AGENDA ITEM 7
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Service Delivery Overview & Scrutiny
14th September 2011
TITLE:
Review of Kerbside Waste Collection
Arrangements
PORTFOLIO HOLDER
Councillor Arthur Forrester - Portfolio Holder
for the Environment
CONTACT OFFICER:
Nicola Kemp – Waste Collection Manager
WARDS INVOLVED:
Non-Specific
1.
Reason for the Report
1.1
To detail proposals for a district wide service change to accommodate the
removal of cardboard from the organic collection service to comply with new
standards issued by our in vessel composting contractor.
2.
Recommendation
2.1
That the Service Delivery Overview & Scrutiny Panel recommends that
Cabinet:

Approves the implementation of the reconfigured kerbside waste collection
arrangements are detailed in Section 9 of the report (Option 7)

Approves the route optimisation proposals outlined in Section 10 of the
report to ensure further operational efficiencies are achieved

Approves the extension of current contractual arrangements for the
processing of dry recyclates and organic waste as set out in Section 11 of
the report
3.
Executive Summary
3.1
The Council currently provides a brown bin at the doorstep for residents to
recycle green waste. The bin is currently used for garden waste, cardboard
and food waste.
1
3.2
Research has shown that paper and cardboard wastes comingled with
biodegradable wastes i.e. garden and food wastes are very likely to include
contaminants that may compromise the quality of the finished compost. As a
result of the need for the compost produced from the Council’s organic waste
collection to remain compliant with quality standards (PAS 100) there is a
need for the removal of cardboard from the brown bins.
3.3
In order to accommodate the removal of cardboard from the organic waste
stream and consider more efficient ways of working, a list of 21 alternative
options for the collection of waste and recyclables from the doorstep was
developed. A desktop evaluation of these options was undertaken. Options
were discounted automatically if they either increased the cost of the service
or they would reduce the recycling rate below EU requirements.
3.4
Following this evaluation, seven options remained (detailed in Appendix A).
These seven options were then reviewed further in relation to operational
risks. Final considerations discounted a further five options.
3.5
The table below summarises the remaining two options:
Option
Service configuration
Option 1
Grey bin – Cardboard, paper, plastics, cans
and glass,
Bag for textiles
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service
Grey bin - Cardboard, plastics, cans and glass,
Bag for textiles
Clear bag - newspapers, magazines, junk mail
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service.
Option 7
Annual
Saving
£545,800
Transition
Costs
£147,300
Year 1
Saving
£398,500
£476,300
£142,100
£334,200
3.6
The difference between the two final options is the inclusion of paper in the
comingled mix in Option 1. Option 7 leaves this as a separate stream. By
keeping the paper separate the council can maximise future income revenue
streams due to the high value of paper currently (expected to exceed £100
per tonne in September 2011). For this reason this is the recommended final
option.
3.7
The savings identified above include those estimated from the service review
which commenced in autumn 2010 with the aim of identifying inefficiencies in
the current collection service. This review has considered productivity levels
and highlighted inefficiencies in service delivery and recommended options to
make the service more cost effective.
3.8
Prior to implementation there is a need to involve the workforce to ensure that
their input and expertise is incorporated into any future service design. A
working group involving the workforce will be created to ensure staff are fully
involved. This next phase of work will commence immediately in order that
2
both changes can be undertaken at the same time, thus reducing
communication costs in promoting the service to householders.
3.9
Inevitably with a service review, including the configuration of rounds, the
collection days of residents may need to alter. Changes will be kept to a
minimum and residents will be advised of their new collection dates in a
service information leaflet/calendar to be issued in late November/early
December.
3.10
The recommended option will move the cardboard into the grey recycling bin.
The majority of households use a 140 litre grey bin, the addition of an extra
material could increase the capacity some households will require for their
recyclables. As a result the cost for purchase and delivery of new 240 litre
grey bins have been factored into the transition costs, prices based on
national contract frameworks that this council can draw upon. Deliveries of
these will occur in January/February 2012, as procurement, production and
delivery cannot meet the December start date. Until then cardboard that will
not fit into the bin will be collected as “side” waste.
