Meeting documents

Waste Collection Study

Evaluation of Current System

Draft Report

CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY 3

2.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 3

3.0 AIMS 5

4.0 INTRODUCTION 5

5.0 BACKGROUND 6

6.0 METHODOLOGY 8

7.0 FINDINGS 9

8.0 OPTIONS APPRAISAL 14

9.0 CONCLUSIONS 15

APPENDIX I: Vehicle fleet 17

APPENDIX II: Critical appraisal surveys 18

APPENDIX III: Evidence from random surveys 20

APPENDIX IV: Evaluation of options 22

APPENDIX V: Point of Collection - Advantages & Disadvantages 22

APPENDIX VI: Same day collections - advantages and disadvantages 24

APPENDIX VII: Refuse Containers - advantages and disadvantages 25

APPENDIX VIII: Proposals for discussion at Working Group (12/8/2004) 26

APPENDIX IX: Notes from Waste Collection Working Group 30

APPENDIX X: View from the Council's Health & Safety Advisor 32

APPENDIX XI Comparison of collection methods against recycling performance 36

APPENDIX XIII: Local Authority Contacts 39

1.0 SUMMARY

The Council has adopted a vision of zero waste and is striving to recycle as much waste as possible. One of the Council's corporate improvement priorities is to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill. Participation in recycling schemes has increased steadily over the years, and new schemes have been implemented to recycle an increasing range of material types.

As a result there are a variety of different collection methods in operation for residual waste, organic waste and dry-recyclables. In 2004/05 we recycled 32% of household waste - 61% of this waste is recycled and composted via the kerbside collection schemes, the remainder is recycled through bring banks and the Household Waste & Recycling Centres.

Despite our successes however, an estimated 25% of residents still do not participate in any form of kerbside recycling activity and the majority of our waste continues to be landfilled.

This study was initiated to review our current methods of collection in order to identify the most appropriate ways to increase participation in recycling schemes, and to maximise tonnages of waste that we recycle in the most cost effective, efficient, consistent & co-ordinated manner and to address health & safety concerns that have been raised regarding our current operational practices. The Council faces significant financial penalties if it fails to meet (and exceed) its recycling targets, as the cost of waste disposal will continue to rise dramatically.

Nationally, recycling schemes have undergone significant development over the past 2 years, as central government funding has had a positive impact. There are many more authorities that are carrying out innovative approaches to waste & recycling collections, and examples of best practice that Bath & North East Somerset can learn from continue to be thoroughly researched.

The Council will market test its refuse and recycling services in 2006. A new specification will be developed for refuse & recycling services through the review of the Council's waste strategy which will be consulted upon. Short term recommendations are made here to improve the service in advance of this market test.

2.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to increase tonnages of waste recycled, to improve communication with residents, to address health & safety concerns and to achieve operational efficiencies the following actions are recommended in the short term for implementation in 2005/06.

3.0 AIMS

This project assesses waste & recycling collection methodology in the short term in advance of the market test of refuse & recycling services due in 2006, with the aim of implementing service improvements and developments to maximise the tonnage of waste recycled, and to achieve operational efficiencies.

Potential options for longer term changes to methodology are detailed and further consideration will be given to these through the Council's developing waste strategy.

The recommendations will realise the following benefits to the authority: -

B7 Increase in tonnage of waste recycled

B7 Improved streamlining of services for residents

B7 Improved quality of service

B7 Safer working practices for operatives

B7 Operational efficiencies

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This project forms an integral part of the Council's Zero Waste Strategy and makes recommendations for short-term action in our current refuse collection methodology in order to increase the amount of material that is recycled through the kerbside collection scheme. Longer-term recommendations that will need further consultation and research through the appropriate forums are then detailed.

The Council's Best Value action plan details a market test of its waste and recycling services in 2006.

The government has set statutory recycling targets for local authorities to achieve, and the implementation of the EU landfill directive in the UK means that authorities must reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that they send to landfill every year, or face significant fines. The Landfill tax is also rising by A33 per tonne per annum with the intention of making the cost of recycling cheaper than the cost of landfill disposal.

Achieving real progress on waste minimisation and recycling means changing perceptions and lifestyles. The interested and motivated are doing their bit but what about the rest? How do we achieve real, lasting change in whole communities?

Many Local Authorities are now putting the `squeeze' on refuse and making people think seriously about the quantity of waste they generate. It is estimated that 64% of councils in England are now using wheeled bins to collect refuse so that they can limit the amount of waste they collect, and of these, 31% (and rising) are operating an alternate weekly collection system, collecting residual refuse every other week.

This report details an analysis of the existing residual waste collection system and puts forward recommendations in order to achieve the Council's objectives of reducing landfill and making services more efficient and effective. The first part of the project reviews the current collection system in order to make recommendations for improvements in the short term.

Surveys and interviews were undertaken with operational staff and supervisors in order to inform conclusions.

