Kitchen Composting Trial

Kitchen Waste Composting Trial End of Trial Report June 2007
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 5
Background 7
The Collection Scheme 9
Collections Overview 9
Launching the Collections Scheme 10
Collection Performance Overview 10
Contamination 10
Participation 11
Driving Participation 13
Tonnages 13
Customer Satisfaction 15
Collection System 16
Containers 16
Issuing Kit to Households 16
Liner Bags 17
The Vehicle 18
Crew 19
Communication Strategy 20
Face to Face 20
Written 20
Events 21
The Composting Operation 22
Overview 22
Operating Procedure 22
Bulking Agent 22
Food Waste 23
Delivery of Food Waste 23
Loading the VCU 23
ABPR 2003 Requirements for Two Stage Composting 24
End Product End Users 24
Composting Operational Performance 24
Animal By-Product Regulation Compliance 26
Waste Management Compliance 27
Health and Safety Considerations 28
Collections 28
Doorstepping 28
Compost Process 29
Dissemination 30
Cost Analysis 31
Conclusions 34
Appendix 37
Appendix One The Initial Leaflet Sent to All Households 37
Appendix Two Map Detailing the Project Area 38
Appendix Three Postal Questionnaire Results 39
Appendix Four Rejection Note Left by the Crew 41
Appendix Five Postcard Requesting More Bags 42
Appendix Six Maggot Fact Sheet 43
Appendix Seven Communication Strategy 44
Appendix Eight April 2007 Newsletter 45
Appendix Nine List of Interested Organisations 46
Appendix Ten List of Suppliers 47
Appendix Eleven List of comments from Householders and 48
Waste Management Industry Representatives
Appendix Twelve Gantt Chart of Work Programme 50
Executive Summary The initial planning stage of the

Lancashire Environmental Fund project was undertaken before the
funded the project under the Landfill Animal By-Product Regulations (ABPR)
Tax Credit Scheme (now Landfill 2003 came into force. Project funding
Communities Fund). The project is was provided for two years, and this
titled ‘Kitchen Waste Composting Trial’ has covered the majority of the costs
and has been set up as a partnership associated with the collection and
between LEF, Lancashire County composting of the food waste.
Council and Preston City Council. A project officer was funded for the
duration of the project and included
The project was inspired by a kitchen 2 months pre and post-operational
waste collection scheme established in phases. The target area for the project
Monza, Northern Italy by a gentleman has been a densely populated area of
called Enzo Favoino. The Lancashire 7569 terraced houses in the Deepdale
Kitchen Waste Composting Trial (which area of Preston.
will be referred to as ‘the project’ from
this point onwards) was set up to The social and operational
explore the collection and composting components of the scheme have been
of domestic food waste in an urban highly successful. Collections have been
setting. A number of dimensions efficient and popular. Participation
were explored: began at around 56% and in some
areas has been measured to be as high
Social Aspects as 77%. Contamination was initially
high but reduced to a very low level
Measuring participation, tonnage
in a short space of time. Over 850
and contamination
tonnes of food waste has been
Exploring cultural and religious collected over the two years of the
issues that affect recycling in an project. The varying amounts of waste
ethnically diverse community produced by households with different
Operational Aspects cooking habbits have also been
Collection and other logistical quantified. A religious obligation
details towards recycling is just one of many
cultural aspects that has been
Design and use of storage identified as a key issue during the
containers and vehicle project.
Effects of using liner bags The operational aspects of the
Technical Composting Aspects project have been shared widely.
In-vessel composting Over 200 visitors including collection
staff, managers and elected members
Compost quality and feedstocks from other local authorities, and
required consultants from many aspects of the
End uses waste management industry have seen
Navigating legislation, the scheme first-hand. Collections are
especially Animal By-Products considered to be highly efficient and
Regulations 2003 external studies of the collection
Dissemination methods applied in the project are
increasing. The operational benefits
Dissemination of information of collecting bagged waste are now far
regarding the project to the wider better understood by the partnership.
waste management industry.
Despite best endeavours by the
partnership, ABPR 2003 was not
achieved and therefore the project
was not able to produce its own
compost fit for purpose. Even so, by
5
going through the process of The project took the decision to

attempting to achieve ABPR 2003, the make the VCU and associated
partnership has consequently learned a equipment available for a community
great deal about the technology group to use. Using the Lancashire
involved in in-vessel composting of Community Recycling Network the
food waste. The main lesson learnt has equipment was offered to the entire
been around the quality and type of community network in Lancashire.
waste inputs required for in-vessel Groundwork East Lancashire put a
composting systems. After using many proposal forward to use the VCU to
different types of bulking agent or compost green waste collected from
matrix to try and secure stable Burnley Borough Council’s Parks and
temperatures within the unit in Ground Maintenance Department and
accordance with ABPR 2003, it was not the local Housing Association as well as
until week 58 of the project that food from Burnley’s football ground,Turf
waste began to be fully diverted from Moor. Groundwork was hoping to get
landfill. Preston City Councils Parks its scheme in place in January 2008.
Department who maintain flowerbeds
around the city, used the compost
produced during the accreditation
process.
With full ABPR 2003 accreditation
almost obtained, a previous issue that
had gone un-noticed came to light.
The issue was around the drainage and
waste management licensing and was
considered to be uneconomical to
address so late in the project. An
alternative ABPR 2003 approved
composting facility was identified, and
by changing operations to this new
local composting service a significant
cost saving was realised.
Using the new local waste
management company from January
2007 enabled the project to contribute
to a feedstock that then produced
compost used within both the
agricultural and horticultural industries.
The company based in Hutton, Preston
is called TEGTM Environmental.
6
Background hand it over at the end; this has proven

The Landfill Directive requires that by to be extremely effective.
2013, nationally the amount of The project suffered a number of set
biodegradable waste sent to landfill backs before its launch in May 2005.
must be halved compared to the One set back was the construction of
amount landfilled in 1995. According the new split-level Household Waste
to Defra, biodegradable food waste Recycling, where the processing facility
comprises of 17% of the weight of a was to be located. The site was due to
household bin, removing this waste be completed before the food waste
from the landfill stream presents project was scheduled to start and
logistical, social and technical problems. included provisions for processing food
Lancashire County Council wanted to waste. However, due to various delays,
be ahead of the game with regards to which included a full investigation into
removing organics from the waste the reports of Great Created Newts
stream, and after seeing a very and a Roman Road on the proposed
inspirational presentation by Enzo site, the area where the processing
Favoino about how Monza, Northern facility was to be located was
Italy manage their organic stream of constructed first.
waste the kitchen waste project was Further to the construction set back,
devised. Lancashire County Council the project was devised before the
asked for a partner from one of the 12 introduction of the ABPR in 2003 and
collection authorities in Lancashire, and some aspects of the original project
Preston City Council grabbed the had to be re-designed in order to
opportunity to be part of such a comply with new regulations.
pathfinding project. Examples of project design changes
The proposed project mirrored the include the addition of a reception
Italian scheme as closely as possible; building at the composting facility and
hence it became known as the ‘Italian the need for further windrow
Job’. The similarities included the kind treatment of the processed food waste
of containers, the technology used and at another nearby facility. The chosen
the population type. There were a technology, the same as that used in
couple of UK slants, in the Italian Italy, was already sourced by Lancashire
scheme the collections occurred every County Council before the ABPR 2003
couple of days, due to the weather and was in place, but assurances from the
housing type, but for logistic reasons company providing the processing
the Preston project operated on a equipment were that the technology
weekly collection frequency. Landfill Tax would be able to meet the processing
credits were secured through parameter set within the ABPR 2003.
Lancashire Environmental Fund in 2002, As design changes were not factored
supported by a contribution from in to the original project, both the
Lancashire County Council and Preston additional building and the requirement
City Council. The collection and for secondary treatment introduced
processing element of the project ran another dimension to the project,
for two years, May 2005 to May 2007. which had a knock on effect on the
In addition the project officer was budget. As a result of the changes to
employed for a total of 28 months, the original the design (which was
2 months before the collections agreed well before ABPR 2003)
started, and 2 months after the planning permissions had to be re
collection finished. The project officer’s submitted, which led to further delays.
time was used to put the finishing
touches to the project prior to the
launch and to wrap the project up and
7
The project sought to investigate