3.11
Contractual discussions with Viridor (dry recyclate reprocessor) and Vital
Earth (organic waste processor) have been used to inform the development of
the new service proposals including the costs and projected financial savings.
Both contracts have provisions for three-year extensions through to mid-2015
and it is recommended that these are agreed as part of the service changes.
3.12
A plan of communications will be developed closely with the Communications
Team to ensure that the transition moves as smoothly as possible and
reduces unnecessary contact with the council.
4.
How this report links with Corporate Priorities
4.1
The waste collection service has an impact on every household in the district.
Changes to the service will therefore impact on resident satisfaction.
5.
Options
5.1
21 options have been considered. A summary of the options appraisal is
detailed in section 9 of the report
6.
Implications
6.1
Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998)
None
6.2
Workforce
3
This report recommends a review of the waste collection rounds. It
is anticipated that a loss of one round per material stream could be
achieved. It is not envisaged that redundancies will be needed as
the service is carrying five vacancies (three drivers, 2 loaders).
6.3
Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council's
Diversity and Equality Policies.
As detailed within the report.
6.4
Financial Considerations
The estimated savings associated with the proposals are £476,300
per annum. There are transition costs estimated at £142,100
6.5
Legal
As detailed within the report.
6.6
Sustainability
The report details the impact each possible service change could
have on the amount of waste recycled, composted or disposed of.
6.7
Internal and External Consultation
Employees will be consulted on any proposals which impact upon
future staffing levels within the service. Volunteers to form a staff
working group have been requested and a presentation will be
made to employees at a future team brief.
6.8
Risk Assessment
As detailed in Section 13 of the report.
ANDREW P STOKES
Executive Director (Community Services)
Web Links and
Background Papers
Location
Contact details
Waste Collection
Fowlchurch Depot
Nicola Kemp
Waste Collection
Manager
4
7.
Background and Introduction
7.1
In January 2007 Cabinet approved the award of the contract for the transport
and treatment of compostable waste, the selected contractor was Vital Earth
(UK) LTD. This contract covers the processing of organic waste collected by
this authority and comprising of garden waste, cardboard and food waste.
This material stream since March 2007 has been collected from households
across the district in the brown bins.
7.2
This contract stipulates that any compost produced as a result of the
composting process should meet the Compost Quality Protocol PAS 100
(Publically Available Specification). This standard shows the quality of the end
product to ensure saleability.
7.3
Research has shown that paper and cardboard wastes comingled with
biodegradable wastes i.e. garden and food wastes are very likely to include
contaminants that may compromise the quality of the finished compost.
Therefore the inclusion of non-compostable plastic-coated paper and
cardboard such as; milk / juice cartons, cereal boxes, washing powder boxes,
frozen food containers, take-out containers, foil-coated paper and cardboard,
paper and cardboard printed with inks or coloured with dyes can affect the
quality of compost produced.
7.4
The Government Waste Policy Review released on 14th June 2011 confirms
that composting is classed as recycling with respect to the waste hierarchy
only if compliant with the Quality Protocol (hence, with the PAS 100:2011
Specification). If a compost product fails the PAS 100 standard then
effectively the waste has not been recycled and could not count towards
recycling performance.
7.5
As a result of the need for the compost produced from our organic waste
service needing to remain PAS 100 compliant there is a need for the removal
of cardboard from the brown bins. Vital Earth has requested that provision be
made for this to happen from November 2011.
7.6
This report makes recommendations for changes in the waste collection
service in response to these requirements. At the same time as making the
arrangement for this change a full service review has been undertaken to
ensure that the service is as efficient as possible.
8.
Current Waste Collection Service
8.1
The Council’s current doorstep waste and recycling service is configured as
follows:




Grey bin – plastics, cans, glass, tetrapak
Clear bag for newspaper, magazines, junk mail
Bag for textiles
Brown bin - garden waste, cardboard and food waste,
5

Blue lidded bin – general household waste
8.2
This Council’s current service has topped the national results league for the
last two years running with a recycling rate exceeding 61.6%.