5.0 BACKGROUND

Legislation requires that the Council collect domestic waste from households and recycle set proportions of this waste. However the mechanism for providing this service is at the discretion of the local authority, and a wide variety of different collection systems are in use nationally. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the Local authority has the power to specify how people present their waste for collection.

As a unitary authority Bath & North East Somerset is responsible for both waste collection and disposal. We collect waste and recyclables from approximately 73,500 properties throughout the district. We also manage and operate directly two waste transfer stations, a rail loading siding and three Household Waste & Recycling Centres.

Every year approximately 50,000 tonnes of waste are transferred by rail to landfill in Buckinghamshire, and a further 30,000 tonnes are disposed of in landfill sites in neighbouring counties. We will be market testing our waste services throughout 2006. This market test presents the opportunity to change our existing methods of collection.

5.1 Refuse collection

The council carries out the refuse collection service in-house. Collections of refuse are on a weekly basis from each resident's property. The Council operates a backdoor collection policy however the majority of residents present their refuse at the front of their property. Residents can present refuse in whatever container they choose - no container is provided.

The crew on larger refuse collection vehicles consists of five waste operatives; a driver (Team Leader), two `draggers' and two `throwers'. The draggers work ahead of the refuse collection vehicle and retrieve refuse from resident's properties and pile them up at the kerbside. The throwers travel with the vehicle and throw the sacks into the back of the vehicle. Other crews vary in size from just one driver to a driver plus one crewmember (appendix I).

The Council operates sixteen vehicles in the refuse collection fleet. A standard round covers around 1800 properties. The rounds have been built up over time and modified as and when changes are required or when new properties are built.

5.2 Garden waste and cardboard collection

Garden Waste and cardboard collections are operated on an `opt in' basis. These occur once per fortnight from the front curtilage using a wheeled bin or paper sack purchased from the Council. Currently, wheeled bins are sold for A337 for three years service and paper bags are 50 pence each and can be purchased from local outlets and selected council offices. The material collected is taken to one of two composting facilities in the area. The compost produced is sold at the House Waste and Recycling Centres as a soil improver.

5.3 Dry recyclables collection

The dry recyclables collection is run for the Council by ECT Recycling and is available to all residents in Bath and North East Somerset Council area. This contract will expire in 2006. A new contract will be procured through the market test of services.

Participation in this scheme is voluntary and it is estimated through monitoring & survey, that 75% of householders in Bath are participating in this recycling scheme.

Dry recyclables are collected weekly from the front curtilage of properties using a green box or basket, which is supplied by the Council. There is a choice of a green recycling box (55 Litre) or smaller basket (25 Litre). The baskets have handles and are recommended for people who may have problems lifting a bigger box or for those with limited storage space. The materials are source separated onto purpose built vehicles and the containers are returned to point of presentation.

6.0 METHODOLOGY

6.1 Sample research surveys

Sample research surveys were undertaken in order to monitor the number of properties with refuse presented at the back door. In addition, the type of container used most frequently was recorded and a note made of the variety and quality of containers.

Three rounds were chosen to reflect a city centre, estate and rural collection.

-Route 4 (Thursday) Swainswick, Larkhall

-Route 4 (Tuesday) Parts of Batheaston, Bathampton, Southstoke, Monkton Combe

-Route 1 (Thursday) London Road, Weston

Surveys were undertaken ahead of the vehicle before sacks had been removed from the properties by the waste operatives. Within randomly selected streets, a record was made of refuse presentation. (Full notes available)

6.2 Discussions with staff

The views of operational staff were sought at a very early stage in order that the project developed an operational focus.

Operational staff that have been undertaking waste operational duties for many years were asked to estimate the % presentation backdoor on their specific rounds.

6.3 Database analysis

Data was obtained from the SBS database relating to the number of telephone calls received by Action line about missed bins and general complaints. In addition, a Health and Safety database was obtained in order to interrogate the main causes of injury and sickness amongst the workforce.

6.4 Forums, Seminars and Exhibitions

Information was gathered at the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management (CIWM) exhibition, the South West Compost Networking meeting and other team meetings were attended to gather information.

6.5 Waste Collection Working Group

A Waste Collection Working Group was convened in order to seek views on a number of proposals and to participate in shaping the recommendations of this report.

6.6 Internet searches and telephone conversations

The website www.AskJennie.com has recently been developed by Jennie Rogers of David Davies Associates (Oct 04), and contains information of collection schemes for 267 local authorities. Participating local authorities can update their own information and interrogate the database.

Many local authority websites were viewed in order to obtain information about waste collection systems in operation. In addition, councils in the same family group and in the top 15 in recycling league tables were contacted either by e-mail or telephone to discuss the system in operation

7.0 FINDINGS

7.1 Waste Presentation

Point of Presentation

Surveys concluded that approximately 60% of residents put their refuse out at the front of their property for collection (Appendix iii). These findings provide an update to a survey carried out in 2000 through Voicebox (the citizen's panel questionnaire) which indicated that 54% of residents put their waste at the front of their properties at that time. It is difficult to provide an exact figure of the proportion of residents currently presenting front curtilage since the figure is affected by property type, location and public attitude.

