Aberdeen City Council
73
ITEM PAGE 1 ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL Name of Committee : Full Council Date of Meeting : 13 February 2008 Title of Report : A Strategy for Transforming Waste Management Services – 2008 to 2011 Lead Officer : Belinda Miller Head of Service – Economic and Environmental Sustainability Author of Report : Peter Lawrence Strategic Contracts Manager – Environmental Tel - (81)4629 Email – [email protected] Other Involvement 1 : Stakeholder events took place during November, December 2007 and January 2008. Participants included front line staff, partners, unions, and Elected Members. Kath Beveridge, Corporate Director of Strategic Leadership Clare Neely, Waste Minimisation Officer Matt Bailey, Modernisation and Innovation Manager Joanne Morrison, Change Manager Henrietta Pallos, Change Manager Claire Hunter, Change Manager Hugh Murdoch, Head of Shelter and Environment, Neighbourhood North Area Peter Lawrence, Strategic Contracts Manager Angus Sefton, Waste Collection and Disposal Manager Jan Falconer, Strategist – Environmental Sustainability Graham Walker, Waste Collection Manager Bill Nicol, Principal Accountant Scott Paterson, Accountant Brian Downie, Finance Manager Nigel Buchan, Acting Fleet Manager 1 Please see Appendix 2 ‘Communications Audit’ which includes comments and responses to consultation.
Transcript of Aberdeen City Council
ITEMPAGE 1
ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL
Name of Committee : Full Council
Date of Meeting : 13 February 2008
Title of Report : A Strategy for Transforming Waste ManagementServices – 2008 to 2011
Lead Officer : Belinda MillerHead of Service – Economic and EnvironmentalSustainability
Author of Report : Peter LawrenceStrategic Contracts Manager – Environmental
Tel - (81)4629Email – [email protected]
Other Involvement1 : Stakeholder events took place during November,December 2007 and January 2008. Participantsincluded front line staff, partners, unions, andElected Members.
Kath Beveridge, Corporate Director of StrategicLeadershipClare Neely, Waste Minimisation Officer MattBailey, Modernisation and Innovation ManagerJoanne Morrison, Change ManagerHenrietta Pallos, Change ManagerClaire Hunter, Change ManagerHugh Murdoch, Head of Shelter and Environment,Neighbourhood North AreaPeter Lawrence, Strategic Contracts ManagerAngus Sefton, Waste Collection and DisposalManagerJan Falconer, Strategist – EnvironmentalSustainabilityGraham Walker, Waste Collection ManagerBill Nicol, Principal AccountantScott Paterson, AccountantBrian Downie, Finance ManagerNigel Buchan, Acting Fleet Manager
1 Please see Appendix 2 ‘Communications Audit’ which includes comments and responses toconsultation.
ITEMPAGE 2
Consultation undertaken with : All Elected MembersWaste Management Working GroupCorporate Management Team, City SolicitorCity ChamberlainExtended Corporate Management TeamService Managers working across Environmentand Shelter, Strategists, Strategic LeadershipResources Management – HR, Finance, LegalContinuous Improvement – CRM, Service Designand Development, Trade UnionsAberdeenshire Council, Planning andEnvironmental Services
Summary of Report
It is imperative that Waste Management Services are transformed; landfill disposal costsare set to double in three years, recycling collection currently costs five times more thangeneral waste collection and there are no facilities in Aberdeen to remedy this situation.
This report outlines a programme for developing class-leading waste collection servicesthat will minimise the increase in waste management costs whilst deliveringcommitments made in the Council’s Vibrant, Dynamic and Forward Looking policystatement as well as addressing national policy and targets.
The actions required to achieve our goals can be grouped into three related areas:
• Develop new infrastructure for waste transfer, recycling and composting fundedthrough a variation of our Waste Management Contract
• Expand recycling services to all citizens of Aberdeen• Overhaul collection methods to halve the cost of recycling and reduce the cost of
refuse collection.
These proposals are primarily focussed on delivery of outcomes within 3 years and willallow waste management services in Aberdeen to take a major step forward. Tocomplete the transformation to a truly sustainable waste management service, asolution for landfill diversion of residual waste must be found as soon as possible.Failure to do this will result in Aberdeen rapidly falling behind other councils and will seea return to rapidly increasing costs associated with landfill beyond 2011.
The key actions and estimated financial impact of the Transformation Strategy areshown in Appendix 11.
This paper has been widely circulated and consulted. As a result of the currentconstraints, Trade Unions have indicated the need for more time to comment. Anycomments and changes will be circulated in additional papers.
ITEMPAGE 3
Recommendations
Council is requested to approve the package of detailed recommendations below. Anumber of these can be implemented independently in the short term and will deliverservice improvements, however, the step-change transformation we are seeking toachieve requires the integrated adoption of all the recommendations. Many of therecommendations set future waste policy direction and will require further work beforethey are brought forward to appropriate Council committees for specific approval forimplementation.
1. Transform Waste Management Infrastructure through the development of:
1.1. A mixed-materials Recycling Facility in Aberdeen with a capacity in excess of30,000 tonnes per annum with facilities to include the ability to sort glass fromother recyclables
1.2. Two new Recycling Centres in Aberdeen. One in the Bridge of Don area toreplace the Perwinnes Moss Site. The second to be in the west of the city.
1.3. Two Transfer Stations in the city, one in the north and one in the south, onepossibly co-located with the MRF
2. Vary the Waste Management Services Contract to develop the facilitiesoutlined in Recommendation 1 and to:
2.1. Establish a long term arrangement for treatment of green and organic wasteusing either In-vessel composting or anaerobic digestion
2.2. Secure landfill capacity from 2010 until the introduction of residual treatmentfacility as determined by the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy currently underdevelopment
3. Transform the waste collection service in the short term through the following:
3.1. Introduce in 2008 a paper recycling service for areas served by street bulk binsand in courtyard and high-rise developments, including sheltered housing
3.2. Ensure the combined kitchen and garden waste service is introduced withoutdelay
3.3. Enhance provision of trade paper recycling service through a review to includecharging rates, containerisation and opportunities for expansion
3.4. Introduce alternate week collection of residual (black bin) waste across all areasserved by wheeled bin by spring-2009
3.5. In conjunction with 3.4, establish clear policy on wheeled refuse bin replacementand provision of additional refuse bins based on an annual charge
ITEMPAGE 4
3.6. Introduce recycling collection services to rural properties3.7. Provide additional resource, on a short-term contract (one person for one year),
to optimise existing round system to ensure efficient use of vehicles and to plannew route system for introduction of alternate week collection of residual waste
3.8. Develop a waste flow based data management system to assist in operationalmanagement and options analysis
4. Adopt Fleet Management measures to increase efficiency of waste collectionservices through:
4.1. Servicing of waste collection vehicles in evenings4.2. Complete the transfer of workshops and staff from Duthie Park to Kittybrewster,
in order to facilitate 4.14.3. Update charging mechanism for vehicles to reflect actual costs4.4. Implement, as a high priority, a waste collection fleet replacement programme to
ensure maximum age of 9 years by 2009 and 7 years by 20114.5. As an immediate priority, establish additional vehicle storage capacity in the city
5. Upon the delivery of facilities identified in Recommendation 1, transform thewaste collection service by:
5.1. Changing household recycling collection from kerbside sort to mixed recyclablescollection
5.2. Changing multi-occupancy paper recycling service to mixed recyclables upon theopening of the MRF recommended above
5.3. Expanding food/catering waste collection services to schools and other councilcontrolled premises
6. Develop long term waste management solutions through:
6.1. Investigation of joint procurement residual waste treatment facilities withAberdeenshire Council (to include energy from waste as an option) andopportunities for common service delivery in other waste management areas.The Waste Management Services Contract will, therefore, not be varied toinclude residual waste treatment until this investigation has been completed.
6.2. Build upon new Local Plan policy on waste management to address specificissues such as major infrastructure and local recycling points through
ITEMPAGE 5
appropriate policy/guidance development 6.3. Undertake a best value service review of the waste collection services within an
agreed timescale and proceed to market test all options, including contractingout, should the review not demonstrate best value
7. Transform financial management and support functions to improve efficiencyof waste collection service through:
7.1. Simplifying waste management accounting system7.2. Introduction of activity-based costing based on waste streams/collection
methods7.3. Review of administrative support requirements in relation to Waste Management
Services Contract and management of trade waste charging in light of move todirect debit
7.4. Review requirement for waste awareness, education and promotion activitiesand identify most appropriate, cost-effective means of delivery
Recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.6 will requirefurther, detailed examination and specific, costed recommendations will be broughtforward to appropriate Council committees for specific approval before implementation.
Links to the Community Plan and to a Vibrant, Dynamic and Forward LookingCouncil
This Report relates specifically to the delivery of the Council’s waste managementpriorities contained in the Policy Statement, “Vibrant, Dynamic and Forward LookingCouncil”, our corporate objectives to integrate services and to deliver our CommunityPlanning Challenges for Waste Management.
Implementation
On approval of the recommended options, Strategic Leadership and the Area Teamswith the support of Continuous Improvement and other services will produce andimplement action plans within agreed timescales.
Once implemented, the process for monitoring the strategy will be via the corporateperformance management system, including supervisory meetings, ECMT PerformanceBoard; CMT Quarterly Review; Citistat; Area Committees, and ultimately the ContinuousImprovement Committee. Where solutions are not delivering the required results, we willscrutinise the reasons and adjust our approach accordingly.
ITEMPAGE 6
Resource Implications
People : Transformation of waste management services on thescale proposed will inevitably have impacts on staff withinthe Council. Infrastructure and residual waste joint-procurement with Aberdeenshire Council are activities thatare currently undertaken in Aberdeen by NEM/SITA, ourWaste Management Contractor and so will not directlyaffect Council employees.
The proposed changes to collection methodologies willalso have impacts on work patterns. Where there arereductions in service provision (e.g. reduced residualwaste collection frequency), it is anticipated that this will beoffset by additional recycling collection or by reduction onreliance on agency staff. The move from kerbside sort towheeled bin collections will reduce manual handling issuesfor collection staff. Close communication with staff will bemaintained from the earliest stages as these broad policiesare taken into the implementation phases.
Changes proposed in fleet management are largely basedon agreements already reached including thecentralisation of workshop activity at Kittybrewster and theopportunity to work evening shifts. Once again, there willbe open communication with staff on the implementation ofthese recommendations.
Two further reviews of administrative and promotionalactivities within the Waste Collection Service have beenproposed and staff will be involved in this review from theearliest stages. No prior decision has been made on theoutcomes of the review and Human Resources will beadvising operational and strategic staff how all servicechanges will be managed.
Finance : In face of annual increasing costs associated with existingservice provision this Transformation Programme makesrecommendations that will slow down this increase whilstachieving the Council’s obligations and commitments. Theinterrelated actions identified are difficult to integrate andsummarise financially, however, Appendix 11 shows theestimated costs associated with the recommendations.The Strategy assumes successful variation of the WasteManagement Services Contract; if this is achievedNEM/SITA will make capital investment in infrastructure on
ITEMPAGE 7
the Council’s behalf, limiting capital spend by the Councilto approx. £1 million in vehicle procurement and lowercosts for container purchases. It should be noted that thiswill be mitigated by the disposal of redundant vehicles as aresult of the change in collection methods.
In 2010/11 landfill disposal costs will be a minimum of £3.1million and a maximum of £7.4 million more expensivethan 2007/8 if there is no change to the service. On top ofthis will be an estimated £1 million additional cost incharges by the landfill operator. By implementing the fullrange of changes proposed refuse and recycling collectioncosts will be reduced by an estimated £2 million in 2010.Recycling processing costs will increase by £540k andlandfill disposal charges will increase by £2.74 million.Kitchen and garden waste treatment will reduce by £120K.The net increase in charges against 2008/9 costs isestimated to be £1.16 million in 2010/2011, approximately£2 million less than the no change scenario, although it isstressed that assumptions on a number of variables havebeen made to reach this figure.
Further work is required to more accurately quantify thesavings achieved by the programme, however, it is clearthat the integrated programme of action will deliversignificant financial benefits to the Council whilst achievingits waste management goals.
Systems &Technology
: No major implications are apparent within this report. Awaste data flow management system is recommended,however, it is anticipated that this can be developed onexisting Excel software.
Property : Additional Infrastructure capacity is required and thepreferred solution will utilise land in the Council’sownership as a means of minimising cost. Specificrequirements will be determined through theimplementation of this plan and assistance from relevantofficers in Asset Management
ITEMPAGE 8
Other Equipment : New waste collection services will require additionalvehicles and containers and this will be procured throughthe appropriate methods. In addition, major plant will berequired for recycling and composting processing; this willbe subject to variation of the Waste Management ServicesContract with NEM/SITA
Other : None arising from this report.
Other ImplicationsHealth & Safety : All service changes will be subject to Health and Safety
Risk Assessments
Risk Management : The risk of not proceeding with these recommendationswill be that waste management services becomeunaffordable, and the Council will not achieve Best Value.There is also a risk that the Waste Management ServicesContract will not be able to be satisfactorily varied,resulting in Contract Termination with attendant costs,including new procurement of services. This risk, whilstsignificant is not assessed to be high. The services to beprovided under this plan are compatible with the existingcontract and it is not felt that there is any procurement risk.The main area of risk is associated with negotiating asuitable price for the services.
Human Rights/Equalities/Diversity
: The completed Aberdeen City Waste Strategy will includean Equalities Impact Assessment.
Sustainability : The completed Aberdeen City Waste Strategy will includea Strategic Environment Assessment. This strategycontributes to sustainability by diverting waste from landfill.
Environmental : The Transformation Programme will deliver significantimprovements in the environmental impact of wastemanagement in Aberdeen.
Social : Additional recycling and composting facilities for morehouseholders in Aberdeen will allow citizens to contributeto the improvement of Aberdeen.
ITEMPAGE 9
Economic : The Transformation Programme will increase the range ofrecycling activities in the city and the development of newfacilities through the Waste Management Servicescontract. Estimated at a value of £4-7 million, this willbenefit the construction sector and engineeringconsultancy, mostly within Aberdeen. Increased collectionof recyclables will increase the opportunity to develop localor regional reprocessing facilities, however, it is recognisedthat at this time cost-effective reprocessing can only beachieved through large scale facilities. The distance fromthe major sources of recyclables in the UK disadvantagesAberdeen and as such the likelihood of economic impactfrom this sector will be limited. The development of aresidual waste treatment technology is expected to cost inthe region of £30-100 million with a significant proportiondirectly benefiting the local economy.
Construction : New facilities will be developed, under the WasteManagement Services Contract with NEM/SITA.
Signature :
ITEMPAGE 10
1.0 Main Considerations
INDEX
1 Why a transformation strategy for Waste Management Serices ........................... 102 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 113 National Legislative Context.................................................................................. 124 National Policy Context ......................................................................................... 145 Local Policy Context.............................................................................................. 156 Overview of Services Provided in Aberdeen ......................................................... 177 Analysis of Current Performance .......................................................................... 188 Current and Projected Service trends ................................................................... 269 Strategic Objectives and Recommendations......................................................... 32Appendices........................................................................................................................
1 WHY A TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES?
1.1 The past decade has seen major changes in the organisation and operation of PublicSector services in Scotland. Following the move to unitary authorities in April 1996, the UKgovernment in 1997 suspended the statutory requirement for Compulsory CompetitiveTendering (CCT) and replaced it with an expectation of the achievement of Best Value (BV).With the implementation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003 came the formalisationof BV as a statutory requirement and an increased drive towards modernisation and efficiencyagainst the background of decreasing funds. Alongside this, the implementation of the NationalAgreement of Single Status and Equal Pay is taking place and creating further financialdemands on local authorities as well as a need to modernise terms and conditions. Since itsinception, Aberdeen City Council has embraced the transformation agenda, and thisdetermination was explicit in the very first policy statement in 1996, which included acommitment to streamline service delivery.
1.2 This transformation strategy for Waste Management Services has been developed to setout an evidence-based programme for improving Aberdeen City Council services over the next3-5 years. In addition, the case for residual waste treatment to 2020 and beyond is considered.The strategy follows relevant Scottish guidance, and seeks to ensure that the Council keepspace with emerging and established local and regional policy as well as the City’s CommunityPlan. It is our intention through the successful delivery of this strategy to meet and preferablyexceed all minimum legislative and environmental requirements. Overall, this strategy focuseson issues specific to Aberdeen City Council, whilst also being aware of the wider context andthe inter-relationships that exist with our partners in the City and beyond.
