Archive for the ‘Industry Developments’ Category

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), trading in Scotland as Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS), is a not-for-profit private company backed by funding from the Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland Executive. ZWS works in partnership to encourage and enable businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more things more often. The aim of which to help to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve our environment.

ZWS recently sought to appoint a number of experts to provide a range campaign support and advice to local authorities throughout Scotland. Gordon Mackie Associates has been appointed to the Zero Waste Scotland Framework 49 which provides Local Authority Campaigns Support. GMA look forward to working with Scottish local authorities on all-important waste communication campaigns. This will build upon previous work GMA have completed with local authorities, engaging with the whole range of stakeholders in municipal waste management and bringing clear messages that produce service success. Each situation requires an approach attuned to the local circumstances, and as with all project work GMA undertake, effective communications support relies on close working with clients, understanding their aspirations and particular situation.

Biodegradable waste continues to be a top-priority waste stream, and we are grateful to Vital Earth Ltd for providing us with the following update concerning the inclusion of cardboard and paper in organic waste going to composting, which is a live issue on two projects which GMA are currently working on…

In recent years there has been a significant rise in collections by Local Authorities of biodegradable material which includes paper and card. The current situation is that almost 16% of all Local Authorities collect some form of biowaste comingled with cardboard (according to WRAP data).

Treating paper and cardboard presents significant challenges for composting operators, particularly those that that are investing significantly in compost quality and market development. AfOR (Association for Organics Recycling, formally The Compost Association) carried out a survey of composters throughout the UK to ascertain the scale of the issue. The questions and responses were:

“is contamination an issue for your process?”

85% of respondents said that it was an issue, with most stating that the cost of removing the contaminants was significant but they were unable to meet the required compost quality unless they did so.

“what percentage of feedstock material gets sent to landfill?”

The response varied from 1% to more than 10% with an average of 4.09% across all respondents.

“what is the cost of cleaning up feedstock and sending contaminants to landfill?”

The average costs of using picking lines and equipment such as wind sifters was about £8 per tonne with landfill costs between £60 and £90 per tonne.

At Vital Earth we estimate that we spend over £300,000 per annum operating and manning a picking line and running equipment that extracts contamination and sending material to landfill. When reflected across the industry this will put an upward pressure on gate fees. Vital Earth has always looked upon the service we provide as a partnership arrangement but perhaps we have been guilty of just “getting on with it” rather than raising this as a serious issue. However the introduction of the new lower PAS100 contaminant tolerance levels has made it necessary to tighten our procedures and form a best practice agreement with our Local Authority customers.

Paper and cardboard is not suitable to process in all composting facilities, and co-mingled types are especially challenging. In light of these challenges AfOR’s advice to local authorities is that, wherever possible, paper and cardboard are collected separately from green waste and food waste and not sent to composting. There is an inherent risk posed of contamination entering the ‘organics’ waste stream when these materials are collected as a co-mingled waste stream. These issues are highlighted below.

Issues related to physical contaminants associated with cardboard packaging…

Only small proportions of sufficiently clean paper and cardboard streams are suitable for a composting process that aims to produce quality compost. Paper and cardboard that have been either co-mingled with other waste material such as dry recyclables, or green and kitchen waste, or not adequately pre-sorted and cleaned prior to composting are very likely to include a range of undesirable contaminants. These include plastic from over-packaged cardboard, steel from staples included within the cardboard packaging, dyes and inks which are used in the printing of the cardboard and certain adhesives. All these can adversely affect the quality of the compost and although some may be removed through the screening process, this will inevitably increase the costs of production. An example of a contaminant that is a cause for concern is cigarette packets, which often have a plastic covering and foil liner. Similarly, much non-plain cardboard from household sources is unlikely to be composted within a typical composting process timescale since they have shiny or semi-shiny surface coatings that act as a moisture barrier and slow down the composting process.

The type of domestic cardboard packaging that would be suitable for composting is reduced to a few types, such as toilet roll and kitchen roll tubes, egg boxes with non-compostable labels removed and brown/plain corrugated cardboard. However, this last type often contains non compostable materials such as bubble wrap, plastic film and polystyrene, and the packaging’s exterior is likely to carry adhesive tape or metal staples.

