any collection or disposal savings and secondly taking into account average disposal costs (as a maximum saving). Details of this model are given in Table 2.

Treatment of costs

Capital costs. The Oxford model included skip costs and storage cost. This model also includes site costs which were omitted from the Oxford model. Site costs may include such factors as the cost of tarmacking the site and the provision of litter bins.

It is necessary to account for the cost of capital by amortization of capital cost over the economic life of the item. The banks and site are assumed to have economic lives of five years and the storage, ten years. The annualized cost given by amortizing the capital cost over the project lifetime of n years is given by

annualized cost = ’ ’ (’ + i)” (l+i)” -1

where i is the appropriate discount rate and c is the capital expenditure. In our current analysis a discount rate of 5% will be employed. This is a real rate and it was considered appropriate for public sector projects at the time of the study.

Table 2. Details of Stirling model.

Capital costs

SKC Skip costs (N x C) STC Cost of providing storage bays SIC Site costs (litter bins etc)

Transport costs

HT Uplift and transport to bulk storage (f/year) TR Bulk transport costs from store to processor (f/year)

Administration and publicity costs

PUB Publicity costs per year (f) KA Additional administration costs per year (f)

Maintenance

Site maintenance MT (f/year) Skip maintenance SKM (f/year)

Income

TRA Revenue from sales of cullet

TRA = TPl + TFZ! + TP3 + TP4

where

TPI = revenue from sales of clear glass TPZ = revenue from sales of green glass TP3 = revenue from sales of amber glass TP4 = revenue from sales of mixed glass

Externalities

SRD Savings in refuse disposal costs SRD= Yx GRT

where

Y = average disposal costs GRT = tonnes of glass recovered per year

Ignoring savings in disposal costs, surplus V, f/per year is

l’i=TRApHT-TR-PUB-KA-MT-SKM

minus the amortized values of capital costs SKC, STC and S/C.

(1)

Taking account of savings in disposal costs, we have surplus V2 Z/year

W=Vl +SRD (2)



Operating costs. Operating costs include publicity as before. Many authorities, however, relied on materials and support provided by the GMF, so the entry under this heading is zero. Administration, skip maintenance and site maintenance are included in this model. As discussed earlier, the basis for including administration is that only identifiable additional costs resulting from the glass recycling operations should be included. As far as skip maintenance is concerned many authorities have relatively new equipment and have yet to incur these costs. Site maintenance is a marginal activity incorporated into on-going street cleansing activities. It is only if major problems such as broken glass, litter etc occur that extra costs may be incurred.

Application of Stirling model to Scottish local authorities’ operations

This model was again applied to the operations of the 24 authorities in the previous model. It was clear from the outset that initial performance would be poorer since this model incorporated full capital costs and included a more comprehensive range of operating costs. Results are presented in Table 3.

Nevertheless, even without making allowances for any disposal or collection costs savings, only 7 authorities appeared to be unprofitable, (reduced to 6 if the contribution of the United Glass scheme in Glasgow is considered). All the authorities that were unprofitable on the Oxford model remain, as expected, unprofitable. Monklands also failed to reach breakeven on this model, largely due to very small tonnages returned.

Table 4 (see page 218) shows the effect of including disposal costs savings. The savings taken are the average cost per ton of refuse disposal. It has been explained earlier in this paper that the choice of appropriate costs for this purpose is controversial and average disposal cost would in most circumstances represent very much a maximum estimate of possible savings.

Nevertheless Table 4 indicates that if this allowance is made the number of loss making schemes is reduced to 3, and even the economic prospects of these schemes are substantially improved.

Table 3. Scottish local authorities Stirling model (f).