ways of collecting food waste from
houses in an urban setting where
houses had no gardens. The
partnership chose an area of Preston
that did not currently receive an
organics collection; the area with a
mixture of predominately high-density
housing with no gardens (‘Coronation
Street’ is a useful imagery to describe
this area) and new suburban
developments some with gardens. The
diversity of the population in the
project area was seen as another
advantage to studying this area. The
diverse communities included people
with a South Asian ethnic origin and
also university students. The literature
had to reach a wide range of residents.
An extremely visual leaflet was
produced, with supporting text
repeated in a number of languages.
8
The Collection Scheme The project covered one refuse

round - 7569 houses in the
Collections Overview Deepdale/Tulketh area of Preston.
The project required householders to (Appendix Two)
separate food waste into a 7 litre
90% of the houses covered by the
kitchen caddy lined with special
project were terraced properties
compostable bags made from
without gardens. Census information
cornstarch. A larger 25 litre outside
did not accurately cover a round area,
container was used to store full bags,
but ethnic diversity varied between 8%
and was set out on the kerbside every
and more than 52% in these wards.
week. Bags and containers were
Car ownership was around 60% and
provided free to householders by the
owner occupancy approximately 65%.
project. A driver and one assistant
There is also a significant number of
carried out collections with a specially
students in the project area.
designed vehicle.
A questionnaire (Appendix Three)
A full time Food Waste Project
carried out in May 2006 showed that
Officer supported, promoted and
of the respondents, 85% lived in a
monitored the collection of food
terraced house with little or no garden.
waste. Literature for the project used
graphical messages supplemented with
plain English and with Urdu and
Gujarati highlights. (Appendix One)
9
Launching a New rejection slips, and the set out rate was
Collection Scheme measured to be around 56%.
Preston planned to extend their Initially each participating household
alternate week collections (AWC) set out weekly on average between
system into the inner urban half of 3kg and 5kg of food. By the end of the
the city in May 2005. For the project participation had settled to
Deepdale/Tulketh areas the food around 40%. Demographics were seen
waste project was an integral part to have a strong effect on participation
of the change. and tonnage and there were almost no
seasonal effects.
Prior to the launch, meetings in places
of worship and community groups Contamination
were used to introduce the new To protect the quality of the end
scheme. A Recycling Officer with product the food waste input was
knowledge and language from a South carefully managed. The support of the
Asian ethnic background helped to collection crew in identifying and
forge strong links with harder to reach rejecting containers with a
parts of the community and worked contamination issue was vital. When
closely with the Food Waste Project waste was contaminated the collection
Officer. crew left a rejection slip, (Appendix
Two weeks before the new alternate Four) indicating to the householder
week collection scheme started a letter what the problem was. Rejections
was delivered to all households to varied with demographics but were up
explain the changes in recycling and to 40% in areas with more ethnic
refuse collections. The stark imagery diversity. All households that were
was intentional, using the authority of a rejected received a follow up visit from
council notice. the Project Officer. After one month,
Less than a week before the first rejections in the worst areas were
collection, every domestic household in down to 10%, and contamination
the target area was given a small caddy, ceased to be an issue after a few
large caddy, two rolls of bags and an months.
instruction leaflet. No opt-outs were The first few weeks required intense
offered or accepted. Anyone using a doorstep activity by the Project Officer
domestic wheeled bin was included in assisting collections, ensuring the crew
the scheme. could work without interruption and
On Monday, 16 May 2005 the first enabling householders to have
collections of food waste took place. someone from the project to talk to.
Packaging remains the most common
Collection Performance contaminant. There was an occasion
Overview when hypodermic needles were found
After the first week participation was inside a liner bag. Collection crews
estimated at over 50% and on average were reminded of existing risk
around 1.5 tonnes of food waste was mitigation procedures and working
collected every day. Initially, practices. Other unusual items collected
contamination was poor in more included a dead pet Iguana, Category
demographically diverse communities. 1 Sheep entrails and cutlery, the latter
Plastic bags, packaging and tin foil were presumed to be an accidental inclusion.
visible through the liner bags in up to Such incidents were one-offs. Several
40% of containers set out in some householders asked if they could include
areas. rodent bedding, which would compost
After a few weeks contamination had well, but this had to be discouraged
been virtually eradicated through the because of licensing requirements for
application of ‘doorstepping’ and the processing of the food waste.
10
Literature was changed after an Participation

aggressive customer demanded the Participation was found to be high in
crew accept his ‘kitchen’ waste. This the initial stages of the project where
issue is mirrored elsewhere with stories people embraced the new initiative.
of lawnmowers in ‘garden’ waste. The After several months participation
term ‘kitchen waste’ is in fact jargon to stabilised and doorstep conversations
a householder and is best avoided; revealed that participating households
instead it is best to refer to it as ‘food would now not be without any aspect
waste’. of the scheme.
From the outset the project strategy Participation studies have been
was to sacrifice tonnage if necessary to carried out throughout the project to
guard against contamination. The establish if there are any differences in
quality of the waste collected has never participation across the project area.
been compromised and technicians Samples were taken in different areas
involved in the processing of the food and at different times. Initially, the
waste have considered it better than overall average of 56% was seen to
they anticipated. vary across the project area. Initial
participation was measured in detail
between July and August 2005, after
the project had bedded in.
Participation %
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
South Tulketh University West East New Food
Fulwood Deepdale Deepdale Waste Area
11
Monday participation in the summer down to

The area that is collected on a 45%. Anecdotal evidence and
Monday in South Fulwood was around doorstep calls suggested that some
66% participation. This is a car owning, people did not bother to request more
owner-occupier, very few flats, partly liner bags and ceased participating
suburban area, and 50% having small when they ran out.
gardens and receiving a green waste The questionnaire circulated to
collection from Preston City Council. randomly selected households and
Tuesday further participation monitoring in
basket trial area carried out in
Tuesday’s area around Tulketh is
May/June 2006 showed that of the
perhaps a little less affluent, principally
households that responded 85% said
high density housing with no gardens
that they set out every week.
and on street parking. Participation
here was slightly less at around 50%. To promote an easier way to get
more liner bags a postcard was
Wednesday
delivered to non-participants (Appendix
The area around the university is Five). Tonnages stabilised and the crew
collected on a Wednesday. This area is said the postcards did retain
less affluent, and home to students and participation. These postcards were
other people renting their very successful in reducing costs and
accommodation. 33% participation was improving the service. Pre postcards
the lowest recorded and one there were 138 calls per month to
explanation might be the lack of Preston City Council’s Help Line
‘attachment’ residents feel to their requesting more bags, and it was taking
community. The university attracts time to inform the crew to make a
many students from very affluent delivery. There were only 8 such calls
backgrounds in Far East Asia and following the introduction of postcards
cultural and language obstacles may be and customers were receiving bags
adding to this lack of cohesion. Any there and then. Although
migrant population introduces issues Householders, when questioned either
with re-educating new occupants. via doorstepping or the questionnaire
Thursday stated that they set out food every
This collection area is west of week, when a quantitative weight
Deepdale is a mixed population analysis was completed in May/June
generally less affluent than the Tuesday 2006 it showed that in fact there is a
area but is a similar type of housing. difference between households who
This area also has a more defined participate and households who
community of families with a South present waste weekly. The quantitative
Asian background. 52% participation weight analysis found that more people
was recorded over the first summer. took part on the recycling week, this
Friday could be because they take part
fortnightly, using their refuse bin on the
Eastern Deepdale is half the size of other week or they keep their food
the others and has a strong Muslim waste for two weeks. These findings
and Hindu community. The housing is were further supported by the results
the same as the Tuesday and Thursday of a questionnaire carried out in May
areas. Around 55% participated at the 2006. By the end of the project
start of the scheme, but this had fallen tonnage had remained fairly stable,
by around 7% by the first winter. however, some households were
Participation was measured in more participating less compared to the start
detail in December 2005 and January of the project. When surveyed in May
2006 in the Friday area where tonnage 2007 some areas were still participating
had been seen to be falling, from 52% well, 94% being observed in some
12
streets. There was some evidence of a Doorstepping was seen to be an

