F 816 Health and Environmental Services Committee
Monday, 9th December, 2002
MEETING OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Members present: Councillor O'Reilly (Chairman); the High Sheriff (Councillor W. Browne); and Councillors J. Clarke, Convery, Crowe, Cush, Dodds, McMillen, Molloy, Moore, Ó Broin and H. Smyth.
In attendance: Mr. W. Francey, Director of Health and Environmental Services; Mr. M. Drysdale, Head of Consumer Protection; Mr. A. Hassard, Head of Health Protection; Mr. T. Martin, Head of Building Control; Mr. T. Walker, Head of Waste Management; Mr. J. Walsh, Business Support Manager; and Mr. N. Malcolm, Committee Administrator.
Apology
An apology for inability to attend was reported from Councillor McCann.
Minutes
The minutes of the meetings of 5th, 11th, 13th, 18th, 21st and 25th November, which had been printed and circulated, were taken as read and signed as correct. It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 2nd December.
Directorate
Arc21 Progress Report
The Committee considered the undernoted report concerning the recent progress which had been achieved by Arc21 and which sought approval regarding the contents of the Waste Plan, as amended, for the Arc21 Region and the associated Facilities Issues Paper:
“1. Purpose of Report
To provide members with an update of recent progress within arc21 and to seek approval of the Waste Plan and the Facilities Issues Paper.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 817 Monday, 9th December, 2002
2. Background
Members are aware that the Council has been working in partnership with ten other councils in the eastern region of Northern Ireland to develop a Waste Plan for the next twenty years.
Members will recall that the draft Waste Plan for the arc21 region was submitted to the Department of the Environment (DOE) in June. Members will also remember that at your meeting on 14 October, I reported that the Department would be carrying out technical, economic and legal appraisals of the Plan. Following completion of these reviews, a number of meetings were held involving the Department of the Environment and their consultants, together with representatives of Arc21 and our consultants (Enviros Aspriwall). Following these detailed discussions a number of amendments to the Plan were agreed. The revised Plan was accepted by the Minister who formally determined it and announced this on 4 November 2002 at Malone House. The Waste Plan (as determined by the DOE) will be available to download on www.arc21.com from January 2003.
The next step is to present the changes to the Waste Plan to each of the participating councils for consideration and adoption. In the main, the changes requested by the DOE related to increasing the coverage in the Waste Plan about:
• waste minimization • education and awareness raising campaigns • monitoring performance towards targets • siting issues for non-municipal waste facilities • greater detail regarding hazardous waste • greater detail regarding packaging waste • better clarity of the roles of all participant organizations.
A complete copy of the changes has been has been separately bound and has been circulated to each member of the Committee. A presentation has been prepared which will highlight the key alterations and differences to the draft ‘Plan for Adoption’ as approved by the Committee at the June 2002 meeting and the implications of commencing the implementation phase of the Plan. This Plan for Adoption took account of the Committee’s comments as agreed at the meeting on 15 April 2002.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 818
Other developments within arc21 concern the decision of the Steering Group to refer the Facilities Issues Paper (produced by the Technical Working Group) for adoption by arc21 councils (see Annex 1). This paper outlines the expected requirements and types of new facilities needed within the region in the short-term (ie by 2005), as well as different mechanisms for operating the facilities.
3. Environmental Implications
None.
4. Recommendation
The Committee is recommended to note the report and:
(i) to agree adoption of the Waste Plan as determined by the Minister;
(ii) to approve the recommendations in the Facilities Issues Paper at Annex 1.
ANNEX 1
Arc21 Facilities Issues Paper
Background
In compliance with the Direction issued by the Environment & Heritage Service and agreed by the Project Management Forum at its meeting on the 24 June 2002, the Waste Management Plan for Adoption augmented with the Implementation Plan and the Procurement Plan was submitted to the Department on the 28 June 2002.
In these plans, it is envisaged that the following facilities will be provided and fully operational immediately prior to March 2005 in order for the 2005/06 recovery/recycling targets to be met:
Facility Type Total Capacity Number of Facilities
Clean MRF/Bulking Council 45,000 tpa 1-2 facilities Station In-Vessel Compost Council 40,000 tpa 1-2 facilities Windrow Compost Council 35,000 tpa 2-3 facilities
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 819 Monday, 9th December, 2002
* MRF/BULKING STATION – Materials Recovery Facility
The Windrow composting facility is relatively simple compared with the more technically complex MRF/Bulking Station (s) and In-Vessel Composter(s) and therefore it is intended this will be the subject of a separate procurement process.
The Project Management Forum at its meeting on the 24 June 2002 agreed that in view of the tight timescale involved it was necessary to commence work, without delay, on the tendering exercise to provide the MRF/Bulking Station(s) and In-Vessel composter(s). The Project Management Forum also agreed the process would follow the existing arrangement of a lead council, however the award of any contract would follow any procedure resulting from the formation of the Joint Committee.
Initial work has identified a number of issues requiring to be addressed to enable the matter to be suitably progressed. These issues are principle funding source, principle contractual arrangements and site specificity.
Options for Provision
1. Principal Funding Source
The capital cost of providing these facilities is likely to be in the region of £12m. This may be funded through two sources i.e private finance or public sector finance. The former option is likely to involve a long term contract (10 to 15 years) with the monies outlaid by the private sector recovered through a ‘gate fee’ arrangement. Consequently this will entail greater overall total expenditure for Councils. It would also unduly restrict future contractual options as well as being incompatible with a potential longer term strategy of introducing an integrated contract in or around 5 years time. Finally it is also likely to restrict present flexibility to the Group with the outcome likely to encompass an initial contract incorporating complete Design, Build, Finance and Operate elements.
The latter option of utilising public sector finance would involve each Council injecting any necessary monies to augment Central Government Funding through the Waste Management Grant Scheme. Overall this is likely to minimise overall total expenditure. It would also facilitate greater flexibility for present and future contractual arrangements.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 820
2 Principal Contractual Arrangements
The contracts may be any combination incorporating elements of design, build and operate. Totally separating these aspects may allow for wider competition from which some benefits may derive, however this has to be balanced against a loss of flexibility to contractors which could mitigate any potential savings that such flexibility could present. In the current situation the Group may be best served by tendering on a design and build basis deferring a decision on operations until the formation of the Joint Committee.
3 Site Specificity
There are 3 options;
(i) Do Not Name Any Sites
Whist this allows greater choice from the private sector it does carry an inherent risk that potential suitable sites in Council control may be disregarded.
(ii) Prescribe Site In Council Ownership
Whilst this would simplify the process it also may present some difficulties. It would obviously preclude any potential suitable site in the private sector. Equally securing a formal agreement between all Councils including the particular Council which has control of the site may prove complex and time consuming.
(iii) Include Potential Council Sites
Whilst leaving the choice of site to any Tenderer this would also entail potential suitable sites included in the tender documentation as being possibly available for use should a Tenderer wish, subject to the Tenderer being able to secure a suitable deal with the constituent Council prior to the submission of the tender. This would be in the Groups, and by inference the Councils, interest as it ensures the widest possible coverage.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 821 Monday, 9th December, 2002
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee agrees to:
1. Continue to work on tender preparation through the Current Lead Council arrangement with the award of the tender to follow procedures resulting from the formation of the Joint Committee.
2. Fund facilities through normal public sector finance arrangements with the tender to reflect a design and build approach.
3. Place responsibility on the tenderer for provision of the site, but with the tender documentation including potential sites, as nominated and owned by relevant constituent Councils, which could possibly be available for use subject to the Tenderer securing a suitable deal with the constituent Council prior to the submission of the tender.
4. Authorise the Director of Health & Environmental Services to ascertain if there are any suitable sites, in Council ownership, which might be offered within the tender documentation subject to Committee approval and on terms and conditions agreed with the Director of Legal Services.
Waste Management Plan
Agreed Amendments
Eastern Region Waste Management Group
Required Actions
Meeting Waste Targets
(i) Provide clarification of 2.9% waste growth as taking account of waste minimisation target to stem growth in arisings (ref para 5.52 of WMP).
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 822
Response
5.53 Future municipal waste arisings have been projected on three criteria to provide a range of potential arisings (low and high) and a working estimate for forward planning purposes:
Low Growth : The low growth projection assumes the average quantity of municipal waste per household remains constant (i.e. stabilised waste generation per household). From Table 5.3 this amounts to 1.41 tonnes per household (total municipal waste arisings divided by number of households). The growth results from the projected change in the number of households across the Eastern Region (refer Appendix 5C).
High Growth: The high growth projection assumes an annual increase in total municipal waste of 4.6% per annum, i.e. the average growth rate experienced over the last 4 years, based on data from eight councils.
Working Estimate : The working estimate is based on the change in the number of households (the growth in households in the Eastern Region is a significant factor with approximately 100,000 new homes proposed for the Region by 2020), and an increase in municipal waste generation as measured on a household basis. An increase in municipal waste per household of 1.7% per annum has been assumed. Economic growth projections are positive for the Region and ‘Shaping our Future’ promotes further development in the Belfast Travel to Work Area which includes much of the Eastern Region. The combination of the change in number of households and the increase in municipal waste per household is equivalent to an annual growth of 2.9% in municipal waste arisings. This is comparable to the 3% per annum increase quoted for England and Wales in ‘Waste Strategy 2000’
Waste Minimisation assumptions: The working estimate of 2.9% differs from the high growth estimate of 4.6% by 1.7%. It is assumed that the impact of waste minimisation programmes will deliver this reduction of 1.7% per annum accounting for the difference between the two estimates. To achieve the working estimate therefore there is an implicit commitment to contain the growth in waste through waste minimisation activities.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 823 Monday, 9th December, 2002
5.57 The actual annual growth in waste generation per household is estimated 4.6% based on historical performance data from recent years. arc21 anticipate managing and containing waste growth through waste minimisation activities such as ‘slim the bin’, waste awareness campaigns and home composting. These activities are expected to reduce annual waste growth by more than 1.5%. In this respect the local government Technical Advisers Group through the offices of the Waste Advisory Board helped develop the first phase of the national waste awareness campaign which was rolled out in the first half of 2002. Furthermore, in recognition of the importance of awareness raising programmes arc21 has nominated an officer to work with the EHS in developing further waste minimisation initiatives. In addition, the arc21 group intends to continue to implement its own programme in conjunction with the national campaign.
Required Actions
Meeting Waste Targets
(i) Clarify in the WMP that reports will be required. WMP to contain commitment to monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) on a quarterly basis and report to EHS.
Response
arc21 did not agree to quarterly monitoring of KPIs. Commitment to producing reports as detailed above. The following text will be included.
Commitment to Regular Monitoring
12.19 Regular monitoring and measurement of progress towards achieving the Waste Strategy Targets is fundamental to the success of the Waste Management Plans. The constituent Councils of arc21 collectively are committed to:
• monitoring a number of agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs);
• validating the data used as the basis of the KPIs;
• collating the information quarterly and making it available to the Department in accordance with the methodology to be published;
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 824
• checking overall performance against planned levels; and
• implementing corrective actions as appropriate where it is clear that performance is falling significantly behind the planned levels.
12.20 The KPI’s will form the foundation of annual performance reviews undertaken by arc21 which will entail:
• quality assurance checks on the monitoring results submitted by the constituent Councils;
• reviewing in detail progress towards meeting all of the targets;
• proposing any corrective actions and/or plan modifications, which may be required; and
• producing an annual performance review report and making this generally available.
12.21 A common methodology and approach to monitoring and performance review is essential. The detailed methodology for determining the primary performance indicators for municipal waste management listed in below will be further developed and published by the Department. The aim will be to ensure that data collection and collation conform to Department and EU requirements. Primary indicators for other waste streams and secondary waste management indicators will also be developed. The intention is to have the agreed methodology relating to municipal waste in place by the time of the first annual performance review (of 2002 data) in early 2003. However, it is recognised that the available data for the first review may be somewhat limited. Reporting on non-municipal waste will only be possible after the methodology has been agreed and the mechanism implemented.
12.22 It is envisaged that a joint ‘monitoring and reporting taskforce’ will be set up, involving the Department, the three sub-regional planning groups and other key stakeholders, to oversee the implementation of uniform reporting procedures across the whole of NI.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 825 Monday, 9th December, 2002
12.23 A preliminary list of the Key Performance Indicators for municipal wastes is set out below, while Table 12.1 lists some of the data which will be collected, in order for these Key Performance Indicators (and also key indicators for other waste streams and secondary indicators) to be calculated and overall performance to be monitored. Further details will be given in forthcoming methodological guidelines referred to above. The monitoring and reporting taskforce will periodically review the list of Key Performance Indicators, as appropriate, to ensure that it remains consistent with EU requirements.
Part 1 – Primary Key Performance Indicators for municipal waste management
a. household waste recycled and composted as a % of arisings (i.e of total household waste collected)
b. household waste landfilled
c. commercial & industrial waste (collected by district councils) recycled and composted as a % of arisings
d. commercial & industrial waste (collected by district councils) landfilled
e. municipal waste recycled and composted as a % of total arisings
f. municipal waste landfilled
g. biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) landfilled
h. total household waste collected per household (from which waste growth rates are also calculated)
i. cost of waste collection per household (including recycling) 1
j. cost of waste treatment and disposal per tonne for municipal waste 1
Part 2 – Key Performance Indicators to be measured for kerbside collection schemes
k. number of households served l. participation rates m. capture rates
1 Because of the influence, for example, the frequency of collection, these will be subject to review within the detailed methodology to be published by the Department.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 826
Table 12.1: Key waste data to be measured and reported
A Main municipal waste streams – total quantities in tonnes 1 Refuse collection, including mixed waste, residual waste collected alongside other segregated components, and co-collected commercial and industrial (C&I) waste. 2a Kerbside collection of dry recyclables 1,2 2b Kerbside collection of green waste for composting 1 3 CA Sites – waste collected, recycled, composted and landfilled 2 4 3rd Party / Voluntary groups – recycling and composting collections 2 5 ‘Other’ Collections not included above 6 Council&I collections by private sector, recycled 2 and landfilled 7 Construction and Demolition (C & D) waste recycled 2 and landfilled B Other Waste Streams 3 8 Batteries 9 Clinical Waste 10 Electrical & Electronic equipment 4 11 Packaging and packaging waste 2 12 Tyres 13 End of life vehicles 14 Waste oils 15 Special Waste C Other Data 16 Number of households
1 The data required to calculate the Part 2 indicators (participation and capture rates) will also be measured and reported.