Recent research carried out by Woods End Laboratories and Eco-Cycle shows that some of the non-compostable petroleum-based plastics coatings break down during the composting process into smaller fragments, but they do not degrade. These micro-plastics may pose a significant risk to the soils, freshwater, wildlife and, ultimately, human populations.

If paper and cardboard in composting cannot be avoided…

If it is not possible to avoid paper/cardboard within the feedstock materials, then feedstocks containing only appropriate types of plain paper and cardboard should be employed, but only if incorporated in a suitably low proportion. WRAP supported trials suggest that, with an initial proportion of cardboard of a maximum of 16 % (wet weight) it is possible to operate a successful composting process and obtain a product suitable to be used as a soil amendment. The WRAP guidance document concludes that if cardboard is mixed with green waste or kerbside collected green/kitchen waste at 10 % (wet weight) or less, the resultant compost should not be significantly different from composts obtained without the addition of cardboard and should attract similar markets – agriculture, landscaping, or blended in topsoil or horticultural products.

Local Authorities that decide to go down the route of collecting paper and cardboard within biowaste streams should be aware that composting operators may find it very challenging to achieve quality products, and will only be able to do so if the proportion of paper/cardboard is lower than that recommended above and also that the paper/cardboard delivered to the composting site must be sufficiently clean. According to the current edition of BSI PAS 100:2011 (Specification for Composted Materials 2011), the limits for compost products are set at 0.25 % m/m for total physical contaminants (including visible fragments and clumps of paper and cardboard) and at 0.12 % m/m for plastics.

In conclusion it is important to note that the recycling of biodegradable material and diversion from landfill is of benefit to everyone and we should all endeavour to deliver this service in the most efficient way possible and be proud of our achievements.

***[The information above has been taken from AfOR Guidance on composting paper and cardboard and from some of the material that was presented during the meetings of AfOR Special Interest Group on feedstock contamination]

Gordon Mackie Associates (GMA) was commissioned by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) to provide independent technical advice throughout all the key stages of their recent procurement process for their Dry Recycling and Related Services Collection Contract (the Contract).

As a result of GMA’s involvement and professional advice, SMBC awarded Palm Recycling a five year Contract to carry out the collection of dry recyclables, food waste and bring site servicing throughout the borough. This Contract has the potential to save SMBC in the region of £900,000 per annum compared with the cost within the existing contract.

Sefton Council’s recycling service includes the collection of the following:

• Food waste using a 23 litre external caddy, no liners provided. This is currently an opt in service to approximately 60,000 households;
• Glass, cans and foil using a 55 litre box;
• Textiles using a bag;
• Paper using a bag;
• Collection of a range of materials from bring sites throughout the borough.

GMA worked proactively with Sefton Council throughout the procurement exercise in order to provide the appropriate level of support to allow SMBC to identify the ‘Most Economically Advantageous Tender’. GMA provided detailed support in a number of areas including:

• Development of the pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ);
• Preparation of the tender documentation, including a detailed specification of service requirements;
• Development of method statements to indicate the tenderer’s:
  • competence and ability to deliver the service;
  • compliance with the Council’s strategies and policies, and compliance with national guidelines and legislation;
  • proposals concerning how the tenderers would provide the services within the timescales specified and to the anticipated quality levels;
  • environmental best practice and sustainability with particular emphasis on “greening” of the operational fleet;
  • suggested improvements to the service in accordance with Best Value, with associated cost implications.
• Provision of advice on the development of the tender process and procedures, particularly:
  • Advertising the tender and identifying the means of encouraging competition;
  • Evaluation of PQQ submissions as part of the tenderer selection process to arrive at a “select list” of tenderers;
  • Clarification processes as part of the tendering procedure;
  • Tender evaluation.
• Assistance throughout the tender procurement process.