1.3 Aberdeen City Council has set the bold and aspirational vision to be recognised as aleading Council in Northern Europe by 2010. To achieve this vision the Council have to deliverthe best possible outcomes for the citizens of Aberdeen and ensure we have the internalcapacity to deliver against ever-rising citizen expectations. We also need to provide all staff withstrategic leadership to enable them to deliver effective and efficient services. We will do this byimplementing a transformation strategy that aims to meets the targets set by the Council in theVibrant, Dynamic and Forward Looking policy statement.
ITEMPAGE 11
1.4 Areas of the service are significantly overspent in comparison to Grant AidedExpenditure (GAE)2 and other areas of funding. In addition, spending on waste is set toincrease markedly in the next three years as a result of legislative and policy decisions atEuropean, UK and Scottish levels. This strategy aims to reduce budget spend where possible,taking account of GAE, whilst increasing performance – it is a strategy that seeks to deliverbetter outcomes while minimising the impact on budgets and spending in the 3-5 year timespan.
1.5 The strategy will provide direction for the considerable amount of work still required totransform our infrastructure and services to meet and exceed challenging targets set by theScottish Government and this council.
1.6 This strategy will also provide a framework for operational delivery which must besupplemented at the earliest opportunity with detailed Implementation Plans developed andsupported by all elements within the Council. It should be made clear, however, that thisstrategy does not address in detail the wider waste management challenge facing the authority,in particular the need to address the management of ‘residual’ waste, or that waste that is leftover after recycling and composting activities has been completed. This will be the main thrustof the developing Aberdeen City Council Waste Strategy that is being developed parallel to thisTransformation Programme.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 In preparing this Transformation Strategy for the Council’s Waste Management Services,Strategic Leadership has worked with colleagues in other teams in the Council andendeavoured to balance consultation and analysis. This work has been undertaken atspeed to tight time frames with a degree of practicality so we can begin to implement andaddress the critical issues we face.
2.2 Appendix 9 shows the timetables and methodology used in the Programme2.3 Desk based research focussed on the expectations of the services and their own
requirements. The key guiding questions that focussed this element of the process were:
• What services do we statutorily need to provide? • What services are required by Council policies to provide?• What services do we currently provide that are outwith our remit?• What services are we meant to provide that are not currently being offered?• Of the services we are providing, how are they delivered?• How much do/could these services cost to run?• What can be done to improve these services?
2.4 Through this process a view of the international, national, regional, and local legislativeand policy contexts were developed for each area. This includes detailed knowledge ofthe statutory obligations and aspirations directly associated with the services underreview.
2 GAE is the means by which the Scottish Executive distributes the total budget it has available for Scotland’s localauthorities. It is not and does not attempt to identify the level of expenditure expected for each area of services.
ITEMPAGE 12
2.5 Performance information, including benchmarking with other local authorities, was alsogathered to assist in identifying any shortfalls in performance and expectations both at anational and local level. Details of these are provided within this report.
3 NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
3.1 At the highest level, the strategy seeks to ensure that the services the Council delivers fitwith the requirements of the Local Government in Scotland Act (2003). This Act gavecommunity planning a legislative basis; established the power to advance community well beingand partnership working; and secured a duty of best value including having regard to economy,efficiency and effectiveness. In order to ensure we meet our statutory duty under The LocalGovernment Act to deliver Best Value, this strategy recognises that Waste ManagementServices are becoming increasingly complex and that delivery solutions should be focussed onensuring efficiency whilst recognising and incorporating the need for integration withneighbourhoods within the city. We also recognise that all employees and stakeholders must beempowered to contribute to delivering high performing services. We already have examples ofdedication, innovation and energy from individuals and teams in the waste management andfleet services and throughout the Council. We are now developing a culture where the best canhelp support and raise the performance of the rest. The Local Government Act also places aduty on Councils to deliver best value in a way which contributes to the achievement ofsustainable development (including physical, economic and social aspects). This strategy hasbeen developed within this context, and aims to support and promote sustainable developmentwithin Aberdeen City and the wider region.
3.2 The Environmental Protection Act (1990) places an obligation upon Local Authorities tomake adequate arrangements for the collection of waste from households, largely free ofcharge at the point of collection. The Act also requires Local Authorities to make arrangementsfor the collection of waste from business premises if asked to do so by the business. The LocalAuthority is able to recover reasonable costs for providing the service. A Local Authority is ableto fulfil its obligations under the Act either by providing the service itself or by contracting theservice out. All Local Authorities in Scotland provide collections from households through theirown waste management services, however, elsewhere in the UK many (greater than 30%)Local Authorities have contracted this service out to the private sector.
3.3 The European Union Landfill Directive (1995) represents a step change in the way wasteis disposed of in Scotland and will help drive waste management up the wastemanagement hierarchy through waste minimisation and increased levels of recycling andrecovery. The Directive’s overall aim is “to prevent or reduce as far as possible negativeeffects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soiland air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as anyresulting risk to human health, from the landfilling of waste, during the whole lifecycle ofthe landfill”. The Directive has provisions covering location of landfills, and technical andengineering requirements for aspects such as water control and leachate management,protection of soil and water and methane emissions control but it is the establishment oflimits on the amount of waste that may be landfilled that will have the significant impact onthe Council.
The Directive sets demanding targets to reduce the amount of biodegradablemunicipal waste landfilled. These targets are:
ITEMPAGE 13
• By 2010 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75% of that produced in1995
• By 2013 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 50% of that produced in1995
• By 2020 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in1995.
These dates include a 4-year derogation from the original target years 2006, 2009 and2016 offered in the Directive to Member States who landfilled more than 80% of theirmunicipal waste in 1995. The UK has adopted this for the first two targets years, and willdecide whether to do so for the final target year of 2016 nearer the time.
3.4 The Landfill Directive has been transposed into UK Law through the Waste andEmissions Trading Act 2003 and then subsequently in Scotland through a number ofRegulations, the most relevant being the Landfill Allowance Scheme (Scotland) Regulations2005. These Regulations place obligations on individual Local Authorities to comply with thetargets set out in the Landfill Directive. The mechanism to be used to achieve compliance is theLandfill Allowance Scheme (LAS). The Scheme established the 1995 baseline landfill tonnagefor each Local Authority and, therefore, the limit, or allowance, of tonnage that is authorised togo to landfill in the first Directive Target year of 2009/10 in accordance with targets set outabove. In addition, the Regulation set limits for years to 2009/10 that decreased linearly from2001/2 performance to 2010. Appendix 1 identifies Aberdeen City Council’s Allowances andprojects these forward to the final Target Year of 2019/20. Failure to comply with the limits setunder the Scheme renders the Council liable to a penalty levied by the Scottish Government of£50 per tonne of Biodegradable Municipal Waste in 2007/8 rising to £150 per tonne from2008/9 onwards. The Scottish Government has discretionary power in this matter and maychoose to waive the penalty or reduce its value; from 1 April 2008, Local Authorities will also beable to trade Landfill Allowances, as is currently the case in England. The value of theAllowances will be driven by the ability of Local Authorities to achieve their diversion targets andis therefore, subject to many external factors (availability of funding, ability to procure servicesand planning being significant but by no means comprehensive). Anticipating the value ofallowances in future years is difficult, if not impossible, to predict but it is clear than manyauthorities are concerned about their capacity to achieve targets post-2010 and this suggeststhat the value of allowances is likely to increase in future years. Accordingly, future projectionsof the cost of purchasing allowances should not be based on current levels but, in order toidentify the risk cost to the Council of penalties Figures 1 to 4 have been provided in Section 8.Table 1 summarises the increased costs from landfill tax and LAS Penalties if service deliverydoes not change.
ITEMPAGE 14
Table 1. Costs of Landfill Tax and LAS Penalties on Current Projections
Year Landfill Tax increase(v 2006/7) (£million)
Landfill Tax and LASPenalties (v 2006/7)
(£million)2008/9 1.2 2.82009/10 2.1 4.32010/11 3.1 7.4
4 NATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT
4.1 On May 3rd 2007 the Scottish National Party were elected to government. Since theestablishment of the SNP Administration the Scottish Government has been reviewing itswaste policies. In a policy statement made on 24 January 2008, Cabinet SecretaryRichard Lochhead outlined policy for Scotland to move towards a Zero Waste Society.There is no clear definition of this concept, although the Cabinet Secretary said ZeroWaste is ‘about the zero misuse of resource’. The major targets are set out in thestatement shown in Table 2:
Table 2. Scottish Government Proposed Waste Management Targets
Year % Recycling % EfW % Landfill2010 40 4 562013 50 14 362020 60 25 152025 70 25 5
4.2 The Cabinet Secretary indicated that these and other proposals in the statement will besubject to consultation and no further detail is available at this stage to fully understandthe implications for Aberdeen City Council. The Transformation Programme is designedto deliver change over the period to 2011, and in this respect the focus of our activity willbe on achieving 40% recycling, which is compatible with the Council’s own target. As aresult, this strategy has been developed broadly on the basis of existing policy, asoutlined below, but with known policy positions taken into account where sufficient detailis available.
4.3 National Waste Strategy and National and Area Waste Plans. A duty placed upon
the Scottish Executive as a result of the Landfill Directive was to develop and publish aNational Waste Strategy and Plan that would demonstrate how the nation would achievecompliance with the landfill diversion targets set out in the Directive. In 2001, theScottish Executive instructed Local Authorities, through 11 Area Waste Groups todevelop regional plans to achieve the diversion targets. The Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency (SEPA) was tasked with coordinating the work of these Groups and toprovide consistency of approach across the groups. The Northeast Waste Strategy AreaGroup covering Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray produced its Area Waste Planin 2003. The Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) developed through the planis shown in Appendix 2. The BPEO included a range of solutions including reducingwaste production, recycling, composting, energy from waste and landfill. The 11 Area
ITEMPAGE 15
Waste Plans were incorporated by the Scottish Executive and in turn became theNational Waste Plan. The National Waste Plan will now be reviewed and/or replaced bya National Waste Management Plan, although this is not expected to be complete untilearly 2009; furthermore it is not clear what mechanisms will be put in place to deliver theoutcomes of the plan.
4.4 Strategic Waste Fund. The Strategic Waste Fund (SWF) was a specific grantscheme set up to assist Local Authorities in achieving the aims of the National WasteStrategy. Funding was allocated to all 32 Local Authorities to implement recycling andcomposting schemes (this became known as Phase 1). In 2006/7, the value of this fundto Aberdeen City Council was approximately £1.5 million. In 2005, the ScottishExecutive turned its focus on ‘Phase 2’ or the residual treatment element of the NationalWaste Plan. The preferred means of implementing Phase 2 was to further amalgamateArea Waste Groups to form 7 Options Review Groups. These groups were tasked withdeveloping Strategic Outline Cases prior to developing Outline Business Cases uponwhich the Scottish Executive would make spending decisions. This spending would bein the form of capital and revenue funding of Public Private Partnership contracts. In theBudget Statement for 2008/9, the Scottish Government announced the cessation of theSWF and amalgamation of any ear-marked funds into the GAE for each authority.
4.6 Zero Waste Fund. The Scottish Government has announced the formation of a ZeroWaste Fund. Funding in the region of £50 million per annum until 2010/11 has beenannounced, however, how much, if any, will be available for Local Authorities is unclear.Equally, the funding mechanism preferred for major projects is also uncertain. Thisuncertainty will contribute to a widespread feeling amongst Local Authority WasteManagers that support from the Scottish Government for residual waste managementwill be some years away, especially for smaller groupings of authorities such asAberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
4.7 Landfill Tax. UK Government introduced the Landfill Tax in 1996 as a means toencourage the diversion of waste from landfill. The tax applies to two categories ofwaste: active and inactive. Household and most municipal waste falls within the activebracket. Initially the tax was set at levels that did not influence waste policy significantly.In recent years, the UK Treasury established an ‘escalator’ which increases Landfill Taxannually. In 2007/8 the tax is set at £24/tonne of waste landfilled, however, over the nextthree years this doubles to £48/tonne.
5 LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 Waste Management Services Contract. In July 2000, Aberdeen City Councilsigned a 25-year Contract with NEM/SITA for waste management services. The ContractTender was based upon the existing Aberdeen City Waste Strategy (1998 version) andcomprised the following main elements in two phases:
• Phase 1o Operation of two Transfer Stations in Aberdeeno Operation of 4 Recycling Centres in Aberdeeno Construction of East Tullos Recycling Centreo Operation and Closure of Hill of Tramaud Landfill Site
• Phase 2
ITEMPAGE 16
o Development of Altens Environment Park, comprising a Materials RecoveryFacility (MRF) and an Energy-from-Waste (EfW) facility
The main targets under the Contract were as follows:
• To Recycle a minimum of 25% of household waste by the end of 2005• To Recover 40% of Relevant Waste by the end of 2005• To reduce the proportion of waste going to landfill by 40% by the end of 2005• To introduce composting of organic Relevant Waste by the end of 2001• To implement the recovery of Energy from Waste by direct combustion by the
end of 2005
5.2 As a result of failure to achieve planning permission for the Altens Environmental Park,the contract remains operating under the terms of Phase 1 whilst the parties attempt toidentify a means of variation that allows the development of new facilities. This processhas been delayed by the lack of a clear understanding of how the Council wishes toproceed. This Transformation Programme identifies a means to resolve this delay andprovides a basis for variation of the Contract which allows the Council to implementsystems that will achieve its target of 40% recycling by 2011.
5.3 Aberdeen City Waste Strategy. The current city waste strategy was published in 2001.The main elements of the Strategy are included as Appendix 3. The Strategy broadly reflectsthe Waste Management Services Contract goals and, as a result, has not been fullyimplemented following the refusal of planning permission for the Altens Environmental Park. Inparallel with this Transformation Programme, Strategic Leadership, in junction with colleagueswithin the Council and in consultation with other key stakeholders, is currently developing a newAberdeen City Waste Strategy. This will build upon the recommendations of the TransformationProgramme, which focuses on collection, recycling and composting of waste and also identify asolution to residual waste diversion from landfill.
5.4 Vibrant, Dynamic and Forward Looking is the partnership agreement between the twoparties forming the current Council administration. The Agreement establishes a series ofpolicies and targets for implementation between 2007 and 2011. The elements that relate towaste management services are as follows:
• Minimise the impact of council activities on the environment, including a target ofbeing carbon neutral overall by 2020 and a commitment that all new councildevelopments will be carbon neutral
• Adopt ambitious targets for recycling and composting, including a target of 40% ofhousehold waste being recycled by 2011
• Introduce at an early date the collection of recyclables from tenements, extend thenetwork of ‘bring’ sites’, extend the range of material which are collected for recyclingand improve recycling services for small business
• Continue to oppose the disposal of Aberdeen’s waste by incineration
The Transformation Programme for Waste Management Services addresses thesecommitments.
5.4 Joint Working with Aberdeenshire Council. Aberdeen City Council and ourcolleagues in Aberdeenshire have been working closely together on waste managementservices since 2000 when the Area Waste Group was established. In recent times, work hasfocussed on the development of a Strategic Outline Case for the management of residual
ITEMPAGE 17
waste. It is this Council’s aim to enhance working relationships and develop joint solutionswhere it is in the best interests of both authorities and officers are working on this basis.
6 OVERVIEW OF SERVICES PROVIDED IN ABERDEEN
6.1 Since the late 1990s waste management in Aberdeen has become increasinglysophisticated as the Council has moved away from ‘black bag’ collection of waste with landfillas the disposal point for over 95% of the city’s waste to containerisation provided to manyhouseholders in four separate forms (refuse wheeled bin, garden waste wheeled bin, recyclablecontainers box and paper/cardboard bag). The following summarises the waste collectionservices now provided by the Council.
6.2 Household Waste Collection Service
• Wheeled Bin Refuse Collection (71,122 households)• Street ‘Bulk’ Bin Collection (approx. 37,800 households)• Special Trade Collections for bulky items (approx. 70 per week)• Free bulky items Collections (approx, 540 per week)• Kerbside Sort Dry Recycling (approx. 74,948 households)• Paper ‘Salvage’ Collection (approx. 6,000 households)• Recycling Points (49 locations)• Garden Waste Collection (approx. 61,560 households)• Urquhart Road on-street paper recycling service (approx. 1,300 households)• Provision of advice and education on waste awareness, including corporate
contact centre
Note that the ‘Salvage’ collection refers the hand loading of loose paper left at thekerbside by householders. This service is a remnant of a old collection methodology thathas been retained in city centre areas where it is impractical to introduce the kerbsidesort system.