Capital costs

Cost of skips (SKC) Cost of storage (SK) Site costs (S/C)

Capital charges

Operating costs

Uplift and transport VT) (f/year)

Bulk transport (W (f/year)

Publicity costs

per year (PUB) Administration

per year (KA) Site maintenance

per year (MT) Skip maintenance

per year (SKM) Total operating costs Total costs Income (TRA)

Surplus V, f/year

Aberdeen

7 500 600 600

1 948.6

1 203.3

2 996.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

229.6 4 499.3 6 447.9 6 676.5

230.6

Banff Gordon Kincardine Dundee

7 000 3 250 1 510 1 200 600 1 900 300 0.0 288 285 285 324

(5.40)a 1 747.2 (15.88) 1 062.5 (10.63) 453.5 (3.26) 352.0 (1.01)

(3.33) 440.0 ( 4.00) 500.0 ( 5.00) 463.3 (3.33) 1 302.0 (3.72)

(8.30) 825.0 (7.50) 700.0 (7.00) 1 042.5 (7.50) 1 960.0 (5.60)

(0.0) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 199.5 (0.57)

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 17.5 (0.05)

(0.83) 0.0 (9.9) 0.0 (9.9) 0.0 (9.9) 59.5 (0.17) (12.46) 1 265.0 (11.50) 1 200.0 (12.00) i 505.8 (10.83) 3 538.5 (10.11) (17.86) 3 012.2 (27.38) 2 262.6 (22.63) 1 959.3 (14.10) 3 890.52 (11.12) (18.50) 2 035.0 (I 8.50) 2 098.0 (20.98) 2 571.5 (18.50) 6 475.0 (18.50)

(0.64) -977.2 t-8.88) -164.6 (-1.65) 612.2 (4.40) 2 584.5 (7.38)

continued on p 215



Table 3. Continued.

Capital costs

Cost of skips (SKC) Cost of storage (STC) Site costs (S/C)

2 800 6 800 4 000 0.0 0.0 750

140 120 240

Capital charges 679.1 (3.67)a 1 552.2 (14.51) 1 076.5

Operating costs

Uplift and transport

VT) (f/year) Bulk transport

(TR) (f/year) Publicity costs



per year (MT) Skip maintenance

per year (SKM) Total operating costs Total costs Income (TRA)

370 (8.00)

740 (8.00)

0.0 (0.0)

1 400.7

764.0

0.0

0.0 (0.0)

0.0

Surplus V, f/year

(2.00) 856

(4.00) 856

(0.0) 0.0

(0.0) 0.0

(0.0) 0.0

(0.22) 0.0 (6.22) 1 712.0 (9.89) 3 264.15

(18.50) 2 183.9

(8.61) -1 080.3

(0.0)

40 1 150.7 1 829.2 3 422.5

(0.0) 200.6 (16.00) 2 365.2 (30.51) 3 441.7 (20.42) 3 533.5

1 592.7 (-10.10) 91.82

Capital costs

Cost of skips (SKC) Cost of storage (STC) Site costs (SIC)

Capital charges

Operating costs

Uplift and transport (HT) (Wear)

Bulk transboti (TR) (f/year)

Publicity costs per year (PUB)

Administration per year (KA)

Site maintenance per year (MT)

Skip maintenance per year (SKM)

Total operating costs Total costs Income (TRA)

5.20 1 185.2 1 721 .l 2 405.0

Surplus V, f/year 683.9

Capital costs

Cost of skips (SKC) Cost of storage (STC) Site costs (SIC)

4 000 0.0

480

Capital charges 1 034.8

Operating costs

Uplift and transport

VT) (f/year) Bulk transport

(W (f/year) Publicity costs



per year (MT)