neighbourhood effect (keeping up with effective method to drive participation;
the Jones) as households participating households visited during the project
seemed to be clumped together, even were more likely to have a long-term
along an otherwise empty street. commitment to the project. At the end
Overall participation was in the region of the project (May 2007), households
of 40% but this was measured over the that have been doorstepped were
Easter Holiday period, so it may not observed as still participating.
reflect the true picture as people could When householders were asked why
be on holiday and the children would they did not take part these are the
be at home. commonly offered excuses:
When set-out was measured more “I was not given, or do not have,
than an hour in front or behind the the containers.”
collection crew it was 20% lower than
“I ran out of bags.”
when measured along side the crew.
Once the crew established a regular “It will smell.”
working pattern, householders relied Literature did not seem to have an
upon this routine and only set out effect on participation levels.
when the collection crew was due. It Monitoring before and after any
was not uncommon to see a questionnaire and leaflet were
householder waiting at the door for distributed showed there was little or
the crew to return an emptied caddy. no increase in participation. Although
Therefore, in order to measure set out transversly following the distribution of
effectively it must be carried out the project newsletter, requests for
alongside the crew. liner bags did increase. Suggesting that
only people already involved in the
Driving Participation scheme were reading the newsletter.
Observations by WRAP and
discussions with colleagues in Italy and Tonnages
Norway suggest that 98% participation Although there were slight variations
is possible. This is achieved by having a the tonnage of food collected each
very strict enforcement policy and any week remained stable, and shows very
residual refuse bin found to contain little seasonal variation. 440 tonnes
putrescibles is rejected, thus enforcing were collected in the first year and 405
recycling. When comparing with tonnes in the second year.
international recycling rates, there are The chart shows the main variations
many other drivers that can influence in tonnage captured were relating to
the rates including pay-per-throw, a the beginning of the project during the
longer history with recycling, and less “honeymoon period”, both Christmas
cynical attitudes towards the local periods when the service was
authority in general. disrupted and in March 2006 when a
The issues with achieving ABPR 2003 Local Authority strike took place.
meant that the project did not want to
push participations by using the local
media until a fully accredited system
was in place. Also as the project was
limited to a small area of Preston a
citywide campaign was not seen as the
most effective use of resources.
13
TONNAGE : Year on Year Comparison

1400
2005
2006
1200
1000
800
600
300
200
0
ne 1
ne 3
Ju k5
J u k7
g k9
g 11
p 3
p 15
p 7
tW 9
tW 1
tW 3
vW 5
vW 7
cW 9
cW 1
nW 3
Ja k35
bW 7
bW 9
ar 1
ar 3
rW 5
rW 7
ay 9
1
Ju Wk
Ju Wk
Se Wk1
Se Wk1
Oc k1
Oc k2
Oc k2
No k2
No k2
De k2
De k3
Ja k3
Fe k3
Fe k3
M k4
M Wk4
Ap k4
Ap k4
M k4
k5
W
lW
Au l W
Au Wk
Se Wk
nW
W
ay
M
For the 7569 houses involved During these surveys the heaviest set
tonnage averaged at 1.13kg a week per out recorded was over 17kg and
house, but it should be remembered during a five-week survey this particular
that around half of all these houses house never offered less than 10kg for
were not participating. This effectively collection.
doubles the tonnage to 2.26kg that can Before the project was launched a
be expected from a participating mini-trial, with 12 households over a
household. The following formula may two week period was carried out
help when comparing schemes. during this trial 4.5kg per week was
Weekly Tonnage/No. Houses in recorded. The majority of these 12
scheme/Participation in percent = KG houses were observed to have a South
per House per week Asian ethnic background.
On the ground monitoring of actual Please note: We are aware of an
container weights was carried out inaccuracy in tonnages recorded at the
several times, particularly during composting facility. The project used
July/August 2005, and twice in 2006. the weigh platform built into the SEKO
Each time the Project Officer weighed shredder/blender; this unfortunately
over 70 containers that had been set was recording 20% to 25% under.
out for collection. It was found that in A factor of 1.2 has been applied to
a suburban semi-detached area, an the appropriate figures. Once the
average of 3kg per participating processing swapped to TEGTM
household was being set out a week, Environmental, in January 2007, a
but in a terraced area with a far more calibrated weighbridge was being used,
diverse ethnic background, where food this backed up the theory that the
is more often prepared from fresh weight platform was under reading.
ingredients and meals are perhaps When the food waste was not
more often eaten as a family around a collected, for example at Christmas, or
table, the average rose to 5kg per when the Council staff were on strike
week. in April 2006 around half of the waste
14
was recovered the following week, The majority of enquires about the
suggesting some people were prepared project arrived either by email or via
to keep food waste for a second week. Preston City Council’s Call Centre,
Householders must have become every one was dealt with by the
more aware, and ashamed, of the food Project Officer. The main issues
they were throwing away. This is hard included missed collections, non
to prove, but unprompted comments delivery of additional/new containers
by households suggested it is so. One and in the first few weeks comments
householder said they have halved the on the hard line which was taken on
food waste they were wasting the contamination.
previous year. Missed collections were limited, and
The habits and attitudes towards it was often due to the householder
food in a household greatly affect food setting out late. The crew aimed to
waste. Older generations and families return to collect missed collections as
from ethnic backgrounds often use soon as possible. Non delivery of
more fresh foods and set out more additional liner bags was a problem.
peelings, scraps from preparing food It was found that some of the call
and fresh food that have perished. centre operators were not using the
Households that eat principally ready correct process. Now callers are asked
meals had less food waste but more if they would like to leave a note out
packaging. instead, asking the collection crew to
leave more bags behind, this proved to
Seasonality did not seem to affect the
be far more effective.
tonnage greatly although it did affect
the content, more salads in summer In the first few weeks the project
and pumpkins in November! received two written complaints about
the rejection slip. After discussions
Customer Satisfaction with householders the slip was
A questionnaire was sent out in redesigned and the process for issuing
Spring 2006 to nearly 800 houses, slips amended.
16% of which were returned and
almost all fully completed. On the
whole 67% of respondents rated the
collection service excellent and a
further 24% rated it as fair. 97% of the
respondents thought that the service
should continue, of those 83% thought
it should definitely continue. Of the
households that responded 67% said
that meals were eaten in the home at
lunchtimes including weekdays, and 83%
of the households responded either
always or mostly (more than
5 times a week) prepared their food
from fresh. Observations for the crew
concluded that on average every
household uses three liner bags a week,
the questionnaire supported this theory
as 76% of household who responded
used three or more bags a week.
15
Collection System Midway through the project baskets