It was noted that some properties were more suited to a back door/back curtilage collection due to the nature of their location.

A good knowledge of the peculiarities of each individual round is required in order to make sure that every single property receives a collection. The regular draggers for each round know exactly where to look for sacks and assist new and agency staff to find sacks for collection. This method of collection relies very much on local knowledge, and when regular staff are absent, bags can easily be missed.

It was noted that in some streets a backdoor as well as front door collection is required by residents (sometimes serviced by different vehicles on the same street).

In areas where recycling and refuse were collected on the same day, it was found that residents were more likely to present their waste in the same position as the recycling box (front edge of property).

One of the main reasons for complaints to Action line is because sacks split and cause littering of the streets on collection day. The complainants have indicated that the collectors are throwing sacks over walls and fences which are causing them to split and the contents spill out.

Another main reason for complaints about the system is because refuse crews are collecting before 7am e.g. a resident outlined that a collector was at his property at 3am and suggested that this was unacceptable.

Refuse Containers

Residents use black sacks most often to present their waste, however it was found that some sacks presented were of particularly low quality and could not be carried any distance without splitting " It was apparent that some residents had a complete lack of regard for how they presented their refuse". The collectors indicated that white bin liners tear very easily when they are picked up. In addition, sacks are attacked by wildlife, which leads to refuse being strewn over the pavements.

Carrier bags are used to present smaller quantities of waste; however it was noted that many carrier bags were presented from some individual households. This causes problems as they are not easy to carry in bulk when wearing gloves. In some instances refuse was presented in carrier bags that were tied up and then placed into a traditional dustbin with no liner.

It was difficult to judge the weight of each individual sack. Injuries to the upper body can occur from lifting heavy as well as light sacks. Health & safety guidance suggests that an average of no more than two sacks should be picked up at any one time. However in some instances, collectors carried around eight sacks at a time to save time.

The Council will not collect waste presented in wheeled bins currently as the majority of vehicles are not fitted with the correct bin lift equipment.

Quantity of material presented

The average amount of refuse presented was two sacks per household although the range varied enormously. The maximum number of sacks being collected from one property (a charitable nursing home) was thirty-six.

In terms of carrier bags, it was noted that between one and ten were presented by individual properties.

Anecdotal information suggested that students present a lot of refuse particularly when they leave their flats for the summer break. Reports were received of a 50% increase in the amount of refuse collected on particular rounds in areas of high student population.

The Council does not have a policy of limiting the amount of waste that it will collect for disposal from individual properties, nor does it enforce the use of recycling schemes. The current refuse collection system takes away any quantity of waste that is left out, with no individual follow up or incentives to encourage minimisation & recycling.

Materials presented

It was evident that there is still a high proportion of mixed refuse that can be recycled. Materials that could be recycled or reused are contained within or placed alongside sacks for collection

"...it was evident that some sacks contained materials that could be recycled. I noted several instances where broken glass was protruding from sacks. Many black sacks contained glass, which could be heard breaking when the sacks were piled up. I also noted lots of reusable and recyclable items presented with the refuse including bags of video cassettes, an airer, children's toys, glass chopping board, garden machinery, dried flowers, kitchen utensils, garden waste and cardboard."

The Council has a policy not to collect garden waste put out for general refuse collection as this should be charged for and recycled. However it was noted that some crew members did collect garden waste presented in a black sack for refuse collection.

A lot of cardboard is also presented with refuse for collection, although there is a separate cardboard recycling service. The crews are very keen to leave this material for recycling but are aware that residents may phone in to report a `missed collection' in which case they will have to go back and collect it. In some instances, large amounts of cardboard were presented for refuse collection. On occasions this was left behind by the crews but no accompanying information was left for the residents to explain why this material had been left behind and how they could recycle it.

Members of operational staff were asked whether they would be in favour of diverting refuse for recycling and a very positive response was received. It was apparent that some collectors are dismayed at the amount of material being thrown away with the refuse that could be recycled.

Time of presentation

It was noted that a proportion of residents presented refuse the night before collection day, although the Council does not advise this.

In addition, a number of residents did not present their refuse by 7:15am and were rushing to present refuse as the collection crew were passing. It was also found that residents presented refuse even after the refuse crew had passed down the street.

7.2 Health and Safety

Waste operational staff continually encounter situations, which are a risk to both their health and to their safety. In particular the requirement to enter a resident's property poses many health and safety risks.

During survey work collection incidents were noted involving rats, slippy steps, broken gates and objects & dogs in garden.

Back lanes (particularly when overgrown) cause a hazard for the collection crews and in some instances the larger RCVs only just fit through. In specific streets the Council has already specified that refuse must be collected from the front of the property on health & safety grounds.

Refuse in sacks can be hazardous due to the presence of sharp objects, glass, discarded syringes or foul material.