606.7

0.0

70.0

0.0

280.0

East Lothian West Lothian Ettrick

2 000 0.0

320

535.9

520.0

650.0

10.00

0.0

0.0

Stirling

North-east Fife

4 500 1 824 800 3 400 0.0 900 100 1 000

90 30 30 232

(4.12)a 1 060.2 (4.98) 544.8 (5.56) 204.7 (0.93) 968.4

(4.00) 958.5 (4.50) 326.7 (3.33) 293.3 (1.33) 483.3

(5.00) 1 065.0 (5.00) 637.0 (6.50) 1 780 (8.00) 74.0

(0.08) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 195.8 (0.89) 0.0

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0

(0.04) 0.0 (0.0) 50 (0.51) 19.80 (0.09) 120.4 (9.12) 2 023.5 (9.50) 1013.7 (10.34) 2 268.9 (10.31) 777.7

(13.24) 3 083.7 (14.48) 1 558.5 (15.90) 2 473.6 (11.24) 1746.1 (18.50) 4 468.7 (20.98) 1 813.0 (18.50) 4 070.0 (18.50) 3 016.0

(5.26) 1385.1 (6.50) 254.6 (2.60) 1 596.4 (7.26) 1 269.91

Cumnock Glasgow Hamilton lnverclyde

0.0 0.0

20

(7.39)a 4.6

(4.33) 0.0

(0.0) 0.0

(0.50) 60.0

(0.0) 0.0

(2.00) 0.0

(0.27)

1 400 pab 1 200 4 781 0.0 0.0 0.0

80 30 60

1 418.5 (6.30) 284.1 (4.73) 1 118.2

(0.0) 2 146.5 (9.54) 200.0 (3.33) 353.5 (3.37)

(0.0) 900 (4.00) 80.0 (3.00) 1 018.5 (9.70)

(3.53) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Nithsdale Edinburgh

1 290 17500 500 0.0 160 1 760

(5.64) 399.7 (2.64) 4 448.6

(7.33)

(4 00)

(0.0)

(0.0)

(0.0)

(1.05) (12.38) (18.02) (18.50)

(0.48)

755 (5.00) 4 333.3

1 096 (7.26) 6 500

0.0 (0.0) 0.0

0.0 (0.0) 0.0

0.0 (0.0) 0.0

199.3 (1.32) 0.0 2 050.6 (13.58) 10 833.3 2 450.3 (16.23) 15 281.9 2 793.5 (18.50) 24 050.0

343.2 (2.27) 8 768.1

Roxburgh Falkirk

(3.42)

(3.33)

(5.00)

(0.0)

(0.0)

(0.0)

(0.0) (8.33)

(11.76) (18.50)

(6.74)

(6.68)

(3.33)

(1.20)

(0.0)

(0.0)

(0.0)

(0.83) (5.36)

(12.04) (20.80)

(8.76)

(10.65)

continued on p 216


Gluss recycling by local authorities

Table 3. Continued.

Stirling Cumnock Glasgow Hamilton lnverclyde

Capital costs


Total operating costs Total costs Income (TRA)

Surplus V, f/year

Capital costs

Cost of skips (SKC) Cost of storage (SJC) Site costs (S/C)

Capital charges

Operating costs

Uplift and transport WI (f/year)

Bulk transport

(JR) Wear)

880 (6.67) 66.7 (3.33) 322.0 (1.53) 776.7 (8.33)

Publicity costs per year (PUB)

Administration per year (KA)

Site maintenance per year (MT)


Total operating costs Total costs Income (JRA)

396 (3.00) 80 (4.00) 602.7 (2.87) 230 (2.50)

0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 14.7 (0.16)

0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

100 (0.76) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 49.7 (10.43)

(0.54) 1 376 146.7 (7.33) 924.7 (4.40) 1 061 .l (11.53) 2 415.4 (18.30) 414.6 (20.73) 2 040.6 (9.71) 1 243.5 (13.52) 2 442.0 (18.50) 370.0 (18.50) 4 239.9 (20.19) 1 702.0 (18.50)

Surplus V,. f/year +26.61 (0.20) -44.6 (-2.23) 2 199.3 (10.48) 458.5 (4.98)