donated by BioBagTM, and baskets and
Containers bags donated by SaipacTM were trialed.
Prior to the project a mini-trial was These had a lockable lid. Doorstep
under taken, 12 residents tested two monitoring revealed that householders
different kitchen caddies and one type preferred this design of caddy; its shape
of outside container over a two-week being easily accommodated within a
period. kitchen, on windowsills or on a
countertop, as well as on the floor.
The kitchen caddies tested are as Householders did need to be
follows: persuaded of the benefits of a basket,
Basket caddy initial reaction to a food waste
Needs a cornstarch liner bag container with holes in was not
Promotes water loss by positive. However doorstepping
transpiration/evaporation evidence gathered during the trial
Wide aperture suggested that the wider opening of
the basket encourages plates to be
Closed caddy scraped directly into it, where the
Can be used with or without a liner narrow neck caddy means this is a
Lockable lid fiddlier task and the food might be
sorted and some lost. When a direct
Householders marginally preferred comparison in terms of weight was
the closed container, in particularly the made, in May/June 2006, with the
security provided by a lockable lid for 70 households with baskets against 70
both indoor and outdoor containers. households using the closed container
Although the basket caddy did help system, the tonnage was no difference,
reduce moisture it is dependant on despite the water lose associated with
liner bags, which if the project ceased the bag/basket system.
to provide in the future, would mean Issuing Kit to Households
the basket would be redundant, also it All households in the target area
did not have the lockable lid. were given a 7 litre kitchen caddy,
The patnership decided that a 7 litre 25 litre outside caddy, 2 rolls of liner
closed caddy with a liner bag would be bags (Approx 9 months worth of bags)
used inside. and the supporting information. Only
The outdoor container tested was a half of the households provided with
25 litre closed container with lockable the collection system take part so 50%
lid, it was found to be the right size. of the collection equipment was lost-
something that all schemes have to
On the whole the containers were
accept. An opt in scheme was never
appropriate. The only issue found was
raised, opt in schemes on the whole
that after only a few weeks 10% of the
are viewed to be not as successful.
handles of the 25 litre container came
For example the Isle of White operate
off, the plastic pin which holds the
an opt in scheme and have distributed
handle on would pop out, so a
their collection system to less than a
moulded lug would have been a better
1/3 of the island. The Preston project
option. This was resolved and the
therefore had to stand the loss of
projects supplier no longer uses this
containers and bags and with hindsight
particular model.
only one roll of liner bags should have
Doorstepping and the questionnaire been issued. It is understand that
revealed that as the indoor caddy is tall BioBagTM can now supply ‘starter rolls’
and thin it tends to be kept next to the of 25 or even 10 bags and this could
pedal bin in 75% of kitchens surveyed. have saved the project significant
16
funding if such an approach had been prefer the handles to tie full bags up
taken initially. Participating households with. They cost slightly more but are
were re-supplied with rolls of 52 bags easier to handle, and hold as much
on demand directly from the collection if not more volume than a straight
vehicle. This is an effective and efficient cut bag with no handles. Bags from
method of distribution. both suppliers composted well in
The project found that various either composting facility.
aspects influenced the need for extra Using bags was cleaner for customers
containers including new housing and crew. The questionnaire revealed
developments, higher turnover of that 90% of respondents said that it
occupants (rented areas, student flats) was relatively free of bad smells. On
and also any doorstepping activity, the whole household containers and
which can drive participation. For the vehicle remained surprisingly clean
example in September 2006 during use. During summer 2005 a
doorstepping to 927 properties in the small number of customers complained
trial area generated requests for 86 about maggots in the 25 litre outdoor
small caddies, 83 outside caddies and containers. It was discovered that flies
149 bio bag rolls. Therefore, the would lay eggs wherever they can,
project roughly estimates that 2% extra close to the smell of food if no actual
stock per year of kitchen caddies and food is available, even on the plastic
10% extra of outside containers is around the lid of a container with food
needed to cover doorstepping inside. A maggot fact sheet, based on
activities. an idea by Broxstowe Council, was
Liner Bags developed (Appendix Six). Despite hot
weather only three complaints were
Liner bags were supplied free to received in the Summer of 2006.
participating households, they cost
£1.39 plus vat per roll of 52. The Food waste has a high proportion
Project was the sole provider and was, of water, up to 80%, which can make
therefore, able to take control of the composting difficult and collecting it
type of bags people used, economies means you are transporting more
of scale were achieved through bulk water than food waste. MaterbiTM is
purchasing. designed to transpire moisture through
the liner bags so that food waste can
On average 3 bags per household start to dry out. This works more
were used every week. Even a smaller effectively in a ‘vented’ basket. The
household was observed to still set out project tested this theory in March
three partly filled bags (some 2006, a bag of vegetable and fruit
householders, like to remove waste peelings lost 10% by weight in a 12
regularly thoughtout the week). hour period. Interestingly there was
The project used a bag with handles very little weight loss from then on.
(‘T-shirt’ style), which is 16 microns Effective moisture reduction can help
thick, on a roll of 52 supplied by Bio- the composting process, but this would
bagTM in Leyland.The bags are made also mean a loss in tonnages collected.
from Mater-BiTM, a film made from The liner bags still allow the crew to
cornstarch by NovamontTM in Italy. easily check for contamination because
Mater-Bi is fully compostable. when they are damp they are
Each roll was individually wrapped, translucent. Using the bags helped to
costing 1p more than a paper band, but keep both the containers and vehicle
were then relatively damp-proof and remarkably clean and odour-free. The
easier to store for several months. 16-micron bags withstand any rough
A trial using different designs of bags, handling during collections. Rips and
including ones without handles supplied spillages are very rare, less than 0.1%
by SaiPacTM, suggests that householders and are often caused by contaminants
17
or a sharp stalk not noticed by The Vehicle

collection crew. Using ‘T-shirt’ style The project wanted to use an electric
bags, where the handles are tied vehicle, but was unable to source one
enables the crew to easily pull the liner with the required specification. A 7.5
bag out and either carry it to the tonne Mitsubishi Cantor chassis, with a
vehicle, or to the next house to collect body built by Lancashire Tipper, to fulfil
more and either carry both to the the ABPR 2003 requirements, was
vehicle, or decant the content into one selected as an alternative.
container. This method of collection Consideration of the potential payload
saved time by not having to return and the restricted space available for
emptied containers back to the turning and tipping in the reception
doorstep. In warmer weather a building at the composting plant had to
greater number of bags became too be considered. Although Preston City
decomposed to carry and therefore Council used large ‘kerbsider’ vehicles
containers were carried and tipped out successfully in the same area the
instead. manoeuvrability of the food waste
The questionnaire revealed vehicle proved advantageous.
householder opinions on what they The body was designed with the
would do if the free supply of liner following features for ease of use and
bags stopped. to comply with ABPR 2003 and
operating guidelines:
33% said they would continue
by wrapping food in newspaper. Enclosed tipping body
19% said they would buy bags Door seals
locally (less than £5 a roll was
suggested). Catch tray and taps for leachate
2% said they would buy bags Hooks and straps for carrying slave
by mail order, if only slightly bins
more expensive. Side hopper added to the bin-lift
13 % said they would continue Side loading doors on both sides
without any liner. A box to hold spare rolls of liner
31% said they would cease bags (added later)
recycling food waste. Hand washing facility
1% suggesting they would use a
plastic bag as a liner, even though Although the body of the vehicle
every opportunity has been taken was extremely robust it was heavy
to highlight that plastic and after further discussions with the
cannot be accepted. manufactor, later designs from the same
manufacturer were lighter.
The project found that bagged food The payload is determined by the
waste did not settle, even in transit. total weight of the vehicle, crew, body
This had an impact on vehicle design, and bin lift deducted from the total
and in hindsight a tall thin capacity of the Vehicle. Therefore,
compartment would work well with a 5160kg deducted from 7500kg gives a
bin-lift, like the vehicles used by the Isle payload of 2340kg. The vehicle must
of Wight scheme. Hand loading bags never weigh more than its total weight
through the side doors reduces the of 7500kg.
‘sandbagging’ so wide loading apertures
should be a part of any vehicle design.
18
An onboard device gave the driver a When considering which method to

rough indication of total weight but as adopt in any one street the crew had
a precaution the driver used to tip to consider many variables:
twice a day. A review with the vehicle
manufacturer found that the payload
The time it takes to remove and
was more than the crew thought. In
replace bins from the rear of the
January 2007 when operations moved
vehicle.
to TEGTM Environmental the crew
started to receive accurate daily Time sending them up on the
records from a calibrated weighbridge. bin lift.
This gave the driver more confidence The distance between containers
in judging his payload. As a result the (participation and housing type).
crew only tipped once a day. If the On-street parking (which hampers
driver thinks the load will exceed the hand loading).
payload of 2340kg he automatically tips How full each container will be.
twice, this occurred at Christmas when
householders had more than one week Accessibility (urban developments
between collections. with no street, gradients etc.).
The crew developed a variety of Traffic (esp. other collection crews).
loading methods to suit different
occasions: The crew constantly adapted their
strategy on a street-by-street basis.
The side hopper was used most on Crew
busy main roads, working quickly The crew consisted of one non-HGV
from one side of the road. driver and one crewmember, this
The two side doors were used format worked well for rapid collection
extensively and are especially useful times. Their operating hours were
when clearing both sides of a quiet 7.00am to 3.00pm, Monday to Friday
side road at once. the same as the other waste collection
The slave bins were used for operatives. The greasiness of food
inaccessible areas. They are also waste makes smooth rubber gloves
adopted if the driver travels to a useless so the crew were issued with
more remote collection, or a street textured gloves. P3 facemasks were
with low participation while the made available for use when tipping off
labourer clears a regular street. at the processing facility operated by
the project.
Too much use of the bin lifts can Some Councils who contacted the
cause problems. Bagged waste does project were concerned that collecting
not settle so to maintain a well- food waste might be smelly and
balanced payload the crew had to load unpopular with the crews. The
by hand through the side doors project’s crew actually volunteered for
whenever practical. this task and some of the
crewmembers said that waste food is
more palatable than general refuse.
The driver was required (as part of
ABPR 2003) to jet wash the vehicle at
least twice a week.
19
Communications Strategy Written