6.3 Trade Waste Collection Services
• Trade Waste Collection, including schools and other Council properties (approx.2,500 customers)
• Trade Glass Collection (approx. 140 customers)• Trade ‘Salvage’ Paper and Cardboard Collection (approx. 400 customers)• Trade Wheeled Bin Paper Collection (approx. 50 customers)
6.4 Fleet/Workshops. Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils have a jointprocurement agreement for new vehicles, which includes the purchase of waste collectionvehicles. This procurement agreement is intended to deliver stronger bargaining power andtherefore lower prices for vehicles. Fleet maintenance is operated by the individual authorities,however, with most of Aberdeen Council’s vehicles being serviced and maintained at theKittybrewster depot. Appendix 10 identifies the current fleet used for waste collection and theidentified fleet replacement requirement for the next three years, which will bring the maximumage of the fleet in line with industry standard and that of Aberdeenshire Council. Servicing andmaintenance is mostly undertaken during daytime hours. In addition to the Kittybrewster depot,Aberdeen City Council has another smaller workshop at Duthie Park. Fleet charging is primarily
ITEMPAGE 18
based on standard charges for each type of vehicle, which covers all costs except fuel,accidental damage or driver/crew abuse. Replacement of vehicles during servicing and/ormaintenance is not covered in the charging agreement and the responsibility for provision ofreplacements is with the vehicle user, not fleet management. There exists a Shared ServicesProject investigating the benefits of further developing joint facilities with Aberdeenshire for theoperation and maintenance of vehicles. This review is independent of that process, which isexpected to report in coming months.
6.5 Waste Treatment/Disposal Facilities. The Waste Management Services Contract withNEM/SITA makes provision for the management of these services. As outlined above, theContract is still in Phase 1, albeit as a result of the delay in delivery of Phase 2. The servicesprovided by NEM/SITA are outlined below:
• Use of Shanks Waste Solutions Transfer Station in East Tullos; the SITA/ACCTransfer Station in East Tullos is closed because of unsafe buildings.
• Transfer/Recycling Station at Sclattie, Bankhead, including bulking facilities forgarden waste, three colours of glass and paper, and sorting facilities for mixedsteel and aluminium cans and plastic bottles
• Four Recycling Centres (also known as Civic Amenity Sites)• Hill of Tramaud Landfill (operational)• Ness and Tullos Hill Landfill (closed site)• Arrangements for:
o Landfill alternativeso Green Waste Composting (currently contracted to Keenan Recycling)o Markets for Recyclateo Markets for other materials (Refrigeration equipment and other hazardous
wastes)
7 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PERFORMANCE AND BENCHMARKING
7.1 Waste Growth. The amount of waste produced per head of population and perhousehold has increased on an annual basis across Scotland and the UK for decades. Thispattern has been reflected in Aberdeen; most observers agree that the rate of increase has, inthe past, linked to economic growth and therefore in areas with successful economies rates ofgrowth are higher than average. The success of the city of Aberdeen has placed pressure onthe rate if growth of waste; this has been countered to a degree by population changes in theregion. As a result of the small geographical area of Aberdeen, there has been a trend forpeople to move to Aberdeenshire where there has been increased housing provision, often atmore affordable rates. A further complicating factor is the reduction in average household size;the combination of an aging population and the development of substantial numbers of flats andapartments in the city which has led to fewer people living together. Research demonstratesthat the amount of waste produced per person is higher in smaller households. The net effect isthat Aberdeen’s waste arisings have increased by 4.6% in 2006/7 despite the efforts of theWaste Aware Team (see Appendix 4). Waste minimisation is an important area of public policyand a key element of waste strategies in the UK. It should be recognised, however, that themost effective means of reducing waste growth and in turn reducing waste production is tomanage resource use at the point of production, not the point of use. In effect, this means thatnational and international legislation and commitments are required to reduce resourceconsumption, extend product life and reduce packaging of produced goods. In light of thisanalysis, the role that local waste reduction initiatives can have within our community must be
ITEMPAGE 19
recognised as being limited. It is important, however, that awareness and education remain anelement of the service provision.
7.2 Recycling. Aberdeen City Council has seen a significant increase in the quantity ofwaste recycled over the last four years. With the support of significant funding from the ScottishExecutive, large areas of the city have been provided with kerbside recycling facilities and anincrease in the number and range of Recycling Points. In the full year, 2006/7 Aberdeen CityCouncil recycled 21.5% of its waste, although this figure has now increased to nearly 25%.Recycling performance is affected by a wide range of factors which must be considered whenattempting to compare Local Authorities’ performances (see Section 6).
There are factors that are largely outwith the control of Local Authority WasteManagement Services, and these are considered below:
7.3 Housing density and household size. Public participation in recycling is shown to bemost successful when householders are provided with separate containers for storingrecyclables and collections are made from the front of their premises (CIWM RecyclingCollection Best Practice Guide, 2006). Accordingly, participation, and therefore recoveryrates, is lower in areas where it is not possible to provide householders with containersand/or collect from the doorstep. This applies largely to multi-occupancy premises,where property size is often small leading to lack of space for separate containers andwhere collection from the doorstep is impractical and costly. As a result, authorities withlarge numbers of multi-occupancy properties or large areas of high housing density willfind it much more difficult to achieve high recycling rates. In Scotland, this is reflected inlower recycling performance in densely populated authorities such as Aberdeen City andGlasgow. This reality has been recognised by the Scottish Executive: in setting itsrecycling targets for 2020, the Scottish Executive set lower targets for urban authoritiesincluding Aberdeen than for the rest of Scotland (45% versus a Scottish average of50%).
7.4 Socio-economic bias within the population. Whilst this factor is open to significantvariation within communities, there is a broad correlation between socio-economicgrouping and participation in recycling activities. A degree of this linkage may reflect thetype of housing used by these groups as reflected in the analysis above.Notwithstanding this influence, evidence demonstrates that those less-advantaged insociety participate less in recycling activities. Appendix 5 shows the results ofparticipation surveys undertaken within areas of Aberdeen covered by the kerbsidecollection service and it is evident that whilst this is a snapshot and routes often have amixture of socio-economic groupings participation is lower in less affluent areas.
7.5 Cost-effective access to recycling markets. Large scale reprocessing facilities forrecyclate are largely to be found in England or abroad. This is the result of the need toconstruct large facilities to obtain economies of scale and therefore be as close aspossible to the largest sources of recyclate. Transport of recyclate is increasingly costlyand will inevitably impact on the cost of recycling. Aberdeen is geographically poorlyplaced to compete with other authorities in gaining access to recyclate markets with theclosest major reprocessing plant for any recyclate being 120 miles away at Alloa (glass).This issue is mitigated for by Aberdeen City Council, however, by having in place awaste management contractor (NEM/SITA) that has access to many UK and worldwidemarkets, has significant market influence and can often negotiate national prices,including transport, for recyclate that benefits Aberdeen.
7.6 Direct charging for waste services. At present, householders pay for their wasteand recycling collection services through their Council Tax. The element relating to
ITEMPAGE 20
waste management is not separately identified within their bill and is small in comparisonwith the total bill. As a result, there is little public awareness of increasing waste disposalcharges or, indeed, any incentive to change behaviour and maximise their reduction,reuse and recycling of waste. Variable charging schemes that are transparent to thehouseholder are used in many parts of Europe and they have clearly affected awarenessof waste and changed householder behaviour. Typically, charging schemes offer lowercollection rates for recyclate than general waste. In Scotland, it is not currently possibleunder current legislation for Local Authorities to introduce direct charging for wastecollection.
There are a number of factors within the control of Local Authorities that can have a significanteffect on the success of recycling activities:
7.7 Choice of Collection systems. The method of containerisation can have a significanteffect of the levels of participation and presentation of recyclate. Simplicity is seen as amajor key to success. Keeping the range of collections as small as possible and thenumber containers (bags/boxes/wheeled bins) as low as possible will also lead to higherparticipation. The predominant system in use in Aberdeen is the kerbside box and bagservice. This system has the following advantages
• Relatively small volume of box container making storage within the home, andkerbside presentation easier
• Bag for paper is easily stowed when not in use
• Both are easily transported to the kerbside
• Complementary with Kerbside sorting vehicles
The system also has disadvantages
• Bag for Paper blows away when empty and left at kerbside
• Box is not big enough for fortnightly collection, especially where plastic bottles arecommon
• Kerbside sorting is slow and therefore costly
The major alternative to the system currently in use is for householders to be providedwith a wheeled bin for the collection of mixed recyclables. These systems require sortingto take place after the vehicle has been unloaded; the infrastructure for this system is notin place in Aberdeen.
7.8 Frequency of Collection. Greater opportunity for recycling through more frequentcollection can assist in increasing participation rates, however, the greatest success ofchanging frequency has been seen when residual waste collection frequency is reducedin response to increased recycling provision. The Dyce pilot is evidence of this wherecustomer satisfaction remains high despite the two-weekly collection of residual waste.
7.9 Extent (coverage) of Collection systems. Providing as widespread a kerbsideservice as possible will increase recycling rates. In the absence of kerbside collection, adense network of street recycling containers and Recycling Points is the next best step.Currently, over 74,900 households have a kerbside service and there are 49 RecyclingPoints, plus there is a limited paper salvage collection service in parts of the city not
ITEMPAGE 21
served by the kerbside scheme. There are significant areas of the city that do not haveadequate recycling opportunity. These areas are in multi-occupancy areas, ‘rural’properties and some high-rise and social housing areas. In these latter areas, a limitingfactor on the development of Recycling Points has been landowner and neighbourobjections and the potentially complex planning situation.
7.10 Reliability of Collection systems. It is important to ensure that services are providedon time and to the correct standard. Aberdeen City Council monitors missed collectionsthrough exception reporting (Citistat) and has developed spare collection vehiclecapacity for recyclables. This allows for routes that are running late to be completed byredeployment of other crews on routes that have finished early. Provision of extracapacity is expensive, especially in Aberdeen where the kerbside recycling collectionvehicles cannot be used for other tasks.
7.11 Awareness of services provided. Since the introduction of Recycling services,Aberdeen City Council, supported by the Strategic Waste Fund has employed a team ofsix Community Waste Workers and one Coordinator to raise awareness of the recyclingservices provided by the city. In addition, media campaigns have also be undertaken,using the Scotland-wide recycling brand, ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’, developed by theScottish Waste Awareness Group. The team has rarely been at full complement and, asa result, impact has varied over time. The need for promotional services is mostly keenlyneeded during the preparation and delivery of additional services but there is also a needto maintain awareness between service developments as well. The cost of providing thisservice on an annual basis is substantial.
7.12 Comparison with Other Local Authorities. There are 32 Local Authorities in Scotlandproviding waste management services to their householders. A recent report byRemade (Kerbside Collection – Factors for Success, February 2007) identified 81different recycling collection methodologies being used. This wide range of servicesreflects many different factors, including the availability of sorting and transfer facilities aswell as different housing mixes and policies. It is therefore, very difficult to compareLocal Authorities with each other on simple recycling percentage figures. Appendix 5shows the combined recycling and composting rates reported by Local Authorities for2006/7. This puts Aberdeen City in the lower quartile (28 out of 32) in terms ofperformance, a position that has dropped in recent years. This reflects a faster rate ofimprovement in many other Local Authorities that started recycling collections later thanin Aberdeen. Taking into account the factors outlined above, it is clear that the urbannature of Aberdeen City Council and the absence of substantive recycling facilities formulti-occupancy properties has contributed significantly to the lowly position. In addition,many of the Local Authorities with higher percentage rates than Aberdeen City havemoved to a two-weekly collection of residual waste.
7.12.1 Landfill. Landfill provision in Aberdeen is limited to the Hill of Tramaud Landfill Siteowned by Aberdeen City Council and operated by NEM/SITA under the Waste ManagementServices Contract. The capacity of the site is limited and it is expected to close in late 2009.There is no other licensed landfill for municipal waste within the city boundary. There iscapacity, either as at Wester Hatton (mothballed) or operational as at Easter Hatton (currentlynot accepting municipal waste) and Stoneyhill, near Peterhead (owned by SITA UK Limited).Once the Hill of Tramaud landfill site closes, significant additional cost will be incurred intransferring waste from collection vehicles to articulated vehicles and then transporting on to thenew landfill site. In addition, it is expected that landfill disposal charges will also increase toreflect the limited market and increased management costs for landfill disposal. Appendix 6shows the predicted tonnage of waste disposed of to landfill in future years; comparison with
ITEMPAGE 22
the Biodegradable Municipal Waste Targets set under the LAS show that this year AberdeenCity Council will incur penalties for excess landfill; it is anticipated that this excess will increasein future years on current levels of service provision (see Table 1). In comparison to otherauthorities, Aberdeen City Council is currently relying on landfill to a greater extent than manyothers. By virtue of its lower recycling rate and absence of residual treatment facilities it is inthe lower quartile in Scotland in respect of high landfill usage, (73%). This reflects theAdministration’s policy to oppose the disposal of Aberdeen’s waste by incineration, the lowerlevels of recycling and composting achieved but also the absence of any residual wasteprocessing facilities such as EfW Plants that currently serve Shetland, Orkney, Dundee City,Angus and to a small degree Perth and Kinross Councils. In addition, Argyll and Bute andDumfries and Galloway Councils have both developed Mechanical Biological TreatmentFacilities that may well deliver significant landfill diversion in future years, providing outlets forthe end products of these plants are found.
7.12.2 Composting. Aberdeen City Council provides a kerbside garden waste collectionservice to 61,560 households across the city, diverting approximately 9,000 tonnes of wastefrom landfill. In previous years this has ceased in late-November and re-started in late-February but over the winter of 2007/8, the service has been continued. The coverage iswidespread across those households with gardens, although there are some opportunities forinfill.
7.12.3 Collection. The wide range of waste collection activities has led to a significant increasein the recycling and composting of the city’s waste. This increase has also led to increasedcomplication of collection and overall reduced efficiency in waste collection operations in twomain areas:
• Increased number of vehicle passes. Historically, all of the city’s waste wascollected by one vehicle passing each household once per week. Withkerbside recycling and green waste collection in large parts of the city, this hasincreased to twice a week for many. As a result, vehicles are travelling furtherand making fewer collections on each route. This increases the average timeand distance required per collection increasing both crew and vehicle costs
• Lack of flexibility. The introduction of the kerbside sort system forrecyclate means that specialist vehicles have to be used for this activity.There are no other applications for these vehicles (except Trade Glasscollection) and equally other vehicles cannot be used to deliver these servicesin the event of breakdowns. As a result, it is necessary to have additionalstandby capacity to deal with breakdowns or, more commonly, over running ofcollection rounds. Data are not available on specific vehicleutilisation/availability rates. The kerbside sort operation is also time- and staff-consuming.
Appendix 7 shows analysis of the time taken to complete collection rounds in thecity. It is evident that there is significant variation in time taken to complete roundsfor the kerbside recycling service and that rounds are on average working abovethe basic contracted hours. This latter point is worthy of some consideration.Basic working hours do not optimise the utilisation of the fleet and the availabilityof disposal capacity. The landfill site at Hill of Tramaud is open until 4.00pm fordisposal of waste, a time which is both fixed by planning and our contractedarrangement with NEM/SITA. Collection crews are available for work from 7.00am, thereby allowing a minimum of 8 hours work, excluding breaks. The situationat the Transfer Stations is more flexible with approximately 11 opening hours atEast Tullos and Sclattie. As a result, vehicle capacity can be utilised to a higher
ITEMPAGE 23
degree than crews limited to core hours. The additional cost of managed overtimeshould be considered as marginal in comparison to the lost utilisation of thevehicle. Clearly, overtime must be managed and rounds monitored closely toensure efficient collection performance. The opening hours of the landfill andtransfer stations are currently limited by planning and operating licences in orderto minimise impact on neighbours and it is unlikely that this will change with thecurrent facilities.
7.12.4 Infrastructure. The existing waste management infrastructure has been outlined above.With the exception of the Recycling Centres, all of these facilities were programmed for closurein 2005 to be replaced by a modern MRF and an EfW Plant. As a result, the infrastructure isinadequate for the services currently provided:
• East Tullos Transfer Station. This site is closed as a result of failingbuilding structure causing a health and safety risk. The site had been inoperation for more than 35 years without major refurbishment prior to itsclosure.