2 Data to be collected and reported for individual materials, to meet EU requirements
3Data to be collated for each of these streams is waste disposal/treatment/recycling/reuse or other waste management method and the total quantities in tonnes.
4Split into the categories required by the WEEE Directive
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 827 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Required Action
Landfill Directive
(i) Install annual performance reviews with appropriate corrective actions in the WMP.
Meeting Waste Targets
(iii) District councils may wish to set up monitoring and reporting taskforce/working group (with EHS) to liaise on the implementation of uniform reporting procedures.
(iv) Develop details of annual performance reviews in WMP to monitor progress towards achieving targets, to incorporate critical paths and trigger points including appropriate corrective actions.
(v) The first annual performance review is to be carried out in March/April 2003, relating to the calendar year 2002.
Response
Chapter 12
Monitoring
12.25 In order to manage the performance of arc21, performance reviews with particular emphasis on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will be undertaken. These will also form the basis of an annual performance review report. The purpose of this monitoring will be to ensure the steady progress towards meeting targets, for example, recycling rate, landfill diversion and reduction in biodegradable municipal waste to landfill. The data will be evaluated and an ongoing annual time series for each KPI produced. Any significant deviations from an annual incremental target will result in appropriate corrective action. Deviations will be considered significant when greater than 25% of any annual increment, in terms of the ability to meet the overall Plan objectives. The level of corrective action will be matched to the degree at which deviations are occurring.
12.26 These annual monitoring reviews will provide substantial baseline data for a formal review of the Waste Management Plan which will commence in 2006 to coincide with the attainment of the first date in the primary targets set in the Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy. The annual performance review reports will be made available to stakeholders.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 828
12.27 arc21 would welcome the development of an inter-regional Working Group to agree methods and mechanisms for monitoring and consistent KPIs which could be used throughout Northern Ireland.
Required Actions
Meeting Waste Targets
(vi) Provide a list of possible measurable programmes which could be worked on in partnership between DCs and Department (w/c 14th October 2002). In designing public awareness/education programmes, specific monitoring mechanisms should be built-in, in order to measure effectiveness.
Response
12.6 When implementing and assessing the effectiveness of education and awareness raising campaigns, arc21 will seek to evaluate their performance against pre-defined criteria to assess their contribution towards meeting the Plan’s objectives. Therefore, prior to the commencement of any scheme, appropriate performance data will be determined. This will be measured in advance of implementation, to determine baseline conditions and will subsequently be assessed during, or at the end of the scheme, to evaluate performance.
12.7 The arc21 councils intend to introduce programmes and initiatives for the general public, schools and community groups as well as local businesses. Key actions and activities for these sectors are highlighted below.
Areas of Partnership between arc21 and DoE
• Establish a joint arc21/DoE education and awareness working group in conjunction with the other Regional Waste Groups.
• Support the DoE in their schools programme
• Work with Central Government in the establishment of waste minimisation clubs for key business sectors
• Work on establishing priorities for grant aid toward recycling initiatives
• Develop environmental performance awards for flagship projects contributing significantly towards the Plan’s objectives at consumer/business/community group levels.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 829 Monday, 9th December, 2002
• Promote NI wide businesses which encourage reuse, for example, swap shops, take back and exchange schemes such as the GB Repaint scheme.
• Development of market development initiatives to promote stable local markets for recyclate
• Development of specific initiatives for householder to minimise waste such as registration to avoid junk mail and return to the retailer schemes
• The joint development of hard news/media campaigns for television , radio and local newspapers.
Required Actions
Sites and Facilities for Non-Municipal Wastes
(i) Information described in Table 2 to be provided in WMP, including EIC requirements for non-MSW.
Response
9.109 Table 9.11 shows the predicted requirements for waste streams in the Eastern Region up to 2005.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 830
Table 9.11 Summary of Capacity and Facility Requirements
Waste Stream Requirement by 2005 Options/Facilities
MSW Recovery 115,000 1-2 MRFs 1-2 In-vessel composters 2-3 Windrow composting facilities Waste minimisation initiatives Treatment - Disposal 500,000 2 new landfills
C&I Recovery 277,000 Proposed MSW MRFs 1 4 -6 additional MRFs 1 2 -4 Anaerobic Digesters Existing recycling facilities Waste minimisation initiatives Treatment - Disposal 160,000 Existing landfill facilities Utilise disposal at new MSW landfills
C&D Recovery 420,000 Re-use at all MSW landfills Re-use in construction ( up to 6 mobile crushers) Waste minimisation initiatives Existing recycling operations Treatment - Disposal 380,000 Existing landfill facilities Disposal at the 2 new MSW landfills 4 – 6 New inert landfill facilities and other projects which qualify as activities exempt from requiring a Waste Disposal (Management) Licence Batteries Recovery 300 2 Existing recycling facilities Treatment - Disposal 400-800 Export for disposal to GB WEEE Recovery 6750 Existing recycling facilities 1-2 new white goods reprocessors Waste minimisation facilities Treatment - Disposal 2250 Disposal at the 2 new MSW landfills EoLV Recovery 20,000 Existing Recycling Facilities Treatment 6 new depolluting sites Disposal 3,000 Disposal at MSW landfills Tyres Recovery 4,000 Waste minimisation initiatives Re-use for eg. playground surface, cement kiln fuel Treatment - Disposal - Healthcare Recovery National contract for all Island Treatment Existing transfer and treatment facilities. Disposal - Sewage Sludge Recovery - Treatment 22,000 Existing incinerator Disposal 12,000 Disposal at MSW landfills
1 To include packaging.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 831 Monday, 9th December, 2002
9.110 Hazardous waste from treatment processes and other stabilised hazardous waste disposal may also be accommodated by the development of a hazardous waste cell at an existing or new landfill in order to provide for up to 25,000 tonnes of hazardous waste produced by the region each year.
Required Actions
Hazardous Waste
(i) WMP to include an outline of the mechanism by which arrangements for managing hazardous waste will be put in place
(ii) District councils will liaise with Department, industry and other key stakeholders, and contribute to a regional working group to tackle the issue of hazardous waste.
(iii) Arc21 to make revision available to other groups.
Response
7.41 For hazardous wastes the determination of the BPEO needs to be carried out on a waste-by-waste basis, taking into account the nature of the hazardous wastes and available treatment/disposal facilities. The sub-regional groups will liaise closely with the DoE and industry to identify the BPEO for these wastes.
7.42 A key issue in assessing the requirements for future management facilities for hazardous waste is the size of the arisings within Northern Ireland compared to that within the UK and Ireland as a whole. The relatively limited quantities appear to make it inefficient to deal with hazardous waste on a sub-regional basis or even at a Northern Ireland level. Therefore future planning needs to consider the wider geographical area and not limit options by national border as this may prevent the selection of the BPEO. The future management of hazardous waste arisings from the whole of Northern Ireland for the long term will therefore need to be considered within the context of both an all-island approach, given the planned future developments in Ireland, including for example, thermal treatment infrastructure in Dublin and Cork, and the ongoing use of facilities in Great Britain.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 832
7.43 It is proposed therefore that a Northern Ireland Working Group is set up to assess the potential for developing an all island approach and to identify the preferred hazardous waste management solutions for the longer term. The group’s membership should be drawn from industry, the three regional groups, EHS and other key stakeholders. As part of the process the Group would consult widely with all interested parties including DEFRA, EA, SEPA, EPA, DoELG and relevant Local Authorities in Ireland. The group would report by the end of 2003 on the viability and implementation of potential all solutions. These considerations will include an assessment of the compatibility of this approach with current arrangements including the use of facilities in Great Britain, regulatory requirements and the provision made for such measures within the relevant Waste Management Plans, with the overall objective of identifying mutually beneficial arrangements consistent with BPEO for the hazardous wastes.
7.44 It is recognised that a key barrier to developing an all island solution is likely to be the UK Management Plan on the Export and Import of Waste. \it will be necessary to amend this to implement any all island solutions, or other mutually beneficial or reciprocal arrangements, should such be identified by the Working Group, on the assumption that these can be justified on the basis of sustainability and proximity.
7.45 In the short term, current facilities in NI for the handling of special and healthcare wastes should continue to provide a service for the management of these wastes, particularly for oily and healthcare wastes. However it is recognised that current facilities are limited and landfill space suitable for the disposal of special wastes and treatment residues is rapidly becoming exhausted. This highlights the need for new landfill capacity for hazardous waste, without which increasing amounts of waste will need to be disposed of outside NI. There is therefore an urgent need to progress the preferred all island solution. The key barrier to this is the UK Management Plan on the Export and Import of Waste and it will be necessary to amend this to implement any all-Ireland developments.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 833 Monday, 9th December, 2002
7.46 Therefore the development of a new landfill capacity capable of taking some hazardous wastes and residue from the treatment processes and other stabilised hazardous arisings is desirable to achieve regional self sufficiency in hazardous waste disposal over the short to medium term. Such future new landfill capacity for hazardous waste will need to meet high standards of construction and operation as set out in the EU Landfill Directive.
7.47 A requirement of the Landfill Directive however is for sites to be classified as hazardous, non-hazardous or inert. This is likely to lead to a reduction in hazardous waste landfill capacity in Northern Ireland. Indeed, if all existing landfill site opt to be classified as non-hazardous, this could result in no hazardous waste landfill capacity in Northern Ireland by 2004, which could result in up to 25,000 tonnes of hazardous waste requiring alterative disposal routes. Currently the only option for this is export to other locations in Great Britain for landfilling or thermal treatment. It is likely that this will be at significantly higher cost than the current costs for disposal in Northern Ireland.
7.48 Also in the short term, facilities in GB used for handling special waste from NI should continue to be used to provide a service for the management of these wastes. The only limitation may be on wastes sent to GB for landfill. This is because the implementation of the Landfill Directive may limit available hazardous waste landfill capacity . However it has been estimated that this accounts for only approximately 3% of the special waste exported to GB.
7.49 Given the above, the Working Group would also seek to address any short term capacity issues resulting from the implementation of the Landfill Directive. However, Government technical guidance on hazardous waste landfills is currently awaited and until a clear preferred national approach is adopted, it is unlikely that no new hazardous waste landfill capacity will be proposed within NI by the private sector to replace the existing facilities.
7.50 Consideration of the short term issues equally will not preclude a regional landfill disposal facility for hazardous waste in the future should this be part of the preferred solution and representing the BPEO for the longer term, following the joint co-operation initiative identified above.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 834
Required Actions
Packaging Waste
(i) Add notes on provenance of data.
(ii) WMP to include an outline of the mechanism by which arrangements for managing packaging waste will be put in place, as set out in the 30 September letter.
(iii) Enviros to look at benchmark schemes, extension to NI and proximate solutions for progressively higher targets.
Response
8.7 Packaging waste is an important focus of EU environmental and waste management policy, where it is defined as a ‘priority waste stream’ covered by EC Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste. The Directive aims at harmonising national packaging legislation with the twin objectives of preventing or reducing the environmental impacts associated with packaging and packaging waste. The importance attached to it is emphasised by the Directive requirement for waste management plans to include a chapter on Packaging Wastes. The Directive also sets out specific community-wide targets for the recycling and recovery of packaging waste, which were to be reached by the year 2001. These required that:
• Between 50% minimum and 65% maximum by weight of packaging waste be recovered
• Between 25% minimum and 45% maximum be recycled, with a minimum of 15% by weight of each packaging material
8.9 The Directive provides Member States with a degree of latitude in terms of the measures that can be adopted to meet the obligations and provisions of the Directive. As a result, different Member States have established different systems to comply with the Directive requirements. It is a basic premise however that those businesses involved within the packaging chain are to be responsible for packaging wastes, and the systems are designed on that basis.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 835 Monday, 9th December, 2002
8.10 In practice, with the exception of Denmark, organisations have been established in each country to comply with the obligations, imposed by the national legislation, on behalf of the affected businesses. Individual businesses generally have the option of transferring their obligations to an external organisation, ie a compliance scheme, or fulfilling their obligations themselves.
8.11 In principle, therefore, compliance schemes have an essential role to play in co-ordinating the activities necessary for the recycling and recovery of waste packaging, and interfacing between the different stakeholders, including industry, reprocessors, and municipalities. The areas of activity of the main packaging waste compliance schemes on a country by country basis is summarised in Table B.2 below, together with their responsibility in terms of municipal/industrial packaging waste.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 836
Table 8.2 Areas of Activities of Main Compliance Schemes
Country Organisation Responsible for Comments
Municipal Industrial Packaging Packaging
1 Austria Branch Systems responsible for organisations both industrial and municipal packaging waste.
1 Belgium Fost+ X 2 different organisations deal with 2 waste Val-I-Pack X streams (Industrial/Municipal)
Denmark Municipalities 1 -
Finland PYR Systems responsible for both industrial and municipal packaging waste.
1 France ECO-Emballages X -
Adelphe X
1 Germany DSD X DSD system restricted to sales packaging Different 2 Organisations Creation of self- compliers systems in competition with the DSD system, since the amendment of the Packaging Ordinance in 1998.
1 Ireland Repak Systems responsible for both industrial and municipal packaging waste.
Italy CONAI -
1 Luxembourg Valorlux X -
The Netherlands SVM-Pact Systems responsible for both industrial and municipal packaging waste.