For further information on the successful award of this Dry Recycling and Related Services Contract, please contact Bradley Wroe on 0161 351 9356

The Localism Bill (the Bill) is a proposed Act of Parliament that could significantly alter the powers of local government. The Bill aims to cover a wide range of issues and in summary states that it will:

• give councils a general power of competence;
• allow councils to choose to return to the committee system of governance and make allowance for referendums for elected mayors in certain authorities;
• abolish the Standards Board regime and the model code of conduct, and introduce local accountability and a criminal offence of deliberate failure to declare a personal interest in a matter;
• give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue and the power to veto excessive council tax increases;
• allow councils more discretion over business rate relief; and
• provide new powers to help save local facilities and services that are threatened with closure, giving voluntary and community groups the right to challenge local authorities over their services.[1]

In addition to this, the planning and regeneration provisions could, among other things:

• abolish Regional Spatial Strategies;
• abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return to a position where the Secretary of State takes the final decision on major infrastructure proposals of national importance;
• amend the Community Infrastructure Levy, which allows councils to charge developers to pay for infrastructure – some of the revenue of which will be available for the local community;
• provide for neighbourhood plans, which would be approved if they received 50% of the votes cast in a referendum;
• provide for neighbourhood development orders to allow communities to approve developments without requiring normal planning consent; and
• give new housing and regeneration powers to the Greater London Authority, while abolishing the London Development Agency.[2]

As can be seen, there are a number of issues being addressed by the Bill which are ultimately aiming to increase the power of local communities in key policy decisions. How this will impact waste management at a local level in a blend of existing and new targets set out to reduce and treat the waste we already produce in a more sustainable manner, is not yet known. How will these new powers affect front line council services – in particular waste management, where such strong and changing local opinion often exists?

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects to this Bill is the provision to allow local residents and councils the power to force referendums on key council issues, including the provision of waste services. The Bill could mean that decisions are made by local communities in relation to the provision of front line services, but at what cost? Could a disapproval of Council policy by residents with regard to, for example, fortnightly residual waste collections, lead to a return of weekly collections? In the current economic climate, this would undoubtedly have a considerable financial impact upon already stretched local authority budgets.

By allowing such referendums to influence front line service delivery, important decisions could be made that will affect the consequences of such services without fully considering the impact they may have.

The Bill could also heavily influence the location and development of new waste treatment and disposal facilities. In order to meet EU waste management targets, the UK as a whole will continue to require the development of new waste infrastructure over the medium to long- term future. The waste management industry has always experienced issues with NIMBYISM, sometimes based upon ill- founded information and opinions. Any proposal to provide waste management facilities located near housing estates or urban centres will always be a major cause of disruption in the planning stages of such facilities. The Bill aims to provide local communities with an influence over planning decisions, but what might be the effect on the need to further develop the UK’s waste infrastructure when it comes down to local feeling?

As a result, the Bill may delay or perhaps even potentially halt the development of new waste treatment facilities, severely hindering the UK’s ability to develop the required infrastructure. In extreme circumstances, could it be possible that the Bill would lead to the closure of waste facilities based upon local circumstances? The more these decisions are made at a local level, the more likely it may be that waste facility providers experience delays and set backs in obtaining planning permission. Perhaps, on the positive side, it could lead to greater involvement from waste facility providers in issues affecting the local community which could ,in turn, lead to a greater overall benefit for the local community. The future planning of waste management sites will need to better reflect the needs of local communities, providing greater comprehensible benefits at a local level and increasing the interaction between communities and facility providers.

In order to develop a practical and structured approach to ‘localism’, clear and practical guidelines are required. The collection, treatment and disposal of waste management requires long- term strategic planning, and local referendums based upon the disapproval of policy could have considerable consequences to the industry and public finances.

Waste will always be produced and, ultimately, local sustainable solutions will always need to be at the forefront of the manner in which this waste is managed. However, in order to achieve this, strong decisions will be required. Will this be possible under the Bill guidelines? It appears at this early stage, that a number of questions still remain unanswered in terms of the approach to localism, and the way it is likely to be administered. What is clear, is the distinct possibility of increased local interaction with local authority waste management operations.

[2] Parliament UK – http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/localism.html

The issue of quality vs quantity of recyclates collected is a contentious issue for local authorities in the UK. It is important to regard recyclates not as waste, but as raw materials for processing into new material streams. And herein lies the conflict of interest: local authorities are under pressure to collect as much recyclate as possible to meet recycling targets set by central government, whereas reprocessors are more concerned with the quality of recyclates they receive, rather than sheer quantity.