8.3
The annual cost of the waste and recycling collection service was £2.225
million per annum. Due to the austerity measures and financial pressures
placed on this authority, combined with a desire to make the services as
efficient as possible, the full service review commenced with the aim of where
possible reducing this annual service costs. A target of £106,100 in efficiency
savings was set for the Waste collection and Street Scene services to
achieve during 2011-12.
9.
Options Review
9.1
In order to accommodate the removal of cardboard from the organic waste
stream and consider more efficient ways of working, Officers originally
developed a list of 21 different options for the collection of waste and
recyclables from the doorstep.
9.2
The options considered a range of waste and recycling collection
methodologies including:



9.3
Comparing the use of different vehicles,
Collecting recyclables in different containers i.e. returning to box
collections: and
Consideration of returning to a weekly refuse collection service.
Operational issues were also considered including:



How we deal with difficult access properties:
The need for suitable collection vehicles:
Issues experienced due to the types of vehicles in use i.e. split bodied to
enable the collection of two material streams.
9.4
Discussions were undertaken with current contractors Viridor (dry recyclate
processing) and SFS (vehicle hire and maintenance contractor) to determine
the impacts of any service changes in regards to our contractual
arrangements and the costs associated with such. The figures provided by
both contractors were used when calculating the transitional costs of service
change and the annual revenue saving.
9.5
A desktop evaluation process was undertaken using the criteria detailed in the
table below:
6
Criterion
Annual Cost
Adaptability
Practicality
Recycling performance
Workforce continuity
Political and public acceptance
Customer
satisfaction/perception
Environmental Impact
Explanation
Weighting
(%)
Estimated revenue cost from modelling
50
How easy to change things on the future of
5
circumstances change (men, vehicles,
households)
Goodness to fit to known operational
7.5
circumstances, ease of mobilisation
Predicted level of recycling performance
10
from modelling
Staffing levels and working practices
5
unchanged from now, no new H & S
issues
Likely acceptance of change
10
Likely customer experience (e.g. ease of
10
use)
Qualitative view of likely impacts (carbon,
2.5
fly tipping, reuse levels etc)
9.6
Options were discounted automatically if they increased the cost of the
service as the point of the review was to make the service more financially
efficient. In addition options were also discounted if the effect on the recycling
rate would reduce it to below 45%. The basis of this decision was made in
relation to EU recycling targets which have to be achieved, these being 45%
recycling rate by 2015 and 50% recycling rate by 2020.
9.7
Following this evaluation, seven options remained; these can be broken down
into four main collection systems, with operational variances accounting for
the remaining three options. These are detailed in Appendix A and are
summarised below:
Collection System
Grey bin – Cardboard, paper, plastics, cans and glass,
Bag for textiles
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service
Grey bin – Cardboard, plastics, cans and glass,
Bag for textiles
Clear bag - newspapers, magazines, junk mail
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service.
Grey bin – Cardboard, plastics and cans (no glass)
Bag for textiles
Clear bag - newspapers, magazines, junk mail
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service.
7
Options
1, 5a and 5b
7. and 12
8.
Collection System
Grey bin – Cardboard, paper, plastics, cans and glass, collected
weekly
Bag for textiles
25l caddy – food waste collections
Brown bin – Charged for garden waste collection £40 per annum
per household,
Blue lidded bin – no change to collections
9.8
The seven options were then reviewed further in relation to operational risks.
Final considerations discounted five options as detailed below:





9.9
Option 5a - implications of double shifting on employees and the need for
extended supervisory cover, extension to operational hours at the
Fowlchurch Depot and the implications to the waste management licence.
Option 5b – Reliance on agency cover in summer months, requirements to
spot hire vehicles in summer months and risks relating to availability and
ongoing costs.
Option 8 – Removal of glass collections at kerbside could lead to high
levels of public dissatisfaction. Risk of reduced participation in recycling
services overall.
Option 12 – Reliance on short term hire of collection vehicles in summer
months, organics service is weather dependent and milder winters and
wetter summers could extend peak season resulting in increased costs.