1 Portugal SPV X -
1 Spain Ecoembalajes X -
Ecovidrio X
Sweden REPA X - UK Different No particular responsibility - organisations, e.g. according to this classification Valpak
Notes 1 Green Dot Scheme established.
2.Source: Table 3. European Commission DGXI.E.3, European Packaging Waste Management Systems – Main Report. February 2001
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 837 Monday, 9th December, 2002
8.12 Eight Member States have established a ‘green dot’ system, which has developed from the German ‘Dual’ System (DSD), to collect and recycle domestic-use packaging. The green dot systems generally relate to household/municipal packaging waste, but this is not always the case, as in Austria and Ireland. In principle, the scheme takes on the obligations of those businesses using the green dot system in return for an annual fee, based on the type and quantity of packaging produced. To the consumer, the ‘green dot’ indicates that the product price includes the cost of waste packaging collection and sorting for recycling and recovery.
8.13 Recognising that both municipalities and industry have roles to play in the recycling and recovery of waste packaging from the municipal waste stream, the systems in place generally seek to ensure that appropriate finance flows to the relevant parties to support their activities. In broad terms, three approaches can be identified with respect to the financing of municipal packaging waste recycling and recovery, as summarised in the Table 8.3 below.
Table 8.3 Summary of Approaches and Responsibilities
Country Responsibilities/Comments Austria, Germany , Sweden Industry is fully responsible for covering all costs; municipalities can be involved 1. in separate collection on behalf of the industry Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Industry and municipalities share France, Ireland, Italy, responsibility; the industry covers costs 2. Luxembourg, Portugal, of sorting and recycling; municipalities Spain are in charge of separate collection and their costs are (completely or partially) reimbursed The Netherlands, Industry and municipalities share responsibility, the industry covers the 3. United Kingdom cost of recycling; municipalities are in charge of separate collection and receive revenues through selling the collected materials
Source: European Commission DGXI.E.3, European Packaging Waste Management Systems – Main Report, February 2001.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 838
8.14 The relative recycling and recovery rates in 1997 between a number of Member States in 1997 is presented in Figure 8.1 below. This illustrates that at that time, those Member States most heavily reliant on landfill, which includes the UK, achieved the lowest total levels of packaging waste recycling/recovery.
Figure 8.1 Packaging Waste Recycling and Recovery Rates by Member States (Year?)
Overall Recovery and Recycling Rates by Member States (in %) 100
90 Energy Recovery Recycling 80
70
60
50
40
30 recycling/recovery rates(%)
20
10
0
d s a m n in d nd tri u a UK aly s ance la It lan nmark rmany rla n Sp e e Au Fr Fi Ire D Ge Sweden Belgi Neth
The United Kingdom Approach
8.15 The UK has opted for a market-based approach, where the cost of recycling each material fluctuates in response to market conditions, and where the recycling and recovery obligations are shared between all parts of the packaging chain. This concept of shared producer responsibility for packaging waste refers only to businesses which produce or use packaging, and is based on a narrower definition than in other EU Member States where the approach has been to adopt a cross-sectoral approach, including local authorities as well as industry. It is recognised therefore that the UK approach essentially means that local authorities and consumers are only likely to be formally or contractually involved when their input is needed by the packaging producers and compliance schemes to help them fulfill their obligations.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 839 Monday, 9th December, 2002
8.31 Packaging waste arising from the commercial and industrial sector was reported in the Northern Ireland Waste Arisings Survey (2001), a study commissioned by EHS. Reported data on the proportion of packaging waste within the household waste stream varies, with estimates ranging from 20% to 28% in the UK. A study of the composition of household waste in Northern Ireland was undertaken during 2000, which indicated that packaging waste represents 22% of the household waste stream in Northern Ireland. Adopting that assumption, the estimated total tonnage of packaging waste generated in Northern Ireland in the Year 2000 from the household and commercial and industrial waste streams is summarised in Table 8.4 below, by the three waste planning regions.
Table 8.4 Summary of Packaging Waste Generated in Northern Ireland
Region Total Packaging Waste (Tonnes) Commercial and Household 3 Total Industrial 2 North West 32,000 34,000 65,000 SWaMP 58,000 45,000 103,000 Arc 21 139,000 104,000 244,000 Total 229,000 183,000 412,000
Notes: 1. The data relate to the Year 2000 and are estimated to the nearest ‘000 tonnes.
2. C&I packaging waste quantities are estimated from the Northern Ireland Waste Arisings Survey, 2001.
3. Household packaging waste quantities are estimated on the basis of data from the NI2000 Household Waste Characterisation Study carried out in 2000.
8.32 Notwithstanding that these figures must be treated with a degree of caution, it is their relative impact, rather than the actual figures themselves, that are considered to be of relevance, and sufficient to define the broad issues and trends. The data clearly demonstrate that commerce and industry produces the higher levels of packaging waste at approximately 56% of the total for Northern Ireland, with household waste accounting for around 44%. Geographically, the eastern region (arc21) produces the largest proportion of packaging waste, consistent with its greater population and industrial/commercial base.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 840
8.33 The packaging waste can be further broken down by material, as set out in Table 8.5 . This demonstrates that Paper and Cardboard represents the largest fraction at approximately 180,000 tonnes (44%), followed by Glass at 85,000 tonnes (21%), Plastics at 72,000 tonnes (17%) and Ferrous Metals at 31,000 tonnes (8%). Aluminium is estimated at about 5,000 tonnes, which is about 1% of the total packaging waste stream.
Table 8.4 Breakdown of Packaging Waste by Material
Material Commercial Household Total Tonnage and Industrial Assumed 2001 (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Paper and 124,000 57,000 181,000 Cardboard Glass 19,000 66,000 85,000 Aluminium 1,000 4,000 5,000 Ferrous Metals 12,000 19,000 31,000 Plastic 34,000 37,000 71,000 Wood 37,000 0 37,000 Other 2000 0 2000 Total 229,000 183,000 412,000
Notes: 1. The data relate to the Year 2000 and are estimated to the nearest ‘000 tonnes.
2. Material quantities are estimated on the basis of their relative proportions in the household and C&I waste streams, as indicated in the DEFRA Task Force Report on Packaging Waste in November 2001.
8.36 The total quantity of packaging waste generated in Northern Ireland to be recycled/ recovered, calculated on the basis of the returns from the obligated organisations, equated to 82,946 tonnes for the year 2000. For comparative purposes, it should be noted that if Northern Ireland in its own right had to recycle/recover a minimum of 50% of its packaging wastes, this would equate to a requirement to recycle/recover a total of 206,000 tonnes. This difference highlights, in comparative terms, the proportionately lower number of obligated business located in Northern Ireland, as compared to the rest of the UK.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 841 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Table 8.8 Packaging Wastes Reprocessed/Recovered by Registered Reprocessors and Exporters
Packaging Quantity Quantity Reported Total Total Waste Stream Reported Exported 2 Accounted Generated 3 Reprocessed 2 For 2 (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Paper and 676 1,843 2,519 181,000 Cardboard Plastic 4,790 0 4,790 72,000 Glass 30,843 0 30,843 85,000 Wood 4,256 0 4,256 37,000 Aluminium 0 5 5 5,000 Steel 0 7,216 7,216 31,000 Other 0 0 0 2,000 Energy 1,378 0 1,378 Recovery TOTAL 41,943 9,064 51,007 412,000
Notes: 1. Data relates to the Year 2000. 2. Source: EHS 3. Refer to Table B.4.
8.39 The available data does however highlight one aspect of the Packaging Waste Regulations, as they are currently framed. The legislation overall is designed to operate across the UK, and therefore it is not necessary on the basis of current reporting requirements, to separate out data relevant to the regions within the UK. The means that there is no data available that records the quantities of packaging wastes that are transferred out of Northern Ireland directly to reprocessors in Great Britain. It is not therefore possible to assess how much of the packaging waste generated in Northern Ireland is recycled or recovered.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 842
Table 8.9 Projected Total UK Packaging Quantities for the Period 2002 – 2006
2002 2006 Annual Growth Rates Aluminium 122,000 122,000 0% Steel 690,000 670,000 -0.75% Glass 2,200,000 2,200,000 0% Paper 3,725,000 3,725,000 0% Plastics 1,740,000 1,960,000 3.0% Wood 1,000,000 900,000 -2.8% Other 40,000 40,000 0% TOTAL 9,517,000 9,617,000 0.26%
Source: Report of the Task Force of the Advisory Committee on Packaging, DEFRA, November 2001. Appendix 3 to Chapter One, Estimated Packaging Flows 2002 – 2006.
Anticipated Future Obligations
8.45 As noted previously the Packaging Directive has been the subject of consultation on a proposal to amend the targets set for the recycling and recovery of packaging wastes. The proposed targets, as set out in the Consultation Paper , are to be achieved by 30 June 2006, and include:
• An overall recovery target of between 60% as a minimum and 75% as a maximum (previously 50%-65%)
• The overall recycling target to be between 55% as a minimum and 70% as a maximum (previously 25%-45%)
• Differentiated material specific targets i.e. glass 60%, paper/board 55%, metals 50% and plastics 20%
8.46 Such targets, although they may be subject to further adjustment in terms of levels and timings , represent a major challenge to ensure that sufficient packaging wastes can be recovered. In this regard it is useful to consider the proportions of packaging wastes that are currently recovered and reprocessed from both the household and commercial and industrial waste streams , and also the residual proportions that are estimated to remain in each of the respective waste streams. Table B.9 below presents this data in terms of relative proportions for the main packaging materials. This is drawn from the Report prepared by the Task Force on Packaging for DEFRA, and is considered representative of the UK as a whole.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 843 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Table 8.10 Summary of Estimated Packaging Waste Reprocessing
Waste Stream Household Commercial and Industrial Packaging Reprocessed Remaining Reprocessed Remaining Material Paper/ 1.30% 40.21% 47.46% 11.03% Cardboard Glass 25.00% 59.09% 7.50% 8.41% Aluminium 13.33% 73.75% 0.25% 12.67% Ferrous Metals 10.67% 60.40% 21.21% 7.78% Plastic 0.77% 61.77% 11.40% 26.06% Wood 0.00% 0.00% 44.26% 55.74%
8.49 This analysis has important implications for those stakeholders involved in the management of household wastes, as well as commercial and industrial wastes, and highlights the need for an integrated approach to the recovery and recycling of packaging wastes, cross-cutting traditional roles and responsibilities. This is further emphasised by the Report of the Task Force of the Advisory Committee on Packaging, published by DEFRA in November 2001which states:
‘To recover seriously increased quantities from the household waste stream, obligated industry, mainly through its compliance schemes, will need to enter into long-term arrangements with Local Authorities which are complementary to their new statutory obligations. ……
The issues associated with this, and actions for key stakeholders therefore are considered further in the following sections.
Key Issues to Increase Levels of Recovery and Recycling
8.49 Key issues associated with increasing packaging waste recovery and recycling levels in Northern Ireland include five fundamental priorities, as follows:
1. The extraction of high quality material, particularly from the household waste stream, as well as additional materials from the commercial and industrial waste stream.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 844
2. The development of a spread of facilities and services to facilitate both the recycling and recovery of packaging wastes.
3. The establishment of a presence in the market, in order to secure suitable contracts for the supply of captured packaging waste materials to reprocessors.
4. The development of suitable and sustainable end- uses/markets locally for recycled materials.
5. The development of a partnership approach between consumers, industry (including businesses and packaging waste producers), compliance schemes, reprocessors and the waste management sector, and local authorities to the management of packaging waste.
8.83 A critical component of this approach will be to ensure that revenues are not only generated, but flow to the appropriate parties, i.e. from waste producers, including Compliance Schemes acting on behalf of obligated businesses, to other parties, including district councils, undertaking activities that recycle and recover packaging wastes. This is in accordance with the concept of Producer Responsibility, and is likely to mean that contractual or other formalised relationships between obligated industry and local authorities (and/or their contractors) are likely to evolve over time. It should also ensure that additional burdens are not placed on rate –payers for activities undertaken by Councils, where the responsibility properly lies elsewhere under the legislative provisions.
8.92 The Councils would encourage government to take the opportunity to ensure that reporting requirements are amended so that the flows of all packaging wastes in and out of Northern Ireland to Great Britain and elsewhere, are recorded. This would enable the performance of Northern Ireland, albeit as a region within the UK, to be monitored against targets, and would represent an important feedback mechanism for stakeholders, that encourages participation.
8.97 Facilities proposed within the plan to recycle and recover household waste will accept Packaging wastes. It is essential that funding for the recovery of Packaging waste is channelled in such as way as to expand and support these MSW facilities. Existing compliance schemes are not well represented in NI and NI has not benefited from
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 845 Monday, 9th December, 2002
development funding through the PRN system. arc21 proposes to lobby all the compliance schemes represented in the NI market place to encourage reinvestment of PRN income in local infrastructure. Members of these schemes will be encouraged to support the lobbying activities. The compliance scheme membership within the arc21 community will be surveyed in order to focus the lobbying activity. If appropriate the measures may constitute the development of further key performance indicators.
8.98 The current legislation does not directly involve district councils in the packaging chain. In France, companies pay a financial contribution to private sector companies based on the number of sales unit packages involved, to discharge their obligation. Manufacturers, importers and distributors of products destined for either domestic or catering use are obligated. These companies then redistribute the revenue collected among local authorities responsible for collecting household waste, and compensate them for having to collect and sort the waste. Local authorities then sell the waste to industrial firms. This scheme aims to have achieved 75% recovery of household waste by the end of 2002. arc21 Councils would welcome a change to this type of approach to allow funding to be directed towards the recovery of packaging waste from the household waste stream.
8.99 Key activities that the Councils will undertake, over and above the wider issues identified above, therefore include:
• Raising awareness and providing information to the public.