There are arguments for focusing efforts on both quality and quantity, with an idealistic scenario being that they are not mutually exclusive. On the whole, a local authority will look to design a recycling service around its simplicity for households and likely uptake. But can this be done without compromising the quality of the outputs?

One issue with achieving large quantities of recyclates is that the materials will often contain contaminants. This may be in the form of foreign materials. A higher quantity of contaminants could lead to a rejection of entire loads, even at MRF’s with good sorting processes.

There is good reason to increase the quality of recyclates collected. Firstly, many reprocessors demand it. Secondly, if the quality of recyclates is higher, the resultant end product is also likely to be of a higher quality.

As well as implementing an appropriate collection system, householder engagement is vital to achieve the desired quality of recyclate, or conversely, the quantity. A clear and consistent approach to this engagement will yield a higher likelihood of achieving the desired outputs.

A collection scheme that requires households to separate materials into different containers tends to be met by a higher quality output. In spite of this, these schemes are often difficult to implement, particularly where space for containers is restricted. There is also the potential for negative press attention that often accompanies an increased numbers of containers.

As such, there are drivers for local authorities to implement more convenient collection systems (for householders at least) which are often cheaper, with the recyclates to then be sorted at an MRF. Much of the emphasis on recycling to date has been placed on increasing the volume of recyclates, but there is now a need to place an emphasis on quality, without losing sight of the importance of quantity.

An incentive-based recycling service for householders could be the way to marry volume and quality of recyclates, but it is important that a local authority, together with its contractors and reprocessors, does not place the onus of responsibility solely on the households that it serves.

Whichever route a local authority wishes to pursue in a bid to increase the quality of recyclates, it can undertake any or all of the following:

• Open dialogue with recycling collection contractors and reprocessors, particularly before implementing changes to collection methodologies.
• Think both in the short and long-term.
• Be realistic about what you hope to achieve.
• Be clear and consistent with households.
• Consider introducing incentives to households.

In light of the Government’s Spending Review announcement, leading to ongoing reductions in public sector budgets, Councils need to be more creative in their working methods. Public demand for services will not disappear and Councils are faced with providing the same or improved levels of services, but with decreasing budgets.

One area where efficiencies can be made is through joint procurement of key front line services, and when applied appropriately this can lead to significant savings.

The Background

North Norfolk District Council’s (NNDC) Waste and Related Services Contract was due to come to an end in April 2011, and as a result, NNDC were due to enter into a procurement process to secure a new long term contract. Gordon Mackie Associates were appointed by NNDC to act as technical advisors for the procurement process, and as part of Gordon Mackie Associates role, advice was given regarding contract packaging and increasing the attractiveness to the private sector.

Nick Baker, Strategic Director for the Environment at NNDC, liaised with his counterparts in neighboring Councils to identify any interest in joint working, and potentially procuring a joint waste services contract. The Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN) agreed to enter into a joint procurement process.

At an early stage of the procurement process NNDC and BCKLWN identified opportunities and savings that may result from a joint procurement exercise. Both Councils shared a similar need, namely the procurement of waste collection and related services contracts. Although both Councils had individual requirements, they recognised the benefits to be gained through joint working and in securing long term contracts.

NNDC required a full range of services to be provided, including residual waste and dry recycling collections, organic waste collection and treatment, street cleansing, grounds maintenance and other ancillary services. BCKLWN had a similar requirement for waste collection only, and this was to commence two years later, in 2013. Additionally, BCKLWN wanted to be able to have a range of service delivery options including weekly residual waste collections as well as a suite of alternative collection arrangements to meet their local needs.

Procurement Procedure

When deciding upon whether a joint procurement is appropriate, it is important from the start to have a clear and defined expectation of the outcomes. It is also necessary to identify where it is expected that there could be efficiencies to be gained from the process. The expectations for such a procurement process should remain flexible as all procurement processes are different and many variables exist that could impact upon potential savings.

In this case, in order to provide a formal structure to the joint process, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was drawn up between the Councils. Close liaison was maintained at all times with both Councils’ executives, and information was provided throughout the process in order to keep members informed of the developing situation.