It was noted that some residents do not present the refuse in a safe manner and on one particular occasion during the survey work, a collector was injured by a piece of protruding glass. Nine records were made of bags that contained protruding glass or glass that was placed directly into a black sack. It was observed that one resident had placed a piece of sheet glass out for collection on top of some black sacks.

"It was apparent that some residents had a complete lack of regard for how they presented their refuse ...I noted several instances where broken glass was protruding from sacks."

Manual handling issues also arise. Some properties (e.g. cellars) present particular problems in terms of collection and require collectors to work at awkward angles, carry bags for long distances or throw sacks up stairs.

The Council's Health and Safety Advisor was asked for a formal view on the current collection system. His response is detailed in full in Appendix X. The conclusions are:

o The use of black sacks of non-consistent quality provides significant risk to operatives when manually handling these. The use of wheeled bins in flat areas is recommended to reduce manual handling risks.

o Front curtilage collections are recommended to reduce risks associated with poorly maintained back lanes.

o Collections from cellars, bin stores and other confined spaces present a high risk and should be reconsidered.

o Task and finish increases health & safety issues significantly because of the desire to finish early, and negotiations should begin to cease this practice.

The Health & Safety Executive published a report into manual handling in 2002 which recommended that wherever possible wheelie bins should be used in preference to bags or small dustbins.

7.3 Working practices

Staffing

A task and finish system is operated by the council. The GMB Union outlines that this system provides a tendency to cut corners in an attempt to cut the time. Collectors can be seen running in order to get the job done quicker and reports of exceptionally early start times have been reported by residents on occasion. This method of working is not equitable with other Council employees.

The Health & Safety advisor has recommended that the Council beings negotiations to cease this practice (see section 7.2 and Appendix X).

Sickness within the workforce is high due to a variety of reasons and procedures are being put in place to address this. Reliance on Agency staff loses time and increases the potential to miss bins. It also delays start times and the reliability of service.

Routes and rounds

Routes and rounds have been built up historically and in some cases they are no longer efficiently programmed. A change to working practices will ensure that rounds are reviewed and operational efficiencies achieved.

The vehicles generally leave the depot at 6am, which means that, on occasion, sacks are collected before 7 am from some properties. In addition, sacks from some properties at the end of a round are not collected until 2pm, which means that some bags are present on the streets for at least 7 hours.

Missed bins

Residents have unlimited time to report a `missed bin' which causes a constraint on resources and inefficient use of time. If someone rings in to report a missed bin 4-5 days after their scheduled collection, the crews will revisit the property, even though their next collection may be due within a couple of days. In these instances it is difficult to ascertain whether bins have genuinely been missed.

Bags are missed for a number of reasons (e.g. resident not putting bag out on time, refuse presented in a hazardous or inappropriate manner, access problems, draggers not knowing where residents present bags, weather and vehicle problems,)

7.4 Summary of findings

The strategic focus of the authority is to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill, to increase tonnages of waste recycled and to implement efficient and effective ways of working. The current method of refuse collection does not contribute positively to achieving these objectives.

A majority of residents present their refuse at the front of the property, however since the council operates a backdoor collection policy, residents can effectively present their refuse wherever they choose and it is up to the collectors to find it. This leads to obvious operational inefficiencies and dissatisfaction from customers as the onus is on local knowledge of the crews in sourcing the waste. Any changes in staff can affect the reliability of the service.

The existing system for collecting refuse is not operationally efficient, does not encourage waste minimisation and recycling, and poses significant health & safety risks to operatives.

Information given to residents about why their refuse has not been collected is far from ideal. The onus is on the customer to ring up the Council to complain or to seek further clarification which is not immediate as Action line staff must then contact operational crews.

The Council collects recyclables and organic waste from the front curtilage of properties. The policy of back door collection is therefore inconsistent across service areas and does not encourage residents to recycle by making it easier for them to leave their waste outside their back doors in whatever quantities they like, rather than packaging it carefully to reduce risk and presenting it at the front of their property for recycling. This inconsistency needs addressing in order to make the effort required to present refuse consistent with the effort required to recycle.

8.0 OPTIONS APPRAISAL

A detailed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current refuse collection system are detailed in Appendix V, VI and VII. The issues considered by the working group and their views are detailed in Appendix VIII and Appendix IX respectively.

ISSUES

Key issues to address in any proposals have been identified as follows:

B7 Health & Safety of operatives

B7 Customer Satisfaction

B7 Council commitment to reducing landfill & increasing recycling

B7 Cost

Service developments for both the short and longer term have been identified and evaluated against the above criteria. Weightings have been applied to each of these criteria. Appendix IV details the developments considered. This evaluation model can be used by individuals to input their own subjective scores.

The evaluation with scoring as detailed in Appendix IV shows that a move to curtilage collection has significant advantages in the short term. The implementation of this policy alone will help to remedy many of the issues faced by residents and crews (missed bins, health & safety) and will facilitate higher levels of waste being diverted from disposal into the recycling services.