Option 18 – Concern regarding use of new podded vehicles due to
possible maintenance and breakdown concern. Public dissatisfaction in
chargeable garden waste service, collection of garden waste over 30
weeks per annum and introduction of new containers for food waste.
Having taken into account the operational risks associated with five of the
final seven options, two options remain as realistic possibilities for the
Council’s future service delivery. The table below highlights the potential
annual revenue saving, transitional costs which will only be relevant in year 1
and the savings associated with the service change and round reviews:
Option
Service configuration
Option 1
Grey bin – Cardboard, paper, plastics, cans
and glass,
Bag for textiles
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service
Grey bin - Cardboard, plastics, cans and glass,
Bag for textiles
Clear bag - newspapers, magazines, junk mail
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current service.
Option 7
9.10
Options
18.
Annual
Saving
£545,800
Transition
Costs
£147,300
Year 1
Saving
£398,500
£476,300
£142,100
£334,200
The difference between the two final options is the inclusion of paper in the
comingled mix in option 1. Option 7 leaves this as a separate stream. By
keeping the paper separate the council can maximise future income revenue
8
streams due to the high value of paper currently (expected to exceed £100
per tonne in September 2011). For this reason this is the recommended final
option.
10.
Service & Round Review
10.1
A service review commenced in autumn 2010 with the aim of identifying
inefficiencies in the current collection service. Supported externally a scoping
study commenced in January 2011 to undertake an initial review of the
collection rounds. This determined a need for a district wide round review,
such was the widespread inefficiencies. This study also considered
productivity levels and highlighted inefficiencies in service delivery whilst
recommending options to make the service more cost effective.
10.2
A desktop study reviewing tipping times and tracker information highlighted
on the three main refuse collection rounds approximately 31 hours per week
of potential unproductive time.
10.3
This suggests that a reduction in the number of collection rounds is possible
and could generate additional efficiency savings. Information suggests that
one round per material stream could be lost once the rounds are
reconfigured. Thus supporting a reduction in operating costs through a
reduction in vehicle numbers, fuel usage and increasing productivity.
10.4
Access problems have become common place in recent years linked to the
procurement of four 32 tonne collection vehicles, whilst these are used
primarily on the refuse collection service, due to the size of these vehicles
they struggle to get down streets where parked cars are a problem. In
addition a new round has been created in recent months to accommodate
difficult access areas and reduce complaints. These issues will need to be
factored into the round review.
10.5
At present missed bins are collected on a separate vehicle as the current
round design means that crews do not return to a nearby area. The Council’s
response time is up to five working days. There is an opportunity to address
this through the round review and start getting the crews to return to their own
missed collections, this will speed up our response time and make the crews
more aware of the numbers being missed.
10.6
Whilst the round review could release a number of employees from their
current rounds it is envisaged that there will be no need for redundancies as
the service is currently carrying five vacancies (three drivers, two loaders),
and is currently reliant on agency staff to cover annual leave and sickness.
These spare posts will move into the pool to reduce our reliance on agency
cover for such instances.
10.7
Recommendations regarding careful management of the Council’s lane end
policy introduced in September 2010 and the assisted collection policy is also
9
recommended. Both can have serious implications on efficiency levels with
the service due to increased time crews spend on individual collections.
10.8
Prior to implementation there is a need to involve the workforce to ensure that
their input and expertise is incorporated into any future service design. A
working group involving the workforce will be created to ensure staff are fully
involved. This next phase of work will commence immediately in order that
both changes can be undertaken at the same time, thus reducing
communication costs in promoting the service to householders.
10.9
Inevitably with a round review the collection days of residents may need to
alter, changes will be kept to a minimum and residents will be advised of their
new collection dates in a service information leaflet/calendar to be issued in
late November/early December.
10.10 The efficiency savings identified from the service and round review have been
taking into account in the analysis of the service options detailed in section 9
above.
11.
Contractual Considerations
11.1
Contractual discussions with Viridor (dry recyclate reprocessor) regarding the
implications of the change of service have highlighted a desire from them for
the Council to keep its paper separate. This will generate increased income
revenue for the Council due to the high grade material collected and the
resulting saleability of the product for recycling.
