HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
AGENDA 21 PANEL ITEM 5
14 MARCH 1997
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE WITHIN COUNTY COUNCIL
DEPARTMENTS AND BUSINESS UNITS
REPORT OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR
1. Introduction
1.1 This report informs Members of a study undertaken to measure
waste management performance in Hampshire County Council's
departments and business units, and to plan improvements for
the future. It comes amidst an increased volume in
legislative and regulatory developments in Britain and
Europe. These have pushed up environmental standards and
penalties for non-compliance.
2. Background
2.1 Hampshire's incinerators have now closed and its existing
landfill sites are nearly full. Landfill tax and tighter
regulation of waste management facilities will increase waste
costs. This report outlines the likely impact of such costs
and gauges the potential for improved practice and financial
savings.
2.2 The County Council has a leading role in promoting good waste
management in Hampshire through Project Integra. Its
corporate strategy includes a commitment to caring for the
environment. It is therefore important to establish how the
County Council manages its own waste.
3. Waste Management Survey - Major Findings
3.1 The County Council's departments and business units were
found to have relatively little structured management of
their waste. The available figures related only to the cost
of collection and waste disposal, not to other resource
costs, e.g. purchasing, and indicated a low level of waste
awareness. Waste collection and disposal alone costs the
County Council around £1.6 million per annum. Landfill tax
from 1 October 1996 is set to increase this by approximately
£0.6 million per annum at existing rates. A breakdown of
these costs by departments is set out in the attached
Appendix.
1
3.2 County Council sites do not record figures for the quantity
of waste or the cost of waste per tonne. It was important to
establish these figures to generate a picture of the overall
situation and measure the organisation's exposure to landfill
tax.
3.3 Effective waste management systems are based upon control of
processes through measurement. Estimates indicated that the
County Council produces over 110,000 tonnes of waste per
year. Whilst highways works waste accounted for the vast
majority of this (89,000 tonnes), the remaining 21,000 tonnes
is equivalent to waste produced by Gosport householders in
one year.
3.4 Specific waste streams vary between services, though paper
waste is endemic as the majority of County Council activities
are service based. From a waste management perspective there
are two types:
(i) waste produced by staff as a by product of service
provision; and
(ii) waste produced by service users at County Council
facilities.
3.5 Waste types within the former can be directly influenced by
County Council staff. Waste generated by users of County
Council facilities can only be controlled through influencing
behaviour. The major findings of a waste audit carried out
at Ashburton Court identified that:
(i) over 83% of office waste is recyclable using
existing schemes;
(ii) the current recycling rate for The Castle was 19.4%
of office waste; and
(iii) Ashburton Court produced less than half of the
average office waste per head than staff at The
Castle generally, and recycled over twice as much of
the waste it did produce per head.
4. Management Issues
4.1 This study has shown that the County Council can greatly
improve its performance. Rapidly rising unit costs for waste
disposal make current practice expensive, and there is a cost
justification as well as an environmental objective to
pursue. A number of management issues need to be addressed:
(i) the absence of adequate waste management information
and structures;
(ii) the low profile of waste and its importance as a
management issue; and
2
(iii) the integration of good environmental management
with other aspects of operational service delivery
in all areas.
4.2 Most examples of good practice at County Council sites
related to reuse and recycling. The best example of good
practice went beyond this and came from waste audits carried
out at Ashburton Court West. The Surveyor's Department Green
Office Group was shown to have achieved significant success
in both waste minimisation and recycling. Staff working in
Ashburton Court produced one sixth of the average residual
office waste per head at The Castle.
4.3 Much of the Green Office Group's success seems to have been
achieved through evolutionary changes in staff attitudes to
printing, photocopying and avoiding waste. Measurement of
various data has been used to identify problems and
prioritise action on good office practice, reuse and
recycling.
4.4 Measurement is the key to improved waste management
performance. If the County Council wants to improve waste
management performance it must start by measuring it. Most
problems can be addressed without capital outlay (though
purchasing policy is important). Where expenditure is
necessary the payback is often achieved in under a year.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 Current practice on waste will mean that the County Council
needs to absorb the following waste disposal increases alone:
(i) landfill tax at £2 and £7 per tonne from 1 October
1996 approximately £600,000 per year for all waste;
(ii) landfill charge increases to reflect dwindling
capacity, higher environmental standards and new
legislation affecting waste management facilities;
10% over five years would increase costs by
£150,000; and
(iii) further rises in landfill tax to average European
levels (£40-£50 per tonne) over the next ten years
will increase the cost of the County Council's non-
highways/construction waste alone by up to £625,000
per annum, and up to £3.3 million for all waste.
