How to provide a responsible and efficient recycling service (that doesn’t cause you angst!)

I was recently at a friend’s BBQ when I was asked about recycling.  Many were concerned, even angry, expressing that the government was not doing enough about recycling.  There were comments and questions like “Councils should do more to stop landfilling”; “why can’t we recycle plastic?”; “surely we can recycle more” and “there needs to be a change in mindset!”

When I suggested that individuals may actually have to pay more in their rates for rubbish charges, the response was very different. Another friend of said that it was great news that a waste levy was being introduced. However, her enthusiasm rapidly evaporated when I said to her that the skip bin she uses for her house renovation would dramatically increase in cost from March.

It seems that people are keen for a change, as long as it doesn’t involve paying more! If you think this is an over-reaction, I suggest that you ask some of the staff at Woolworths and Coles after the 15 cents per plastic bag charge was introduced.

The waste industry needs to be clear in their messaging and implement efficient programs to ensure that recycling is undertaken in a way that provides environmental benefits while showing evidence of value for money.

However, for local governments and private operators, implementing recycling solutions to reduce landfill isn’t always simple. While there are many companies pedalling systems to reducing waste to landfill, how they integrate into existing operations and contracts is another matter entirely.

For instance, I have been advised of an operation that can heat putrescible waste that reduces 80% of what is landfilled.  The product seems very cost effective with a low initial capital outlay.  There are several add-ons that are not noted in the brochures.  These include:

• How the waste is removed from the waste collection vehicle into the machine. Obviously, a hard stand area would need to be constructed and a front-end loader would need to be used daily;
• Other annual operating costs (especially staff) as well as maintenance;
• The cost of landfilling the residual by-product

All of these additions alter the financial assessment of the project.

However, the biggest concern I have is that for such an operation/infrastructure to be employed there must be a contract variation with the existing landfill management provider.  Councils cannot demand an existing contracted landfill manager (service provider) to employ new technology, change staff levels or implement other controls without expecting a hefty contract variation. This contract variation may result in an increased cost to ratepayers

Management Approach To Ensure Cost-Effectiveness

However, with a thoughtful management approach, both increased recycling and compliance whilst ensuring a business approach (cost-effectiveness) can occur.

• Firstly, the waste solution must be proven elsewhere. I often joke that every Council wants to be innovative, but no-one wants to be first! This is particularly relevant for infrastructure.  I find that it is always worthwhile to do some research and speak to other project managers about how they implemented a solution on their site. A few simple phone calls and a short site visit is it all takes to find out what works and what doesn’t, and this valuable information has paid dividends for several of my clients.
• Secondly, getting the contract documentation and understanding the implications is critical. Most collection contracts are seven-plus years in duration and most site management contracts are five years plus.  Thus, integrating any new system or infrastructure into existing arrangements is needed to avoid an adversarial approach in the day to day management of any site plus any obscene legal fees in contract variations.
• Thirdly, undertaking an accurate assessment of the full cost pricing is paramount. While financial outcomes do not always outmaneuver environmental outcomes, it is far easier to “sell” an environmental cause if a rigorous commercial assessment has been undertaken. It should be noted that the commercial assessment needs to include both the capital expense and operating costs. This includes what a provider will charge and internal Council staff time (and supporting infrastructure).  Some recent clients of mine have undertaken this process with very positive implementation results.  It means that generally, there are no cost surprises further down the line.
• Finally marketing and communication really need to be undertaken carefully. I am sure most readers will agree that you can never do too much in this area. Expectations in recycling are very high, so communicating the cost-effective achievements to residents as well as elected representatives is important to ensure the ongoing success of any program.

Finding and then securing sources of funding can be a difficult task.  It is worth noting that whilst Stream One of the Queensland Government Resource Recovery Industry Development Program is now closed, Stream Two is still open. This may provide an opportunity for your business or Council. Having said that there are several other funding options available that are not waste related that can be a source of funds.

We are currently managing several projects that involve reviewing operations to include more recycling that encompasses cost savings.  We may be able to provide you with some acquired knowledge.Keiran Travers is a Director of Harbak and UTL Utilities.  Both companies are providing waste management advice in relation to the Queensland market. UTL Utilities provides infrastructure strategy, procurement, economic modelling and business operational advices in the fields of waste management primarily for the local government sector. Contact Keiran at keiran@utl-utilities.com.au.

Over the coming summer months, my small backyard will be filled with fallen vegetation and my next-door neighbours are undertaking some renovation work.