• Sclattie Transfer Station. The site is now used as a centre for recyclingactivities. Interim sorting, baling and bulking facilities were installed in 2004 tohandle material from the kerbside recycling collection and other single materialcollections in the city. The intended lifespan of the site was three years, but itwill be required to continue operation with increasing input. In addition torecyclables, green waste is stored at the site prior to dispatch to composting inAberdeenshire
• Hill of Tramaud Landfill. It is anticipated that this site will close in late-2009.
• Recycling Centres (Civic Amenity Sites). There are four Recycling Centresin the city of varying standards:
o East Tullos Recycling Centre.Built in 2003, this site is the largest in the city and has the widest range ofmaterials segregated. Whilst adequate, it is prone to congestion at busyperiods and achieved a recycling rate of approx. 33% on approx. 8,400tonnes in 2007.o Perwinnes Moss Recycling Centre.This site has been in used for over 20 years and is far too small for thearea of population served. This limits the range of recyclables collectedand achieved a recycling rate of only 12% on 6,400 tonnes in 2007. Inaddition to the low recycling rate, the site is severely congested at peaktimes with traffic regularly queuing on the public highway.o Sclattie Recycling Centre.Sited adjacent to the Transfer Station, this site is very small and this limitsthe range of recycling achieved. The site is congested at busy times butbecause of the lower input was still able to achieve a creditable recyclingrate of approx. 50% on 4,400 tonnes in 2007.o Pitmedden Road Recycling Centre, Dyce.This is the site with the smallest throughput in the city and is rarelycongested. The site is still unable to provide the range of recycling typicalof a modern site and achieved a recycling rate of approx. 23% on approx.1700 tonnes in 2007.
ITEMPAGE 24
It is acknowledged that the City requires at least one more Recycling Centre closeto the west end/ North Anderson Drive area. Site searches have been undertakenand a number of sites have been considered but this process is still to becompleted.
7.12.5 Infrastructure Benchmarking. The establishment of suitable capacitytreatment and disposal infrastructure is a fundamental requirement for asustainable and cost effective waste management service. Authorities withsuccessful records in sustainable waste management will have access to large-scale MRFs, often with automated multiple materials sorting facilities, adequatelyscaled transfer stations to deal with capacity fluctuations caused by seasonal andisolated changes in waste production (for example the Festive Season or a periodof bad weather preventing collection or closure of disposal sites), suitably sizedRecycling Centres that can achieve 70% recycling (for example, Fife or numerousauthorities in England) and an appropriate residual treatment/disposal outlet.Aberdeen has none of these.
7.12.6 Costs
7.12.6.1 Collection. The current (2006/7) cost for collection of wastereported as an SPI is £55/household and shows Aberdeen to have a lowercollection cost than the Scottish average (£58.10/household), although onceagain, this will be heavily dependent on the nature of the authority. (SeeAppendix 8 for all Scottish Authorities). An authority that has similar density ofhousing and is primarily urban with comparable collection services is Dundee,albeit that the population size is smaller than Aberdeen. Dundee’s cost ofcollection in 2006/7 is reported as £56.06 per household and thereforecomparable with Aberdeen City. Where there is limited data and analysisavailable within Aberdeen City Council is the relative costs of the differentcollection activities within the city. Some initial analysis produced in December2007 suggested that the cost of collection for the major waste collection activitiesis shown in Table 3.
ITEMPAGE 25
Table 3. Estimated Costs of Waste Collection by Activity
These figures must be treated with a degree of caution; the reporting systems arenot fully in place to ensure that all costs can be allocated to the individualactivities, but the trend is clear and in accordance with expectations. In recentyears the costs of collection have not been clearly reported with the elements ofcost for collection being spread across four main ledgers. There remains aclient/contractor split in accounting, albeit that the client element is now arelatively small contributor to overall costs. In the ‘contractor’ ledger, thetraditional refuse collection costs are largely found. A separate ledger exists forrecycling activities funded under the Strategic Waste Fund; this has been deemednecessary in order to maintain transparent cost allocation and therefore reclaimfunds from the Scottish Executive. In practice, the recycling operation supportedby the SWF has been consistently over budget as a result of the identification of‘savings’ brought about by landfill diversion of the anticipated AltensEnvironmental Park, which clearly are not being achieved. This budget deficit hasbeen allocated against the Disposal Ledger as a means of balancing the SWFledger and ensuring full reclaim of funding from the Scottish Executive. As notedelsewhere, the incorporation of SWF allocations into GAE makes thisarrangement redundant. The ‘Client’ ledger contains certain overheads andmanagement costs and also the revenue from trade waste activities. In summary,the current accounting structure does not lend itself either to easy analysis ofcollection costs by activity or to year on year comparison because of varyingtreatment (allocation) of costs.
What is clear from the available figures is that the cost of kerbside collection ofrecyclables is substantially higher than for refuse collection. This is expected andknown by officers within the Council; this situation has arisen because of the lackof suitable infrastructure in the city to handle recyclables resulting in the decisionto use the kerbside sort system which is a slow system requiring more staff thanother collection systems.
7.12.6.2 Disposal/Treatment. The cost of collection must be consideredin conjunction with the cost of treatment and disposal. The reported SPI figure forwaste disposal is £68.37/tonne, however in recent years this has been inflated bythe allocation of overspend in the collection of recyclables (caused in part by thelack of provision of ‘disposal’ infrastructure) to the disposal budgets. This disposalfigure is difficult to compare meaningfully with many other authorities because ofthe wide variety of factors that contribute to collection cost although it is below theScottish average of £70.16/tonne. The regional comparison with Aberdeenshire(£115.12/tonne) would suggest Aberdeen is doing extremely well, however theAberdeenshire figure has increased from £79.36 in 2005/6 and it is unclear howmeaningful such as comparison is worth (See Appendix 8 for all ScottishAuthorities). Table 4 shows the estimated variation in cost of treatment/disposalby activity. It should be noted that the landfill disposal cost includes the cost of
Type of Collection Cost/tonne of Collection (£/tonne)Refuse Collection 38.53Green Waste Collection 72.17Recyclables Collection 214.78
ITEMPAGE 26
operating Recycling Centres; it is not possible to establishment this element as itis covered within a single rate charged by NEM/SITA under our WasteManagement Services Contract.
Table 4. Estimated Costs of Waste Disposal/Treatment by Activity
Type of Collection Cost/tonne of Disposal (£/tonne)Refuse Collection 60.88Green Waste Collection 44.75Recyclables Collection 11.64
Total costs of Waste Management. Table 5 shows the combined cost of providingwaste collection and disposal services by activity. Taken together it is clear thatrefuse collection remains the most cost effective method of waste collection in2007/8. Over the next three years costs will increase as detailed below which willbring the methods closer together. The major area of concern, however, isRecyclables Collection which is twice as expensive as alternatives with the currentcollection and treatment methodology.
Table 5 Estimated Total Costs of Waste Management by Activity
Type of Collection Cost/tonne of Collection (£/tonne)Refuse Collection 99.41Green Waste Collection 116.92Recyclables Collection 226.42
8 CURRENT AND PROJECTED SERVICE TRENDS
8.1 Waste Growth and Demographic Trends. Projections for population growth inAberdeen indicate that the population is unlikely to increase significantly and may decline ascity dwellers move to Aberdeenshire. A counter to this beneficial (in waste management terms)trend is the likelihood that household size will decrease in coming years, a trend exacerbated inthe city where more brownfield developments are being seen. The additional cost ofredeveloping brownfield sites tends to encourage developers to build smaller units such as flatsand apartments. Although no detailed analysis has been possible of these and otherdemographic and social trends it has been assumed that the net impact on waste arising isneutral in the near term. Waste growth is also affected by consumption patterns and widerresource management policies. Despite moves to control unnecessary resource use, this hashad little discernible impact on waste arisings, however, waste growth has not been as strong inrecent years as may have been expected if mirrors economic growth. This could, on a verytentative basis, indicate that national controls on packaging, producer responsibility and otherareas of resource use are beginning to bear fruit. In addition, waste awareness has increasedas recycling has become more common and consumers are now in a more informed positionwhen purchasing goods. Once again, making informed projections on how this will impact infuture is difficult, however, it is reasonable to suggest that no dramatic impacts will be seen inthe near term (3-5 years) but that beyond this the ability to slow waste growth and then reverseit is increasing. On balance, a reasonable scenario for waste growth in Aberdeen is assessedto be a continuation of 2% growth until 2009/10 then zero growth by 2013/14 and decline inwaste volumes from 2016/17.
ITEMPAGE 27
8.2 Recycling Performance. Current recycling levels in Aberdeen are affected by thescope of recycling provision and the degree of householder participation. The approx.18% waste the is collected through our recycling activities (not including green waste)level is unlikely to change significantly without additional recycling collections, or reducedresidual waste collections. On this basis, Aberdeen will fall far short of its target of 40%recycling by 2011. There are a number of potential areas for expansion of the recyclingservice and these will be promoted in the recommendations below. In summary, multi-occupancy properties, increased trade paper recycling, rural properties recycling andincreased infill of kerbside collection service in inner city areas. In addition, there is aneed to review the refuse collection frequency in line with improving recycling provisionacross the city. The refuse and recycling collection service offering collections ofmaterials for recycling and a reduction in refuse collection introduced in the Dyce area inSeptember 2005 has proved successful. Following the introduction of the new servicelevel, the recycling rate in Dyce has risen from 21.5% to 30.4%. The total amount ofwaste being presented by householders has also fallen by 16.4% as residents adoptwaste minimisation activities as a result of having non-recyclable waste collected on afortnightly basis.
The service has also been well received by local residents. Two customer satisfactionquestionnaires were distributed to Dyce residents in March and December 2006. Theseshow that:
• over 72% of residents view the alternate weekly refuse collection service as 'verygood' or 'good'
• 95% of households use the kerbside recycling service.• 85% of respondents stated that they ‘never’ or only ‘occasionally’ had excess
waste• 4.5% of residents take excess household waste to the Recycling Centre on a
weekly basis, 3.4% take excess waste on a fortnightly basis and 4.8% on amonthly basis
Although there is no evidence to suggest that residents in Dyce need to make use of theRecycling Centres to dispose of additional refuse, the tonnage of refuse being collectedat all four Recycling Centres in the City has risen since the introduction of AlternateWeekly Collections of refuse in Aberdeenshire.
8.3 Composting Performance. Garden Waste collection in Aberdeen contributesapprox. 7% to overall recycling and composting rates and largely covers the availableproperties in Aberdeen, although there remains some opportunity to increase participationthrough infill activities. It is unlikely that significant further increase in the capture of gardenwaste will occur. Therefore, in order to help contribute to achieving our recycling andcomposting target, it will be necessary to expand the range of organic, compostable waste thatis collected. There has been approval to proceed with the addition of kitchen organic waste tothe garden waste collection; it is necessary to look beyond this, however, and identify othersources of organic waste currently going to landfill. In particular, organic waste produced bycouncil activities and organic collections for those without the garden waste collection servicemust be targeted. Promotion of home composting will continue providing funding remainsavailable.
8.4 Landfill Disposal. Landfill disposal has levelled off in recent years as recycling andcomposting collections have established a steady state. Expected waste growth (albeit at lowlevels) will contribute to increased landfill unless additional diversion activities are introduced.
ITEMPAGE 28
The LAS applies annually lower limits on landfill and therefore the council’s performance mustimprove significantly if risk of substantial financial penalty is to be avoided. In addition, theexisting landfill space at Hill of Tramaud will be filled by 2009/10 and therefore alternative sitesor methods of treating waste will be required from that date, probably at an additional cost of atleast £1 million per annum.
8.5 Landfill Costs. Future costs of delivering waste management services in Aberdeenwill increase significantly. Appendix 6 shows projections of the impact of the two main areas ofcost increase anticipated, which relate to landfill disposal (increased Landfill Tax and the LAS).These impacts are summarised below in graphical and tabular form. In order to demonstrate thescale of the cost increase facing the city, two scenarios have been developed which reflect thecurrent situation and the situation that would develop if the recommendations of this report arefollowed. Figure 1 demonstrates the scale of tax increases and the risk cost associated withthe LAS penalties. These costs are in addition to the baseline cost of collection, treatment andlandfill disposal of waste. It is highly likely that the cost of the latter will also increasesignificantly from 2009/10 as landfill space in Aberdeen is exhausted. Early estimates suggestan additional £1million per annum in disposal charges is likely from 2010 in addition to thefigures given below. From this data it is evident that the minimum cost increase compared totoday’s level is £3.1 million in year 2010/11, increasing to £7.4 million if the full LAS penalty isapplied. The variation between these figures is the risk cost; this may be mitigated by aScottish Government decision not to levy a penalty or through purchasing of LAS credits fromother authorities at a market rate between zero and £150/tonne.
Figure 1. Cost of Landfill Tax and Penalties - No Change Scenario
£0
£2
£4
£6
£8
£10
£12
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Mill
ions
Landfill Tax Increase (versus2006/7)Tax and Penalty Cost Increase(versus 2006/7)
Figure 2 shows the impact of these additional charges on the waste disposal budget, onthe optimistic assumption that landfill disposal costs will not increase in this period.
ITEMPAGE 29
.
Figure 2. Tax and Penalty Impact on Waste Disposal Budget of 'No Change' Scenario
£0
£2
£4
£6
£8
£10
£12
£14
£16
£18
£20
2007
/08
2008
/09
2009
/10
2010
/11
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
2019
/20
Mill
ions
Cost ProjectionsLandfill TaxTotal Tax and PenaltyCost
A second set of projections have been made based on a progressive introduction ofmeasures to increase recycling and composting to achieve 40% by 2010. Under thisscenario, the additional costs to the Council from landfill disposal resulting from tax andpenalties will be a minimum of £1.98 million, rising to £3.3 million if full penalties areapplied. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the actual levels of tax and penalties and theirimpact on the waste disposal budget
ITEMPAGE 30
Figure 3. Cost of Landfill Tax and Penalties - Progress to 40% Recycling Scenario
£0
£1
£2
£3
£4
£5
£6
£7
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Mill
ions
Landfill Tax Increase (versus2006/7)Total Cost Increase (versus2006/7)
Figure 4. Tax and Penalty Impact on Waste Disposal Budget of Progress to 40% Recycling Scenario
£0
£2
£4
£6
£8
£10
£12
2007
/08
2008
/09
2009
/10
2010
/11
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
2019
/20
Mill
ions
Cost ProjectionsLandfill TaxTotal Tax andPenalty Cost
ITEMPAGE 31
Appendix 6 shows the annual costs of tax and penalties under the two scenarios and thevariance between the two scenarios. It is clear that substantial savings on disposalcharges will be made through the introduction of recycling and composting activities thatachieve our 40% target. These savings are summarised in Table 6.
Table 6. Comparison of Extra Costs of Landfill Tax and Penalty Charges betweenNo Change and 40% Recycling Scenarios
YearNo
Change
Progressto 40%
Recycling
Savingthrough 40 %
Scenario2008/9 £2,844,785 £2,844,785 £891,0102009/10 £5,033,997 £4,142,987 £2,055,7672010/11 £6,543,981 £4,488,214 £4,123,8272011/12 £9,703,381 £5,579,554 £4,356,329
8.6 Collection Costs. Collection activities are characterised at present by wide variation inthe cost of collection by activity (see Table 3). There is little clear reporting on this basisand our management activity does not focus on this area. Further detailed analysis ofcosts is essential in order to ensure cost-effective operation and to ensure that charging(trade waste and internal waste, such as schools) recovers all costs. The major area ofcost concern in the collection operation is the kerbside recycling collection. The over£200 cost per tonne of collecting recyclables is not sustainable. Alternative methods ofcollection available to the Council are extremely limited without the provision of propersorting and recycling facilities and as a result, future collection costs will not reduceunless major changes to service provision are undertaken. It is recommended in thisreport that infrastructure is developed that will enable reductions in excess of £1m perannum to be made in the collection and treatment of recyclables.
8.7 Partnership Working with Aberdeenshire Council. Established links withAberdeenshire Council will be developed and areas of partnership working will be progressedwhere mutually beneficial. Aberdeen City Council’s Contract with NEM/SITA limits the scope ofjoint working, however, the variation of the Waste Management Services Contract opens up theopportunity to take elements of the waste management service out of the contracted solutionand develop separate solutions with Aberdeenshire Council. The main area of joint workingthat will benefit Aberdeen City is in residual waste treatment. This is an area that will beaddressed in detail in the development of the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy.