Overview All the literature produced had
As this project only served a minority simple clear messages presented in an
of households within Preston any wide appealing way. Pictures were used
scale communications outside the instead of words to highlight the key
project area were inappropriate for points; this helped to address the multi-
promoting the scheme. Also, until the lingual audience. Plain English was
project had full accreditation it could supplemented with Gujarati and Urdu,
not claim that the food waste was two languages important locally. The
being diverted from landfill. For these project found that even “kitchen waste”
reasons media attention was localised was misleading and so now refer to it
and low key. However, our work in as food waste.
sharing our knowledge with the waste A questionnaire was developed in
management industry as a whole was May 2006, and delivered by hand to
extensive. The project tried a number residents in a 10% random sample of
of different methods of communicating streets. 16% of the 840 forms were
and came up with some points to returned within a month. 92% of the
consider (Appendix Seven). returned forms were either fully
complete or had up to two questions
Face to Face blank. It was observed that areas with
The project embraced the challenge higher ethnic residences returned the
of communicating with hard-to-reach fewest forms.
parts of the community and established Annual newsletters were produced
that Face-to-Face communication to remind the residents of the scheme,
together with multi-cultural awareness; with a view to increasing participation.
empathy and pleasant attitudes were They also thanked the residents for
vital. Preston’s recycling team included taking part and giving them some feed
a member of staff fluent in Urdu and back about the project, promotional
Gujarati, whose knowledge and activities, awards won and helpful hints
language skills proved to be invaluable. and tips (Appendix Eight). The second
Some ethnic languages may be spoken newsletter was used to promote the
but were not often written or read. 2nd year anniversary celebration for
The project invested a considerable the project, more details given later in
amount of time before the launch this report.
talking with community groups and at
places of worship. Mosques supported
the ‘good deed’ to our environment
message. Children responded well to
environmental messages, providing a
good link to the “busy parents”
audience. Events for Muslim women
were rare and only female staff could
attend.
20
Events invited, there was even a birthday cake

To celebrate two years of the project in the shape of a caddy. Unfortunately,
an event was organised to thank the event did not generate the publicity
residents for taking part and to tell the project had hoped as the Preston
people what was going to happen in City Council Councillor resigned the
the future. Five lucky residents won next day and the photograph could
the chance to attend the event, no longer be used.
observe the collection crew in action On the whole the communication
and visit the processing plant at TEGTM strategy adopted by the project was
Environmental. The project newsletter, extremely effective and has been
which was produced annually, was used mirrored by other authorities to similar
to advertise the event and residents success.
were asked to fill in the reply slip and
leave it in their bin, the collection crew
then collected the reply slips and the
lucky winners were drawn out of the
‘hat’. In addition to the residents the
officers and Councillors who have
supported this project were also
21
The Composting Operating Procedure

Operation This section covers the findings of the
operations of the VCU composting
Overview facility at Ingol Household Waste
ABPR 2003 sets out various Recycling Centre and does not relate
parameters, this trial decided to use to the composting facility at TEGTM
the two-stage barrier system for Environmental.
composting of meat-included food The VCU is a 9-metre high fully
waste. The first stage was in-vessel enclosed chamber. A matrix of food
composting meeting 60OC for 2 days waste and bulking agent is fed into the
with a maximum particle size of top via an incline conveyor. The matrix
400mm, and then the second stage was moves down the chamber, as the
open windrow meeting 60OC after matrix is taken out of the bottom and
each turn, turning 3 times every two more added in at the top. The whole
days. The in-vessel technology selected system is passively aerated; air diffuses
by the project was a Vertical through the loose open structure of
Composting Unit (VCU) supplied by the matrix to assist in the composting
VCU Europa (VCUE). The facility was process of the food. A small fan draws
situated less than two miles from the air from the top of the chamber to
collection area, at Ingol Household facilitate this. Food waste is up to 80%
Waste Recycling. water and needs a drier, more
The compact purpose built plant structured material to permit aeration
included: and reduce water content.
Bulking Agent
A reception building to receive food Originally it was planned to use
waste and store woody waste. green waste from Preston’s Parks
A shredder/blender. Department, however, during the
A small skid-steer loader. commissioning of the VCU the ‘Green’
A single chamber VCU and its waste collected by Preston’s Parks
associated feed conveyors. Department was rejected by the VCU
technician. Their experience of such
A harvesting conveyor leading to waste, collected in an open skip, was
a 16 yard skip. that it often contained too much
A bunded area drained to a septic contamination, i.e. large stones or
tank. boulders, which could damage the
A one way access system for teeth of the SEKO shedder/blender.
deliveries. A supply of Pre-shredded tree prunings
Wheel wash area, all vehicles from Preston City Council’s tree gangs
required disinfecting on exit. was used, but this did not have enough
structure and did not draw enough
Disinfectant footbaths for
water out of the food waste. Drying it
pedestrian traffic.
out could help to solve the issue, but
A 100kva electricity supply was there was not enough space inside the
required to power the VCU reception building to store it for the
(this was run off a generator until 3-week drying period.
a permanent supply was installed).
22
Dry post-consumer wood (scrap compostable material and dropped

wood from Lancashire County into the shredder before mixing.
Council’s Household Waste Recycling Delivery of the Food Waste
Centres) of various shred sizes was dry
enough and created enough structure, Food waste was delivered directly to
by using this style of bulking agent the the composting facility at Ingol
temperatures reached those required Household Waste Recycling Centre
under the ABPR 2003. There was an and tipped into a designated bay inside
unanticipated cost of £5 per tonne plus the reception building. Under the
transportation costs for this ‘waste’ waste license for the site all food waste
stream, furthermore there was a delivered had to be processed within
limited supply. The glues and 24hrs of delivery. In practice it was
preservatives in post-consumer wood loaded into the VCU for processing
waste were not considered to be a risk within four hours. All vehicles entering
by VCU experts, however, they the site were disinfected before leaving
remained concerned about the the’ dirty’ area, and similarly for
mechanical risks in this bulking agent pedestrian traffic disinfectant footbaths
(nails, glass). Chemical analysis of the were provided.
VCU output material did not detect Loading the VCU
toxic elements. However, its high Before loading, material had to be
proportion of chipboard, MDF and harvested out to provide space for
other panel products tended to the new matrix. A small skidsteer
crumble making the final product full loader (Bobcat S130) was used to
of uncomposted woody fines. add food waste, bulking agent and lime
This supply ran out in December to the SEKO shredder-blender.
2006, the alternative used caused the The shedder/blender had a basic weigh
temperatures to crash. At the same platform, which was used to record the
time issues with the drainage on the weight of the food waste and basic
site came to light, which is covered in tonnage slips were produced. As
more detail later in the report. As discussed previously this proved to be
a result the processing was then inaccurate by 20%-25% lower than the
contracted to TEGTM Environmental. actual. On average the optimum mix
Food Waste ratio by weight was 50% food waste to
50% bulking agent (including the lime).
The basic composition of the food The mix was then shredded and
waste was meat, bread, cooked food blended, in the SEKO to achieve the
scraps and a fairly high proportion of required particle size (400mm) before
raw fruit and vegetable peelings. Much it entered the feed conveyor system.
of the food waste was in surprisingly At the top of the chamber the mixture
good condition; therefore pathogens fell from the end of the feed conveyor
were not high at this point, as and a spinning arm helped to spread
compared to other municipal waste the matrix evenly. To achieve optimum
and, as discussed, the contamination composting the Chamber had to be
level in the food waste delivered was kept full at all times. To establish the
very low. time it took for the material to pass
The food waste was high in fats, and through the VCU chamber, markers
often had a Ph as low as 3, therefore were placed in the top of the chamber,
very acidic so lime was added to when the markers came out the other
balance the Ph. Adding lime at a rate end the time taken was recorded; after
of about 20kg/tonne was an additional several attempts it was established that
cost to the project. The lime was it varied from 3 to 9 days depending
measured into a bag made from on the amount of feedstock.
23
ABPR 2003 Requirements for End Product and End Users