11.2
As a result Viridor have increased the income amount that the council could
achieve by only adding cardboard into the comingled mix. The value offered
is £5 per tonne higher than the value we currently receive for the comingled
stream (plastics, cans and glass). This would generate an additional £25,000
in income for the council per annum and makes Option 7 more financially
attractive. In order to obtain this higher income level we would have to extend
our current contractual arrangement for the three year period up to 31st
August 2015. This is recommended.
11.3
In addition Viridor have also advised the council that paper values are
expected to exceed £100 per tonne on the contract anniversary date (1st
September) due to high market values internationally. This will generate
additional income to the council of around £60,000 per contract year (1st
September to 31st August) or £35,000 this financial year.
11.4
The recommended option (7) will move the cardboard into the grey recycling
bin. The majority of households use a 140 litre grey bin, the addition of an
extra material could increase the capacity some households will require for
their recyclables. As a result the cost for purchase and delivery of new 240
litre grey bins have been factored into the transitional costs, prices based on
national contract frameworks that this council can draw upon. Deliveries of
10
these will occur in January/February 2012, as procurement, production and
delivery cannot meet the December start date.
11.5
The councils contract with Vital Earth for the processing of organic waste at
its IVC in Ashbourne commenced on 1st July 2007 and is due to expire on
30th June 2012. There is the option to extend this contract by three years to
30th June 2015 and it is recommended that this contract be extended in line
with this term. Research of other facilities locally have identified that the gate
fee paid per tonne is appropriate and reasonable.
12.
Risk Analysis
12.1
A range of risks have been identified as a result of the proposals contained
within this report, these fall into the following categories and are detailed in
the table below along with the actions required to mitigate them:
Risk type
Financial
Operational
issues
Risks
Mitigation
The service area has a savings The review has identified possible
target of £106,000 in 2011-12.
savings, a round review could generate
savings in addition of this should it be
confirmed that one round can be
removed across all three streams.
If a round change is undertaken The workforce will be involved in the
alongside the service change, this development of the new rounds
could impact on service delivery
as the collection crews will have
new rounds to learn alongside the
service changes.
High Peak Borough Council also
has to change its organic waste
service to accommodate the
removal of cardboard.
Staffing
issues
The Waste Collection Team structure is
currently being reviewed. This will be
completed by October. Staff may not be
in post until October/November which
could cause issues on resources within
the Waste Team. Temporary resources
will be put in place if required.
The desktop study identified The workforce are being engaged in the
issues with productivity levels reconfiguration process
alongside a need to reconfigure
the collection rounds to make
them more efficient. Whilst there
should
be
no
need
for
redundancies due to the service
currently carrying five vacancies
the workforce may not support the
outcome of the review and issues
could arise as a result.
11
Risk type
Service
satisfaction
Risks
The
council’s
education
&
promotion budget is £47,000. This
will
limit
the
relevant
communications to the public. This
could impact on the understanding
of the service changes by our
residents. In addition the short
timescale for changes will reduce
the amount of promotional work
that can be undertaken.
Mitigation
Residents will be advised of the service
change via a leaflet and other media i.e.
press releases, a communications plan
will
be
developed
with
the
Communications Team.
The current recycling bins (grey)
are 140 litres, with the addition of
cardboard these may not provide
sufficient capacity,
As a result the purchase of a new 240l
has been factored in. Due to the short
timeframe for the service change it is
not possible to procure and deliver bins
this quickly. The bins will therefore have
to be delivered separately, most likely in
January/February 2012. Residents will
have to place the cardboard external to
the bin until this time. The current report
does not include options for removing
any unwanted 140l bins from resident’s
homes. It is though anticipated that
residents will not wish to keep another
bin, even though it could be used for
example for paper in place of the clear
bags.
Any cardboard which cannot be
accommodated in the residents
current grey bin will need to be
placed lose next to the bin on
collection day until the larger bins
are delivered. In periods of bad
weather or if the cardboard is
presented loosely the cardboard
could blow around, thus littering
areas.