ITEMPAGE 32
9 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS.3
9.1 Waste Management is an area of operations that has seen significant cost increase inrecent years: this trend will continue. Not only will costs increase but the rate of cost increasewill increase dramatically unless actions are taken to change our methods of operation. Inshort, Aberdeen City Council must move to an integrated waste management system geared tothe twin objectives of maximising cost-effective recycling and composting and minimising thedisposal of waste to landfill. This integrated waste management system will require anambitious programme of infrastructure development and an expansion of recycling andcomposting collection services providing all residents of Aberdeen with first-class facilities. Therecommendations required to transform Aberdeen City Council’s waste management serviceswill contribute to the achievement of 40% recycling and composting by 2011. The additionalservices and activities, when fully implemented, will cost more than today’s waste managementservice but by transforming our services, the future cost will be less than continuing with today’sservices – a standstill option is not available. The transformed service will be in line with thebest in Scotland and comparable with many in Europe.
9.2 The major thrust of this programme can be summarised in three strands
• Develop new infrastructure for waste transfer, recycling and composting fundedthrough a variation of our Waste Management Contract
• Expand recycling services to all citizens of Aberdeen• Overhaul collection methods to halve the cost of recycling and reduce the cost of
refuse collection.
The following series of Challenges, Objectives and Recommendations have been developed onthe basis of the analysis outlined above and form the basis for a Transformation of WasteManagement Services.
Challenge – The existing Waste Management Infrastructure in Aberdeen is totallyinadequate for an integrated waste management system.
The existing waste management facilities are old, in poor condition and too small for therange of activities required, especially in respect of the transfer of waste, recyclingprocessing and final disposal/treatment of residual waste. As a result of the lack ofadequate facilities, costly and inefficient recyclables collection methods have beenadopted. Through the development of suitable infrastructure, the Council will be able tointroduce the most cost-effective integrated solution to collection and treatment of waste.Any infrastructure should be developed with the capacity to change of circumstances andnew opportunities. Infrastructure provision is the main purpose of the WasteManagement Services Contract the Council has with NEM/SITA. This contract iscurrently frustrated by the failure to obtain planning permission for key facilities; it isessential that the contract variation process is brought to a conclusion and that aprogramme of infrastructure development in put in place.
3 To reiterate the point made in the methodology at the beginning of this report, the list of actions listed below isnot exhaustive. These cover the major policy decisions, but many operational improvements were also identifiedduring the strategy formulation process. Once this strategy is approved, the operational improvements, anypreviously agreed actions and recommendations (sources would include recent inspection reports, committeedecisions, Citistat actions, and the corporate transformation programme) will be brought together into oneimprovement plan for Services to Children and Young People that will be monitored and updated on a quarterlybasis. As additional elements of the strategy are formulated these will be added to the improvement plan.
ITEMPAGE 33
Objectives
• Specify infrastructure requirements for waste transfer, recycling andcomposting activities in Aberdeen.
• Address Waste Management Services Contract variation process and bringthis to a conclusion
• Establish a programme for the delivery of infrastructure
• Establish a policy for the development of residual waste infrastructure
• Establish a planning environment which supports development of appropriatewaste management infrastructure
Recommendations
1. Transform Waste Management Infrastructure through the development of:
1.1. A mixed-materials Recycling Facility in Aberdeen with a capacity in excess of30,000 tonnes per annum with facilities to include the ability to sort glass fromother recyclables
1.2. Two new Recycling Centres in Aberdeen. One in the Bridge of Don area toreplace the Perwinnes Moss Site. The second to be in the west of the city
1.3. Two Transfer Stations in the city, one in the north and one in the south, onepossibly co-located with the MRF
2. Vary the Waste Management Services Contract to develop the facilities outlinedin Recommendation 1 and to:
2.1. Establish a long term arrangement for treatment of green and organic wasteusing either In-vessel composting or anaerobic digestion
2.2. Secure landfill capacity from 2010 until the introduction of residual treatmentfacility as determined by the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy currently underdevelopment
Challenge – Existing Waste Collection Services costs are increasing andcurrently unable to deliver 40% composting and recycling.
Waste Collection services have undergone major change in recent years with anexpansion in the range of collection activities following commitments to introducerecycling and composting of household waste. For the city to achieve its recyclingand composting target further transformation of services is required. In conjunctionwith the development of suitable infrastructure, waste collection services must beexpanded but also achieved at lower cost and greater efficiency than with currentmethods. All householders in Aberdeen should be given appropriate facilities toenable them to recycle and compost and this will include kerbside collection andcommunal recycling facilities. The increase in the range of recycling and composting
ITEMPAGE 34
services has contributed to increased collection costs. In order to provide a cost-effective service, the balance of provision of waste collection services has to beconsidered and this includes the continuation of the weekly collection of residualwaste. Whilst popular, the combination of weekly residual waste collection and highlevels of recycling provision is unaffordable. In line with many other authorities, theCouncil should resolve to enhance the recycling service and reduce residual wastecollection to two-weekly, this will deliver a cost-effective service and higher recyclingperformance. In addition, all avenues for providing cost-effective services must beinvestigated: Waste collection services have always been provided through an in-house model in Aberdeen; many authorities elsewhere in the UK, in similar operatingenvironments, have tendered their waste collection operations and appointed privatesector contractors to manage their waste. Aberdeen City Council must clearlyidentify the most cost-effective method of delivering waste collection services.
Objectives
• Ensure complete recycling and composting opportunity across the city
• Reduce cost of collection of recyclables
• Ensure collection activities are undertaken in the most efficient way
• Identify the most effective means of delivering waste collection services.
• Ensure servicing is complementary with normal vehicle operation
• Centralise all workshops activities at Kittybrewster
• Ensure fleet charges for services fully reflect costs
• Have a fit-for-purpose waste collection fleet, which contributes to efficientoperation
Recommendations
3. Transform the waste collection service in the short term through the following:
3.1. Introduce in 2008 a paper recycling service for areas served by street bulk binsand in courtyard and high-rise developments, including sheltered housing
3.2. Ensure the combined kitchen and garden waste service is introduced withoutdelay
3.3. Enhance provision of trade paper recycling service through a review to includecharging rates, containerisation and opportunities for expansion
3.4. Introduce alternate week collection of residual (black bin) waste across all areasserved by wheeled bin by spring-2009
3.5. In conjunction with 3.4, establish clear policy on wheeled refuse bin replacementand provision of additional refuse bins based on an annual charge
3.6. Introduce recycling collection services to rural properties3.7. Provide additional resource on a short-term contract (one person for one year), to
optimise existing route system to ensure efficient use of vehicles and to plan newroute system for introduction of alternate week collection of residual waste
ITEMPAGE 35
3.8. Develop a waste flow based data management system to assist in operationalmanagement and options analysis
4. Adopt Fleet Management measures to increase efficiency of waste collectionservices through:
4.1. Servicing of waste collection vehicles in evenings4.2. In order to facilitate 4.1, complete the transfer of workshops and staff from Duthie
Park to Kittybrewster4.3. Update charging mechanism for vehicles to reflect actual costs4.4. Implement, as a high priority activity, the waste collection fleet replacement
programme to ensure maximum age of 9 years by 2009 and 7 years by 20114.5. As an immediate priority, establish additional vehicle storage capacity in the city
5. Upon the delivery of facilities identified in Recommendation 1, transform thewaste collection service by:
5.1. Changing household recycling collection from kerbside sort to mixed recyclablescollection
5.2. Changing multi-occupancy paper recycling service to mixed recyclables upon theopening of the MRF recommended above
5.3. Expanding food/catering waste collection services to schools and other councilcontrolled premises
Challenge – Long term waste management solutions for residual waste requiremajor process facilities. The location, scale and nature of these facilities willprovide challenges in addressing citizen concern
Alternatives to landfill will require significant investment and involve the use of theprocess technologies not currently present in the northeast of Scotland. At this time,Energy from Waste through incineration is seen as a reliable and cost effectivemethod and this must be included as an alternative in order for any solution to beshown to be Best Value. The need for residual waste treatment is common withAberdeenshire Council and there may be benefits in working together to procure ajoint solution. Location of facilities is highly important in the success of obtainingplanning permission, however, planning policy for waste management facilities doesnot provide a strong basis for site selection. This applies equally to local facilitiessuch as recycling points and facilities for recycling in new developments. Delivery ofwaste management services in Aberdeen has been undertaken by Council servicesto date. In order to demonstrate best value, a review is required. Should such areview demonstrate that value is not being obtained, market testing should beundertaken with the understanding that contracting out of services is a potentialoutcome from the market testing process.
Objectives
ITEMPAGE 36
• Determine the most appropriate technology for the diversion of residual wastefrom landfill
• Explore the most appropriate procurement method for the diversion of residualwaste from landfill
• Establish a planning policy framework that meets the requirements of theTransformation Programme
• Ensure that the Council is providing Best Value waste management services toits citizens
Recommendations
6. Develop long term waste management solutions through:
6.1. Investigation of joint procurement of residual waste treatment facilities withAberdeenshire Council (to include energy from waste as an option) andopportunities for common service delivery in other waste management areas.The Waste Management Services Contract will, therefore, not be varied toinclude residual waste treatment until this investigation has been completed.
6.2. Build upon new Local Plan policy on waste management to address specificissues such as major infrastructure and local recycling points through appropriatepolicy/guidance development
6.3. Undertake a best value service review of the waste collection services within anagreed timescale and proceed to market test all options, including contractingout, should the review not demonstrate best value
Challenge – Financial accounting systems for waste management are complex, arenot reported clearly on an activity basis and do not integrate collection costs withdisposal costs.
There are a number of ledgers covering waste management which add complexity andrestrict the ability to develop good management data. Cost allocation within thecollection operation is not sufficiently detailed to allow easy assessment of the cost ofproviding the various services
Objectives
• To simplify the management accounting structures for waste management
• To develop better cost-accounting processes to allow more detailed analysis ofcollection and disposal costs
• Develop a system that allows the tracking of cost through the waste chain to beused to drive management decision making.
ITEMPAGE 37
• Review the support activities to ensure cost-effective overheads within the WasteManagement Service
Recommendations
7. Transform financial management and support functions to improve efficiencyof waste collection service through:
7.1. Simplifying waste management accounting system7.2. Introduction of activity-based costing based on waste streams/collection methods7.3. Review of administrative support requirements in relation to Waste Management
Services Contract and management of trade waste charging in light of move todirect debit
7.4. Review requirement for waste awareness, education and promotion activities andidentify most appropriate, cost-effective means of delivery
ITEMPAGE 38
Appendices
ITEMPAGE 39
Appendix 1. Landfill Allowances for Aberdeen City Council 2005/6 to 2019/20
The Landfill Directive requires Member States to develop strategies for reducing the landfillingof biodegradable wastes, with the objective of reducing local water and air pollution, andemissions of global greenhouse gases caused by the degradation of organic wastes in landfillsites. Furthermore, it establishes strict targets for reducing the quantity of biodegradablemunicipal waste (BMW) disposed of to landfill. BMW is municipal waste that is capable ofundergoing aerobic or anaerobic decomposition, i.e. waste that will rot.
For the UK, the targets mean that by 2010 the quantity of BMW that is sent to landfill must bereduced to 75% of that produced in 1995, further reduced to 50% by 2013, and to 35% by 2020
Aberdeen City Council’s own Landfill Allowance Scheme allocations are detailed below.
Scheme Year Initial Allocation (BMW tonnes)
2005/06 73,0762006/07 60,6192007/08 58,0802008/09 55,5412009/10 53,0042010/11 47,1152011/12 41,2262012/13 35,3362019/20 26,387
ITEMPAGE 40
Appendix 2. Summary of Best Practicable Environmental Option from NortheastScotland Area Waste Plan
The Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) for the management of municipalwaste in the North East was developed based on a projection of 1.5% annual growth inarisings from 1998 to 2020 but with arisings reduced by 1.6% by a home compostinginitiative from 2003. The table below provides the baseline data and indicative BPEOtargets (1) for the percentage of municipal waste to be recycled, composted, treated byother recovery technologies and disposed of to landfill for the years 2000, 2006, 2010,2013 and 2020.
9.1.11.1. Table NE1 Baseline Data and BPEO Targets for MunicipalWaste in the North East
Baseline /Target Year
Municipal WasteArising ('000 tpa)
WasteRecycled
(%)
WasteComposted
(%)
Convertedto Energy
(%)
Waste Landfilled (%)
2000 320 4 7 - 892006 350 16 20 - 642010 366 26 21 20 332013 382 29 20 19 322020 424 29 21 17 33
9.1.11.2. Table NE2 Indicative Key Facilities Required to Deliver theBPEO
Requirements Capacity* Timescale Notes
Expansion ofmini recyclingcentres
Dependent oncoverage ofkerbsidesegregatedcollections
Phased from 2003 to 2020. Increase thenumber of bring sites receiving dryrecyclables by 2005 to 1 in 2000households in Aberdeen City. Dryrecyclate communal street bins will alsoact as a bring facility in Aberdeen City by2005. Aberdeenshire Council: 1 in 50rural households. Moray: 1 in 750 by2005.
Draw up strategyand identify sites.Start expansion2003 onwards
200654,000 tonnes201094,000 tonnes
Introductionof kerbsiderecycling fordry recyclates 2013
113,000 tonnes
Introduce kerbside collection schemeswith segregation of dry recyclables andresiduals to 86% of households by 2010.
Segregated collection to improve overtime from 15-17% in 2003 to 18-20% in2010 and 23-25% in 2020 for recyclables.5% in 2004 to 10% in 2010 for organicwaste (assumed to be mainly greenwaste).
100% separatecollections requiredin areas to beserved by energyfrom waste facility
ITEMPAGE 41
2020123,000 tonnes33,000 tonnes -2007
Cleanmaterialsrecyclingfacility (MRF)
38,000 tonnes -201343,000 tonnes -2020
Dependent on obtaining planningconsent.
Required to handlerecyclatesgenerated from100% kerbsidecollection withinAberdeen City.
(proposed)Compostingfacilities
Compost capacityincreased to:102,000 tonnes -2003152,000 tonnes -2005182,00 tonnes -2015
Green waste for on-farm composting atMoycroft, Elgin Moray.
Modular elsewhere phased from 2003onwards.
Will use in-vesselsystems.
Energy fromwaste facility(EfW)
Maximum 110,000tonnes municipalwaste capacity
Aberdeen City; Operational by 2010 Input material from100% sourcesegregatedcollections
Minimum of:123,000 tonnes -2010121,000 tonnes -2013
Landfillcapable oftakingmunicipalwaste
140,000 tonnes -2020
Landfill requirement will be reviewedduring 2003
At least one landfillmay be able toaccept hazardouswaste
ITEMPAGE 42
Appendix 3. Summary of Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2001
Aberdeen City Council’s Waste Strategy, which was published in December 2001, contains thefollowing targets in relation to waste minimisation and recycling:
Aberdeen City Council is committed to the following waste targets:
a) To reduce householder waste by 1% per year
b) To recycle and compost a minimum of 25% of household waste by the year 2005,and these targets are to be reviewed once they have been reached
c) To ensure an integrated kerbside collection service for garden waste and dryrecyclate by 2005
d) To introduce facilities for receiving green waste for composting by the year 2001
e) To redirect 40% of waste collected by the Council to produce Energy from Waste by2005
f) To divert the amount of household waste going to landfill by 40% by the year 2005
g) To provide a new Civic Amenity Recycling Centres at Greenbank Crescent, EastTullos to replace Ness Civic Amenity Site by end 2001
h) To develop an Environmental Park and Energy from Waste Facility by end of year2005
i) To provide a new Civic Amenity Recycling Centre in the West of the City by 2004
j) To promote the use of home compost units for domestic properties with gardens toachieve at least a 200% increase in home composting by 2005 from mind-2001figures.
Year Recycling Target2003/04: 9%2004/05: 11%2005/06: 19%2006/07: 23%2007/08: 34%
ITEMPAGE 43
Appendix 4. Waste Growth 2003-2007
Source: SEPA Waste Data Digest and Waste Data Flow returns
Year
Household wastecollected fordisposal (t)
Householdwaste collectedfor recycling (t)
Number ofHouseholds
Waste/household(t/annum)
Percentage wastegrowth (year on
year)
ScottishAverage waste
(t/hh) 2003/4 88,536 10,799.0 106,754 0.93 1.142004/5 89,230 17,108.0 107,434 0.99 5.93% 1.172005/6 99,475 24,427.0 108,141 1.15 15.59% 1.22006/7 101,415 28,397.0 108,923 1.19 4.60% not yet available
ITEMPAGE 44
Appendix 5. Waste Growth and Participation Data
1. Householder participation
City Voice Citizen’s PanelThe results from the Aberdeen City Voice Citizen’s Panel carried out in August 2006 showedthat 84% of respondents use the kerbside recycling collection service and 77% use the gardenwaste collection service.