Two Stage Composting The compost produced was very
First Barrier Treatment woody in nature, with a very low
density, further more there was a
A minimum of 60 degrees for two
higher level of heavy metals than some
consecutive days had to be maintained
standards require. For example the
in order to kill off any pathogens.
boron content was higher than normal,
3 temperature probes located within
but there are applications that suit this,
the chamber wall recorded constant
for example Oil Seed crops. This dry
temperature measurements. Once the
woody compost was ideal for Preston
matrix had been through the VCU it
City Councils’ Parks Department who
had to be sampled before being
used it in bulk on flowerbeds around
transported to a second barrier
the city. The compost was similar in
treatment facility.
structure to horse manure, especially
Second Barrier Treatment useful for breaking up heavy soils it was
Harvested material was stored in a manually forked into the earth, and the
large skip and transported to SITA’s Parks Department reported that it was
Clifton Marsh waste facility, located just far more pleasant to work with than
outside Preston. The second barrier traditional manure. There are other
treatment took place on a dedicated uses that particularly suit a soil
and separately bunded concrete pad. improver that retains water and has
The material was bulked into batches - a slow release of its nutrients - for
roughly a fortnight’s worth of material. example pots and hanging baskets.
Each batch was made into a windrow Turf growers may have found benefits
that had to reach 60oC after each turn; in our product and as they would have
it was turned mechanically every two required large bulk deliveries this
days on three occasions. The would have been useful to explore,
temperatures were recorded using but the supply of this almost unique
a handheld temperature probe. growing product ended as soon as it
A further sample of the material was began. Although we did have product
taken and tested for pathogens. to test it was decided not to conduct
Site Requirements any detailed growth trials at this stage
in the project.
To operate under the ABPR 2003
there were several requirements on Composting Operational
site that had to be in place as well as Performance
the process having to meet the above The project expected to have full
requirements. These requirements ABPR 2003 accreditation within
include traffic management, a one-way 3 months, if the processing had run
system where vehicles move from the smoothly and the temperature
clean to the dirty area. These areas achieved from the outset then ABPR
had to be clearly sign posted and have 2003 would have been achieved within
disinfection facilities for both the three months. Sustaining the required
vehicle and pedestrians moving across temperature was a major stumbling
these areas. This system of works had block, which meant it took over
to be assessed by the State Veterinary 14 months before the accreditation
Service. As the project used two sites, process could be started. Had it been
to process the food waste, both sites known how long it would take to get
had to adhere to the requirements set. accreditation the project may have
When the State Veterinary Service considered other options.
assessed both sites they were happy
with the provisions in place.
24
This had several knock on effects; heating up to the required

cost of disposing the semi processed temperatures. The material was found
material and the potential negative to be heavily compacted preventing
media attention as the food waste was airflow and therefore no metabolic
not being diverted from landfill. The process (composting) could take place,
partnership was concerned about the and as a result no heat was being
lack of progress with achieving ABPR produced.
2003 and extensive meetings were The project met with senior
held with VCUE to find a positive way management from VCUE, where they
forward. When the project opted for a presented their plan to tackle the
VCU, assurances had been given that it performance issues. VCUE
was proven technology, but in practice acknowledged that performance of the
it operated at the edge of the ABPR unit had been unacceptable and
2003 parameters. formally presented their plan to
The project was disappointed with remedy the lack of temperatures. The
the lack of support from the VCUE cause of the compaction and
Technical team. During the project compression problem at the centre of
there have been several problems with the chamber was the rotating spreader,
the performance of the VCU and in which distributes matrix as it enters the
each case VCUE were contacted for top of the chamber. The spreader
help and advice, although they did appeared to be acting as a screw and
make suggestions in each instance the compressing the centre of the column.
actual solutions were sometimes a long A temporary modification was made to
time coming. One of the issues that the shape of the spreader using
came to light was that the material at plywood to prevent excessive material
the core of the column was not falling directly into the centre of the
25
unit and becoming compacted. This fact a site issue that only came to light
proved effective and a new design of in the latter stages of the project. The
spreader was devised, prototyped and drainage system servicing the area
constructed. The new spreader was where the skip containing the first
fitted and for the first time this project barrier material was located did not
managed to achieve and maintain the lead to the foul drainage system but to
required temperature. The bulking the surface water drainage system. This
agent used at this point was extremely was unacceptable under both the
dry to help achieve this. Unfortunately waste management licence and ABPR
the supply of this bulking agent was 2003, the compost at this stage was still
limited, the replacement was not dry deemed ‘contaminated’ and any
enough and the temperature crashed leachate was running directly to a
in December 2006, in the final stages of surface drain. To remedy this would
the accreditation process. have cost in the region of £10,000, this
Animal By-Product Regulation coupled with the temporary closure of
the plant meant it was un-economical
Compliance at this point in the project to do the
In June 2006 representatives of the work and continue processing. Despite
State Veterinary Service and VCUE mixed feelings about shutting the plant
agreed an action plan for achieving so close to achieving accreditation the
ABPR 2003. The VCU at Ingol (barrier partnership accepted that this part of
1) and the windrow system at Clifton the trial had come to an end but
Marsh (barrier 2) were assessed. The valuable lessons had been learnt.
first four batches of material met all the To continue the project an alternative
requirements including testing negative processing facility was sourced; a local
for the pathogens. These are tested at waste management company had been
an independent laboratory organised used when the VCU had been shut
by the State Veterinary Service. The down for repair. After a brief
material received certification from discussion a contract was entered with
State Veterinary Service for positive TEGTM Environmental, this serviced the
release in June 2006. This was the first project until 16 May 2007 and will
milestone an interim step prior to full continue to do so until January 2008.
ABPR 2003 accreditation, which would
After the food waste was redirected
be awarded after further monitoring.
to TEGTM Environmental and the
Further monitoring was scheduled for
project’s composting facility was shut
October, November and December.
down the project took the decision to
Under positive release the material
make the VCU and associated
could be handled like other composts.
equipment available for a community
Full accreditation means that the
group to use. Using the Lancashire
process is subject to lower levels of
Community Recycling Network the
monitoring.
equipment was offered to the entire
By December 2006, when the community network in Lancashire, and
operation of the plant ceased, although there was a number of
temperature readings taken before the interested organisations only one had
change in bulking agent were meeting the infrastructure in place to be able to
the ABPR 2003 requirements. The utilise the equipment on offer.
State Veterinary Service was satisfied Groundwork East Lancashire put a
that the unit was maintaining proposal forward to use the VCU to
temperatures in accordance to ABPR compost green waste collected from
2003. Burnley Borough Council’s Parks and
Although the processing was an Ground Maintenance Department and
ongoing issue this was not the reason the local Housing Association as well as
why the plant was shut down, it was in from Burnley’s football ground,Turf
26
Moor. Groundwork is intending hoping when the food waste was being tipped
to get this scheme in place in January off and when the shredder blender was
2008. Groundwork were considering in use. These results did not stop
using the facility to process commercial operations onsite but there were a
green waste if the capacity was number of precautions that needed to
available. VCUE dismantled the unit be added to the safe systems of work,
and relocated it to Overtown Farm, including the rule that all operators
Cliviger in July 2007. Groundwork will must wear P3 mask at all times,
negotiate directly with VCUE when extending to the collection crew when
installation is required. they were tipping off the food waste.
Waste Management Compliance Also when the SEKO shedder blender
was in operation the lid had to
Although the Household Waste be kept closed. Although the levels
Recycling Centre is owned by were high on the actual composting
Lancashire County Council, SITA UK, pad the levels had significantly reduced
who operates the site on the County when samples were taken at a number
Council’s behalf, and hold the waste of different distances away from the
management licence. The license that composting pad.
covered the processing element of the
site required bio-aerosol monitoring,
which would have taken place initially
every month then at 6 monthly
intervals if no issues were detected.
There was no standard parameter for
bio-aerosol emissions but the
Environment Agency issue
recommended levels. So it was
monitored against the parameters set
within the license and although the
results did not exceed these, they did
exceed those recommended levels set
by the Environment Agency. The
project commissioned a number of
point source assessments to establish
the most likely cause of the high
readings. High readings were detected
27
Health and Safety