149.8 (1.07) 0.0 1 106.5 (7.90) 60.0 2 141.2 (15.29) 64.6 2 590.0 (18.50) 34.0

448.8 (3.21) -30.6

East Kilbride Monklands Renfrew Strathkelvin

4 200 0.0

300

1 039.4 (7.87)=

1 100 0.0

60

268 (13.40)

3 500 2 000

210

115.9 (5.31)

700 0.0

90

182.5

(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (3.53) 3 046.5 (13.54) 380.0 (6.33) 1 372.0 (3.80) 4 465.0 (19.84) 664.1 (11.07) 2 490.2 (2.00) 4 776.5’ (18.50) 1110.0 (18.50) 1 942.5

(-1.80) 311.5 (1.38)’ 445.9 (7.43) -547.7

WY (13.07) (23.72) (18.50)

(-5.22)

(1.98)

“Figures in brackets are f per ton; bskips are rented: ‘includes f 1614 from United Glass scheme: dtakes account of f2 per ton from United Glass schema.

Conclusions and recommendations

The economic prospects for glass recycling are more favourable than for many other materials having a guaranteed market and fixed price. This is in contrast to the situation for waste paper with its problems of quotas and occasionally falling prices. The analysis carried out in this paper is important in that it incorporates a substantial amount of empirical data which has been collected directly from Scottish local authorities, and in that it suggests an evaluation scheme that should be applicable to all authorities.

It may be argued that in many cases the level of resources involved is small and for this reason, economic evaluations are unnecessary. Ball and Matthews14 point out, however, that the volume of glass recovered in the UK is one of the smallest in Europe, mainly because of the limited scope of schemes in operation. If the UK were to emulate the performance of Netherlands or FR Germany much larger schemes involving greatly increased running costs would need to be adopted. This would involve substantial levels of resources. Thus economic aspects cannot be ignored.

The results of the analysis carried out in this paper are on the whole encouraging. If the basis of the Stirling model is accepted (ie treating glass recycling as a marginal activity), then most authorities’ operations do rather better than breakeven even when no account is taken of



Table 4. Stirling model including disposal cost savings (f/ton).

Authority Surplus V, f/ton Disposal cost f/ton

Aberdeen 0.64 3.00 Sanff -8.88 4.80 Gordon -1.65 20.13 Kincardine 4.40 5.88 Dundee 7.38 5.88 Perth 8.61 2.50 Dunfermline -10.10 5.88 North-east Fife 0.48 5.88 Nithsdale 2.27 5.88 Edinburgh 6.40 5.88 East Lothian 5.26 5.88 West Lothian 6.50 4.00 Ettrick 2.60 6.00 Roxburgh 7.26 1.43 Falkirk 8.76 5.57 Stirling 3.21 11.05 Cumnock -1.80 3.40 Glasgow -1.34 5.88 Hamilton 7.43 5.88 lnverclyde -5.22 11.79 East Kilbride 0.20 5.89 Monklands -2.23 2.00 Renfrew 10.47 5.88 Strathkelvin 4.98 4.00

Revised surplus V, f/ton

3.64 -4.08 18.48 10.28 13.26 11.11 -422

6.36 8.15

12.62 11.14 10.50 8.60 8.69

14.33 14.26

1.60 4.54

13.31 6.57 6.09

-0.23 16.35 8.98

140p tit, Ref 1.

disposal and collection cost savings or externalities. If some account is taken of disposal or collection cost savings then economic prospects are improved still further (although the uncertainties and difficulties of estimating these costs are fully described in this paper). This would indicate that most local authorities, providing they can obtain a reasonable volume of recycled glass, could run a financially viable operation. (Those authorities with very low population densities situated far from the processing plant might be an exception.)

In any case, in order to take sensible decisions about the recycling of any material it is necessary to have appropriate and relevant information. It is suggested therefore that each authority maintains separate accounts for its glass recycling activities and that, providing it is able to accept the premises, it should adopt the costing system outlined in this paper.


an economic evaluation

Documents