Of the respondents who use the kerbside recycling or green waste collection; 32% would likeweekly collection of materials for kerbside recycling and would like more information on whatcan be recycled as part of the kerbside recycling collection service.
The main reasons given for not using either the kerbside recycling collection or garden wastecollection were: ‘not offered this service’, ‘use the recycling centres instead’ or ‘there is notenough room to store materials’. Respondents, however, indicated that they would beencouraged to use the kerbside recycling service if there was a weekly collection of materialsfor recycling.
Panellists were asked what steps that they would like to see Aberdeen City Council take toreduce the amount of household waste that is sent to landfill. The most popular responses weregive more information on how to minimise waste, give more information on what you canrecycle, offer a weekly collection of materials for recycling and dispose of waste through an'Energy for Waste' facility.
SWAG SurveyThe Scottish Waste Awareness Group (SWAG) published the report: ‘Public Attitude andBehaviour Toward the Kerbside Recycling Service’ in Aberdeen in July 2006.
Of the total 414 respondents, 82% stated that they used the kerbside recycling services. Thewhite bag was used by 74% of all respondents, the black box was used by 71% of allrespondents and the brown bin for the collection of garden waste was used by 54% of allrespondents.
Of the 312 respondents who used the white bag/black box, 80% rated the service as either ‘4’or ‘5’ out of a maximum of ‘5’, however 31% of users had encountered problems with theservice. The most common problem encountered with the kerbside recycling collection servicewas that the box was too small and filled up too quickly. The most common suggestions toimprove the kerbside recycling collection service were to collect more materials and to collectmore frequently.
Of the 225 respondents who used the garden waste collection service, 88% rated the service ‘4’or ‘5’ out of a possible highest scoring of ‘5’;
Route surveying
These high householder participation figures are not reflected in information collected by theCommunity Waste Team. This data shows that ‘set-out’ (the number of households placing outa box or bag on their collection day) ranges from under 20% to nearly 50% and the ‘set-out’measured for the garden waste collection service ranges for less than 10% to nearly 70%.
ITEMPAGE 45
Garden waste set-out rates
Bucksburn / Stoneywood /Dyce
68%
Airyhall/Braeside 54%Cults 50%Bieldside/Milltimber 42%Anderson Dr/Springfield 39%Kingswells 38%Craigiebuckler 36%Peterculter 36%Denmore/Middleton Park 36%Cairncry/Hilton 35%Midstocket 34%Queens X 33%Bridge of Don 33%Forresterhill/Ashgrove 32%Broomhill/Great WesternRoad
32%
Donmouth/BOD 31%Kincorth 30%Danestone 29%Bucksburn 29%Anderson Dr/Seafield 27%Dyce 27%Ferryhill 25%Woodend 25%Hilton 24%Holburn/Ruthrieston 19%Holburn/Queens X 18%Jesmond BOD 17%Ashwood 16%Seaton / Tillydrone 15%Garthdee 15%Torry 13%Bieldside/Cults 10%Cove 10%Cummings Park/Moir Green 9%Sheddocksley 9%Northfield / Heathryfold 8%Kittybrewster/Froghall 8%Mastrick 7%Auchmill / Bucksburn 7%
ITEMPAGE 46
Kerbside set-out rates
Great Western Rd / Ashley 49%Airyhall 49%Bridge of Don 46%Summerhill 46%Milltimber 45%Newhills 45%Broomhill 43%Danestone 42%Kingswells 41%Denmore 40%Kincorth 39%Mastrick 39%Bankhead 38%Cove 38%Springhill 38%Loirston 37%Cults 35%Gathdee 34%Bucksburn 32%Mid Stocket 29%Seafield 28%Torry 26%Rosemount 25%Foutainhall 24%Tillydrone 23%Ferryhill / City centre 20%Muggiemoss / Auchmill 20%Kittybrewster & Sunnybank 20%Bridge of Don & Seaton 18%Seaton / Old Aberdeen 18%Queens Cross 18%
ITEMPAGE 47
Appendix 5. Recycling and Composting Rates by Scottish Authority in 2006/7
ITEMPAGE 48
ITEMPAGE 49
ITEMPAGE 50
Appendix 6. Landfill Disposal, Landfill Allowance Limits and Potential Charges
No Change Scenario
Aberdeen City Council Waste Flow Projections No Change Scenario - 25% Recycling, 2% Growth
Landfill Directive Baseline tonnage is 70672
ActualTonnageCollected
ProjectedCollection
ActualTonnage
toLandfill
ProjectedLandfill(MSW)
RecyclingTonnage
Recycling%
BMWto
Landfill
TonnageAllowances
(BMW)
Diff.(BMW)
Diff.(MSW)
PenaltyCharges
CostProjectionsPenalties
LandfillTaxRateper
tonne
CostProjections
LandfillTax
LandfillTax
Increase(versus2006/7)
Total Taxand Penalty
Cost
Tax andPenalty
CostIncrease(versus2006/7)
2002/03 133,945 123,923 10,023 7 78,071 2003/04 132,046 119,779 12,267 9 75,461 2004/05 130,774 113,356 17,418 13 71,414 2005/06 132,746 108,160 24,587 19 68,140 73,076 2006/07 135,401 102,905 32,496 24 64,830 60,619 4,211 6,684 £25.00 £105,274 £21.00 £2,160,999 0 £2,266,273 02007/08 138,109 103,582 34,527 25 65,256 58,080 7,176 11,391 £50.00 £358,824 £24.00 £2,485,961 £324,962 £2,844,785 £578,512
2008/09 140,871 105,653 35,218 25 66,562 55541 11,021 17,493 £150.00 £1,653,090 £32.00 £3,380,907 £1,219,908 £5,033,997 £2,767,7252009/10 143,689 107,766 35,922 25 67,893 53004 14,889 23,633 £150.00 £2,233,325 £40.00 £4,310,656 £2,149,658 £6,543,981 £4,277,7092010/11 146,562 109,922 36,641 25 69,251 47115 22,136 35,136 £200.00 £4,427,138 £48.00 £5,276,243 £3,115,244 £9,703,381 £7,437,1092011/12 149,494 112,120 37,373 25 70,636 41226 29,410 46,683 £200.00 £5,882,041 £48.00 £5,381,768 £3,220,769 £11,263,809 £8,997,5362012/13 152,483 114,363 38,121 25 72,048 35336 36,712 58,274 £200.00 £7,342,484 £48.00 £5,489,403 £3,328,405 £12,831,887 £10,565,6152013/14 155,533 116,650 38,883 25 73,489 33923 39,567 62,804 £200.00 £7,913,366 £48.00 £5,599,191 £3,438,193 £13,512,557 £11,246,2842014/15 158,644 118,983 39,661 25 74,959 32509 42,450 67,381 £200.00 £8,490,011 £48.00 £5,711,175 £3,550,177 £14,201,186 £11,934,9142015/16 161,817 121,362 40,454 25 76,458 31096 45,363 72,004 £200.00 £9,072,536 £48.00 £5,825,399 £3,664,400 £14,897,935 £12,631,6622016/17 165,053 123,790 41,263 25 77,988 29682 48,305 76,675 £200.00 £9,661,057 £48.00 £5,941,907 £3,780,908 £15,602,964 £13,336,6912017/18 168,354 126,266 42,089 25 79,547 28269 51,278 81,394 £200.00 £10,255,695 £48.00 £6,060,745 £3,899,746 £16,316,440 £14,050,1682018/19 171,721 128,791 42,930 25 81,138 26855 54,283 86,163 £200.00 £10,856,572 £48.00 £6,181,960 £4,020,961 £17,038,532 £14,772,2602019/20 175,156 131,367 43,789 25 82,761 24735 58,026 92,104 £200.00 £11,605,157 £48.00 £6,305,599 £4,144,600 £17,910,756 £15,644,484
ITEMPAGE 51
Achieve 40% Recycling Scenario
Aberdeen CityCouncil Waste Flow Projections 40% Recycling, waste growth reducing to zero, waste reduction of 1% by 2020
Landfill Directive Baselinetonnage 70672
ActualTonnageCollected
ProjectedCollection
ActualTonnageto Landfill
ProjectedLandfill
RecyclingTonnage
Recycling%
63% ofLandfill
TonnageAllowance
(BMW)
Diff.(BMW)
Diff(MSW)
PenaltyCharges
CostProjectionsPenalties
LandfillTax
Charges
CostProjectionsLandfill Tax
LandfillTax
Increase(versus2006/7)
Total Taxand
PenaltyCost
Total CostIncrease(versus2006/7)
2002/03 133,945 123,923 10,023 7 78,071 2003/04 132,046 119,779 12,267 9 75,461 2004/05 130,774 113,356 17,418 13 71,414 2005/06 132,746 108,160 24,587 19 68,140 2006/07 135,401 102,905 32,496 24 64,830 60,619 4,211 6,684 £25.00 £105,274 £21.00 £2,160,999 £0 £2,266,273 02007/08 138,109 103,582 34,527 25 65,256 58,080 7,176 11,391 £50.00 £358,824 £24.00 £2,485,961 £324,962 £2,844,785 £578,512
2008/09 140,871 98,610 42,261 30 62,124 55,541 6,583 10,449 £150.00 £987,474 £32.00 £3,155,513 £994,514 £4,142,987 £1,876,7152009/10 142,280 92,482 49,798 35 58,264 53,004 5,260 8,349 £150.00 £788,938 £40.00 £3,699,276 £1,538,277 £4,488,214 £2,221,9412010/11 143,703 86,222 57,481 40 54,320 47,115 7,205 11,436 £200.00 £1,440,919 £48.00 £4,138,636 £1,977,637 £5,579,554 £3,313,2822011/12 145,140 87,084 58,056 40 54,863 41226 13,637 21,646 £200.00 £2,727,458 £48.00 £4,180,022 £2,019,023 £6,907,480 £4,641,2072012/13 146,591 87,955 58,636 40 55,411 35336 20,075 31,866 £200.00 £4,015,083 £48.00 £4,221,822 £2,060,824 £8,236,906 £5,970,6332013/14 146,591 87,955 58,636 40 55,411 33923 21,489 34,109 £200.00 £4,297,771 £48.00 £4,221,822 £2,060,824 £8,519,594 £6,253,3212014/15 146,591 87,955 58,636 40 55,411 32509 22,902 36,353 £200.00 £4,580,459 £48.00 £4,221,822 £2,060,824 £8,802,282 £6,536,0092015/16 146,591 87,955 58,636 40 55,411 31096 24,316 38,596 £200.00 £4,863,147 £48.00 £4,221,822 £2,060,824 £9,084,970 £6,818,6972016/17 145,125 87,075 58,050 40 54,857 29682 25,175 39,960 £200.00 £5,035,013 £48.00 £4,179,604 £2,018,605 £9,214,617 £6,948,3442017/18 143,674 86,204 57,470 40 54,309 28269 26,040 41,333 £200.00 £5,207,986 £48.00 £4,137,808 £1,976,809 £9,345,794 £7,079,5212018/19 142,237 85,342 56,895 40 53,766 26855 26,910 42,715 £200.00 £5,382,056 £48.00 £4,096,430 £1,935,431 £9,478,486 £7,212,2142019/20 140,815 84,489 56,326 40 53,228 24735 28,493 45,227 £200.00 £5,698,557 £48.00 £4,055,466 £1,894,467 £9,754,023 £7,487,750
ITEMPAGE 52
Comparison of Landfill Tax and Penalty Costs between No Change and 40% Scenario
Landfill Tax Cost Penalty Cost Total Extra Cost
No
Change
Progressto 40%
Recycling SavingNo
Change
Progressto 40%
Recycling Saving No Change
Progressto 40%
Recycling Saving2007/8 £324,962 £324,962 £0 £358,824 £358,824 £0 £2,844,785 £2,844,785 £02008/9 £1,219,908 £994,514 £225,394 £1,653,090 £987,474 £665,616 £5,033,997 £4,142,987 £891,0102009/10 £2,149,658 £1,538,277 £611,381 £2,233,325 £788,938 £1,444,387 £6,543,981 £4,488,214 £2,055,7672010/11 £3,115,244 £1,977,637 £1,137,608 £4,427,138 £1,440,919 £2,986,220 £9,703,381 £5,579,554 £4,123,8272011/12 £3,220,769 £2,019,023 £1,201,746 £5,882,041 £2,727,458 £3,154,583 £11,263,809 £6,907,480 £4,356,3292012/13 £3,328,405 £2,060,824 £1,267,581 £7,342,484 £4,015,083 £3,327,401 £12,831,887 £8,236,906 £4,594,982
ITEMPAGE 53
Average crew hours per route - garden waste
18:00
20:24
22:48
25:12
27:36
30:00
32:24
Route number
Hou
rsAppendix 7. Crews Hours Analysis
Garden Waste Collections
ITEMPAGE 54
Kerbside Recycling Service
Average crew hours - kerbside recycling service
24:00
26:24
28:48
31:12
33:36
36:00
38:24
40:48
43:12
45:36
48:00
Route number
Ave
rage
cre
w h
ours
per
rout
e
ITEMPAGE 55
Refuse Collection Service
REFUSEAverage crew hours per route Mon-Thur
18:00
20:24
22:48
25:12
27:36
30:00
32:24
34:48
37:12
39:36
42:00
311
203
308
321
209
302
320
126
314
124
113
122
211
226
210
316
213
125
318
225
121
112
207
310
212
204
208
304
306
220
123
307
224
301
303
222
215
Route no
Hou
rs
ITEMPAGE 56
REFUSEAverage crew hours per route - Friday
18:00
20:24
22:48
25:12
27:36
30:00
32:24
Route no
Hou
rs
ITEMPAGE 57
Appendix 8 SPI Data for Waste Management 2006/7
MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLED
Total number of tonnes ofmunicipal waste landfilled
Percentage of municipal wastelandfilled
Waste Management
2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007Aberdeen City 108,159.5 110,964.0 81.5% 78.5% Aberdeenshire 129,857.0 114,404.0 84.8% 78.8%
Angus 33,542.9 48,007.0 44.9% 61.1%
Argyll & Bute 50,347.8 41,105.9 74.8% 66.6%
Clackmannanshire 22,141.0 21,440.0 59.9% 56.4%
Dumfries & Galloway 91,741.0 78,448.0 89.6% 76.8%
Dundee City 21,687.0 26,249.7 22.6% 28.4%
East Ayrshire 48,165.2 47,826.1 67.3% 63.4%
East Dunbartonshire 54,042.0 50,069.0 73.6% 68.1%
East Lothian 46,634.0 45,624.7 72.5% 67.4%
East Renfrewshire 40,538.8 39,578.3 69.7% 69.0%