Longer term improvement options:

The principle collection systems that the authority could choose to employ are detailed below. A detailed financial appraisal of each option will be carried out as part of the Council's developing waste strategy, and through market testing new service specifications. Factors such as contribution to recycling rates, diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill and availability of treatment facilities will be considered. A financial appraisal is essential before firm conclusions can be reached.

Options:

With or without the provision of wheeled bins for residual waste:

B7 Weekly collection of recyclables including source segregated kitchen waste. Weekly residual collection.

B7 Weekly collection of recyclables including source segregated kitchen waste. Alternate weekly collections of green & cardboard (chargeable) and residual waste.

B7 Weekly collection of recyclables

B7 Alternate weekly collection of recyclables and residual waste.

Appendix XI details the collection systems that the highest recycling performers nationally employ. There is a clear correlation between increased costs and performance levels. In general rural authorities compost higher more waste than urban authorities.

B7 11 out of 15 of the top performers collect residual waste every other week through supplying 204 litre wheeled bins.

B7 10 out of the 15 top performers collect plastic bottles through their kerbside collection schemes.

Robust conclusions and recommendations for the implementation of specific systems cannot be reached until a detailed financial appraisal and market test of the options are carried out. This exercise will be carried out through the Council's developing waste strategy and market test of services scheduled for 2006.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

The overwhelming conclusion reached through the study is that a front curtilage collection policy should be implemented, along with an assisted collection service for residents with specific needs. Rubbish should no longer be collected from inside cellars and inappropriately designed and poorly maintained store rooms.

The implementation of this policy alone will help to remedy many of the issues faced by both residents and crews, (eg. missed bins, and health & safety issues) and will facilitate higher levels of waste being diverted from disposal into the recycling services. The benefits are:

B7 Encourages participation in recycling through consistency of collection policies and enhanced profile of the recycling collection service.

B7 Ensures the responsibility for presenting their own waste safely remains with residents.

B7 Increases resident's awareness of the quantity of waste that they themselves produce and leads to greater understanding and involvement in waste & recycling issues.

B7 Improves health and safety for operational staff

B7 Delivers operational efficiencies

In order to assist residents in moving their rubbish and to alleviate storage issues small wheeled bins could be offered either free of charge or at cost price to residents upon request. Both options will have financial implications as several vehicles will need bin lifts filled to enable these to be collected (see Appendix I). The financial implications of giving wheeled bins free of charge would be significant (approximately A320 per bin).

In some areas wheeled bins will be unsuitable for collection due to topography, vehicle weight restrictions or access difficulties. These areas should be identified at the outset so that residents' expectations are not raised.

The employment of waste minimisation/recycling field officer/s to work directly with residents and frontline staff to ensure refuse and recycling services are utilised effectively will have tangible benefits in increasing the amount of waste recycled and ensuring the curtilage collection is implemented effectively. It is recommended that 2 are employed on a temporary basis to gauge success.

In order to improve the operational efficiency of the current system a `time-limited' missed bin policy should be implemented. A bin will only be collected as missed if it is reported by the end of the following working day.

To reduce health & safety risks negotiation to cease task & finish work practices should begin.

Appropriate information material such as stickers and leaflets should be given to residents when rubbish is left behind purposely to advise, educate, inform and to reduce the need for unnecessary phonecalls and complaints by residents.

Longer term options for changes in methodology should be included in the market test of waste services scheduled for 2006. This will enable a robust financial appraisal of options to be undertaken and appropriate solutions fully assessed.

APPENDIX I: Vehicle fleet

APPENDIX II: Critical appraisal surveys

APPENDIX III: Evidence from random surveys

Operational inefficiencies

Charlcombe Lane

Some bags are collected from the front of the properties and some from the back using the same vehicle and crew

Flats off Gloucester Road

Some sacks presented in bin cupboards, some not which meant that all cupboards had to be checked.

Weston road

Most properties present waste front curtilage, however there are two long lanes which have to go down. One leads to two properties, the other to one property. The driveways are very slippy and covered in moss. Fortunately only two bags to collect otherwise we would have had to make more than one trip.

Backdoor vs. front door collection

Russell Street

(Some residents present front door and some presented in cellars)

Park Street

Bags presented downstairs: 24

Bags presented upstairs: 6

75% refuse sacks presented in cellars rather than on street

Estate off Weston road

Front curtilage: 29

Backdoor: 2

Front door: 2

94% front door/ curtilage presentation

Ashley road (and cul de sac), Bathampton

Recycling and refuse both collected on Tuesday

Number of properties presenting: -

o Refuse and recycling out the front of the property/ kerbside: 25

o Refuse backdoor and recycling out the front of the property/ kerbside: 3

o Refuse kerbside/ front curtilage and no recycling: 3

o Refuse backdoor and no recycling: 5

o Out of 36 properties, 28 participated in recycling - 78%

o Out of 36 properties, 25 participated in recycling and presented refuse out the front of the property/ kerbside- 69%

Random street sampling

Front curtilage: 72 (55%)

Backdoor: 25 (19%)

Kerbside: 34 (26%)

Total no properties: 131

Total front: 81%

Random street sampling

Front door: 102

Backdoor: 51

Total no properties: 153

Total front: 66%

Anecdotal information

Anecdotal estimates were received between 50-70% residents presenting refuse at the front of the property.