5.2 The implications of a waste minimisation programme on cost
would depend on a range of factors. The most achievable
target is good current practice in schools and support
services. Figures suggest for these two that the County
Council can:
(i) reduce office waste by 50%: saving up to £72,000 per
annum on paper purchasing at The Castle alone;
3
(ii) recycle over half of all office waste produced
through existing schemes; broadly cost neutral given
smaller initial quantities;
(iii) reduce the residual waste for disposal by up to two-
thirds; saving £7,000-£10,000 per annum on waste
collection and disposal at The Castle alone;
(iv) expand recycling, waste minimisation and cooperation
with districts towards best practice in Hampshire
schools: these costs can theoretically be
eliminated, even halved they will save £180,000 per
annum; and
(v) support waste minimisation in Social Services units,
as in schools, and determine the potential for
further savings.
5.3 This approach could save up to £260,000 per annum from The
Castle and schools alone. There would be a need to provide
additional resources to achieve this, e.g. staff and support
funding for training, research and communications at a cost
of up to £50,000, although the payback in one year would far
outweigh the cost.
6. Proposals
6.1 Improved waste management performance can be achieved through
a series of measures to introduce, promote and sustain:
(i) systematic measurement of true waste quantities,
types and costs;
(ii) development of departmental management information
systems and structures equipped to recognise the
importance of waste: performance indicators,
targets, benchmarking, quality assurance, etc;
(iii) support for local staff and managers in access to
integrated waste management and collection
contracts: for recycling, advice and training; and
(iv) regular public communication and reporting of
progress on waste to Members, senior managers and
all involved staff.
6.2 Effective implementation is likely to be achieved after the
policy direction has been set by the establishment of a core
group tasked with the job of working with staff in each
department to meet the objectives outlined above. Once this
group is established the first phase of the project, about
three months, will be to set departmental working plans and
timetables for action. From there on implementation and
progress will vary from service to service, but a timescale
of two or three years is realistic to make sound progress.
4
6.3 Targets suggested in this report are based upon best current
practice at the County Council. Departments will need to be
reviewed/ratified in accordance with their current practice
to ensure ownership and commitment. To avoid problems in
securing recycling contracts in the currently depressed paper
market, it is advised that long term agreements on price and
materials be negotiated corporately or centrally wherever
possible.
6.4 Management of the collection and disposal of County Council
waste in a coordinated manner is now under way. A future
report to this Panel by the Head of Contracts (Property,
Regulatory and Business) will set out plans for the
introduction of integrated waste collection contracts.
7. Conclusion
7.1 This study highlights a low overall level of waste management
performance for County Council departments and business
units. It indicates significant potential for savings and
improved performance for a relatively small investment.
Positive action would underpin the Council's acknowledged
leadership in domestic waste management.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Environment Group leads the coordination of
corporate action on waste through the Local Agenda 21
Officers' Working Group.
2. That improved waste management becomes a key focus of the
corporate environmental management plan with progress reports
to the Corporate Management Team and the Agenda 21 Panel
every six months.
3. That the Panel recommends to the Policy and Resources
Committee the investment of the appropriate resource to
enable waste savings to be achieved.
4. That the Performance Review Panel be appraised of the action
and also receive six monthly reports of achievement.
5. That a report on progress towards the introduction of
integrated waste collection contracts for County Council
sites be submitted to this Panel.
3988/TD
5
APPENDIX
The following table outlines the known or estimated costs of waste
collection and disposal for Hampshire County Council's departments
and business units. There has been no allowance for the costs of
producing the waste, or the value of the resources wasted. The
landfill tax is estimated upon the basis of weight, but rising waste
disposal costs in general have not been included.
Waste Costs (collection and disposal only) for County Council
Departments (collection and disposal only) and estimated additional
landfill tax costs from 1 October 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material at this point in the source document was considered to be in a form
unsuitable for display in HANTSNET and STAIRS. Therefore it has been removed.
Please contact the owner of the screen for further information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Does not include figures for waste from highways maintenance
and works, capital buildings projects, or other externally
let contracts.
For the Environment Group these amount to £1.0 million for
collection and disposal, with a liability for landfill tax of
about £470,000.
6
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage