Latest Waste Industry Developments

• Back in the day... A look back at refuse collection from days gone by
• The benefits of Interim Management
• Waste Collection and Disposal contracts; amalgamate or keep separate?
• Pay as you throw, back on the agenda
• Outsourcing NI 195 Street Cleansing Surveys

Back in the day... A look back at refuse collection from days gone by

This will be the first of a series of short articles by Brian Carter on the changes in systems, methods and equipment used in waste management and Street Cleansing from 1955 onwards.

Brian is well known in the Industry, is a Past President of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. He was, for many years, a Director of IWM Business Services Ltd (the commercial arm of CIWM) and served as Chairman for a period of 4 Years.

He introduced large-scale trials of wheeled bins in Bury, Lancashire, in 1981 followed by the widespread introduction of this system over a four year period in that Metropolitan Borough. He presented a paper on the system to the Annual Conference in Ayr in 1982.

In 1989 Brian left Local Government and became Managing Director (Municipal and Commercial Services) for the newly formed SITA in the UK, a position he held until 1995. He then formed his own consultancy, Re-Trac services which was later incorporated into Gordon Mackie Associates (GMA) in 2005.

Brian is still a retained Consultant for GMA.

Refuse Collection Services

I commenced work in March 1955 with the former Saddleworth Urban District Council in the West Riding of Yorkshire. This district since Local Government reorganisation has formed part of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council.

The authority was one of almost 3,000 in the UK which was ultimately reduced to some 1,400 in the major Local Government Reorganisation of 1974.

Every individual authority was, at that time, responsible for refuse and night soil collection along with waste disposal, usually on an individual authority basis.

In a semi-rural area, night soil collections were particularly important as large areas of parable ground were catchment areas for reservoirs and at that time no property sited within a catchment area was allowed to have any cess pool or septic tank installations. This waste, therefore, had to be moved with a separate night soil collection service. Indeed for quite a period after 1955 even sheep were not allowed to be grazed on catchment areas due to the risk of pollution.

When I started work this was prior to the introduction of the Clean Air Act 1956. This act was created following much work by Dr Burns, the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Salford, following a major incident of “smog” (a mixture of smoke and fog) in December 1952 which affected all major conurbations when some 2,500 people died in a period of one week in Salford.

The intention of the Clean Air Act was to do as its name suggested and clean the atmosphere by the introduction of rigorous controls over industrial premises of the production of smoke from boilers and a change from carboniferous fuels in domestic premises to the use of smokeless fuels and tap fuels such as gas and electricity.

What was not realised at that time was the major change that this would have on the refuse to be collected. Prior to this period, all houses had open fires and large proportions of food waste together with cardboard and paper were incinerated, effectively, ‘on site’.

This resulted in a composition of domestic waste, mainly ash, as collected, with a density of approximately one ton per cubic yard! If you are not old enough, this explains why the modern day refuse collection vehicle (RCV) is still often referred to as the dust cart.

The RCVs used at this time were all side loaders; compaction bodies not being produced until the 1960’s. The side loader bodies initially consisted of a tipping body with roll up canvas sheets on each side to help keep the dust down. These canvas sheets were ultimately replaced by “chip pan sliding lids” which were inbuilt roller shutters known as Chelsea and Derby bodies; the Chelsea being a lower capacity unit than the higher sided Derby.

As can be seen from the density of waste at that time it was very easy to achieve good pay loads, (and overloads), as a three cubic yard side loader with refuse at 1 ton per cubic yard could carry a three ton pay load.

The specialist vehicle company Shelvoke and Drewry (S & D) made a vehicle called the Freighter which was the original side loader and this unit, when first manufactured, had a transverse engine and semi –automatic transmission across the cab and was fitted with tiller steering. Later accommodation for the crew was on a wooden bench seat fitted behind the cab unit but in a position facing backwards rather than forwards. None of the accommodation had any doors or windows for protection. Health and safety legislation has certainly made some progress!

In the early 1950’s S & D produced the “W” specification which was fitted with a normal steering wheel driving configuration and an enclosed cab.

Many authorities used vehicles produced by Karrier Motors, a Rootes Group Company - the Bantam being the small 3 ton tipper unit which was fitted with a Hillman Minx 14 HP side valve petrol engine. The larger edition was the Gamecock enjoying a carrying capacity of four tons and was fitted with a 6 cylinder 24 HP petrol engine as fitted to the Humber Hawk.

The refuse collectors and drivers worked a 45 hour week. Protective clothing consisted of bib and brace overalls and a donkey jacket, gloves and boots. Initially there was no provision of any hi-viz safety material on clothing, and no reflective plates or beacon on vehicles. This was considered normal practice, even when collecting for long hours during the winter months.

The men were affected with the “snatch factor” due to the differing heavy weights in each dustbin. Added to this was that the unladen weight of the dustbin was in some cases up to 40 pounds (nearly 20 KGs) because of the content being mainly ash!

The result was that most men were unable to continue as refuse collectors until the time that they retired, due to the heavy work involved or damage to, usually, their backs. Most had to revert to street cleansing duties for the last few years, on lower pay rates, the result of which was that they never received their full pension entitlement as the pension was calculated on the average of the last three years salary.

The benefits of Interim Management

Without a doubt, economic cut-backs in training, further education (University Fees), high student loans and short termism by employers to fund continuous professional development, has resulted in an amount of key skill shortages throughout the waste management industry. In addition, experience, that vital ingredient which can only be achieved through “on the job” working and presence, takes time to accumulate and depends on a great deal of patience by the employer.

It is much more difficult to recruit Service Directors, Heads of Service and Service Managers with the right experience and “fit” them into a particular organisation than it is to wave “goodbye” to someone being promoted to another organisation.

In many instances recently, we have worked with local authorities to “bridge” the gap between someone leaving, sometimes at short notice, and the new post holder taking up employment and fitting into the new role, by supplying an Interim Manager.

With respect to Interim Management and the continued maintenance and progression of services such as strategic management, waste collection and recycling performance allied to the introduction of initiatives towards waste minimisation, the key issues facing the waste management industry over the next five years could be seen to be:

• Short-term budget cut backs;
• Escalating legislative drivers underpinned by penalties for non compliance;
• Political uncertainty towards economic growth;
• Local political aspirations versus central requirements;
• Demonstration of value-for-money services.

The next five years will present a major challenge to all waste managers and it is important that service continuity and the smooth running of the organisation is preserved. The manner in which these are addressed will determine the robustness of a local authority’s “value for money” services, and the impact on local householders during this period.

The essential challenge to waste managers over the period will be the level to which they consume scarce resources whilst attempting to maintain service delivery. Each should be challenged in order to demonstrate “value for money” whilst maintaining continued improvement. Given the requirements, it is anticipated that the key facets of this challenge will include:

• Regular reviews to challenge basic service delivery protocols;
• Comparison and “Gap” analysis with industry "Best Practice";
• Development of Action Plans and Strategies to deliver continued improvement;
• Iterative processes to better manage public finances involved in service delivery.

All of these facets will be integral to successfully surviving during this extremely demanding period. Without a doubt some local authorities will struggle to just maintain existing services in the short term unless they successfully address the efficiency issues involved in service delivery.

Interim Managers should not be seen as a long-term solution for any organisation. Instead they should be looked at as a “stop gap” or “boost” to current operations to enable continuity of service provision and an interim role in maintain the efficient operation of the organisation whilst a permanent member of staff is recruited or a restructure is undertaken to increase efficiency.

Should this description of the task of Interim Management and the associated key issues and challenges strike a familiar chord, and you can see a need within your own organisation for some assistance in this respect, please contact Gordon Mackie on 0161 351 9356 for an informal discussion, in complete confidence. You can also e-mail Gordon by clicking here.

Waste Collection and Disposal contracts; amalgamate or keep separate?

As we approach the first set of target dates from the Waste Strategy for England, little time can be afforded to pause for reflection as we focus towards the next set.

Ambitious but attainable targets have been set for municipal and household waste for the next decade. The national Waste Strategy for England 2007 set tough targets for the recycling and composting of household waste of at least 40% by 2010 (actual performance - 38%+ by mid 2009), 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020. In addition, levels were also set for the recovery of municipal waste; 53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020.

In order to meet these targets the commissioning of new recycling, composting and energy from waste facilities will undoubtedly be key. It is also crucial that the right collection methods are employed to ensure that material reaches treatment and recovery facilities efficiently. There is a suggestion that by building a greater integration between Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs), these targets will be easier to meet.

Much speculation and murmuring surrounds future public spending, and the Chancellor has already indicated that Local Authorities will need to reduce both waste collection and disposal costs as part of a wider agenda for local government spending reductions. With a general election expected to take place within the next couple of months this is likely to remain a topic of very public discussion.

By combining the work of WCAs and WDAs there would be an obvious cost saving, whilst the most appropriate collection methods can be selected for whatever treatment and disposal facilities are available and vice versa. There could also be a clearer level of communication which in turn is likely to lead to increased recycling and composting participation by householders and waste producers in general. Having one contract for waste collection and disposal would almost certainly result in improved efficiency for both internal costs and methodologies used.

However, despite the perceived benefits of combining collection and disposal contracts, there are drawbacks. Typically a WCA contract will be for seven years whilst a WDA contract will be set for perhaps twenty-five years. Whilst treatment and disposal technology is rapidly advancing, collection methodologies are also changing at an accelerated rate. There is an argument, that collection contracts would be at a disadvantage by being set for longer periods of time, due to the introduction of innovation (or lack of it). Disposal contracts are set up over a longer period of time as the investment and cost needed for facilities are best spread across a greater length of time (particularly where the tax payer is concerned).

Waste collection contractors are also required to be more reactive, and even proactive, in many aspects with new housing developments, new disposal facilities and MRF’s, and new technologies such as alternative fuels. Of course there is nothing to say that contractors cannot implement these partway into a twenty five year contract, but a shorter seven year contract acts as an incentive to continuously increase waste collection and environmental performance. This is especially true where there is an option for an additional seven year contract, or similar.

The current seven year contracts seem appropriate for waste collection due to the short term requirements to achieve predetermined key performance indicators. In addition, these shorter contracts allow a greater degree of market testing which would be more difficult in a longer contract.

Commissioning new treatment facilities is already a lengthy process and if England is to provide the infrastructure to meet our targets, further delays would be undesirable which could result from the transition to joint collection and disposal contracts.

As we revisit those targets, in England 37.6% of collected waste was recycled or composted in 2008/09 leaving it 2.4% short of the 2010 target. That figure was 3.1% up on 2007/08 which indicates it is on course to meet its target of 40 per cent by 2010. The next target for 2015 (45%), means that there is no time to relax and England needs to strive towards continuous improvement.

Through the contractual infrastructure currently in place in England, would we be in a better position to meet future recycling and recovery targets by not combining collection and disposal contracts? Alternatively, through the introduction of a greater degree of flexibility within the contractual framework, in order to capture current innovations and economies of scale, it might be better to combine waste collection and disposal contracts.

If you would like more information about the options available to a particular local authority, please contact Adnan Zeb Khan on 0161 351 9356 for an informal discussion, or e-mail him here.

Pay as you throw, back on the agenda

Direct and variable charging, or ‘pay as you throw’ (PAYT) as it is more commonly referred to, is one of those areas within waste management which has been the subject of much debate over recent years. Is it time now to look more objectively at this concept and follow our European neighbours in taking a bold step that should increase our ability to meet recycling and landfill-avoidance targets?

As we know, PAYT, often referred to in a more positive light as ‘save and you throw’, simply translated, means the more you throw away, the more you will be charged and vice versa. A fairly straightforward concept in principle, so why the debate?

Targets are in place in the UK to reduce the amount of waste that is being sent landfill. Alongside the heavy landfill tax, currently at £40 per tonne of organic waste, local government will be liable to pay fines of up to £3billion if targets are not met, which will ultimately be funded by council tax payers. Combine this with the Chancellor recently announcing the growing pressure on local authorities to reduce waste collection and disposal costs and you would be led to believe that local government would jump at the opportunity of adapting a scheme that would hopefully increase the sustainability of their waste management systems.

However, in early 2009 a scheme to trial the use of PAYT schemes was rejected by councils throughout the Country highlighting disadvantages such as public opposition, public perceptions of fairness, increased levels of fly-tipping and implementation and enforcement costs. As with the majority of local government schemes, a degree of public objection is to be expected. However, the Local Government Association (LGA) have been campaigning for the power to introduce direct charging as the UK is the only EU15 country in which councils do not have the right to charge for household waste collection and disposal.

In Europe there is a ‘polluter pays’ attitude to environmental issues, and direct charging for the amount of waste being disposed of is becoming more common place. Examples of European countries which have adopted PAYT are Switzerland, which has an application rate of between 40-60%, Italy and Germany, which have application rates of between 10-40%, and France, which has an application rate of around 10%.

An Ipsos MORI poll showed that two thirds of people would prefer a scheme where they are rewarded for recycling and 80% supported giving councils the power to charge. Richard Kemp, the deputy chairman of the LGA said, “Evidence from America and the continent has shown that these schemes can boost recycling and reward those households who do their bit for the environment”. In the UK, The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council have introduced a pilot scheme to trial rewards for recycling. The scheme differs from PAYT as there are no penalties, just incentives to recycle more. The scheme is in partnership with RecycleBank, and residents set up an account where points are accumulated and can be used in both local and national shopping outlets.