APPENDIX IV: Evaluation of options

Subjectively scored. Weightings applied to calculate final score.

APPENDIX V: Point of Collection - Advantages & Disadvantages

The advantages of a back door collection policy are:

FC Equal and accessible service to all residents - residents chose their preference

FC Some locations are more suited to a backdoor collection

FC Waste is `hidden' until collection day in some streets

FC Refuse will be retrieved so does not have to be presented

The disadvantages of a back door collection policy are:

3F Refuse can be presented at backdoor, front door, curtilage of the property, kerbside or other place (e.g. cellars, bin cupboards, hung on a fence, on a wall, in hedges, in conservatories, by the garage) for collection

3F Requires knowledge of where residents present refuse (some front/ back in same street)

3F Health & safety implications with entering a property (e.g. carrying bags some distance)

3F Safety implications with entering a property (e.g. slippy cellar stairs, objects in garden, dogs, broken garden gates, cars pulling out of driveways)

3F Draggers can be in isolated areas on their own

3F Increased time taken to enter properties and gather bags

3F Increased potential for reports of missed bins

3F System requires draggers to enter properties to retrieve sacks

3F Identifying which sacks are put out for refuse collection

It is apparent also that one reason for reports of missed bins is due to the fact that resident's are not presenting refuse on time and then phoning Action line to report a `missed bin'.

The existing system does not encourage recycling since residents can present as much refuse as they produce.

The findings also indicate at present when sacks are not collected for any reasons, no note of explanation is left with the sack.

APPENDIX VI: Same day collections - advantages and disadvantages

The existing system involves collecting refuse and recycling on different days of the week. The perception is that this can create confusion for householders and thus does not encourage recycling, however, through researching schemes where same day collections do occur there is little evidence of any increase in recycling rates that can directly be attributed to the fact that collections for recycling and refuse are on the same day of the week.

Friends of the Earth (nationally) outline that the recycling and refuse collections should take place on the same day of the week to avoid confusion. However, they were unable to provide evidence of the benefits that would result.

The pros and cons of Different Collection Days are as follows: -

FC Householders can distinguish between recycling and refuse collections

FC Streets less cluttered if different collection days

3F Does not encourage recycling

3F Difficult for householders to remember different collection days

3F Refuse crew cannot leave obvious recycling

The Working group rejected proposals to implement same day collections but did agree to review whether garden waste and cardboard and dry recyclables could be run on the same day of the week. See appendix IX for further information.

APPENDIX VII: Refuse collection methodology

Wheeled bins & sacks - advantages and disadvantages

PREDOMINANTLY SACK COLLECTION SERVICE - NO CONTAINER PROVIDED

WHEELED BIN COLLECTION SERVICE

APPENDIX VIII: Proposals for discussion at Working Group (12/8/2004)

8. Review of staffing and working hours

-A review of task and finish and should be undertaken.

-Bank holiday working

-Reliance on Agency staff

Considerations

-Vehicle maintenance

-Disposal options on bank holiday?

-Would refuse be out for longer?

-Impact on rounds of change?

9. Review of routes/ round (including detailed review of back lanes)

-A review of routes and rounds (including back lanes) should be undertaken to assess whether they can be more operationally efficient.

-Consider using software to produce rounds?

APPENDIX IX: Notes from Waste Collection Working Group

1> `Front Curtilage' collection policy - PROGRESS

B7 Generally accepted as best way to move forward.

B7 Makes people more aware of their rubbish by presenting it on the street.

B7 Front or back edges of property - clear message - one side or the other on each road - not mixed.

B7 Refuse put out in same place as Green Box - can work with ECT, using their experience to build up rounds, highlight problem areas etc. Access problems removed.

B7 Possibly efficient enough to allow 4-day week? Establish start times

B7 Bin Stores - work with planners to ensure Recycling and Refuse issues are highlighted at early stage, and to promote recycling.

B7 Assisted collections - need vetting? Sticker in window / on bin?

B7 Enforcement - stickers on bags to inform resident as to why not collected (see later)

B7 Stricter policy on missed collection reporting - 48hrs

B7 Closer communication between Action Line and collectors - collectors call in reason why left bag.

2> Same Day Collections- HOLD

B7 Possibly Green Waste and Recycling, but not recycling and refuse

B7 Logistical problems - vehicles in same area etc

B7 Further research on current overlap areas?

B7 Reduce missed collections.