• The establishment of a Taskforce to work with central government, businesses, and compliance schemes, to develop appropriate mechanisms for joint working with commerce and industry to support increased recovery of packaging wastes from the municipal waste stream.
• Working with industry and local businesses to encourage development of local recycling and recovery capacity, encompassing all businesses and activities.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 846
• Working with industry and business, including Packaging Waste Compliance Schemes, to develop and implement systems for the recovery and recycling of packaging wastes to ensure that future legislative recycling and recovery targets are met.
• Acquire data on packaging waste flows, to identify the quantities, nature and destination of packaging wastes, as part of the Councils’ responsibilities for future waste management planning.
8.107 The data for glass on the other hand illustrates that where there is reprocessing capacity available locally, a significant proportion of that waste packaging material is reprocessed and is accounted for.
Table 8.11 Summary of Packaging Material Recovery
Material Estimated Total Total Percentage Quantity Arising Accounted For Accounted For (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Paper and 181,000 2,519 1.4% Cardboard Plastic 71,000 4,790 6.7% Glass 85,000 30,843 36.3% Wood 37,000 4,256 11.5% Aluminium 5,000 5 0.1% Steel 31,000 7,216 23.3%
Required Actions
Waste Management Costs
(i) BDO to liaise with Nigel Naisbitt to provide annual figures year by year and also current baseline costs.
Response
9.91 Table 9.9 shows the baseline and projected waste management costs in the Eastern Region for the ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario up to 2006/07. Table9.10 shows the projected costs for the Preferred Solution up to 2006/07. The greyed out areas of the table show the comparison against the do nothing scenario.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 847 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Table 9.9: Baseline and Projected Waste Management Costs of ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total
Number of 383,388 388,102 392,816 397,530 402,244 406,925 2,371,005 Households Cost of £18,200,000 £18,423,781 £18,647,561 £18,871,342 £19,095,122 £19,316,730 £112,554,536 Municipal Waste Collection Collected £/ £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 household Tonnes 560,577 576,834 593,562 610,775 628,488 646,714 3,616,950 Municipal Waste Arising Tonnes 30,832 31,726 32,646 33,593 34,567 35,569 198,933 Municipal Waste Recycled Tonnes 529,745 545,108 560,916 577,182 593,921 611,145 3,418,017 Municipal Waste Disposed Cost of £16,300,000 £16,772,973 £17,259,385 £17,759,890 £18,274,949 £18,804,931.6 £105,172,383 Municipal 5 Waste Disposal Disposal £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £/tonne
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 848
Table 9.10: Baseline and Projected Waste Management Costs for the Preferred Solution
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total Number of 383,388 388,102 392,816 397,530 402,244 406,925 2,371,005 Households Cost of £18,200,000 £18,423,202 £18,647,561 £18,871,342 £19,095,122 £19,317,336 £112,554,563 Municipal Waste Collection Additional £4,947,000 £5,189,000 £4,464,000 £1,522,000 £3,100,000 £19,222,000 capital costs Additional £613,500 £1,878,000 £2,925,000 £3,066,000 £4,236,000 £12,718,500 operational costs Total Cost £18,200,000 £23,983,702 £25,714,561 £26,260,342 £23,683,122 £26,653,336 £144,495,063
Collected £/ £47.47 £61.80 £65.46 £66.06 £58.88 £65.50 £60.94 household
Baseline £18,200,000 £18,423,781 £18,647,561 £18,871,342 £19,095,122 £19,316,730 £112,554,536 Total Cost Baseline £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 £47.47 Collected £/tonne Total £0 £5,559,921 £7,067,000 £7,389,000 £4,588,000 £7,336,606 £31,940,527 Difference Difference £0.00 £14.33 £17.99 £18.59 £11.41 £18.03 £13.47 £/tonne Tonnes 560,577 576,834 593,562 610,775 628,488 646,714 3,616,950 Muncipal Waste Arising Current 30,832 31,726 32,646 33,593 34,567 35,569 198,933 Waste Recycled (tonnes) Additional 1,440 32,880 79,320 125,760 127,200 366,600 Waste Recycled (tonnes) Tonnes 529,745 543,668 528,036 497,862 468,161 483,945 3,051,417 Municipal Waste Landfilled Additional £1,011,718 £2,440,676 £3,869,635 £3,913,944 £11,280,282 avoided cost of waste disposal Additional £2,750,000 £9,500,000 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £14,250,000 capital costs Additional £675,000 £1,875,000 £2,355,000 £2,835,000 £7,740,000 operational costs Cost of £16,300,000 £16,728,664 £16,247,668 £15,319,214 £14,405,314 £14,890,988 £93,892,101 Landfilling Total Cost £16,300,000 £16,728,664 £19,672,668 £26,694,214 £17,760,314 £18,725,988 £115,882,101
Disposal £30.77 £30.77 £37.26 £53.62 £37.94 £38.69 £37.98 £/tonne
Total £16,300,000 £16,772,973 £17,259,385 £17,759,890 £18,274,949 £18,804,932 £105,172,383 Baseline Cost Baseline £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 £30.77 Disposal £/tonne Total £0 -£44,309 £2,413,282 £8,934,324 -£514,635 -£78,944 £10,709,718 Difference Difference £0.00 £0.00 £6.49 £22.85 £7.17 £7.92 £7.21 £/tonne
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 849 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Notes
1. The Preferred Solution is assumed to be implemented from 2003/04, in previous years the costs represent the ‘do nothing’ scenario.
2. Anticipated increases in landfill tax not included in projected disposal costs. Current rate of £13/t assumed to 2006/7 for both scenarios.
3. Anticipated increases in the gate fee for waste disposal due to market pressures not included in projected disposal costs.
4. Avoided disposal cost represents the cost of disposing the waste to landfill if it were not recycled.
5. Disposal costs do not include for the development of a new council operated landfill in 2005/06, although this may potentially be required.
9.92 Additional costs will also be incurred for education and awareness programmes which will accompany implementation of the Preferred Solution. These costs (or a proportion of these costs) can also be included for the ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario, as the total tonnage of municipal waste has been assumed to increase at 2.9% per annum, a significant reduction in recent growth trends.
9.93 The projected costs for education and awareness programmes for the Region are detailed in Table 9.11 below.
Table 9.11: Projected Costs for Education/Awareness Programmes
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Education/ £200,000 £250,000 £250,000 100,000 Awareness programmes
9.94 Table 9.12 summarises the values and assumptions used to generate the projected waste management costs shown above.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 850
Table 9.12 Values and Assumptions for Projected Costs
Costs Cost Each 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 (capital) (£) Bring Sites £1,000 47,000 89,000 64,000 22,000 CA Sites £500,000 3,500,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 Vehicles £100,000 100,000 1,300,000 1,100,000 200,000 18,000 Bins £13 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 MRF £5,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 Windrow £1,125,000 750,000 1,500,000 Composting In-Vessel £2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Composting Costs Per Site (£) 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 (operational) Bring Sites £500/year 23,500 68,000 100,000 111,000 111,000 CA Sites £75,000/ 525,000 900,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 year Vehicles £65,000/ 65,000 910,000 1,625,000 1,755,000 2,925,000 year Bins - MRF £30/tonne 405,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 Windrow £15/tonne 270,000 525,000 525,000 525,000 Composting In-Vessel £25/tonne 480,000 960,000 Composting
9.87 The preferred scenario is based on the following:
• education and awareness raising programme to promote waste minimisation and increase participation in recycling. The initiatives being considered by arc21 as part of this programme are outlined in Chapter 12 and described further in the Implementation Plan;
• 3-stream collection of organics, dry recyclables and residual wastes provided to suitable households, it will be the responsibility of each council to determine the number of households within their area that are suitable for a 3-stream collection;
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 851 Monday, 9th December, 2002
• the preferred method for collecting dry recyclable materials is single or twin stream co-mingled kerbside. Single co-mingled kerbside collection involves the use of a single container to collect recyclable which will be sorted at a MRF. Twin stream co-mingled collection necessitates the separation at kerbside of one waste stream, such as paper, into a container and the co- mingled collection of other materials in a separate bag or container for collection and sorting at a MRF. It will be for each council to decide the type of container or containers to be provided to householders (i.e. bin or bag) and to decide whether it will offer assisted collections to those residents not able to place their recycling container at the kerbside for collection . For planning purposes it was assumed that overall at least 65% of households in the Eastern Region would be suitable for a co-mingled collection, although coverage is likely to be higher in some council areas than others.
• segregated organics treated by in-vessel composting (as for Scenario 3 and 4);
• refurbishment of existing CA sites to provide for greater segregation of materials for recycling and green waste for composting, or the development of new purpose built household waste and recycling centres;
• windrow composting of green waste collected at the CA sites;
• residual waste collected from those households not able to accommodate a separate organics collection will be treated at a mixed waste processing facility or Bio-MRF to remove the remaining biodegradable element for processing by anaerobic digestion;
• thermal treatment of the balance of residual wastes to the level necessary to ensure that the recovery and Landfill Directive targets are achieved, but thermal treatment is not required before 2010; and
• balance of residual wastes and residues from waste treatment processes disposed to landfill (as for all scenarios).”
Facilities Issues Paper
The Director of Health and Environmental Services explained that the Facilities Issues Paper highlighted those facilities which would be required to be provided prior to March, 2005 in order that the Government’s recovery/recycling targets could be met. In response to a Member’s question, he stated that the capital cost of designing and
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 852
building the facilities would be approximately £12 million. He pointed out, given the relatively short period during which the facilities would be operational, prior to the introduction of a more integrated waste management solution, that the gate fee, through which the private sector would recover the financing costs, would be unlikely to be acceptable. A private sector design, build, finance and operate solution would also inhibit the Council’s ability to integrate in the longer-term solution.
After further discussion, the Committee agreed that:
(i) Arc21 continue to work on the preparation of tenders for the facilities through the Current Lead Council arrangement, with the award of the tender to follow the procedures which would result from the formation of the Joint Committee;
(ii) the Council funds its share of the facilities through normal public sector finance arrangements, with the tender specification requiring the designing and building of the facilities;
(iii) Arc21 should ensure that the successful tenderer be responsible for the provision of the site, but that the tender documentation should include potential sites which were nominated and owned by District Councils which are members of Arc21 and which could possibly be available for use, subject to the successful tenderer securing a suitable deal with the relevant Council prior to the submission of the tender; and
(iv) the Director of Health and Environmental Services be authorised to ascertain if there are any suitable sites in the Council’s ownership which might be offered within the tender documentation, subject to the relevant Committee approving the use of such sites and their being offered on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Director of Legal Services.
Agreed Amendments to the Waste Plan
With the assistance of visual aids, the Director of Health and Environmental Services explained the various changes to the Waste Plan which had been requested by the Department of the Environment, following its appraisal of the Plan. He explained that these changes had been agreed by the representatives of the various Councils involved in Arc21 and the consultants. However, it would now be necessary for these changes to the Waste Plan to be agreed by each of the participating Councils. He drew the Committee’s attention to a number of the changes and explained why they had been considered to be necessary.
After discussion in the matter, the Committee agreed to adopt the Waste Plan, as amended by Arc21 and subsequently determined by the Department of the Environment, and noted that a copy of the complete Plan would be available in January, 2003.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 853 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Waste Management
Review of the Client/Contract Split – Waste Collection, Street Cleansing and Associated Services
(Mr. J. Millar, Head of Business Improvement, attended in connection with this item.)
The Committee considered the undernoted report concerning the changes which would be required in the organisational structures of the Waste Management Service within the Health and Environmental Services Department and the Cleansing Contracts Service within the Contract Services Department resulting from the Review of the Client/Contract Split, and the need to make provision for implementation of the waste plan.
“1 Purpose of Report
To seek the Committee’s approval to changes in the organisation structures of the Waste Management Service, within the Health and Environmental Services Department and the Cleansing Contract Service, within the Contract Services Department.
2 Background
The Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2002 agreed that, given the current position regarding Best Value and the then imminent repeal of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) legislation, the Council’s Client/Contract approach to service delivery should be reviewed.
The Director of Health and Environmental Services and the Director of Contract Services advised their respective Committees on 11 April and 15 April 2002 of the intention to undertake the review.
3 Approach
A high level review of both services was undertaken by the Client / Contract Spilt Steering Group, under the chairmanship of the Chief Executive, to assess the current situation, develop a range of options to meet the future requirements of the Council and to assess the implications of these options in terms of:
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 854
• Departmental structures • Committee responsibilities • Service delivery • Staff/Industrial Relation implications • Financial implications • Administrative systems/procedures and to recommend a preferred approach.
The findings and conclusion of this high level review were approved by both relevant committees in October 2002. A summary of the decisions taken is outlined below:
(a) That the Client/Contract split is removed for the Waste Collection, Street Cleansing and associated services and the functions are located in the appropriate Departments.
(b) Each Service should have an Education and Enforcement resource.
(c) The functions should be relocated on a phased approach.
(d) A working team is set up to manage the change.
(e) Budgets developed during the preparation of Revenue Estimates be based on the relocated functions.
(f) The responsibilities of the Health and Environmental Services Committee and the Contract Services Committee be amended accordingly.
(g) Both Directors prepare and implement a communication plan.
As a follow up from this high level review the next stage was to undertake a more in-depth review of the two Services in order to:
(a) Determine the effects of the transfer of functions between the Services on the type, level, reporting lines and numbers of staff, in line with the Council’s own Key Priority Issue of ‘Review the Client/Contract Split’.
(b) To recommend appropriate new organisation structures to meet future resource requirements; UK and EU legislative demands and targets; and to deliver services in line with the Council’s own Key Priority Issue ‘Implementation of the Waste Plan’.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 855 Monday, 9th December, 2002
(c) To recommend appropriate new organisation structures to meet the future resource requirements and to deliver services in line with the Council’s Key Priority Issue ‘Attractiveness of the City’
Accordingly this report will be in three sections in order to address these issues.
