ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
26 MARCH 2008
ITEM 05
ANNEXE 3
KITCHEN WASTE, CARDBOARD AND PLASTIC BOTTLE RECYCLING: MITIGATION OF RISK
Risk
Uncertain capacity requirements
Mitigation Strategy
The number of vehicles and staff required to deliver any waste collection configuration is a
function of:

Vehicle capacity;

Material tonnages;

Travel time between pickups;

Pickup cycle times;

Tipping time.
Some of these variables can be assessed in advance. For example vehicle capacity (although
capacity in tonnes will vary with the density of material); tipping time (assuming the tipping place is
known) and travel time between pickups.
The pickup cycle is performed many times per day. This means that minor changes in process
can impact significantly on the overall time required to complete a round and the potential impact
of such changes requires careful thought.
Forecasting collection tonnages becomes progressively more demanding as the number of
materials collected separately for recycling increases. A higher tonnage can mean more trips to
tip and ultimately more vehicles and staff. A trip to tip is triggered by the first compartment to fill
There is also a feedback to crew morale since a well motivated crew will get more done.
Several strategies are being used to manage the uncertainties:

Using loaned demonstrator vehicles to measure capacity in the local operating environment;

Building in a margin of spare capacity by way of vehicles and staff although because of the
expense this option is used sparingly;

Isolating and measuring some risks upfront for example trade waste and flat collections;
Page 1 of 4
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
26 MARCH 2008
Risk
ITEM 05
ANNEXE 3
Mitigation Strategy
Undertaking what if calculations to measure the impact on vehicle needs of various levels of
participation;

Developing contingency plans to bring on board additional capacity quickly if necessary.
Residents could react against the new service configuration in particular the need to sort more
materials and to accommodate additional containers.

Resident dissatisfaction
The following approach is being taken to minimise this risk:

Minimise change by keeping to current collection days, garden waste and dry recycling
arrangements;

Using the residents’ panel to test perceptions;

Using an exhibition to communicate the need for change, the advantages and
disadvantages of different service configurations and container choices

Communicating during the roll out

Maintaining a weekly collection of kitchen waste and nappies;

Providing choices where it is practical so to do
Non availability of vehicles
The major risk areas are:

No acceptable tenders are received

No one is able to supply a vehicle of the required specification;

The vehicles are not available by start up date.
The contract has been advertised and a list of potential suppliers drawn up.
If the Council is not satisfied with the tender returns the choices would include:

Retender on the current or an amended basis (with an almost inevitable delay to the
service start);

Negotiation with the current supplier of the service;
The kerbside collection of kitchen waste is in its infancy although rapid growth is inevitable if
national recycling and composting targets are to be met. Vehicle manufacturers are developing
Page 2 of 4
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
26 MARCH 2008
Risk
ITEM 05
ANNEXE 3
Mitigation Strategy
new vehicle types to meet the emerging needs but these not yet widely available. The vehicles
that we have had on loan have struggled in a real operating environment to accommodate
tonnages that match their advertised capacity. If this remains the case there is a risk that sufficient
capacity will not be available from the proposed vehicles.
The Council will need to be satisfied that the vehicles proposed by the suppliers offer sufficient
capacity. However the provision for a spare vehicle offers some protection against this uncertainty.
The vehicle supply industry builds specialist vehicles to order. There is therefore a risk that they
will not be available for start up.
Non availability of containers
The officers have sought to manage this risk by including:

A six month build time between the award and start of contract (30 April ‘08 to 31 Oct ‘08);

A 4 month float between the projected date of delivery and service launch day (1 Nov ‘08 to
28 Feb ‘09).
The containers cannot be ordered until the conclusion of the exhibitions (31 October ‘08). This
allows 2.5 months for manufacture before delivery is due to commence. Discussion with suppliers
suggests this is an adequate period but unforeseen events could place it at risk.
In practice only part of the container order needs to be available by mid Jan ‘08. Half the order
does not need to be supplied until mid March and some of the containers needed for phase one
will not be required on the first delivery date.
Insufficient management capacity
The delivery of the project will fall primarily on operational services with customer services and
communications also having key roles.
The various work streams and the deployment of resources need to be properly planned and
resourced.
A strategic project team will be established and there is provision within the set up costs for
additional staff resources for implementation.
Page 3 of 4
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
26 MARCH 2008
ITEM 05
ANNEXE 3
Risk
Loss of income from paper
Mitigation Strategy
Contingency plans to deal with the unforeseen absence of critical team members will be put in
place.
Currently the Council receives £39 per tonne as a gate fee for paper. By 2009-10 it is estimated
that income from paper could exceed £140,000 per annum.
However this income could be at risk if residents were to mix paper with cardboard on a significant
scale. This would mean that paper would enter the mixed cardboard/plastic bottles collection, to
which attaches a cost of £30 per tonne.
To mitigate this risk the communications plan will include clear messages as to the importance of
a clean paper stream to service costs.
The development of bulking facilities to enable the Council to command higher gate fees for dry
recyclables by selling materials in larger quantities could also offset this risk. It is estimated that
additional gate fees of up to £200,000 pa could be achievable although there would be capital and
handling costs. It is intended to investigate these opportunities in more detail.
Page 4 of 4