B7 Cardboard in recycling / refuse could be collected rather than left

3> Only Black Sacks- REJECT

B7 No system in place for larger items (ironing boards, TVs, airers)

B7 Refuse crew flag up 93bad94 properties

B7 Education - door knocking on properties who consistently put out too much / reusable / recyclable materials

B7 Reject - more investigation into Education

4> Charge for Additional sacks- HOLD

B7 Clear bags would allow collectors to see what is in there for feed back into education

B7 Possibly trial on new estate

B7 Hold - depending on success of front curtilage

5> Explicit Policy on what NOT collected - PROGRESS

B7 Action Line to 93interrogate94 callers

B7 Prevent garden waste in black bags being reported as missed collection

B7 Establish and COMMUNICATE policy - both within (Action Line, collectors) and outside the Council (public)

6> Stickers / Leaflets on left bags- PROGRESS

B7 Remove `bad habits'

B7 Similar to green box collection

B7 Clear message to public on what will not be accepted

B7 Reduce missed collections and complaints

B7 Hold - depends on success of front curtilage

7> Time Limited Missed Bin Policy- PROGRESS

B7 Time limited reporting

B7 Change online report - more questions

B7 Action Line to quiz caller

B7 ACTION

8> Staffing review - PROGRESS

B7 Bank Holliday working under discussion

B7 4-day week?

B7 Task and finish pros and cons reviewed

B7 In conjunction with policy changes

B7 More Research - depends on front curtilage success

9> Review Routes and Rounds - PROGRESS ALONGSIDE FRONT CURTILAGE

B7 Work with ECT if go same day / front cartilage

B7 In conjunction with policy change

B7 More research - depends on policy change

10> Waste Minimisation/ recycling officer- PROGRESS ALONGSIDE FRONT CURTILAGE

B7 This proposal came about since the group thought that there were other ways to address the issues of limiting waste other than charging for sacks or only accepting black sacks for collection.

B7 The group agreed that there is a need for a `different type' of enforcement officer to make contact with residents who constantly present lots of sacks of refuse particularly with obvious recycling.

B7 More research - depends on policy change

APPENDIX X: View from the Council's Health & Safety Advisor

WASTE COLLECTION STUDY

With reference to your e-mail of 16^th November please find below my comments on the areas upon which you requested a formal health & safety viewpoint -:

1. WORKING METHODS

1.1 Black sacks

From a safety perspective black sacks present risks to operatives in terms of manual handling. The major issues are: that the sacks differ so much in quality; the collector does not always know what they contain; sharps will and do penetrate them causing injury; the weight is unknown at the point of handling, although data* collected by the HSE suggest that the average weight is around 5 kilos; the job and finish culture also results in many more bags (up to 8!) being carried by the loader in order to sustain an early finish. They are also susceptible to damage by animals.

The use of wheelie bins is often cited as a panacea for eradicating most of the risks associated with black sacks. In reality they present their own specific handling problems, particularly where there are changes in levels, confined spaces as well as job and finish. In an ideal world probably the safest method of handling would be to use wheelie bins and vehicles with bin lifts, but that is only effective in flat areas, and the topography of Bath and North East Somerset is hardly flat! It is, therefore, prudent to offer the residents a choice of black bags or a wheelie bin, where practical. I would, however, like to see the Council take control of the quality of black sacks by issuing sacks of limited quantity, but consistent quality to residents. I would also suggest that accepting refuse in carrier bags and round bins (without a liner) etc.be discontinued.

1.2 Backdoor collections

Again from a purely health & safety perspective I would prefer that the majority of collections be made from the front curtilage. I have personally looked at many back lanes at the request of Leisure & Amenity Services and the GMB. Many are poorly maintained, narrow and the surfaces slippery and dangerous during darkness or poor weather. Leisure and Amenity Services, on the basis of a risk assessment and my recommendations, then make a decision to continue with back door collections or to close the route, and in consultation with residents to move to front curtilage collection. Evidence has shown that most residents are happy to move to front curtilage collection.

1.3 Collections from cellars, bin stores and other confined spaces

The safety issues are similar to those relating to back lanes. The hazards to collectors are those of back and limb injury from poor posture. The job and finish culture also compounds the risk of injury through the temptation to handle excessive weights. I have visited many locations where the stairs to basements and bin stores are in a poor state of repair or where collectors have to bend double to access bin storage areas. Many of the storage areas seem to be cleaned rarely by their owners or occupiers. Vehicle access is also often difficult. It is not only the older properties where this occurs as bin store rooms are often poorly located in newly built houses and blocks of flats. I believe that we should have an input to the planning process whereby consideration is given to better refuse collection points.

1.4 Task and finish

It is evident that the job and finish culture now neither benefits the Council nor the staff. I do not support it on health and safety grounds as it causes injuries through poor handling techniques, slips, trips and falls, and increases the likelihood of being struck by a vehicle. Loaders are forced to hurry in order to get finished, meaning in practice that they carry too many bags, and throw rather than place them into vehicles. Although all staff have been given practical training in manual handling and provided with pictorial safe systems of work, these techniques are often overlooked because of the desire to finish early. The time is also right for the Council to negotiate its way out of job and finish as the Trade Union support has dwindled considerably recently, although they would almost certainly be looking for a 93quid pro quo,94 (working 4 x 10 hour days for instance) for their members.