Due to a number of influencing factors, such as the staggered commencement dates, and how best to realise the potential efficiencies to be gained through joint working, Gordon Mackie Associates and the Councils decided that the use of the Competitive Dialogue procedure was the most appropriate approach. This allowed for market input into the process and ensured maximum competition throughout.

During the Competitive Dialogue process the Councils were able to work together to share knowledge and internal skills for the benefit of both partners, from the development of specifications to sharing internal legal, procurement and technical expertise. Throughout this process, Gordon Mackie Associates provided independent, external, specialist advice.

It is essential that a strong and diverse procurement team is established at the early stages of the process, with a shared commitment to achieving a successful contract. At the commencement of the process it is essential to have commitment from all parties; this demonstrates a determination to work together. To ensure the success of the procurement process, strong project management is required from the outset, and the Councils ensured this was in place. A comprehensive range of project control documentation was developed, including project initiation documentation, timescales, risk register and an ‘issues log’.

The Benefits

The primary aim of the procurement process was to be able to deliver both Councils the Most Economically Advantageous Tender for the required services. The use of the Competitive Dialogue process allowed the Councils to explore the expected benefits and opportunities within the services for joint working and other efficiencies, in order to deliver a true value-for-money service for residents. Throughout the process, key elements were identified where financial and operational efficiencies could be gained, such as the reduction in contract supervisory costs, shared spare vehicle resource and reduced back office costs.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly in terms of cost, by jointly procuring the waste services, the subsequent contract became more attractive to the private sector. Private sector companies may be selective when bidding for contracts; joint procurement increased the value of the contract, which made it more attractive to the open market and encouraged competition, ultimately providing NNDC and BCKLWN with a more financially favorable contract.

The benefits of jointly procuring waste collection services are not limited to the real cost of front line service delivery, but also include the shared cost of the actual procurement process. Due to the complexity of joined-up services, more work is involved than in procuring a contract for a single authority, but it is less than would be involved if both Councils separately procured their own services. Another potential benefit is that the experience of working together on such a project for an extended time period can create a foundation of confidence allowing for future collaboration between local authority partners.

Risks

Any procurement process brings with it potential risks. A joint procurement process can bring added complications that need to be managed. All partners involved need to work in an atmosphere of collaboration and should expect some give and take from all parties. At the outset of this process key officers from NNDC and BCKLWN developed a strong working relationship, and ultimately this contributed to the success of the procurement process.

Outcome

After the completion of the Competitive Dialogue process, the evaluation panel’s conclusions were approved by the Project Board, and were ratified by both Councils concerning the award of the final contracts to a single contractor, Kier Street Services (Kier), whose Managing Director, John Jackson said. “We are pleased to have been chosen to take this contract forward and look forward to demonstrating how, through focusing on continuous improvement, we are committed to delivering the highest standards of service for our clients and the local community.”

NNDC and BCKLWN awarded contracts for an initial period of eight years for the required services. Kier will commence work in North Norfolk in April 2011, and in April 2013 throughout King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.

It is estimated that in total, the procurement of the services is likely to generate average annual savings in the region of £500,000 on an annual £5,000,000 existing contract value.

Nick Baker, Strategic Director for the Environment at NNDC believes that “the joint procurement gave a great opportunity to attract a wide range of interested contractors at a good price, and then Competitive Dialogue enabled us to verify in a face to face environment what they could really deliver. One of the key issues for me was actually seeing us start to build a relationship with the bidders, even before we made the award.”

Having played a key role in the procurement process Barry Branford, Waste and Recycling Manager at BCKLWN, felt that by jointly procuring the contracts, the Councils “will provide real financial benefits to the council tax payers in each authority, and genuine trust between both the Councils and Kier which will lead to excellent service delivery”

In order for a joint procurement process to prove successful it is essential that all the specialisms involved, eg, technical advisors, procurement experts, and financial and legal representatives, fully understand the desired outcomes of the process and can successfully work together as a team. Working together also relies on establishing a firm joint political resolve to achieve efficiencies through co-operation. The experience of NNDC and BCKLWN certainly provides a powerful argument that joint procurement is an important tool to provide excellent services against the backdrop of shrinking budgets.