Considerations Although working with food waste
did not require any addition
The Waste Management Industry inoculations Preston City Council
does not have an enviable safety offered to pay the full cost of
record. There are many precautions inoculations such as Tetanus and
and considerations that impact on all Hepatitis B, should its collections
recycling schemes and this report does staff request them from their GP.
not attempt to cover them fully. The
following are a few helpful hints that Hand washing facilities and wipes
need to be considered when looking at are vital on a food waste vehicle.
health and safety procedures in relation A dustpan and brush needs to be
to this type of project. available for minor spillages.
Additional outdoor containers
Collections should be available to ensure
householders do not overload
As with most waste collections the them. Health and Safety guidelines
food waste operatives should be may also affect decisions on
provided with the necessary PPE container size.
including trousers with ballistic Even though householders could
protection. use their smaller kitchen caddy
A procedure to deal with ‘sharps’ instead of their larger outside caddy,
should be in place and any some still might need assistance.
households where a risk is recorded Ensure these households are on the
or perceived should be noted. councils ‘Assist List’ of households
The project had an incident of that need help from the crew
hypodermic needles in a food because of some disability.
waste bag, but broken food jars
are slightly more common.
Doorstepping
Procedures outlining collection
methods should be in place and
considerations could include how A lone working procedure should
to effectively and safely clear from be in place and followed in all cases
both sides of a given street at once. and the required PPE and
The staff responsible at the identification should be used.
processing facilities will need to Panic alarms, mobile phone tracking
brief collection crews on their and other systems are available, but
procedures for tipping off, including Police experts encourage that you
any general conduct on site, they rely more on your own instincts -
also may require the collection whenever necessary simply making
crew to use P3 facemasks when an excuse and walking away from
tipping off, these are to guard any situation that you feel
against ‘farmers lung’ caused by uncomfortable about.
bio-aerosol emissions.
The use of gloves for this type of
collection is essential but smooth
rubber gloves are ineffective when
in contact with fat or grease. More
expensive textured gloves do not
become as slippery when in
contact with food.
28
Composting Process
Depending on the process being

used, take advice from the
supplier of the facility.
General guidance for working in
a waste management facility
would apply. These would include
wearing the appropriate PPE,
including any face masks if
provided, ensure the flow of
waste follows the site
requirements and all vehicles are
disinfected before leaving the
‘dirty’ area, further more any
pedestrians using the site must
also use a footbath prior to
leaving the site. Hand washing
facilities should be available for
all site users.
29
Dissemination Awards
The project was awarded ‘Best Local
Visitors Authority Initiative’ by Letsrecycle.com,
The interest in the project started and also won a Gold in the Green
immediately. The first authority to visit Apple awards. The assessors who
came within a couple of weeks of the awarded Beacon Status to Preston City
launch. The project had over 200 Council’s Waste & Recycling Team in
interested parties visit the scheme March 2006 mentioned the innovative
within its two years. 50 people saw nature of the scheme and it’s
the project as part of a tour for communication strategy.
Preston City Councils Beacon Day, Media Relationship
but the majority of visitors have been
in small groups, involving officers, In the trial area the project formed
crew and householders. an integral part of an alternate weekly
collection (AWC) system implemented
Presentations across Preston. Although reaction
The waste management industry has when the overall AWC scheme was
shown a great deal of interest in the first introduced was intense the project
project, presentations have been given never had any negative press. Media
to the CIWM, WRAP,The Soil coverage was limited due to waiting for
Association, London Remade and the processing facility to achieve ABPR
others. Preston City Council’s 2003 accreditation. This was shown to
European twin-cities work included be a sensible precaution, as other
showcasing recycling and the food unsuccessful schemes have left
waste project was of significant interest themselves open to criticism.
to the Moroccan and French A full list of organisations that
counterparts. expressed an interest in the project is
Consultancy included in (Appendix Nine). On a
The project has been invited onto number of occasions a number of
the panel of Defra’s Brook Lyndhurst different individuals from the same
project looking at food waste organisation visited or contacted the
behaviours. Numerous researchers project, also a number were repeatedly
and consultants contacted the project in contact with the project.
to share information and ideas.
Any organisations who contacted the
project received the interim report,
produced after year one in 2006 and a
pack of information including:
A short video showing the

collection crew working and
exploring some of the points
about collection efficiencies, liner
bags and vehicle design.
A cost-modelling spreadsheet
that is easily adapted/expanded
for differing scenarios.
A table and explanatory notes
on communications planning.
30
Cost Analysis
The project budget was set before Not providing bags would save
ABPR 2003 and was designed to money, you can either not
provide processing facilities. Due to promote their use from the start
both ABPR 2003 and delays in asking people to wrap food or
implementation the focus of the line the bins with newspaper if
budget changed. The table overleaf they wish, or ask householders to
shows the actual expenditure for the purchase their own. This could
project over the 28 months; this effect participation and capture
includes all the processing, collection, rates and if you are asking
infrastructure and promotional costs householders to buy their own
and any additional unforeseen costs. then there must be a good
(Appendix Ten) lists the suppliers to the network of local suppliers of
project, who were consulted over the the bags.
products we used and current costing. Using an established ABPR 2003
accredited processing facility,
This funding enabled the project to although the gate fee seems high
achieve the following: it would save the costs and limit
the risk associated with running
the plant yourself.
Provide a separate kitchen waste
collection to 7569, high-density
non-garden and garden properties.
On average it achieved 40%
participation producing 3kg of
food waste per week from each
participating household.
Collected 850 tonnes of food
waste of that 365 tonnes was
composed in accordance with
ABPR 2003.
Produced 180 tonnes of ABPR
2003 accredited compost, which
was used by a local school and in
flowerbeds around Preston Town.
Shared good practice with over
200 individuals.
Developed an innovative leaflet,
principally pictorial.
Cost Saving Ideas
Do not have a dedicated project

officer, and either use existing staff
or buy in doorstepping at the
beginning to help with the smooth
delivery of the scheme, this could
cost in the region of £6000.
31
EXPENDITURE
Composting Process
The project used the internal loan system available through Lancashire
County Council to purchase the VCU and associated equipment at a
total cost of £182,000. Lancashire County Council secured an extra
£49,261
£83,000 from Defra and off set it against the total cost if the
equipment, so the internal loan was £99,000. The project claimed the
cost of the repayments against the internal loan for two years.
Operating costs of the processing plant for the first 191/2 months,
£96,202
using SITA UK Limited as the main contractor.
Provision of a generator until a permanent electrical supply was available £18,634
Using a local waste management company,TEGTM Environmental
£8,019
for 41/2 months
SUB TOTAL £172,116
Project
Promotion and awareness raising, including leaflets and newsletters. £4,400
Collection costs, including crew of driver plus 1 and vehicle running cost. £92,156
Collection vehicle with bin lift leasing cost. £12,000
Project Officer (28 months). £57,050
SUB TOTAL £165,606
Collection System
Initial purchase of kitchen caddies and outside container. £39,081
Liner bags. £62,820
Distribution of the collection system. £3,795
Containers and bags purchased to trial different container types. £4,390
SUB TOTAL £110,086
Contingency
Any other equipment or services that needed to be purchased inline
£11,902
with running the composting facility.
Any other equipment or services that needed to be purchased inline
£0
with using TEGTM Environmental.
Addition cost incurred on the collection. £31
Addition cost on the composting facility (incl maintenance and insurance). £1,574
Promotion and awareness raising. £430
Decommission and relocation of the VCU. £10,354
SUB TOTAL £24,291
TOTAL EXPENDITURE £472,100
The project is a partnership between Lancashire Environmental Fund, Lancashire

County Council and Preston City Council. Each partner has supported the project
financially. In addition Lancashire County Council was able to secure £83,000 grant
income from Defra towards the purchasing cost of the VCU and associated
equipment, thus reducing internal loan charges to the project.
32
Cost Evaluations
Based on 7569 households,
collecting 850 tonnes during the two-
year project, with a participation rate
of 40%.
Activity Cost
Cost per household