This should be for a short period of time
until the new bins are delivered.
Although this could have an impact on
street cleanliness.
Due to the transactional review
and changes to the CRM system,
Customer Services will be under
pressure at the time of the
proposed service changes. This
will mean there will be little or no
resource to handle an increase in
calls/queries, highlighting the need
for good communications.
The communication plan will limit the
contact with the Council. Temporary
staff will be recruited to assist with call
handling if required
12
Risk type
Risks
Mitigation
Performance It is estimated that approx 10% of The communication plan will be focused
the organic waste stream is to ensure that this does not happen
cardboard. The impact of changing
the services with cardboard added
onto the recycling service could
lead to a loss of material captured
and thus affect our recycling rate.
If we only capture only half of the
cardboard the recycling rate could
fall by 2% to 58% based on the
2010-11 results.
13.
Communications Plan
13.1
Inevitably the council will have to communicate to residents the changes
surrounding cardboard and new collection dates. A key element of the action
required to mitigate the risks identified in Section 12 above is the
Communication Plan. The service area has an education and promotions
budget of £47,000, this will be used to fund all promotional work. This is
sufficient to pay for a promotional flyer to be issued to every household and a
further service information leaflet/calendar detailing collection dates in late
November/early December to every household.
13.2
A plan of communications will be developed closely with the Communications
Team to ensure that the transition moves as smoothly as possible and
reduces unnecessary contact with the council. Key dates for the diary are as
follows:
Month
September
October
Late
November/early
December
12th December
January-February
Activity
- Gain member approval for changes
- Design, procure and print flyer leaflet regarding
future service change
- Start promotions through local media
- Deliver flyer pre warning of service changes
- Procure and print service information
leaflet/calendar
- Service information/calendar delivered to
households
-
Collections commence
New bins to be delivered
13
APPENDIX A
Waste Service Review - Final Options Evaluated
Collection System
Grey bin – Cardboard, paper, plastics,
cans and glass,
Bag for textiles
Brown bin - garden waste and food
waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current
service
Options
1.
-
5a.
-
5b.
-
Grey bin – Cardboard, plastics, cans
and glass,
Bag for textiles
Clear bag - newspapers, magazines,
junk mail
Brown bin - garden waste and food
waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current
service.
Grey bin – Cardboard, plastics and
cans (no glass)
Bag for textiles
Clear bag - newspapers, magazines,
junk mail
Brown bin - garden waste and food
waste,
Blue lidded bin – no change to current
service.
Grey bin – Cardboard, paper, plastics,
cans and glass, collected weekly
Bag for textiles
25l caddy – food waste collections
Brown bin – Charged for garden waste
collection £40 per annum per
household,
Blue lidded bin – no change to
collections
7.
-
12.
-
-
Operational difference
Fleet change required move to standard RCV
fleet.
Reduced income from sale of recyclate due to
paper being mixed in comingled stream.
Fleet numbers reduce as organic vehicles and
crews will double shift (16 hour days).
Possible staff objections as a result of change of
hours.
Need to change operating hours of depot to
accommodate change in collection hours.
Changes required to supervisory hours to cover
all working hours of crews.
Reduction in employee levels as a result of
double shifting of crews.
Reduced income from sale of recyclate due to
paper being mixed in comingled stream.
Fleet numbers reduce as vehicles are spot hired
and agency staff used to supplement organic
rounds in summer months.
Reduction in employee levels as a result of use of
agency cover in summer months.
Reduced income from sale of recyclate due to
paper being mixed in comingled stream.
No operational change to current collection
system and fleet other than material mix
Fleet numbers reduced as vehicles are spot hired
and agency staff used to supplement organic
rounds in peak summer months.
Reduction in employee levels as a result of use of
agency cover in summer months.
8.
-
Removal of glass recycling service at the
kerbside, residents would have to use bring sites
instead.
18.
-
Garden waste collections will only operate 30
weeks per year and will be chargeable.
Enables a reduction in fleet numbers. New fleet of
podded vehicles will be required.
-
14