1.5 Refuse left outside each property

Moving to a front curtilage collection will require a culture change whereby residents will need to present their refuse rather than leave it somewhere for the collectors to find. However, the draft strategy report has shown that some 60% of residents currently put out their rubbish at the front of their properties. This coupled with the fact that recycling boxes are collected 93front door94 should not present too much of a problem The Council will need to set and communicate a policy about what time refuse should be presented, and where and when it should be left to prevent bags and wheelie bins from creating unnecessary safety hazards.

I have taken the opportunity to comment upon some other aspects of waste collection which will be relevant to the Council's future waste strategy.

2. VEHICLE DESIGNS

All too often in practice the handling operation has to fit around the design of the vehicle rather than vice-versa. For example, data from and HSE* report has suggested that the current rave heights on vehicles create problems for more than 50% of male loaders when handling heavy bags. Mixed bag and bin rounds should also not be encouraged. Taking a local example, injuries have been sustained on the Rotopress vehicles when staff have been struck by the bin-lift mechanism whilst manually placing items over the rave bar. The message is simply to design out risk before new equipment is deployed rather than afterwards.

3. HSE FOCUS ON THE WASTE AND RECYCLING INDUSTRY

The HSE stance is that organisations including Local Authorities, when seeking to achieve government targets on recycling, tend to give less attention on the effect that new methods of collection have on handling staff. There is a current focus on the UK waste industry by the HSE because it has the highest rate of fatal injuries per 100,000 employees. In the waste collection area most of the injuries are caused by: handling heavy, sharp and awkward loads; low falls; slip and trips; and being struck by objects and vehicles.

4. SUMMARY OF MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS IN HSE REPORT ON

MANUAL HANDLING IN REFUSE COLLECTION

I have set out below the summary of recommendation set out in an HSE report into manual handling undertaken in 2002:-

1. Detailed manual handling risk assessments are always needed - especially at the design stage of new systems to increase recycling.

2. Wherever possible wheelie bins should be used in preference to bags or small dustbins.

3. Where wheelie bins are impractical, bags are preferable to recycling boxes.

4. Recycling systems should be designed to minimise manual handling operations at all stages.

5. Eurobins should only be handled by two people and transferred across drop kerbs (again the provision of drop kerbs is a planning issue).

6. Low rave heights should be provided on RCV's used for bag rounds.

7. Listen to the workforce.

8. Listen to the public.

These recommendations mainly speak for themselves, but it is significant that black bags are preferred to recycling boxes. This is because it is very difficult to adopt a safe handling method for recycling boxes because of the amount of bending of the trunk that is required. Injury is made more likely because the load is positioned away from the body which causes enormous pressure on the back muscles and spine. A two-person lift is a better way of controlling such a load, but this takes more time. The weight of recycling boxes is also significantly higher than refuse bags. I have also received anecdotal evidence from ECT that many of their loaders are suffering from fatigue and injuries brought about by excessive lifting. It is a misconception to think that manual handling training is the panacea for safe handling: it is not. Training is in reality only a secondary means of control, and there are many operations in which it is not possible to invent a foolproof safe handling method. As future operations suggest more manual handling rather than less, we need to be very careful in designing systems which balance our impetus to encourage more recycling with the effect that new systems will have on refuse and recycling collectors. The report based upon research undertaken by the HSE with Devon CC in Exeter also points out that the use of wheelie bins is not practical in all circumstances.

5. REFERENCES

*HSL/2002/21 - Manual handling in refuse collection by Dr A J Pinder and Ed Milnes MSc published by the HSE.

Geoff Dicker

Corporate Health & Safety

APPENDIX XI Comparison of collection methods against recycling performance

Glossary

AW: Alternate Weekly

WB: Wheeled Bin

GW: Garden Waste

APPENDIX XII: References

GMB Refuse Collection: Waste Industry Health and Safety

HSE (2002) Manual Handling in Refuse Collection

Community Recycling Network (2002) `Maximising recycling rates- tackling residuals'

Friends of the Earth (2004) Doorstep Recycling- a good practice guide and local authority case studies

Eunomia Research and Consulting (2002), Waste Collection: To Charge or Not to Charge? A Summary report to CIWM, Charging schemes for waste management and the barriers to their introduction in the UK

Resource Recovery Forum (2004) High Diversion of Municipal Waste: Is It Achievable?, David Davies Associates

Strategy Unit (2002) Waste Not Want Not- A strategy for tackling the waste problem in England

HSE (1992) Manual Handling Operations Regulations (as amended)

HSE (2004) Waste Conference- Manual Handling in refuse collection and recycling

SITA / GMB `Don't bin your back'

APPENDIX XIII: Local Authority Contacts