We have discussed ordering a skip bin to take our waste which will be most likely ordered in late February.

The skip bin will then be delivered and filled with mixed green and construction and demolition waste and then picked up and taken to a transfer station. This waste will most likely reside on the waste transfer floor for a few days, before it is transferred to a landfill. By the time our waste is taken to landfill, it will be after the 4th of March and the Queensland Waste levy will be implemented.

Luckily for me, I will have ordered the skip bin pre-levy, so the cost of the skip bin will be reasonable. However, as the waste will be taken to landfill post-levy, the waste company I ordered the skip bin from will be forced to pay for the levy ($70 per tonne) which will be a heavy loss for the company.

This is a financially dangerous situation for all organisations (in both the private and public sectors) involved in the transportation and receiving of waste. Failure to adequately manage this situation means that your expenses in March 2019 could far exceed what you had envisaged. This however can be mitigated with good planning in the leadup to the levy being implemented.

Firstly, waste management staff need to be made aware of the changes to the recording of waste data. Yes, everyone knows the start date of March 4th however, do your staff really know what to do when this date occurs? Are the financial systems ready? Are the weighbridges ready to record the data? Do the site staff know what to do? Staff training is essential in the lead-up to this.

The skip bin analogy at the start of this article can be avoided with well thought out logistical management. This involves ensuring customers are not charged for the levy before March 4th however, are well notified of the incoming levy. Customers need to know that there will be an additional cost for their landfill disposal to ensure they can adequately accommodate for the increased costs.

More importantly, it will be necessary for all waste transfer stations to be cleared of waste during the weekend of March 2 and 3 with all stored waste transported to landfill. However, this will not be an easy process. Like many others in the waste industry, I predict that many customers (waste generators) will be rushing to get works finished before the levy is implemented. As a result, the volume of waste at transfer stations in the lead-up to March 4th will be much higher than usual. Thus, extra staff may be needed to manage this waste to ensure the floor is clean before the levy is implemented.

I have been asked by some in the waste industry if state agencies will be fairly relaxed in the first few weeks and errors will be accepted with regard to collecting levy revenue. It’s not uncommon for new systems to have teething problems, however, I have yet to ever witness the Treasury of any government miss out on revenue. Therefore, it’s important to start preparing for the levy this side of Christmas to ensure you are adequately prepared.

I fear for local governments that have unsupervised (thus unprotected) bin stations. It’s just too easy for an annoyed skip bin operator who failed to take the new levy into consideration when pricing a project, to feel the need to “illegally” use these bin stations. Having said that there may be some waste that could appear say 500 metres up the road from a private landfill to avoid paying extra levy fees. For instance, a 20 tonne truck will incur $1,400 in landfill levy fees…

It’s a time to be vigilant in your operations to avoid damage to your bottom line as a result of the waste levy.

With growing consumer awareness in relation to both the sourcing of products and services and the environmental and waste management industries, consumers are changing their habits as they see how specific behaviours affect other people, the environment and the economy.

These changes are evident in the current social and political landscape which can be seen by:

• The push for the removal of plastic bags
• A strong interest in the War on Waste program
• An ongoing interest in solar projects
• Increased adoption of composting

However, despite the push from consumers, businesses have been slow to get on board. Coles has faced significant backlash after fumbling the removal of plastic bags from their stores, and state-run utilities have a focus on fiscal, short-term milestones that make sustainable energy production less appealing than older, cheaper technologies.

While local and state governments look towards sustainable solutions, proof of concept is difficult to establish. With new or emerging techniques and procedures, it is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness and longevity of many modern, and sustainably focused, service providers.

This push towards sustainability from both consumers and from a state and federal angle means that service providers are also beginning to move towards environmentally friendly services. Though this swing is only just beginning, the successes of these environmentally focused businesses is significant both socially and economically.

Harbak and UTL Utilities have recently worked alongside local governments and private businesses in providing sustainable solutions including:

• Reassessing waste infrastructure, and scaling up recycling processes
• Examining procedures for mining operations at the end of their operation, which can lower environmental impact and financial involvement
• Re-use of green waste on sites

Both Harbak and UTL Utilities always ensure they consider the social, environmental and sustainability implications when investigating options for future infrastructure and waste services. If you would like some more information on this, please contact me.

Keiran Travers is a Director of Harbak and newly formed waste management company, UTL Utilities. UTL Utilities provides infrastructure strategy, procurement, economic modelling and business operational advices in the fields of waste management primarily for the local government sector. Contact Keiran at keiran@utl-utilities.com.au.