There are several ways in which PAYT schemes can be operated. One of the most common methods would be to fit the general waste bin with a chip. As the bin is emptied, the collection vehicle weighs how much waste is disposed of, and the chip enables the property from which the bin originates to be identified. If the amount of waste is above a specific weight then the household would be charged for the extra waste sent to landfill. The scheme can also be operated by householders using either sacks or boxes which are prepaid: the larger the size, the greater the cost. The aim of such schemes are to act as an incentive to reduce the amount of waste residents are throwing away and have a positive impact on recycling rates. However, for PAYT schemes to be a success, the council implementing the scheme would need to have a successful recycling system already in place.

There are a number of barriers for PAYT schemes, such as inter-neighbour bin space theft, and fly-tipping which may see an increase when and if a PAYT scheme is introduced. However, in Europe and America, this has turned out to be a perceived concern rather than a barrier. A survey conducted for the US Environmental Protection Agency found that, of those communities where PAYT had been introduced, 48% of towns and cities had seen no change in fly-tipping, 6% thought it had declined and 19% thought it had increased. There were no results for the remaining 27%.

As with other waste management schemes that have been introduced in recent years, there will be levels of dispute, but stakeholder engagement reduces opposition to new schemes, especially when householders are clearly made aware of potential benefits such as a reduction in council tax rates.

With this in mind, with the risk of expensive fines becoming more apparent and the pressures which are faced by local authorities to make further cuts, is it perhaps time to reconsider the aspect of PAYT?

If you would like more information concerning this issue and the means by which this might be applied to a specific local authority as a route towards greater recycling and waste minimisation, please contact Rebecca Mahan on 0161 351 9356 for an informal discussion, or e-mail her here.

Outsourcing NI 195 Street Cleansing Surveys

In November 2007, the Government identified a set of 198 national indicators that could be used to measure local authority service outcomes; a major reduction from the previous Best Value regime, which identified over 1,000 Best Value Performance Indicators. One of the 198 national indicators, NI 195, linked to the previous Best Value Performance Indicator, BVPI 199, is designed to measure the cleanliness of the local environment (or Local Environmental Quality (LEQ)) as a member of the public would see it, and covers litter, detritus, graffiti and fly-posting. It provides an indication of the success of any cleansing regimes in place, and provides the opportunity to assess how efficiently the service is carried out and resourced.

In the current economic climate more and more local authorities are reviewing the operating cost of statutory functions in order to derive “Best Value”, one of which is the cost and measured output from NI 195 surveys.

Gordon Mackie Associates has been asked to carry out NI 195 surveys for several local authorities, typically conducted over a twelve-month period. The standard methodology specifies that three separate surveys are carried out in each year, one in each four-month time frame. The surveys are divided into these four-month periods so that an average representation of cleanliness can be established which doesn’t favour or penalise any seasonal fluctuations in environmental conditions. To ensure a representative selection of communities within the district are surveyed, each survey covers five wards (the Target Wards), selected across the range of Index of Multiple Deprivation scores. Over a number of years, all wards will be surveyed on a rolling programme.

NI 195 surveys can be organised in-house, subject to time and personnel constraints, or they can externalised. An advantage of externalising the management of NI 195 surveying, apart from the fact that the results would be completely unbiased to either the council or contractor, is that it enables local authorities to compare their performance with national benchmarks produced annually by Defra’s Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE). These comparisons are made on a like-for-like basis using ten different classes of land use.

Externalising the procedure negates the need for authorities to deploy valuable personnel and material resources that could be used elsewhere.

One of the main difficulties in undertaking NI 195 surveys is locating an adequate amount of the required land-use classes in Target areas. Typically, a surveyor should be able to record the results from at least six different transects of a particular land use type within each Target Ward.

Being able to successfully identify boundary lines of target areas, in order to correctly determine whether or not a particular transect is safely located within one of the survey’s desired locations, can also present a challenge.

Bad weather too can trigger complications because of the potential problem of transects being disproportionately cleaner, or dirtier than they would have ordinarily been. A fair amount of rainfall can easily ‘wash away’ sections of detritus and litter from gutters and walkways prior to a transect being surveyed, and consequently adjust the true result.

The health and safety of those undertaking the surveys should also be a consideration, and this is a major concern in sections of main highways where there are no pavements for pedestrians. Risk assessments and ‘on the job’ planning is most certainly required in most scenarios to overcome any difficulties presented.

In many cases this statutory duty is undertaken in-house using a local authority’s own staff, which is not necessarily the most efficient or effective means of resource allocation. In many ways the use of an independent, external service provider adds to the robustness of the process, particularly where the street cleansing service is provided by a private contractor and payment is related to the performance of this key performance indicator.

Dependent upon location, the annual cost of carrying out the annual NI 195 survey is in the region of £8,000 - £10,000 per annum. For further details or an informal discussion please contact Geoff Green on 0161 351 9356, or e-mail him here.