4 Current Situation
The current organisation structure for the Waste Management Service is shown in Appendix I.
The current organisation structure for the Cleansing Contracts is shown in Appendix 2.
In October 2002 the Committee adopted the option of removing the Client/Contract split and integrating the various functions into the appropriate Departments.
It was agreed at that time that this option gave greater flexibility for service delivery and single point accountability as well as an immediate impact on:
• Creation of a holistic service • Improved performance monitoring • Single point of contact for customer liaison and complaints • Increased planning ability • Better clarity for Members and the public.
The recent Best Value Review approved by the Committee also highlighted the need to ‘carry out a structural review of the Waste Management Service to accommodate Arc 21 proposals’.
The following sections of this report detail the impact of the agreed transfer of functions between the two Services.
5 Analysis
5.1 Client/Contract Split
The movement of the various functions between the two services has in effect been cost neutral as it mainly entailed a ‘direct lift’ form one service to another as there was no duplication of provision. The impact of the movement of the functions is detailed in the following section of the report.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 856
5.1.1 Technical & Licensing Section
There are no changes to this Section as a result of the split and accordingly this section remains within the Waste Management Service.
5.1.2 Projects & Outreach Section
The work of this Section covers both the areas of education on waste stream issues relative to the Health and Environmental Services Department and education on litter issues relative to the Contract Services Department. The Council have already agreed that there is a requirement for separate community education and awareness resources in each Department, in October 2002, and to that effect it will be necessary to apportion half of the existing resource in Health to the Contract Services Department, i.e. 1.5 staff. This resource will need to be significantly enhanced in each of the two Services to meet the demanding targets in the Waste Plan and the Key Priority Issue of the Attractiveness of the City and specifically in the Cleansing Section to address major issues relating to changing public behaviour in relation to littering and dumping.
5.1.3 Monitoring & Enforcement
There are currently nine posts in this Section of the Waste Management Section; a large part of the function is moving to the Cleansing Section of Contract Services Department and this would equate to the transfer of approximately seven posts.
5.1.4 Civic Amenity Sites
Operational staff in this Section should follow the movement of the function from Cleansing Contracts to the Waste Management Service – with the exception of the skip eater drivers.
5.1.5 Vehicle & Plant Controller
This PO 1 post is currently vacant and as there is no requirement for the Service to fill the post as the duties have transferred to the Operational Services Section within the Contract Services Department. It should therefore be deleted from the structure.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 857 Monday, 9th December, 2002
5.1.6 Business Support Section
The following administrative and clerical support functions are transferred from the Waste Management Service to the Cleansing Section:-
• Budgetary control and variance analysis • Performance Management and Performance Indicators
• Invoicing • Debt control • Commercial Waste administration (4,000 customers’ £1.8 million income).
• Call centre (70,000 calls per annum)
• Enforcement administration, fixed penalty, Court and informal administration.
The following ten posts should follow the movement of the relevant functions to Cleansing Services:
• Senior Business Assistant (Finance & Personnel) • Business Assistant (Client Records & Payments) • Senior Business Assistant (Customer Support & Enforcement)
• Business Assistant (Customer Support & Enforcement)
• Clerical Officer/WPO x 6.
5.2 Waste Management Service – Proposed Structure
The earlier parts of this report deal primarily with the direct impact of the re-allocation of functions due to the removal of the Client/Contract split. They have also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the new structures fully address the resource implications of meeting the Councils commitments to implement the Waste Plan and the Council Key Priority of improving the Attractiveness of the City. In future, there will be a significant increase in the level of importance that the Council will need to accord to waste management in
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 858
terms of expenditure and priority in order to meet the requirements of the Waste Plan, produced by the Eastern Region Waste Management Group to comply with local, national and EU legislation. Also, recent correspondence from the Department of the Environment (NI), following determination of the arc21 Waste Plans in November, has highlighted the Department’s expectations that the actions in the Waste Plan will be met in full, with particular emphasis upon the following:
• Data Management • Monitoring and performance review • Packaging and packaging waste • Hazardous waste • Contractural arrangements and procurement plans
• Waste recycling credits scheme • Development and stimulation of markets for recyclates and compost
• Education and awareness • Action plan and programming • Costs
5.2.2 Policy & Research Resource
Waste Management is a major area of expenditure for the Council. It is also an extremely complex area with new National and EU policies and legislation contributing to an ever changing environment. These are going to impact upon the Council’s priorities and the Council needs to place itself in a position from which it can respond quickly to important issues. This was already identified as an area requiring higher prioritisation (Page 83, Waste Management Service PIP; 2002) which identified that there was a need to:
• Revise present Council Waste Management policies
• Respond to consultation papers from DOE(NI), DEFRA and others (this is currently running at approximately one to two per month and shows signs of increasing in the short-term)
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 859 Monday, 9th December, 2002
• Prepare appropriate Council policies both for existing operations, new proposals and requirements for innovative new services in line with arc21 and beyond
The Council faces a growing body of local, national and EU targets which will have major financial implications for the Council. In order to meet this demand and to ensure that the Council can accommodate the increasing demands being placed upon it, it is proposed to create a new post of Policy and Research Officer salary scale PO2 – reporting directly to the Head of Waste Management.
The need to adequately address this area was clearly highlighted in the Waste Management Service Best Value Review which was approved by the Best Value Assessment Panel and adopted by the Council earlier this year.
‘As both the industry and treatment options evolve, and the ramifications and awareness of waste materials grows, the Council will come under increasing pressure to ensure that appropriate policy and systems are in place to discharge both existing and pending national and international statutory requirements.’
5.2.3 Waste Management (Education, Contracts & Operations )
It is proposed that this section will be reorganised into three separate strands – Community Outreach; and a split function of Contracts Management and Operations. It was widely recognised in the Waste Management Service best value review that there was going to need to be a considerable revision of the roles and responsibilities of the service, as well as a revision on many of the work practices (these are outlined in the PIP pages 83 – 85). The following proposals provide a structure and the necessary resources to discharge the various aspects outlined in this major review.
Community Outreach Section
As stated earlier, in the Community Outreach section the post Client/Contract split resource of 2.5 workload equivalent posts will need to be further enhanced to meet the rapid expansion being experienced and
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 860
required within this function. As a case in point, the waste recycling targets which the Council is committed to are extremely challenging and will require much promotion and support for the public and communities (e.g. presently the Council recycles 3.5% per annum and this figure needs to increase to 25% by 2005). This is required in order to meet both the targets within the Waste Plan and in the longer term, those within the EC Landfill Directive. If the Council is to meet these targets by 2005 it must make a major impact in the following areas:
• External recycling and waste minimisation – the importance of the public and general community involvement in tackling the growing waste problem cannot be underestimated. The target of 25% recycling by 2005 can only be achieved if the public change their behaviour and increasingly segregate their own wastes for recycling. The emerging development of the Community Recycling Forum is expected to have a considerable role to play here.
• Internal recycling, waste minimisation and training – recently the monthly arc21 reports have been highlighting the importance to the Council of the requirement for it to prepare and develop its own approach to achieving recycling within its own buildings and services. This needs to be resourced and services need individually to tackle their own wastes generation and separation. There is a considerable amount of work required here in terms of developing this awareness and improving current understanding and behaviour.
• Education in schools – this is similar to the above, in that the Council needs to increase the level and profile of education received by schoolchildren and pupils about waste management and the importance of recycling, in order to influence behaviour and encourage higher levels of recycling (both in the home and in general).
• Partnerships and community groups – the Waste Management Service made a submission for the TNT Partnership Award this year, and received a visit from assessors. The feedback report
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 861 Monday, 9th December, 2002
commented upon the ‘large number of partnerships’ in place, but highlighted that the Service needed to adopt a more focused, contract based approach to establishing relationships and identifying targets which were mutually rewarding. In general, there are many new partnerships being sought by an increasingly wide and varied assembly of organisations (from the community sector through to various non- governmental organisations) and the Service recognises that these need to be managed and organised more formally.
• Marketing and market development – much work is being done nationally on finding new markets for recyclable materials. However, little is being achieved in Belfast on this complex and involved area. It has been identified within both Better Belfast (the landfill tax distribution partnership of which the Council is a part) and Investment Belfast, as well as within the Economic Development Service that this is an area that would benefit considerably from greater input from the Waste Management Service expertise. There are a variety of projects and initiatives under this heading that could effectively be developed by the Community Outreach section.
The various projects, partnerships and changes in public and community behaviour cannot be achieved within the remaining resources following the removal of the Client/Contract split and accordingly it is proposed to create 2.5 new posts in the Community Outreach section.
Contracts Management and Operations
Following the removal of the Client/Contract split there is a complete lack of any functions or posts to manage both the contractors which service the many contracts that are presently in place (e.g. paper recycling, abandoned cars, waste oils, &c.) or to supervise the recycling centres/civic amenity sites.
Therefore, there is a need to create two new posts of Waste Officer (salary scale PO2) who would be able to oversee the delivery of these functions. Both would share the same job specification, but they would manage specific areas of work:
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 862
• Contracts section – to supervise and plan, oversee and successfully deliver external contracts (e.g. metals recycling, tyres, batteries, glass recycling, &c.) and also to undertake the management of Public Conveniences. This role will also be required to be the interface with the Contract Service Department Waste operations for domestic recycling, recycling bin provision, &c. There is expected to be a considerable increase in the workload of the Contracts section as Priority Waste Streams become increasingly covered by EC legislation (e.g. fridge/freezers, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Hazardous Substances and end of life vehicles.
• Operations section – to supervise, manage and further develop the new Recycling Centres, as well as oversee the upkeep and development of existing Civic Amenity sites. This will require a drive to ensure that both Certificate of
• Technical Competence requirements and a customer focus are further developed and instilled in all relevant staff and to encourage far greater public recycling at these facilities.
• To supplement the two Waste Officers there is a need to create a further five new posts: two officers in the Contracts Section and three officers in the new Recycling Centres.
• 2 X Contracts Officer (Salary Scale SO1) will report to the Waste Officer in the Contracts Section in order to carry out the field work relating to external Contracts (e.g. abandoned vehicles, fridge/freezers management, box recycling contract, Council run twin bin scheme, &c.), ensuring that the recent Duty of Care legislation is satisfactorily discharged by the Council’s contractors, and providing the management of Public Conveniences,.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 863 Monday, 9th December, 2002
• 3 X Recycling Assistant (Salary Scale SO1) will report to the Waste Officer in the Operations Section, but they will be based at the new Recycling Centres and will each, oversee a number of sites dealing with the yardmen and the complete range of day-to-day operational issues (property repair and maintenance), improving public recycling, as well as customer care.
To offset the cost of the above new posts it is proposed that the existing post of Waste Inspector (Properties), Salary Scale SO1 be deleted.
5.2.4 Business Support Section
This section provides the support services which allow the various operational elements mentioned above to perform. Currently, the Council has many waste management related contracts which are costing several hundred thousand pounds. This will substantially grow over the next few years as additional contracts are entered into in order to provide recycling, treatment and disposal outlets for the various waste streams which are increasingly required to be separated out to comply with EC legislation (e.g. fridge/freezers).
This is going to require increasing levels of support for the Contract Officers to ensure that there are correct procedures and handling systems in place to ensure financial probity is maintained.
The Council is continuing to use the Dargan Road Landfill Site. Landfill tax is payable upon the resultant tonnage of waste tipped and the importance of adequately managing this is growing both in terms of the revenue received and the amount of tax credit claimable (almost £¾ million in 2002/03). Therefore, debt control activities are also increasing.
It is imperative therefore that this area of work is tightly managed and supervised; consequently it is recommended that a post of Senior Business Assistant (Finance & Contracts), salary scale SO1 is created to:
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 864
• Provide systems and analysis to support the work of the Contract Officers to manage the systems and procedures for contracts
• Deal with the many contracts and tenders related to the work of the Service and supervise the financial and debt control activities
In waste management terms the importance of adequate and correct information gathering and analysis should not be overlooked. The work of the service will depend upon analysis of the amount of waste recycled and where this is coming from (e.g. which households produce the most recyclable materials, which community groups are most receptive, which Recycling Centres produce the highest tonnage, where is the contamination arising, &c.). In order to formally report on the waste stream, it is essential to capture and monitor all appropriate information and to plot this on a GIS system. Subsequently, there is a distinct need to analyse this information to ensure that the Council is adequately addressing meeting the commitments in the Waste Plan.
There is expected to be a growing interest from the public in relation to recycling over the next few years. Monitoring of the number of queries from the public in relation to recycling has shown a marked increase over the last year and this trend is likely to continue as recycling gains a higher profile through such actions as the roll-out of the box and twin bin schemes, which encourage the segregation of waste.
Accordingly it is recommended that an additional 1.5 Clerk/WPO’s at Salary Scale 1/2 be created to deal with this workload. In addition the posts can also provide additional cover for the Weighbridge during holidays, sickness, &c.
All of the above posts are essential in order to undertake work that is not presently being carried out within the service and which cannot be met from within existing resources, but which nevertheless remains essential if the Council is to meet the various local, national, and EC policies and legislative requirements, the commitments made in the Waste Plan and to meet both the short-term and longer-term recycling targets.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 865 Monday, 9th December, 2002
5.3 Cleansing Services – Proposed Structure
5.3.1 Street Cleansing and associated operations
The earlier parts of this report deal primarily with the direct impact of the re-allocation of functions due to the removal of the Client/Contract split. They have also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the new structures fully address the resource implications of meeting the Councils commitments to implement the Waste Plan and the Council Key Priority of improving the Attractiveness of the City.
Currently the Cleansing Manager is responsible for both Waste Collection and Street Cleansing operations. The span of control of this post was already the subject of an initial review prior to the Client Contractor Split review, based on the current workload completion of this review was delayed to allow for incorporation into the wider review.
