International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

In an attempt to add a higher degree of resolution to the broad cost ranges shown in
Table 25-4, the collection trials undertaken in the UK by WRAP can be examined. Due
to the very nature of these trial schemes, coverage in many places was only a few
thousand households, and thus, economies of scale were not achieved. WRAP was
also keen to be able to monitor individual scheme performance to allow a thorough
evaluation. This meant that a premium was paid for collection and reprocessing (the
WRAP report suggests a cost reduction in the order of 40-50% would be possible if
schemes were rolled out nationally). As for the tonnage performance already
discussed the trial costs per tonne shown should not be viewed as indicative of a
widespread national programme, but these costs are interesting from a relative
perspective.
Table 25-4: Cost Ranges for Existing Portable Battery Bring Back Collection Schemes
472
29/09/09
Variable Variable Costs: Costs:
Euros/tonne Euros/tonne of of portable portable batteries batteries collected
collected
Collection points (equipment) 50-150
Collection (logistics) 250-550
Sorting 150-250
Transport and Recycling (excluding disposal) 400-900
Fixed Fixed Fixed Costs:
Costs:
Public Relations and communication 50-1,700
Administration 125-900
TOTAL TOTAL
1,115 1,115 – 3,765
3,765
Source: BIO Intelligence Service (2003), Impact Assessment on Selected Policy Options for Revision of
the Battery Directive, Final Report for EC, July 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/eia_batteries_final.pdf
Table 25-5 shows that kerbside collections run by third sector organisations were the
most expensive of the WRAP collection trial schemes and more than four times more
expensive than municipal kerbside collection. WRAP suggest the reason for this
significant difference is due to the terms of existing contracts with collection
organisations that municipalities enjoy (i.e. some of these costs can be absorbed
within the existing working day so that the new costs are marginal ones rather then
being wholly additional).
This explanation is supported by a kerbside recycling collection company in the UK
(May Gurney) that collects portable batteries as part of its contracted services to
municipalities. Due to the relatively small amounts of portable batteries collected, the
net additional cost of collecting this material alongside a range of others is quite
negligible, whilst reprocessing costs are offset by the income the contractor receives
from reprocessors for automotive batteries also collected from the kerbside. The
extent of this cost offsetting is, of course, dependant on the state of market.