Edinburgh, City of 204,988.8 200,201.0 78.4% 75.6%
Eilean Siar 18,693.0 17,920.0 86.0% 83.0%
Falkirk 80,461.3 74,064.0 69.9% 65.0%
Fife 173,201.5 171,545.0 70.3% 67.5%
Glasgow City 304,721.0 306,871.8 84.3% 83.2%
Highland 128,997.0 121,052.0 80.1% 73.9%
Inverclyde 42,312.0 42,596.0 80.8% 79.9%
Midlothian 41,341.0 36,785.0 78.1% 68.2%
Moray 42,701.0 40,086.0 69.1% 61.6%
North Ayrshire 64,245.9 65,075.0 74.2% 74.2% North Lanarkshire 166,578.0 165,218.0 71.9% 72.3% Orkney Islands 2,255.0 1,990.8 16.1% 13.5% Perth & Kinross 67,308.1 70,210.9 65.3% 65.4% Renfrewshire 77,488.3 72,134.0 75.5% 71.8% Scottish Borders 61,534.0 52,794.0 84.0% 71.7% Shetland Islands 3,445.0 1,170.0 25.4% 9.4% South Ayrshire 50,591.4 51,063.0 63.1% 60.7% South Lanarkshire 135,237.0 134,262.0 66.6% 64.6% Stirling 41,901.0 36,625.0 67.3% 64.0% West Dunbartonshire 49,589.1 41,335.4 81.0% 68.0% West Lothian 80,854.5 73,911.9 72.3% 65.5% SCOTLAND 2,485,300.1 2,400,627.5 72.9% 69.8%
ITEMPAGE 58
COST OF REFUSE COLLECTION
Net cost of refuse collection perpremise Net cost of refuse collection10 WASTE
MANAGEMENT2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007
Aberdeen City £55.68 £56.47 £55.00 £6,132,840 £6,258,335 £6,136,544
Aberdeenshire £28.89 £33.63 £52.25 £3,101,000 £3,615,000 £5,692,000
Angus £35.32 £51.10 £55.17 £1,841,292 £2,686,107 £2,937,949
Argyll & Bute £68.76 £58.10 £80.03 £3,355,339 £2,850,969 £3,936,556
Clackmannanshire £64.21 £66.28 £67.29 £1,480,643 £1,585,641 £1,617,696
Dumfries & Galloway £67.62 £61.65 £65.95 £4,826,621 £4,571,899 £4,795,392
Dundee City £45.70 £48.90 £56.06 £3,557,813 £3,745,409 £4,573,189
East Ayrshire £74.48 £75.65 £59.54 £4,140,162 £4,224,773 £3,364,624
East Dunbartonshire £63.28 £59.49 £84.89 £2,799,054 £2,628,805 £3,764,599
East Lothian £57.00 £67.67 £73.60 £2,417,502 £2,925,194 £3,240,532
East Renfrewshire £55.76 £70.55 £83.18 £2,134,992 £2,664,655 £3,085,678
Edinburgh, City of £58.42 £67.32 £66.71 £13,415,162 £15,602,721 £15,531,706
Eilean Siar £52.44 £46.03 £56.85 £755,336 £713,440 £858,706
Falkirk £53.34 £58.93 £52.60 £3,786,083 £4,100,307 £3,691,120
Fife £42.20 £44.65 £55.43 £7,055,506 £7,471,926 £9,237,964
Glasgow City £37.08 £38.32 £40.15 £11,104,252 £11,438,661 £12,322,371
Highland £56.91 £53.46 £67.08 £5,974,000 £5,893,975 £7,511,677
Inverclyde £26.67 £43.01 £42.38 £1,087,338 £1,734,947 £1,693,607
Midlothian £42.76 £104.48 £93.95 £1,470,504 £3,701,931 £3,398,018
Moray £38.87 £39.19 £43.98 £1,653,964 £1,685,850 £1,919,992
North Ayrshire £51.06 £68.40 £72.23 £3,403,101 £4,594,566 £4,886,793
North Lanarkshire £45.23 £46.49 £44.25 £6,497,652 £6,764,076 £6,569,894
Orkney Islands £67.65 £76.04 £65.80 £678,572 £772,504 £673,269
Perth & Kinross £31.76 £30.66 £29.73 £2,138,520 £2,083,333 £2,035,053
Renfrewshire £36.92 £42.49 £53.38 £3,037,519 £3,507,425 £4,426,821
Scottish Borders £51.32 £60.15 £69.86 £2,822,915 £3,293,462 £3,951,183
Shetland Islands £33.52 £70.50 £67.01 £359,023 £755,038 £718,994
South Ayrshire £63.16 £42.20 £55.81 £3,422,307 £2,284,781 £3,065,957
South Lanarkshire £64.18 £57.65 £60.91 £8,791,234 £8,018,881 £8,576,400
Stirling £100.89 £108.77 £101.28 £4,548,849 £4,317,548 £4,040,107
West Dunbartonshire £50.15 £42.32 £47.29 £2,236,108 £1,894,817 £2,118,860
West Lothian £52.88 £65.53 £70.61 £3,785,276 £4,755,480 £5,211,876
SCOTLAND £50.25 £53.76 £58.10
ITEMPAGE 59
£123,810,479
£133,142,456
£145,585,127
COST OF REFUSE DISPOSAL
Net cost of refuse disposal per premise Net cost of disposal
WasteManagement
2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007Aberdeen City £55.87 £62.86 £68.37 £6,153,667 £6,966,396 £7,628,146
Aberdeenshire £68.89 £79.36 £115.12 £7,395,000 £8,530,000 £12,542,000
Angus £37.58 £47.71 £53.96 £1,958,664 £2,507,715 £2,873,718
Argyll & Bute £115.38 £110.62 £128.91 £5,630,766 £5,428,782 £6,340,975
Clackmannanshire £68.37 £68.45 £74.06 £1,576,423 £1,637,533 £1,780,577
Dumfries & Galloway £64.72 £83.72 £98.98 £4,619,417 £6,208,370 £7,197,146
Dundee City £68.31 £75.79 £78.27 £5,318,849 £5,805,048 £6,384,735
East Ayrshire £58.61 £57.59 £76.51 £3,257,749 £3,216,232 £4,323,698
East Dunbartonshire £52.29 £52.34 £65.22 £2,312,721 £2,312,529 £2,892,307
East Lothian £56.40 £62.46 £66.12 £2,392,070 £2,700,162 £2,911,467
East Renfrewshire £50.43 £56.50 £65.33 £1,930,994 £2,134,180 £2,423,484
Edinburgh, City of £52.04 £61.92 £56.34 £11,950,024 £14,351,138 £13,117,541
Eilean Siar £58.36 £76.15 £135.74 £840,612 £1,180,277 £2,050,359
Falkirk £53.25 £55.53 £59.56 £3,780,042 £3,863,364 £4,179,819
Fife £39.15 £49.10 £62.63 £6,545,661 £8,217,883 £10,437,568
Glasgow City £46.13 £42.66 £54.17 £13,813,148 £12,736,882 £16,624,170
Highland £101.05 £139.91 £132.31 £10,606,665 £15,423,526 £14,815,685
Inverclyde £39.34 £65.74 £65.62 £1,604,127 £2,651,427 £2,622,537
Midlothian £52.60 £48.49 £55.62 £1,808,808 £1,717,877 £2,011,743
Moray £71.34 £80.66 £86.22 £3,035,659 £3,469,769 £3,764,213
North Ayrshire £41.14 £47.69 £57.18 £2,741,680 £3,203,337 £3,868,570
North Lanarkshire £32.94 £47.50 £53.77 £4,731,963 £6,910,897 £7,982,757
Orkney Islands £86.12 £83.08 £87.89 £863,743 £844,020 £899,291
Perth & Kinross £70.19 £74.49 £83.00 £4,725,441 £5,062,076 £5,680,892
Renfrewshire £52.36 £57.65 £59.98 £4,308,357 £4,759,393 £4,973,817
Scottish Borders £31.98 £33.50 £34.13 £1,759,210 £1,834,381 £1,930,337
Shetland Islands £47.00 £71.11 £63.96 £503,413 £761,615 £686,289
South Ayrshire £77.16 £71.80 £65.31 £4,181,316 £3,887,608 £3,588,034
South Lanarkshire £56.06 £59.15 £64.09 £7,678,646 £8,227,558 £9,023,601
Stirling £52.91 £77.59 £64.95 £2,385,456 £3,079,747 £2,590,951
West Dunbartonshire £47.57 £49.12 £57.13 £2,120,908 £2,199,329 £2,559,570
West Lothian £55.84 £64.03 £69.19 £3,996,951 £4,646,430 £5,106,601
SCOTLAND £55.42 £63.18 £70.16 £136,528,150 £156,475,481 £175,812,598
ITEMPAGE 60
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMPOSTED
Total tonnes of municipal wastecomposted
Percentage of municipal wastecomposted
11 WASTEMANAGEMENT 2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007
Aberdeen City 8,824.9 10,327.0 6.6% 7.3%
Aberdeenshire 6,816.0 0.0 4.5% 0.0%
Angus 6,271.9 10,190.0 8.4% 13.0%
Argyll & Bute 7,495.3 10,278.0 11.1% 16.7%
Clackmannanshire 4,101.0 4,332.0 11.1% 11.4%
Dumfries & Galloway 97.0 13,155.0 0.1% 12.9%
Dundee City 6,479.0 6,080.9 7.0% 6.6%
East Ayrshire 8,127.8 6,254.9 11.3% 8.3%
East Dunbartonshire 10,316.0 10,773.0 14.1% 14.6%
East Lothian 6,118.0 8,383.5 9.5% 12.4%
East Renfrewshire 7,037.4 7,340.6 12.1% 12.8%
Edinburgh, City of 19,078.9 22,042.3 7.3% 8.3%
Eilean Siar 0.0 1,836.0 0.0% 8.5%
Falkirk 10,343.6 11,543.0 9.0% 10.1%
Fife 19,373.8 21,520.4 7.9% 8.5%
Glasgow City 29,983.0 32,770.8 8.3% 8.9%
Highland 11,431.7 14,174.0 7.1% 8.7%
Inverclyde 2,812.0 3,020.0 5.4% 5.7%
Midlothian 5,563.0 7,102.0 10.5% 13.2%
Moray 5,626.0 8,122.0 9.1% 12.5%
North Ayrshire 9,298.4 8,900.3 10.7% 10.1%
North Lanarkshire 20,247.0 28,357.0 8.7% 12.4%
Orkney Islands 985.1 1,609.8 7.1% 10.9%
Perth & Kinross 12,739.7 13,685.6 12.4% 12.7%
Renfrewshire 6,384.6 9,520.0 6.2% 9.5%
Scottish Borders 2,121.0 6,169.0 3.0% 8.4%
Shetland Islands 0.0 456.5 0.0% 3.7%
South Ayrshire 10,174.4 13,001.0 12.7% 15.5%
South Lanarkshire 19,978.0 27,475.0 9.9% 13.2%
Stirling 8,376.0 8,568.0 13.5% 15.0%
West Dunbartonshire 3,370.4 4,585.6 5.5% 7.5%
West Lothian 13,669.9 14,332.8 12.2% 12.7%
SCOTLAND 23,240.8 345,906.0 8.3% 10.1%
ITEMPAGE 61
MUNICIPAL WASTE RECYCLED
13 TOTAL TONNES OFMUNICIPAL WASTERECYCLED
Percentage of municipal wasterecycled
12 WASTEMANAGEMENT
2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007Aberdeen City 16,691.4 20,005.0 12.5% 14.2%
Aberdeenshire 16,460.0 30,750.0 10.7% 21.2%
Angus 17,711.9 13,551.0 23.7% 17.3%
Argyll & Bute 9,437.0 10,307.7 14.0% 16.7%
Clackmannanshire 10,748.0 12,232.0 29.1% 32.2%
Dumfries & Galloway 10,541.0 10,510.0 10.3% 10.3%
Dundee City 23,000.0 22,536.2 24.1% 24.4%
East Ayrshire 15,319.2 21,318.9 21.4% 28.3%
East Dunbartonshire 9,056.0 12,734.0 12.3% 17.3%
East Lothian 11,577.0 13,716.4 18.0% 20.3%
East Renfrewshire 10,648.6 10,453.7 18.2% 18.2%
Edinburgh, City of 37,423.2 42,360.1 14.3% 16.0%
Eilean Siar 3,064.0 1,836.0 14.0% 8.5%
Falkirk 24,351.7 28,280.0 21.1% 24.8%
Fife 53,803.0 61,062.2 21.8% 24.0%
Glasgow City 26,949.0 29,351.7 7.4% 8.0%
Highland 20,653.3 28,518.0 12.8% 17.4%
Inverclyde 7,229.6 7,714.0 13.8% 14.5%
Midlothian 6,038.0 10,030.0 11.4% 18.6%
Moray 13,438.0 16,916.0 21.8% 26.0%
North Ayrshire 13,048.5 13,716.4 15.1% 15.6%
North Lanarkshire 44,770.0 34,909.0 19.3% 15.3%
Orkney Islands 2,190.2 2,469.3 15.7% 16.7%
Perth & Kinross 21,523.2 22,834.8 20.9% 21.3%
Renfrewshire 18,744.8 18,843.0 18.3% 18.7%
Scottish Borders 9,560.0 14,662.0 13.0% 19.9%
Shetland Islands 1,471.0 1,703.0 10.8% 13.7%
South Ayrshire 19,352.9 20,084.0 24.2% 23.9% South Lanarkshire 47,725.0 46,228.0 23.5% 22.2% Stirling 11,956.0 12,067.0 19.2% 21.1% West Dunbartonshire 8,261.1 14,878.5 13.5% 24.5% West Lothian 17,323.0 24,581.1 15.5% 21.8% SCOTLAND 560,065.6 631,159.0 16.4% 18.3%
ITEMPAGE 62
BIODEGRADABLE WASTE LANDFILLED
Total tonnes of municipal waste Total tonnes of biodegradablemunicipal waste landfilled
Percentage of biodegradablemunicipal waste landfilled
14 WASTEMANAGEMENT
2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007Aberdeen City 133,675.8 141,296.0 68,140.0 69,931.0 63.0% 49.5%
Aberdeenshire 153,133.0 145,154.0 81,809.0 69,200.0 63.0% 47.7%
Angus 74,662.0 78,525.0 20,177.0 27,736.0 60.2% 35.3%
Argyll & Bute 67,280.1 61,691.6 32,762.0 26,509.0 48.7% 43.0%
Clackmannanshire 36,990.0 38,004.0 16,043.0 15,772.0 63.8% 42.0%
Dumfries & Galloway 102,379.0 102,130.0 58,308.8 45,479.0 57.0% 44.5%
Dundee City 95,416.0 92,326.0 9,736.0 13,224.0 10.2% 14.3%
East Ayrshire 71,612.2 75,399.9 28,013.6 29,920.3 58.2% 39.7%
East Dunbartonshire 73,414.0 73,576.0 32,799.0 30,901.0 70.9% 42.0%
East Lothian 64,331.0 67,726.5 29,379.4 28,631.0 63.0% 42.3%
East Renfrewshire 58,224.9 57,372.6 24,162.3 24,418.0 59.6% 42.6%
Edinburgh, City of 261,496.6 264,696.0 129,142.9 120,925.2 49.4% 45.7%
Eilean Siar 21,757.0 21,592.0 13,016.0 11,176.0 60.0% 52.0%
Falkirk 115,156.6 113,887.0 51,618.1 45,142.0 64.2% 39.6%
Fife 246,378.3 254,127.6 110,542.4 108,567.0 44.9% 42.7%
Glasgow City 361,653.0 368,994.3 185,333.0 187,288.0 60.8% 51.0%
Highland 161,082.0 163,744.0 81,996.8 77,393.0 50.9% 47.3%
Inverclyde 52,353.6 53,330.0 42,312.0 26,249.0 80.8% 49.2%
Midlothian 52,942.0 53,917.0 25,202.0 21,667.0 60.1% 40.2%
Moray 61,765.0 65,124.0 26,224.0 23,554.0 42.5% 36.2%
North Ayrshire 86,592.8 87,691.8 37,508.0 38,075.0 43.3% 43.4%
North Lanarkshire 231,595.0 228,484.0 100,690.0 99,064.0 43.5% 43.0%
Orkney Islands 13,968.3 14,790.6 865.8 758.0 6.2% 5.1%
Perth & Kinross 103,031.5 107,424.1 43,346.0 44,644.0 64.4% 41.6%
Renfrewshire 102,617.7 100,497.0 50,020.6 46,340.0 48.7% 46.0%
Scottish Borders 73,215.0 73,625.0 38,766.0 30,736.0 63.0% 41.7%
Shetland Islands 13,564.0 12,453.5 2,082.0 749.0 15.3% 7.0%
South Ayrshire 80,118.7 84,148.0 28,332.9 27,998.0 56.0% 33.3%
South Lanarkshire 202,940.0 207,965.0 84,150.0 85,260.0 41.5% 41.0%
ITEMPAGE 63
Stirling 62,233.0 57,260.0 39,033.0 23,074.0 62.7% 40.3%
West Dunbartonshire 61,220.6 60,799.5 30,900.9 27,132.0 50.5% 45.0%
West Lothian 111,862.8 112,912.1 46,208.3 45,346.7 57.1% 40.2%
SCOTLAND 3,408,661.5 3,440,664.1 1,568,620.9 1,472,859.2 46.0% 42.8%
Appendix 9. Timetable and Methodology for Transformation Programme.