In addition to the already wide remit for this post there are considerable extra functions being incorporated into the current remit as a result of the function transfer under the Client / Contract split and other future service delivery requirements.
The major emphasis being placed on operational delivery of the Key Priority Issue of the Attractiveness of the City and the additional duties involved in operational control of community education and awareness, enforcement Graffiti, fly posting and the more complex nature of waste collection operations aligned to delivery of the Waste Plan, make it virtually impossible for one person to effectively manage all the complex and extensive operations of the two functions. Accordingly, it is proposed to split the day to day management of the functions into Street Cleansing and Waste Collections and Fleet Operations.
5.3.2 To enable this to operate it will be necessary to create two new posts of:
• Operations Manager (Street Cleansing) • Operations Manager (Waste Collection & Fleet)
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 866
And consequently delete the post of Cleansing Manager,
The new post of Operations Manager (Street Cleansing), salary scale PO7, will manage and co-ordinate the work of over 240 staff in three major areas listed below:
• Street Cleansing Operations – dealing with all management and operational aspects of delivering ‘attractiveness of the city’, this includes; management of extensive employee and vehicle resources, quality control, performance management, public interface, complaints and investigation.
• Enforcement – dealing with policy implementation, legislative updates, court attendance, enforcement actions, informal warnings and advice, fixed penalty notices.
• Community Outreach– developing and implementing community awareness and education campaigns and initiatives, Community Outreach initiatives and partnerships.
In addition and to complement the Outreach and Awareness approach to street cleansing there is a need to create a new post of Enforcement Manager, salary scale PO4, within the Enforcement sub section, to undertake work on two levels;
• To ensure policy implementation and take responsibility for the legislative side of the work, and
• To manage all the operational aspects of the work and supervise the enforcement staff.
As stated previously, the post Client/Contract split resource of 1.5 posts will need to be further enhanced to meet the rapid expansion of the Community Awareness function. There is therefore a need to create a further 1.5 new posts in this Section as outlined in the proposed structure, (see Appendix 4).
It must be stated that there are potential long term operational savings resulting from the important work carried out by this section in influencing and improving the public’s behaviour to ultimately reduce the amount of litter created.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 867 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Further potential savings are possible from the deletion of the post of Waste Inspector (Monitoring), salary scale SO1.
5.3.3 Waste Collection & Fleet Operations
As stated above it is proposed to segregate the Street Cleansing and Waste Collection Services for day to day operational and management, accordingly, there is a need to create a new post of Operations Manager (Waste Collection & Fleet), salary scale PO5 to manage the Section dealing with the areas of:
• Waste Collection & Recycling Operations Management (200 + employees )
• Fleet Management (150 + vehicles) • Driver Allocation and Supervision • Management of the Fuel System • Commercial Waste Sales and Marketing • Bulky Household Waste Collection • Skip emptying service
The existing post of Commercial Waste Manager, salary scale PO2, should be deleted from the structure and a new post of Waste Collection Manager, salary scale PO2, created.
5.3.4 Business Support Section
Coupled with the transfer of functions from the Health and Environmental Services Department, the Business Support Section has recently seen a very significant increase in the number of functions, associated policies, procedures, and systems both in the lead up to, and also post the Client/Contract split. Again this support service was identified as requiring review, prior to the Client/Contractor split review, due to the increased workload already undertaken since the structure was first formed in 1993. There has been no review since that date. A separate review was however delayed to allow for inclusion into the wider review process.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 868
As a result of the significant increase in functions being undertaken by this section it is therefore deemed necessary to create a post of Quality & Business Support Manager, salary scale PO6, to manage and co-ordinate in the following major areas of work:
• Finance – Payroll, Income and budgetary control (£18M budget, 400+ staff)
• Training (Delivery of IIP, Competency Training & Development, operative NVQs, employee development)
• Extensive HR management issues (sickness, discipline, employee counselling, etc.)
• General Administration (Significant correspondence and record keeping, Data protection, employee records, etc.)
• Customer Support & Enforcement (70,000+ telephone calls, extensive enforcement admin, legal admin)
• Systems Administration (Significant numbers of systems to be maintained and developed in support of operational management)
• Quality Management (managing performance and quality measurement processes and staff)
5.3.5 Training
There is a need to create a post of Training Officer, salary scale SO2, to deal with a wide range of Employee Training & Development issues, affecting 400+ employees, including:
• IIP Implementation
• Training & Development of operatives
• Operative NVQs
• Development of competency based Training & Development
This post was partially covered by the existing post of Training and Quality Manager. The high priority placed on training and development of operatives and the size of the employee base necessitate a dedicated officer to fully deliver the requirements of the post.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 869 Monday, 9th December, 2002
5.3.6 Marketing and enforcement support
There is a need to create two additional CO/WPO posts salary scale 1 / 2 to assist with both Commercial Waste marketing, increasing Customer Support and Enforcement activities.
Part of the cost of these posts can be offset by not extending the F.T.C. post of Marketing/Sales Officer, salary scale Sc 6. By not renewing this post F.T.C. current expenditure can be reduced by £19,776 and provide partial funding for the ongoing additional clerical requirement.
• Commercial Waste marketing activities • Post/Mail • Typing and Filing • Cash Handling • Purchasing Invoices • Call Centre • Enforcement / legal admin.
5.3.7 Systems Administration Post
As a result of the significant number of systems being transferred from the Waste Management Service to Cleansing Services, it is inevitable that a post of Systems Administrator will eventually be required to develop, review, implement, test and maintain all systems and con-ordinate all training of staff. It is proposed that a member of the FABS Section will provide support to fulfil the role on a temporary basis.
5.3.8. Quality Section
There remains a requirement for three staff to undertake work within the Quality function. This work includes monitoring quality standards for all operations, developing Environmental Monitoring Systems, behavioural monitoring, recycling monitoring and performance management monitoring.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 870
Some savings are possible in this section by replacing the existing post of Quality/Training Manger, salary scale PO2, with a post of Senior Quality Officer salary scale SO1, as the training function would then be covered by the newly created HR and Training Officer.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 CLIENT/CONTRACT SPLIT
The re-allocation of functions between the two services has been cost neutral.
6.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE :
Savings Deleted Post SO1 £21,921 Waste Inspector (Properties) £21,921
Policy & Research Policy & Research Officer PO2 £25,035 £25,035
Waste Management (Community Outreach) Promotion & PO5 / £60,466 £60,466 Education Staff x 2.5 SO1
Contracts Management & Operations Waste Officer x 2 PO2 £52,986 Contract Officer x 2 SO1 £43,842 Recycling Officer x 3 SO1 £65,763 £162,591
Business Support Senior B.A. (Finance & Contracts) SO1 £21,921 Clerk/WPO X 1.5 Sc 1 / 2 £19,328 £41,249
Total £267,420
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 871 Monday, 9th December, 2002
6.3 CLEANSING SERVICE
Savings Deleted Posts Quality/Training Manager PO2 £26,493 Waste Officer (Monitoring & PO2 £26,493 Enforcement) SO1 £21,921 Waste Inspector PO5 £33,249 Cleansing Manager PO2 £26,493 Commercial Manager Sc 6 £19,776 Marketing/Sales Officer (F.T.C.) £154,425
Total Savings
Operations (Street Cleaning) Operations Manager (Street Cleaning PO7 £36,957 Community Outreach Staff x 1.5 PO5/SO1 £38,545 Enforcement Manager PO4 £31,041 £106,543 Operations (Waste Collection & Fleet) Operations Manager (Waste Collection PO5 £33,249 & Fleet) Waste Collection Manager PO2 £26,493 £59,742
Training Training Officer SO2 £23,889 £23,889
Business Support Quality & Business Support Manager PO6 £34,719 Senior Quality Officer SO1 £21,921 Clerk/WPO x 2 Sc 1 / 2 £25,770 £82,410 £272,584
Less Savings from Deleted Posts Total Cost £118,159 (i.e. £272,584 - £154,425)
7 Summary of Recommendations
7.1 Client/Contract split .
Apportion 1.5 staff from the Waste Management Project and Outreach Section to Contract Services Cleansing Section (See 5.1.2)
Move the equivalent of seven posts from the Enforcement & Monitoring Section of the Waste Management Service to Cleansing Services. (See 5.1.3).
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 872
Move the thirteen operational staff within the Civic Amenities Sites from Cleansing Services to the Waste Management Service. (See 5.1.4).
Delete the vacant post of Vehicle/Plant Controller. (See 5.1.5).
Move ten Business Support Staff, from the Waste Management Service to Cleansing Services. (See 5.1.6).
16.3 Proposed new structure for the Waste Management Service :
Policy & Research Resource
Create a new post of Policy & Research Officer reporting directly to Head of Service. Salary Scale PO2. (See 5.2.2).
Community Outreach
Create a further 2.5 new posts in the Community Outreach Section bringing the total number of staff to five within the Education, Contracts & Operations Section. (See 5.2.3).
Contracts Management & Operations
Create two new posts of Waste Officer within the Waste Management (Education, Contracts & Operations) Section, Salary Scale PO2. (See 5.2.3 )
Create two new posts of Contracts Officer Salary Scale SO1 reporting to the new Waste Officers. (See 5.2.3 )
Create three new posts of Recycling Assistant, Salary Scale SO1, reporting to the new Waste Officers. (See 5.2.3)
Delete the existing post of Waste Inspector (Properties) Salary Scale SO1. (See 5.2.3).
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 873 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Business Support
Create a new post of Senior Business Assistant (Finance & Contracts), Salary Scale SO1. (See 5.2.4).
Create 1.5 new posts of CO/WPO, Salary Scale 1 / 2 within the Business Support Section. (See 5.2.4).
Delete F.T.C. post of Marketing/Sales Officer, Salary Scale 6. (See 5.3.6).
16.3 Proposed new structure for Cleansing Services .
Operations ( Street Cleansing )
Create a new post of Operations Manager (Street Cleansing), Salary Scale PO7. (See 5.3.2).
Create a further 1.5 new posts within the Outreach and Awareness Section, bringing the total number of staff to three, within the Street Cleansing Section,. (See 5.3.2).Create a new post of Enforcement Manager, Salary Scale PO4. (See 5.3.2).
Delete the post of Waste Inspector (Monitoring) salary scale SO1. (See 5.3.2).
Operations (Waste Collection & Fleet )
Create a new post of Operations Manager (Waste Collection and Fleet), Salary Scale PO5. (See 5.3.3).
Delete the existing post of Commercial Waste Manager, salary scale PO2, and create a new post of Waste Collection Manager, salary scale PO2. (See 5.3.3).
Delete the existing post of Cleansing Manager, salary scale PO5, (see 5.3.2).
Training
Create a new post of Training Officer, salary scale SO2, (see 5.3.5).
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 874
Business Support
Create a new post of Quality and Business Support Manager, salary scale PO6, (See 5.3.4).
Support from an existing officer from FABS Section to fulfil the role of a Systems Administrator and to keep this role under review in the longer term, (see 5.3.7).
Create two new posts of CO/WPO, Salary Scale 1 / 2 within the Business Support Section, (see 5.3.6).
Delete the existing post of Quality/Training Manager, salary scale PO2, (see 5.3.8).
Create a new post of Senior Quality Officer, Salary Scale SO1, (see 5.3.8).”
The Head of Business Improvement drew the Committee’s attention to various aspects of the report and stated that the requirements of Arc21 could not be achieved without the changes in the organisational structures referred to in the foregoing report being implemented. In response to a Member’s question, he indicated that it was likely that staff within the Council would be suitably qualified to apply for some of the new posts which would be created.
During discussion, there was general agreement that the changes outlined in the foregoing report were required. Several Members, however, expressed concern that it was possible that other Members of the Council might have reservations at the expenditure which would be involved in creating the new posts being recommended. It was suggested that, given the amount of expenditure proposed, it might have been advantageous for a briefing session to have been arranged, to which all Members of the Council would have been invited, to enable the Director of Health and Environmental Services and the Head of Business Improvement to explain why the organisational structures required to be amended.
In reply, the Director of Health and Environmental Services stated that he had not done so on this occasion in view of the very demanding meetings schedule faced by the Committee and the need to have staff in place as soon as possible to begin work on the implementation of the Waste Plan and achievement of the Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy targets. He pointed out that the expenditure associated with the proposed changes had been taken into account when the Revenue Estimates for the 2003/2004 financial year had been prepared.
After further discussion, the Committee noted the contents of the foregoing report and adopted the recommendations contained in Section 7 therein.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 875 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Report on Tenders for the Refurbishment of Public Conveniences at Church Lane and Arthur Lane
(Mr. C. Smyth, Assistant Project Manager, Development Department, attended in connection with this item.)
The Assistant Project Manager informed the Committee that, following public advertisement, five contractors on the Select List which had previously been created for the carrying out of the refurbishment works associated with public conveniences had been invited to submit tenders for the refurbishment of the public conveniences at Church Lane and Arthur Lane. These tenders had been evaluated in accordance with the Council’s procurement procedures, following which the lowest tender received, that submitted by William Dowling Limited, Grand Street, Lisburn, in the sum of £251,337 had been recommended for acceptance.
He stated that an amount of £800,000 had been included in the 2002/2003 Capital Programme for the supply and installation of City centre public conveniences and for the refurbishment of existing public conveniences. He pointed out that the tenders for the supply and installation of automated public conveniences in the City centre were due to be received in January, 2003 and that tenders for the upgrade and refurbishment of the Winetavern Street and Templemore Avenue conveniences would be invited when the refurbishment work to the facilities at Church Lane and Arthur Lane had been completed. He stated that the overall anticipated cost of the work at Church Lane and Arthur Lane, including fees and other charges at a cost of £31,500, would be £282,837, thus resulting in an amount of £517,163 remaining for the provision of City centre automated public conveniences and the refurbishment of the conveniences at Winetavern Street and Templemore Avenue. The Assistant Project Manager informed the Committee that the project to refurbish the conveniences at Church Lane and Arthur Lane would be required to be funded by means of a loan.
After discussion, the Committee agreed that the tender of William Dowling Limited in the sum of £251,337 be accepted in connection with the refurbishment work of the public conveniences at Church Lane and Arthur Lane, subject to completion of form of contract, and agreed further that application be made to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland for sanction to the raising of a loan of £283,000 to meet the overall costs of their refurbishment.
Report on Recent Awards Received by the Service
The Head of Waste Management informed the Committee that the work of the Waste Management Service had been recognised recently through the receipt of a number of regional and national awards. He reported that the public conveniences at Ormeau Embankment and Connswater had received recognition in the “Loo of the Year” Competition and that Drumglass Park had also been recognised and nominated as a national winner in the category relating to unattended conveniences. These awards reflected the efforts of the Service in continually improving standards to meet the public’s demands for clean, safe and well-maintained public toilet facilities.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 876
In addition, the Projects and Outreach Section of the Waste Management Service had received a national runner-up award in the Waste Management Recycling category of the Green Apple Awards, which were presented annually to highlight excellence in environmental education and practice.
Noted.
Attractiveness of the City All-Party Working Group – Progress Report
The Committee considered a report in respect of the work undertaken by the Attractiveness of the City All-Party Working Group. A copy of the report with the exception of Annex 1 referred to therein, is set out hereunder:
“1. Purpose of Report
To inform the Committee of progress within the Attractiveness of the City All-Party Working Group.
2. Background
This report is the bi-monthly update to the Committee on the work of the All-Party Working Group on Attractiveness of the City. The results of the expanded Action Plan are attached in annex 1 and this is progressing satisfactorily; a number of other initiatives are also underway.
Since the last report the regular meetings of the Member/Officer Group, the Steering Group and the Attractiveness Network Group have continued. Some of the key issues currently being progressed by these groups are set out below.
3. Current Situation
All Party Working Group - (18/11/02) - reviewed progress on the action plan and discussed projects arising from the Network Group and the Steering Group. In addition a number of issues were discussed in more detail:
• fly posting • Street scene plan update • Litter prevention campaign and the involvement of Community and other groups
• The meeting with Mr E Holmes and issues of anti social behaviour in the City Centre
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 877 Monday, 9th December, 2002
• increasing fines for littering and the hypothecation of revenue received for use by the Council
• removal of abandoned vehicles.
Steering Group - (22/10/02) - reviewed progress on the action plan and received an update on the work of the Attractiveness Network. It also discussed other issues including:
• funding surrounding proposed initiatives on the Attractiveness of the City KPI. This includes increasing the resources allocated to the ‘Belfast in Bloom’ and ‘People and Places’ initiatives (reports are being prepared for the Parks and Amenity and Contracts Services Committees)
• ongoing work to prepare an internal communications document to highlight the present and future work planned under the Attractiveness of the City KPI
• issues arising from the ongoing Client/Contractor split review
• commencement of initial work on scoping the ‘Street scene’ plan
• ongoing discussions regarding the preparation of a Litter Campaign Theme
• developing a ‘Creating an Attractive City’ KPI
• Meeting with Mr E Holmes
Network Group - (4/11/02) - is comprised of representatives from four Departments and has a number of statutory and other organisations which input into issues relating to the Attractiveness of the City. This group discussed progress on a number of ongoing initiatives. Some of the main initiatives discussed were:
• the better co-ordination of services and pooling of budgets in the Lower Shankill and New Lodge areas. This involves NIHE, DRD and the Council. This project is moving forward with a proposed start date of April 2003;
• a proposal was developed to trial a project to ‘map’ various operational areas of the Council, NIHE and DRD responsibility within the City. Initial contact has taken place and there is some agreement between the Council and the relevant staff in NIHE on progressing this initiative;
• failure to make the City of Culture shortlist and the development of a way ahead;
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 878
• the DRD position regarding fly posting on traffic control street furniture and its control;
• overall fly posting in the City and whether legislative change is needed;
• assistance for next year’s ‘Belfast in Bloom’ initiative.
This method of cross-service and cross-organisational working, although initially difficult is beginning to improve. It has many benefits which should begin to become apparent during 2003.
4. Environmental Implications
Work from the various groups has the potential to dramatically improve the overall appearance of the streets of Belfast and attractiveness of the city environment, both in the short and longer terms.
5. Recommendation/Decision Required
To note the report.”
The Committee noted the contents of the foregoing report.
Outstanding Accounts
The Head of Waste Management reminded the Committee that the Waste Management Service was responsible for the provision of a number of income producing services which were paid for on receipt of accounts. He reported, however, that a number of debtors who had received these services had failed to pay their accounts and, despite having implemented the procedure for the recovery of outstanding debts, they had remained unpaid. The accrued outstanding debt to date was £21,015.24 and he submitted for the information of the Members a schedule providing details of the outstanding accounts.
He stated that the outstanding accounts fell within the provisions of the Financial Regulations relating to the writing-off of irrecoverable debt and he recommended that the total outstanding amount of £21,015.24, which represented less than 1% of the Waste Management Service’s total estimated annual income, be written-off.
After discussion, the Committee adopted the recommendation.
Extension of Contract for the Disposal of Fridges and Freezers
The Head of Waste Management submitted the undernoted report seeking approval to extend the contract for the disposal of fridges and freezers:
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 879 Monday, 9th December, 2002
“1. Purpose of Report
To seek approval to extend the present contract for the disposal of fridge/ freezers with Evans Logistics.
2. Background
At the Committee meeting of 10 June 2002, members agreed to invite tenders for the suitable disposal of fridge/freezers in the Council’s possession, and which would come into the Council’s possession, up to a maximum of 6,000 units to facilitate the development of alternative facilities expected as part of the all- island fridge disposal contract award.
At the Committee meeting of 23 September 2002, members approved the award of a contract (for the disposal of fridge/freezers) to Sundorne Products Llandidloes Ltd. (trading name Evans Logistics) for the collection and disposal of up to 6,000 fridge/freezer units from the Duncrue Complex for the sum of £12.65 per unit, exclusive of VAT.
Currently, the contract is operative and Evans Logistics have recently completed the removal of the 6,000 fridges for shipment to Wales for final disposal and recycling.
The purpose of setting the number of fridge/freezers units requiring disposal at 6,000 was in order to permit the time for the development and award of the all-island disposal contract to become operative. This target number reflected the level of fridge/freezer units being received per week at that time and would have permitted the Council to join the all-island contract with a clean slate. However, due to unforeseen delays in the development of the all-island contract it is not now expected to proceed before 1 February 2003 at the earliest.
By such time, the stockpile of fridge/freezer units at the Duncrue Complex will have considerably increased and the area will be close to maximum capacity. Currently, the Council is in receipt of between 200 and 250 fridge/freezer units per week and this is expected to fill the Duncrue complex store prior to the commencement of the all-island fridge disposal contract. In the interest of keeping the stock of fridges under control it would be prudent to dispose of a further 5,000 fridge/freezer units before the start date of the all-island contract.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 880
Therefore, following advice from the Procurement Unit regarding this matter and developing an appropriate course of action under the circumstances, further discussions have taken place with Evans Logistics and they are prepared to hold the present contract price at £12.65 per unit for an extra 5,000 units.
The additional value of the contract would be £63,250. The combined cost of this contract remains below the EC financial threshold limits.
3. Environmental Implications
As from the 1 January 2002, domestic fridge/freezer units must not be crushed or shredded, or disposed off to landfill but have the ozone depleting substances (ODS) extracted from them and their foam (this is a requirement under EC Regulation 2037/2000). This process prevents a variety of ozone depleting gases from being released to the atmosphere.
4. Decision Required
The committee is recommended to approve the proposal to extend the existing contract for the disposal of a further 5,000 fridge/freezer units with Evans Logistics at the same price as the original contract.”
The Committee adopted the recommendation contained within the foregoing report.
Dargan Road Landfill Site - Disposal Charges
The Committee considered the undernoted report of the Director of Health and Environmental Services concerning the charges for the disposal of waste at the Dargan Road Landfill Site:
“1. Purpose of Report
To consider the charges for the disposal of waste at Dargan Road Landfill Site for the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 and to consider a new charge for private sector green waste deposited for composting at the site.
2. Background
Members are reminded that the charges for the disposal of waste at Dargan Road Landfill Site are reviewed annually at this time of year.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 881 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Members will recall that planning permission has been granted for the site which limits disposal operations to a five year period concluding in 2006.
The current users of the site are the Council’s own fleet, Antrim and Carrickfergus Borough Councils and the private sector delivering commercial and industrial waste for disposal. At the Committee meeting of 12 August 2002, it was agreed that Lisburn City Council would begin depositing waste at Dargan Road at the beginning of April 2003.
The current level of charging (2002/2003) for the disposal of private sector waste has been based on covering the costs of operating the site and contributing to the cost of restoration. Consideration has also been given to the market rate for landfill disposal in this area.
In view of these considerations and recent experience in the sourcing of capping materials it is proposed to hold the current charges for a further year, and consequently the charges set out below remain unchanged.
Additional to these charges, it is proposed to introduce a new charge for the deposit of small loads of green waste at the composting site at Dargan Road which could then be composted. These depositions will not draw Landfill Tax or require cover materials as they will not be subject to landfilling. It is proposed that a charge of £15.00/tonne (or part thereof) be levied on those green wastes delivered to the site suitable for composting in order to cover any processing charges associated with the composting operation.
Dargan Road Landfill Site – Current Disposal Charges
The current charges from 1 April 2002 are - Disposal Charges
Inactive waste which draws £ 2.00 / tonne Landfill Tax (the quantity accepted to be at the Director of Health and Environmental Services’ discretion) - £2.00/tonne
Loads of less than 1.5 tonnes and not more than one load per customer per day - £15.00/tonne
Household, commercial and industrial waste in loads of more than 1.5 tonnes - £ 28.00/tonne
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 882
All liquid waste not described as Special Waste and including non-special foodstuffs - £100.00/tonne
Special Waste & non-special wastes [as defined in regulation 2 of the Special Waste Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998] requiring burial - £200.00/tonne
[Landfill Tax is additional to the charges set out above and is charged at the prevailing rates] 1.
3. Environmental Implications
No specific environmental implications.
4. Decision Required
It is recommended that:
(i) charges for disposal of waste at Dargan Road Landfill Site are held at the 2002/2003 rates for a further year; and
(ii) the new charge of £15/tonne for processing private sector green waste be accepted.
It is also recommended that authority continue to be extended to the Director of Health and Environmental Services to refuse to accept quantities of inactive waste exceeding 60 tonnes per day where such additional quantities would not be required for site engineering purposes.”
The Committee adopted the recommendations contained within the foregoing report.
Recycling Trial and Tender for the Supply and Installation of an On-Board Vehicle Weighing System
The Head of Waste Management submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report concerning the purchase of an On-Board Vehicle Weighing System to facilitate the twin-bin recycling trial and seeking approval to vary the size of the containers to be used in the trials:
1 Note: The Committee’s attention is drawn to the government’s Landfill Tax which will be increased for active waste from £ 13.00 / tonne to £14.00/tonne with effect from 1 April 2003.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 883 Monday, 9th December, 2002
“1. Purpose of Report
To seek approval for the purchase of an on-board vehicle weighing system to facilitate the twin bin recycling trial and to seek approval to vary the size of container used in the trials.
2. Background
Members are reminded that the Committee approved the development of a twin bin recycling trial in four areas of the city. The trial will involve the separate collection of paper from 18,000 households on a four weekly cycle. Members will recall that a separate collection for paper from other dry recyclables is necessary in order to meet BS EN643:2002 which established a new standard for recovered paper as supplied to paper mills.
The recycling trials are being conducted to test the assumptions within the arc21 Waste Plan and will help achieve the 25% recycling target for 2005 contained within the DOE Waste Management Strategy for NI.
To test the effectiveness of the trials and assess compliance with the targets it will be necessary to accurately record and monitor weight data of the recyclables collected in the areas where the twin bin system is introduced. Weight-data from individual households will need to be analysed in order to ensure that the maximum weight/quantity of recyclable materials is being collected and to ensure that participation rates are good. Arising from the weight data, publicity and awareness campaigns can also be targeted more effectively into areas where there are static or falling levels of participation.
On-Vehicle Weighing
The Waste Management Service have entered into discussion with Contract Services and ISB regarding these requirements and it is proposed that the most effective mechanism to capture this information is by installing an on-board vehicle weighing system which will weigh each individual bin and record the data. These types of system involves a bin ‘ chip’ or ‘ tag ’ being installed under the bin lid rim. The lifting mechanism on the vehicle recognises the chip and records the weight-data for that particular premise. The information is then down-loaded onto an onboard computer and from there it can be transferred to the base computer system either directly or by a telephone link.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 884
Blue Bin Capacity for Recycling Trials
Initially, it was envisaged that each participating household in the 18,000 area would receive a 240 litre (blue) bin for dry recyclables, and that these households could also exchange their old 240 litre grey bins for smaller 140 litre grey bins. A tendering exercise was commenced for 3000 x 140 litre bins for three years (ie 9,000 bins) based on the assumption that up to 25% of households would request a smaller grey bin. Recommendations concerning the award of the contract is the subject of a separate report submitted for this meeting. In light of the fact that paper must now be collected separately and following further research on the volumes of paper actually presented monthly, it would be more feasible for collection and storage purposes if the blue bin is a 140 litre bin rather than a 240 litre bin as originally proposed. It is proposed therefore that the 9000 x 140 litre bins originally planned as replacement grey bins should be used for the purposes of paper collection. The colour change was allowed for in the specification.
The 9000 x 140 litre blue bins would permit the introduction of the first two trial areas in spring 2003 and, in the meantime, a further tendering exercise could commence for the remainder of the containers to complete the trial, as well as permit expansion of the programme in future years.
The proposal is that the householders should still be encouraged to reduce their bin size by exchanging their 240 litre grey bins for a 140 litre grey bin (in line with waste minimisation thinking); but that in the first instance the scheme will be designed to establish a 140 litre blue bin system. Following the award of the new contract for a supply of 140 litre bins, this bin replacement scheme will be revisited and a report will be prepared for Committee regarding developing a policy for use of the recovered 240 litre bins.
Contract Services have been involved in the discussions throughout and have no operational concerns with the changes.
3. Environmental Implications
The twin bin system will permit a substantial percentage of householders in the city to recycle their waste. This will help achieve the recovery targets in the Waste Management Strategy for NI and the EU Landfill Directive, the first of which applies in 2005.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 885 Monday, 9th December, 2002
Data collection and maximising the quantity of recyclables collected will be key to ensuring that these targets are achieved.
4. Financial Implications
The purchase of the on-board vehicle weighing system, including software, bin lift recording and bin chips will be £30,000 (approx.). Thereafter, the only costs associated with the on-board vehicle weighing system will be the installation of the relevant chip at the time of bin purchase. There is potential to recover these costs as part of the 2003/04 Waste Management Grant.
There will be a reduction in cost of approximately £19,000 by using a 140 litre blue bin in preference to a 240 litre bin for paper collections in the trial.
5. Decision Required
The Committee is asked to:
1. Approve the commencement of a tender process for the purchase of an on-board vehicle weighing system to facilitate data collection from the twin bin system for the collection of recyclables;
2. Approve the provision of 140 litre bins for the twin bin recycling collection trial to the 18,000 houses in the areas previously identified; and
3. Approve the commencement of a tendering exercise for the purchase of 140 litre bins in a call off contract for a period of 3 years plus an extension for a further 2 years subject to satisfactory performance.
4. As this is an operational issue, the award of the contract will be made by the Contract Services Committee.”
The Committee adopted the recommendations contained in the foregoing report.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 886
Tender for the Supply and Delivery of 140 Litre Plastic Wheeled Refuse Containers
The Committee was informed that, in response to public advertisement, six tenders had been received for the supply and delivery of 140 litre plastic wheeled refuse containers. The tenders had been evaluated against the pre-agreed criteria in conjunction with the Procurement Unit, following which it had been recommended that the lowest tender, that submitted by Kliko Environmental Systems Limited, Gladstone House, Telford, in the sum of £98,100 be accepted.
The Committee adopted the recommendation, subject to completion of form of contract.
Dargan Road Landfill Site Closure – Landfill Gas Options
The Head of Waste Management submitted for the Committee’s consideration a report concerning the appointment of consultants to carry out a feasibility study on the options which were available for the utilisation of the landfill gas which was produced at the Dargan Road Landfill Site. A copy of the report, with the exception of the annex referred to therein, is set out hereunder:
“1. Purpose of Report
To request permission from the Committee to initiate a procurement process to appoint consultants to carry out a feasibility study on options for the utilisation of landfill gas produced at the Dargan Road landfill site.
2. Background
Significant quantities of landfill gas are being collected from areas of the Dargan Road landfill site which have been capped. Although this gas is currently being flared to minimise its global warming potential, it has always been the Council’s intention to use the gas for electricity generation once the site has been transferred to Council ownership.
It is expected that the land ownership matter may shortly be resolved between the Council and the department for Social Development (DSD) and therefore, in order to ensure that opportunities are maximised, the Waste Management Service proposes to appoint consultants to conduct an appraisal of the present and future landfill gas generation at the site, and to review options for harnessing the energy therein.
Following discussions with several key providers a brief has been formulated and is attached as Annex 1.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 887 Monday, 9th December, 2002
3 Environmental Implications
The reduction of methane to carbon dioxide through the flaring of landfill gas greatly reduces the release of greenhouse gases from the site. However, this is not the best use of the energy contained within the gases which could be better used for energy and electricity generation.
4. Financial Implications
Money has been allocated in the Capital Programme.
5. Recommendation/Decision Required
To approve the commencement of a procurement process, upon resolution of the land transfer, for the appointment of consultants to carry out a feasibility study on options for utilisation of landfill gas produced at the Dargan Road landfill site.”
The Committee adopted the recommendation.
Duncrue Incinerator Building – Appointment of Consultants
The Head of Waste Management reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 13th May, it had delegated authority to the Director of Health and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman, to accept the most advantageous tender for the dismantling and disposal of the plant and machinery at the Duncrue Incinerator Building. He reported that the work had been completed and, as all the machinery and plant which had not been recoverable had been disposed of to the Dargan Road Landfill Site, the building was now empty.
He reminded the Committee that those District Councils involved in Arc21 had recognised that a variety of premises would need to be developed in the near future in order to provide suitable facilities for recycling. Accordingly, each Council was reviewing its assets to determine if there were any premises which would be suitable for this type of development. He pointed out that the empty Duncrue Incinerator Building provided the Council with such a possibility. In order, therefore, to assess fully its suitability in this regard, it was proposed to appoint consultants to develop an options paper on the potential uses for the Building.
The Head of Waste Management stated that, by providing a facility for recycling, the Council would be in a better position to control costs and develop internal skills in recycling operations management. In addition, the proximity of the Duncrue Incinerator Building to the Duncrue Complex would ensure that road mileages were minimised and the premises would create a central deposit point for collected materials. He reported that an amount of £40,000 had been allocated in the 2002/2003 Capital Programme to allow for the appointment of consultants.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 888
After discussion, the Committee agreed that a procurement process be initiated in connection with the appointment of consultants to carry out an options appraisal study on possible uses for the Duncrue Incinerator Building.
Arc21 Green Waste Composting
The Committee considered the undernoted report concerning the commencement of a tender process for a combined compost contract for the green waste which would arise from the Council’s Civic Amenity Sites and other arc21 Councils:
“1. Purpose of Report
To seek approval from the Committee to commence a tender process for a combined compost contract for green waste arising from the Council’s civic amenity sites, and other arc21 councils as agreed.
2. Background
At previous Committee meetings of 24 March and 13 August 2001, members considered the development of the draft Waste Plan and approved that in order to progress with the Group and achieve the short-term targets (to recover 25% of household waste by 2005) within the Waste Management Strategy for Northern Ireland it was probable that several short-term operations would have to be developed prior to 2005.
Presently, a number of councils are successfully composting to divert material from landfill and to produce a useful product. Likewise, the Council currently has a contract with Natural World Products (NWP) for the composting of all green (garden) wastes arising from the civic amenity sites from 1 May, 2000 to 30 April, 2003.
A sub-group of arc21 has been reviewing appropriate methods of increasing green (garden) waste composting, and it was recognised that there are several locations within the region which may be suitable for the processing (windrow operations). Dargan Road was identified as a possible site in view of the existing operations, as well as the fact that several arc21 councils could easily access the site.
As Belfast is centrally located and has an existing composting operation, it was proposed by the arc21 Steering Group that the City Council would become the lead council in this instance for the purpose of a new combined council contract. The contract is proposed for a two year time period, with the possibility of a one year extension; and has been designed to provide an interim.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 889 Monday, 9th December, 2002
In terms of legal compliance for any proposed operations at Dargan Road Landfill Site:-
• the current composting activity required planning permission for composting of garden waste, which was granted on 8 May, 1998. On 22 January 2002, confirmation was received from the Planning Service which permits Dargan Road to receive larger volumes of green waste, as well as permitting the acceptance of such material for other councils in that the existing planning permission ‘does not place a restriction on the sources of the green waste that may be accepted on the site;
• a Water Act Consent is expected imminently. This will not apply to the composting area, but the composting operation, if operated without discharging leachate, will not require a Water Act Consent; and
• it will be necessary for the Council (in its role as the Waste Disposal Authority) to issue a licence under Article 7 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to any successful contractor who proposes to use the Dargan Road site.
A ‘Licence Agreement’ will need to be drawn up and submitted to Legal Services Department in order to control the use of the Dargan Road landfill site by any successful contractor who chooses to operate from it. Following initial discussions with the Procurement Unit, it was recognised that it would be appropriate for the Council to levy a small charge per tonne in order for the Council to recover some costs from any successful tenderer. It would be a condition of the licence agreement that only arc21 council wastes will be brought onto the site under this tender and the contractor will not be permitted to operate other contracts at the site.
Within arc21, several councils have expressed an initial desire to participate in the combined compost contract: Antrim, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Larne, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and North Down. The Legal Services Department are presently preparing a collaboration agreement which will require signing to ensure that the combined compost contract is underwritten by each participant council.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 890
It is proposed that green waste within the councils will either be (a) collected by the contractor or (b) delivered by participating councils and brought to a designated point for windrow composting. It is probable that the Council will be approached regarding providing access to the present facility at the Dargan Road Landfill Site for this operation. The processed compost will be refined and bagged and then sold. It is proposed to request that composting operations ensure that the Soil Association Compost Standards are met.
It is probable that the combined compost contract will seek to establish that each participating council will have a free option to call on 30% by weight of the finished product (from the green waste arising within their own council area) and a further option to purchase at a preferential price any further quantities as may be required.
The expected quantity of green waste from the Council in the first year is in the region of 3,500 tonnes which is currently being composted at a cost of £ 42,000 (approx.).
3. Environmental Implications
The tender proposed meets the core strategic objectives of Civic Leadership and Sustainable Development by providing an innovative example of the Council working closely with other members of arc21 on the delivery of a project which will enhance the recovery of materials from waste. The delivery of compost operations on a sub-regional basis will allow for more material to be processed and will improve the quality of the resulting material by providing a greater incentive for councils and contractors to focus upon increased segregation of material.
4. Decision Required
The Committee is asked:-
• to approve the Council’s participation in a combined compost contract for the period as specified above;
• to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign the collaboration agreement on behalf of the Council;
• to approve the Council acting as the lead council and seeking tenders for this contract;
• to authorise the use of the Dargan Road landfill site for this joint composting contract on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Director of Legal Services.”
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 891 Monday, 9th December, 2002
After discussion, the Committee adopted the recommendations contained in the foregoing report.
Building Control
Application for the Transfer of an Entertainments Licence where Objections had been Received
Hole in the Wall, 1-3 Baltic Avenue
The Committee agreed that a special meeting be held to receive the objectors, the applicant and/or their representatives in relation to the transfer of an Entertainments Licence in respect of the above-mentioned premises, the date of the meeting to be determined in consultation with the Chairman (Councillor O’Reilly).
Street Naming
The Committee approved the undernoted applications for the naming of streets in the City which did not conflict with the existing approved street names and to which the Royal Mail had no objections:
Proposed Name Location Applicant
Riverview Ridge Situated off Old Suffolk Circuit Builders and Road, BT11 Decorators
Hamill Park Situated off Glen Road, Mr. John McCormack BT11
Health Protection
Sewer Baiting
The Head of Health Protection submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report concerning a tendering exercise which would be undertaken by the Department for Regional Development Water Service for the provision of Pest Control and Sewer Baiting Services:
“1. Purpose of Report
To inform the Committee of a Water Service tendering exercise for the provision of pest control and sewer baiting services and to seek approval to submit an appropriate bid.
Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Monday, 9th December, 2002 892
2. Background
Following local government reorganisation in 1973 responsibility for rodent control in the sewerage system in Belfast had transferred from the City Council to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and latterly to the Water Service of the Department for Regional Development. However, the City Council has continued to carry out the work as agents of the Department, the most recent agreement for the provision of the service having been made in early 1997 following a major restructuring of the arrangements that the Council had in place for the delivery of the Service. This agreement was initially for a three year period but has been extended on an annual basis since the completion of that period. The performance of the service has been satisfactory to the Department with the target of 18,000 manholes having been exceeded each year and the service has been provided within budget.
3. Proposals
The Water Service has decided to change the arrangements for the provision of sewer baiting and to extend throughout Northern Ireland the provision of both sewer baiting and pest control services at Water Service plants and offices. The Water Service has written to the Council indicating that the tender exercise is imminent. However at the time of the writing of this report it is not clear the exact nature of the specification of the services required. More information may be available at the Committee meeting.
The Council currently employs three Pest Operatives for the delivery of the sewer baiting service and I would therefore seek the Committee’s approval to prepare and submit an appropriate tender to the Water Service for the provision of the service within the Belfast City Council area, depending on the terms of the specification for the tendering exercise.
The Director of Legal Services has confirmed that the Council has authority to do this within the terms of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972.
4. Current Policy
The Council’s current policy is to provide a sewer baiting service as agents for the Department of Regional Development’s Water Service.
F Health and Environmental Services Committee, 893 Monday, 9th December, 2002
5. Resources
The Council currently employs three Pest Operatives for the delivery of the sewer baiting service. Should the Council be unable to submit a tender or be unsuccessful in the tendering exercise there is a potential for redundancy.
6. Recommendations / Decision Required By Members
It is recommended that the Committee grant approval for the preparation and submission of an appropriate tender to the Water Service, this being dependant on the terms of the tender specification.”
The Head of Health Protection informed the Committee that it had not yet been ascertained whether the tendering exercise would be undertaken in such a manner as to enable the Council to bid for the provision of the services within the Belfast City Council area or whether the contract would be for Northern Ireland as a whole. He pointed out that if it were the latter, his Section would be unable to submit a tender thus resulting in a potential redundancy situation.
During discussion in the matter, several Members expressed concern as to the standard of sewer baiting which might result should the Council not be awarded the tender and the consequential health problems which might arise. In reply, the Head of Health Protection indicated that if, following the award of the tender, rat infestation problems increased due to unsatisfactory sewer baiting, it would be necessary for the Council to deal with the associated increase in surface infestations.
After further discussion, the Committee authorised the Head of Health Protection to prepare and submit an appropriate tender to the Department for Regional Development Water Service, depending on the terms of the tender specification, in connection with the provision of pest control and sewer baiting services within the Council’s area.
Chairman