Time Table
Date What Occurred WhoThroughout Weekly Core Team Meetings - to
review progress and set agendafor work to follow
E&ES, Corporate DirectorStrategic Leadership, ServiceDesign & Development, Headsof Service NeighbourhoodServices (North)
Throughout Weekly report on progress andrisk register
Service Design & Development
Mid October 07 Launch E&ES TransformationProgramme
CMT
Mid Oct - Intensive Desk Research andBenchmarking
E&ES Team
Meetings with service managersand senior officers on data
E&ES Team
29th Nov, 4 Dec Service Level Workshops onissues and solutions
Front line staff through toservice managers
Nov/ Dec/Jan Meetings with Service Managers Staff not able to attendworkshops and key operationalstaff
13 Dec Workshop on solutions identified Extended CorporateManagement Team
19 Dec Briefing on Findings andConclusions
CMT
10 January Briefing on Findings &Conclusions
Administration Leaders
11 January Briefing on Findings &Conclusions
Unions, E&ES Team
18 January Briefing on Consultation Papers Elected Members
24 January Feedback session onConsultation Papers
Officers from original workshop
13 Feb Full Council Reports Presented E&ES
Development of ImplementationPlans
Union and Staff Consultation onImplementation Plans
Post Council
Regular Reporting to Committee
E&ES & Relevant Services
Appendix 10. Waste Collection Fleet as at January 2008
VehicleType Activity Number
BOX 7.5T Bulky Collection 2OMB 26T Recycling Points 2R/C 18T Waste/Garden/Trade 21R/C 23T Waste/Garden/Trade 2R/C 26T Waste/Garden/Trade 18RC 12T Waste/Garden/Trade 2SKIP 17T Trade Waste 2
K/SIDER18THouseholdRecycling 12
Total 61
Current Fleet Replacement Programme for Waste Collection Vehicles
Vehicle Type Reg. No AGE Estimated Cost Year17T:RCV R816PRS >10 100,000.00 817T:RCV R819PRS >10 100,000.00 817T:RCV R818PRS >10 100,000.00 8 >10 300,000.00 17T:RCV R817PRS >10 100,000.00 917T SKIP LOADER P211DSO 9.8 65,000.00 917T SKIP LOADER R813PRS >10 65,000.00 926T RCV T626BRS >10 121,185.00 926T RCV T625BRS >10 121,185.00 926T RCV T749HSA 7.8 121,185.00 926T RCV T750HSA 7.8 121,185.00 9 714,740.00 TIPPER 3W 7.5 - 17T V224DSA 7.4 39,970.00 1017T:BULKBIN COLLECT. V641DSS 7.2 100,000.00 1017T:BULKBIN COLLECT. V642DSS 7.2 100,000.00 1017T:BULKBIN COLLECT. V638DSS 7.2 100,000.00 1017T:BULKBIN COLLECT. V639DSS 7.2 100,000.00 1026T RCV V223DSA 7.5 121,185.00 1026T RCV V522DSO 7.4 121,185.00 1026T RCV V523DSO 7.4 121,185.00 10 803,525.00
ITEMPA
GE 66
Appendix 11. Draft Implementation Plan – Projects, Areas of Work and Resource Implications
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implications1. Transform Waste Management Infrastructure throughthe development of:1.1 A mixed-materialsRecycling Facility inAberdeen with acapacity in excess of30,000 tonnes perannum with facilities toinclude the ability to sortglass from otherrecyclables
• Identify Site• Specify Material Inputs • Design solution• Negotiate Costs• Obtain Council Approval• Vary WMS Contract• Operational in 2010
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Opportunity toradically reducecollection costs(£1.5million/annum)and futureflexibility in addingmaterials forrecycling (e.g.tetrapaks/otherrigid plastics)
Low riskof publicobjectionto site.Risk ofnotreachingcontractvariationwith SITA
May 2008May 2008July 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008
No immediate budgetaryimplications, officerinvolvement from NSNrequires
£540K/year additionaldisposal costs in offset by£1.5 million savings inCollection costs
Capital expenditureundertaken by SITA
1.2. Two newRecycling Centres inAberdeen. One in theBridge of Don area toreplace the PerwinnesMoss Site. The secondto be in the west of thecity.
• Identify Sites• Specify Site Capacity• Design Solution• Negotiate Costs• Obtain Council Approval• Vary WMS Contract• Operational in 2009
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (Northand SouthAreas)
SignificantlyincreasedRecycling Levels(equal to 3% oncity recycling rateand better serviceprovision tocitizens
Risk ofpublicobjectionto sites.Risk ofnotreachingcontractvariationwith SITA
May 2008May 2008July 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008
Estimated additional costin providing CA Servicesoffset by diversion ofwaste from landfill.
Capital Expenditureundertaken by SITA
1.3 Two TransferStations in the city, onein the north and one inthe south, one possiblyco-located with the MRF
• Identify Sites• Specify Site Capacity• Design Solution• Negotiate Costs• Obtain Council Approval• Vary WMS Contract• Operational in 2010
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (Northand SouthAreas)
Allows cost-effective transferof waste materialsto disposal outletand reducescollection coststhrough lowermileage
Low riskof publicobjectionto site.Risk ofnotreachingcontractvariationwith SITA
May 2008May 2008July 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008
Cost can be mitigated ifone site is co-located withMRF. Second sitejustification on basis ofavoidance of cost tocollection operations (netimpact £350K/annum)
Capital Expenditureundertaken by SITA
2. Vary the Waste Management Services Contract to develop the facilitiesoutlined in Recommendation 1 and to:
ITEMPA
GE 67
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implications2.1 Establish a longterm arrangement fortreatment of green andorganic waste usingeither In-vesselcomposting oranaerobic digestion
• Identify New Site/Sub contractor• Specify Site Capacity• Design Solution• Negotiate Costs• Obtain Council Approval• Vary WMS Contract• Operational in 2010
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Provide securityof outlet for greenand food wasteoperation at sameor reduced cost
Risk ofnotreachingcontractvariationwith SITA
May 2008May 2008July 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008
No additional cost toACC, potential to save upto £120K per annum ifnew site is found inAberdeen at same cost ascurrent outlet.
Capital Expenditureundertaken by SITA
2.2 Secure landfillcapacity from 2010 untilthe introduction ofresidual treatmentfacility as determined bythe Aberdeen CityWaste Strategycurrently underdevelopment
• Negotiate costs with SITA• Obtain Council Approval• Vary WMS Contract
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices( North Area)
Security of outletfor landfill edwaste until newresidual wastefacility is opened
Low riskof notreachingcontractvariationwith SITA
October2008
Anticipated increase inlandfill costs of £840K perannum (plus landfill taxand LAS penalties)
3. Transform the waste collection service in the short termthrough the introduction of:3.1 Introduce in 2008 apaper recycling servicefor areas served bystreet bulk bins and incourtyard and high-risedevelopments, includingsheltered housing
• Obtain Council approval ofReport to Resources Committeeon 26 Feb 2008
• Purchase new vehicle• Purchase new Containers• Promotion campaign • Deliver containers and bags
StrategicLeadership NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Enhanced paperrecycling serviceto 15,000households
Low risk Feb 2008
July 2008July 2008Aug 2008Sep 2008
Capital spend of £250K in2008
Additional revenue cost ofapprox. £20K in first yearturning to savings insubsequent years
3.2 Ensure thecombined kitchen andgarden waste service isintroduced without delay
• Purchase new vehicles• Purchase and distribute food
bags• Promotion campaign
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Enhancedrecycling servicefor 60,000householders
Increase recyclingrate by 4%
Low Risk July 2008 Increased treatment costoff set by savings inlandfill
3.3 Enhance provisionof trade paper recyclingservice through areview to include
• Review current service provisionand convert customers to bulkbin system
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Enhanced paperrecycling serviceto Trade wastecustomers
Low risk Oct 2008 Cost neutral, trade wastecharges will reflect anyadditional cost. Vehiclecapacity from existing
ITEMPA
GE 68
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implicationscharging rates,containerisation andopportunities forexpansion
resource
3.4 Introduce alternateweek collection ofresidual (black bin)waste across all areasserved by wheeled binby spring-2009
• Review options and collectionsystems/frequencies
• Undertake cost analysis foroptions
• Bring forward options proposalsto Waste Management WorkingGroup to recommend preferredsolution
• P&S and Resources Committeeto Approve
• Implement CommunicationsPlan to explain reasons/costs
• Implement spring 2009
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Reformedcollectionoperation thatfocuses onrecycling ratherthan rubbish
Mediumrisk ofpublicopposition
May2008
Jun 2008
Aug 2008
Sep 2008
Oct 2008onwardsApril 2009
Scale of cost savings fromreducing frequency ofcollection will bedependent on collectionmethod selected butestimates range from £1-2million per annum. Inaddition reduced landfillcosts of £280-600K will beachieved.
3.5 In conjunction with3.4, establish clearpolicy on wheeledrefuse bin replacementand provision ofadditional refuse binsbased on an annualcharge
• Develop Plan and seek WasteManagement Working Groupapproval
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
StrategicLeadership
Clear policy thatprevents abuse ofwheeled bins
August2008
No financial implicationexcept potential additionalcharges to householdersfor extra wheeled bins
3.6 Introduce recyclingcollection services torural properties
• Investigate cost/benefit ofextending kerbside sort systemto 800 rural properties andcompare with waiting until mixedrecyclate collection isestablished
• Report to Waste ManagementWorking Group
• Proceed to P&S and ResourcesCommittee if approved
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodService (NorthArea)
Enhancedrecycling service
Low risk Oct 2008
Nov 2008
Not known and requiresfurther investigation butthere will be an increasedcost using the kerbsidesystem. Potentially,wheeled bin, mixedrecyclate collection will becost neutral againstlandfill cost
3.7 Provide additionalresource on short-term
• Develop a case for recruitment• Seek approval for recruitment
StrategicLeadership
Efficientlogistics
L May
Total staff costof no more
ITEMPA
GE 69
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implicationscontract (one person forone year) to optimiseexisting round system toensure efficient use ofvehicles and to plannew route system forintroduction of alternateweek collection ofresidual waste
• Recruit and appoint NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
support fromResourcesManagement(HR)
of wastecollection
ow
2008
Jun 2008Sep 2008
than £35K willbe offset byefficiencies incollectionrounds
3.8 Develop a wasteflow based datamanagement system toassist in operationalmanagement andoptions analysis
• Develop Waste flow modelbased on Excel
NeighbourhoodService (NorthArea)
StrategicLeadership
Improvedunderstanding ofwaste and costflows leading toefficiency savingsin operation
Low Jul 2008 Resourced from existingstaff
4. Adopt Fleet Management measures to increaseefficiency of waste collection services through:
4.1 Servicing of wastecollection vehicles inevenings
• Implement evening shift atKittybrewster
NeighbourhoodService (AreaNorth)
Increased vehicleavailability andreduced hire costs
Low Jul 2008 Cost savings estimated tobe well in excess of£100K per annum.Existing staffingagreement in place toallow evening working.
4.2 Complete thetransfer of workshopsand staff from DuthiePark to Kittybrewster, inorder to facilitate 4.1
• As above NeighbourhoodService AreasNorth andCentral
Increased vehicleavailability andreduced hire costs
Low Jul 2008 As above.
4.3 Update chargingmechanism for vehiclesto reflect actual costs
• Replace current cost estimateswith actual costs for all vehicles
NeighbourhoodService (NorthArea)
Clearerunderstanding ofactual costs ofvehicle operationwill deliver betterdecision makingfor managers
Review bySep 2008for start in April 2009
Potential budget impactfor waste offset bysavings elsewhere inCouncil.
ITEMPA
GE 70
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implications4.4 Implement, as ahigh priority, a wastecollection fleetreplacementprogramme to ensuremaximum age of 9years by 2009 and 7years by 2011
• Review current fleet costs toidentify spend to save case
• Review procurement policy• Present recommendations to
Resources Committee foragreement
NeighbourhoodServices(North)
StrategicLeadership
ResourcesManagement(Procurement)
Higher vehicleutilisation leadingto cost savingsfrom lower hirecosts
May 2008
Jul 2008Sep 2008for start in2009/10budget year
Unable to provideestimates – additionalwork required in this area
4.5 As an immediatepriority, establishadditional vehiclestorage capacity in thecity
• Complete negotiations on areaadjacent to Kittybrewster
ResourcesManagementandNeighbourhoodService (NorthArea)
Sufficient spacefor vehicle parkingwill allowintroduction ofadditionalrecycling services
High ifnotcompleted in shortterm
April 2008 Within existing staffingresource. Small potentialcost for legal and accessfees
5. Upon the delivery of facilities identified in Recommendation 1, transformthe waste collection service by:5.1 Changinghousehold recyclingcollection from kerbsidesort to mixedrecyclables collection
• Confirm range of recyclables tobe collected mixed
• Produce business case forsubmission and approval byWMWG and relevantcommittees
• Plan implementation programme• Establish communication
programme• Procure replacement vehicles
and wheeled bins
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodService (NorthArea)
Simple, costeffective collectionmethodology thatincreasesflexibility of wastefleet and reducescost againstexisting collectionmethodology
Low Jun 08
Sep 08
20092009
2009 for2010 start
Introduction of newcollection system willreduce collection costs byan estimated £1.5 millionper annum but dependenton implementation ofRecommendation 1.1
Will require purchase ofapprox. 6 vehicles(£720K) and disposal of12 kerbsider vehicles(estimated value of£500K)
5.2 Changing multi-occupancy paperrecycling service tomixed recyclables uponthe opening of the MRFrecommended above
• As above StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodService (NorthArea)
Increasedrecycling fromtenement areas
Low As Above Limited increase incollection cost (additional£50K/annum) offset byreduction in landfill costs(£70K/annum) plus LASpenalties
5.3 Expandingfood/catering waste
• Install separate collectionfacilities at schools/council
NeighbourhoodService (North
Increasedrecycling
Low Nov 2008 Estimated that this can beachieved within existing
ITEMPA
GE 71
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implicationscollection services toschools and othercouncil controlledpremises
buildings• Ensure capacity for collection
exists from existing fleet
Area)
StrategicLeadership
Jun 2008vehicle and staffingcapacity, saving on landfillcosts in future years couldbe passed back toschools
6. Develop long term waste management solutionsthrough:6.1 Investigation of jointprocurement residualwaste treatmentfacilities withAberdeenshire Council(to include energy fromwaste as an option) andopportunities forcommon servicedelivery in other wastemanagement areas
• Develop joint officer workinggroup with Aberdeenshire
• Identify suitable member leveljoint working vehicle
• Develop options appraisal forresidual waste
StrategicLeadership
Joint wastestrategy forresidual and otherareas of wastemanagement
Medium May 2008
May 2008
Jul 2008
None
6.2 Build upon newLocal Plan policy onwaste management toaddress specific issuessuch as majorinfrastructure and localrecycling points throughappropriatepolicy/guidancedevelopment
• Identify areas of waste policythat require additional planninginput and identify appropriatemethod of delivery
StrategicLeadership
Clear frameworkfor positivedecision makingon siting offacilities andguidance todevelopers onexpected wasteprovision in newdevelopments
Low Dec 2008 None
6.3 Undertake a bestvalue service review ofthe waste collectionservices within anagreed timescale andproceed to market testall options, includingcontracting out, shouldthe review not
• Identify resource to undertakereview
• Establish methodology forreview
• Complete review• Report to Council on route
forward
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Identification ofmost cost-efficientmethod of servicedelivery
Jun 2008
Sep 2008
Mar 2009Apr 2009
Substantial piece of workrequiring additionalresource, possiblyexternal.
Potential longer term HRimplications ofexternalising service
ITEMPA
GE 72
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implicationsdemonstrate best value
7. Transform financial management and support functionsto improve efficiency of waste collection service through: 7.1 Simplifying wastemanagementaccounting system
• Close SWF ledger• Remove Client Contractor
Ledgers and replace with simpleledger for collection
• Single Disposal Ledger• Integrate ledgers to ensure full
cost of activities can be easilyidentified
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
ResourcesManagement
Better financialand operationalmanagementreducingoperating costs
Low Sep 2008 Within existing resource
7.2 Introduction ofactivity-based costingbased on wastestreams/collectionmethods
• Establish cost coding systemthat is based on collectionactivity making determination ofcost of each activity clear andsimple to measure and manage
StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
ResourcesManagement
Better financialand operationalmanagementreducingoperating costs
Low Sep 2008 Within existing resource
7.3 Review ofadministrative supportrequirements in relationto Waste ManagementServices Contract andmanagement of tradewaste charging in lightof move to direct debit
• Establish review team StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Identifyopportunities forcost savings
Low ongoing Within existing resource
Possible staff implicationif review shows excessresource
7.4 Reviewrequirement for wasteawareness, educationand promotion activitiesand identify mostappropriate, cost-effective means ofdelivery
• Establish review team StrategicLeadership
NeighbourhoodServices (NorthArea)
Effectivepromotion ofwaste messagesandimplementation ofservice changes
Low ongoing Within existing resource
Possible staff implicationif review shows excessresource
ITEMPA
GE 73
Recommendation Key Actions Responsibility Output Risk Timescale Resource Implications