£31.47
per year
Cost per Tonne £555.41
Cost per participation

£78.68
household per year
33
Conclusions Collections
Background The project expected the collection
The design of the scheme closely to be the most difficult element of the
mirrored an Italian scheme with a UK project; it has in fact proven to be least
slant. Although the project has been problematic. The main attribute to this
successful and the initial concept is is the crew, the project was fortunate
highly relevant today, modifications to to have the same crew members for
the original project design would have 95% of the time, adding detailed
been benificial. For example the knowledge, which has been
project should have used an fundamental to the delivery of the
independent processing facility from project. The crew were actively
the start. More are now available as involved and were not afraid to share
the industry has developed rapidly over their views with the Project Officer.
the last few years. As well as ensuring the highest possible
quality of service, a regular crew could
The ‘big bang’ effect, introducing a full pre-empt problems. The project found
recycling service including moving to an that in an urban setting the target area
alternate week collection system in could easily be cleared of food waste
one go, proved to have an extremely by a small vehicle with one driver and
positive effect on participation. Initial one crew member due to the
figures showed a participation rate of proximately of the houses and a close
56%, which levelled out at around 40%. network of streets.
Residents in the target area felt that
the food waste project gave them an The vehicle used was bespoke; it had
opportunity to ‘get rid’ of their food a variety of loading options for
waste weekly within a fortnightly maximum efficiency, around 3.6 meters
collection system. of space per tonne, fully enclosed body
to prevent leachate and was compact
The project adopted an innovative to maximise manoeuvrability both on
approach to communication in the street and at the processing facility.
response to the diversity of ethnic A smaller vehicle would not have the
backgrounds and languages in this area. payload capacity and would have had
The project focused on producing to tip twice a day, increasing time taken
extremely visual, and almost word-free to complete the daily round.
literature; the key text was repeated in
several different appropriate languages. The dual container system, 7 litres
Minority languages may sometimes be kitchen caddy and a 25 litres outside
spoken but not read, so written container, proved extremely effective.
translations should not be relied upon. Lockable lids gave the householder
The cultural diversity of the target area reassurance that nothing could get into
added an important dimension to the the containers, especially the outside
project. Extensive doorstepping in the container. A squatter indoor container
initial months helped to drive was trialed in a small area and it was
participation up and limit found to fit more neatly on a kitchen
contamination. It also gave the worktop. Some households needed
householders an opportunity to talk two outdoor containers and some just
openly about the project and their use the indoor caddy to present their
experience. Face to face waste. As with any scheme there is
communication worked particularly always an element of wastage and
well with minority communities, therefore additional stock should have
although again language could be a been factored in at a rate of approx
barrier in some instances. Staff and 10% every year.
volunteers with a multi cultural
background are invaluable in
this situation.
34
The project found that the bags with The projects hard line on
handles (‘T shirt’ style), although slightly contamination from day one proved
more expensive, are better than those successful, and although contamination
without handles. Customers tested was observed initially it was soon
both styles of bags, ones with and reduced to less than 1%. In areas with
without handles and found that those more ethnic diversity, the rejections
without handles were not easy to pull were as high as 40% at first but ceased
out of a caddy, and were more difficult to be an issue after a few months. The
to tie. The bags with handles can be crew played a key role in controlling
tied securely and enabled the collection contamination; rejection slips were
crew to handle the bags more issued to every householder with a
effectively. The project was advised to contaminated bin. If the crew were
use either 18 or 20 micron thick bags challenged they were also able to
to prevent tearing when being handled explain to the householder why their
but after conducting a mini trial, it was bin was not taken. The Project Officer
found that a 16-micron thick bag was also visited each householder whose
sufficient for a weekly food waste food waste was not taken to give a
collection. The use of liner bags helped reason why and explain the
with the perception of hygiene and importance of not contaminating the
capture rates. In both composting food waste in the future.
processes the bags composted Waste says a lot about people and
perfectly, there was no trace of them at food was no exception. How and
all; this was an initial concern from both what people eat could be deduced
VCUE and TEGTM Environmental. from the food waste they produced.
On average 3kg every week can be Whenever people prepare fresh food
expected from a participating there is a marked increase in the
household, this could be as much as amount of food waste produced. It
5kg where cooking involves fresh un- also contained a high proportion of
prepared ingredients (ethnically diverse peelings as well as scraps. However,
households are more likely to prepare people who principally use ready meals
food from fresh). The project did not (pre-packaged convenience foods) have
experience much seasonal variation in little or no preparation waste or food
the tonnage collected, although the scraps. They do, however, have more
type of food waste collected did vary. packaging waste that could be recycled.
Observations showed that in summer a Ready meals, especially those, which are
greater proportion of salad waste was frozen, are less likely to become waste
evident, and in November there was a than fresh perishable foods, as they
significant number of pumpkins! The have a longer shelf life. These food
total tonnage collected during the two types are more likely to end up in the
years was 850 tonnes although only refuse bin still in their packaging. To
365 was diverted from landfill and take this a step further, the project has
processed in accordance to ABPR also been able to draw conclusions
2003. about how a meal is shared; “plated-
up” meals tend to create less waste
than a meal with shared dishes. This is
due to a tendency to over produce
food such as rice.
35
Working closely with the asian as the parameters required were

community through the mosque mainly waste management
network, it was understood that requirements, which was within
wasting food is not acceptable, so many Lancashire County Council’s
people were putting left over food out experience. The introduction of new
for the birds. This was causing legislation added another dimension, of
problems with vermin, the project gave which no one had any true experience.
them an acceptable option for getting VCUE assured the project that this
rid of their food waste while fulfilling a piece of kit could fulfil that requirement
religious requirement. Therefore and meet the parameters stipulated
resulted in less food being left out for with in ABPR 2003. The project should
birds (and vermin). have at this point re-evaluated the
Officers found that ‘playing down’ the original concept of the project.
project was frustrating and to some Communication
extent hampered communication with The project chose to move away
the public. However similar schemes from a traditional local authority
have received criticism in the press approach to communication and tried
over collecting food, but failing to to use a more pictorial method which
divert it from landfill. This happens as proved extremely effective, (as the area
part of setting up a composting facility has a wide range of ethnic diversity.)
and working towards ABPR 2003. Coupled with the presence of a full
Only in the final stages of accreditation time Project Officer, who actively
can you claim to be diverting waste doorstepped and promoted the
from landfill. The project also thought project locally, issues were nipped in
that the general media was an the bud. Had the processing been
unsuitable method to convey online from the start the project would
information to the target area about have invested a lot more time and
the scheme, as this is only a very small effort in promoting the scheme to the
proportion of the total coverage. wider waste management industry, it
A project newsletter was found to be did seem at times that the project was
a good alternative, although you may in fact shying away from any publicity.
only inform people who are already In hindsight more doorstepping,
participating. residual waste anaylsis and exploring
Composting Process some of the issues raised would have
The project processed 365 tonnes given the project more dimension to its
inline with ABPR 2003 producing findings.
approx 180 tonnes of compost, in a Dissemination
relatively short period. If the VCU The project attracted a lot of interest
had been in full operation from the from both public and private sector
start the project would have been able experts. It has assisted many others
to process the 850 tonnes collected looking at implementing a similar
producing approx 400 tonnes of scheme. The project has helped to
compost. The compost produced was drive the industry’s thinking and
used by Preston City Councils Park innovation in this new and rapidly
Department on flowerbeds through developing work area.
out the city.
A list of the many and varied bodies
In hindsight operating an in-vessel of people that the project has helped is
composting unit, with no real shown in (Appendix Nine.)
experience and taking on the full risk of
adhering to ABPR 2003 was very
ambitious. During the inception of the
project the operation of a specialised
composting unit was deemed feasible,
36
Appendix Section
Appendix One
The Initial Leaflet Sent to
All householders
The leaflet is very pictorial to convey Note: Earlier versions referred to
the message well to a community rich ‘Kitchen Food Waste’ but after
in ethnic diversity. Key messages were confusion the word Kitchen was
translated into two locally recognised dropped.
languages, Urdu and Gujarati.
External Cover
Internal cover
37
Appendix Two
Trial Area
38
Appendix Three - Postal Survey Results - Food Waste Recycling Questionnaire

ABOUT YOUR HOUSE
What kind of house do you live in? Results No. Results %
Flat or Rooms 0 0%
Terraced House 111 85%
Town House or Maisonette 4 3%
Semi or Detached House 16 12%
Do you have any garden?
No garden at all 40 31%
A yard with some greenery 56 43%
Small garden 27 21%
Larger Garden 7 5%
ABOUT YOUR RECYCLING
How often do you put your FOOD Waste container out for collection?
Every Week 109 85%
Most Weeks 11 9%
Rarely 2 2%
Never 6 5%
How often do you put your OTHER recycling out for collection?
Every Recycling Week 114 88%
Most Recycling Weeks 14 11%
Rarely 0 0%
Never 2 2%
How important is this new Food Waste scheme?
It should definitely continue 106 83%
It would be better if it continued 18 14%
It would be better if it was withdrawn 1 1%
It should definitely be withdrawn 3 2%
How would you describe the standard of the Food Waste Collection Service from
Preston City Council?
Excellent 86 67%
Fair 31 24%
Some room for improvement 9 7%
Poor, unacceptable 2 2%
ABOUT YOUR MEALS
How many children, 12 years and under, live in your house?
children 0.4 on average
0 97 79%
1 13 11%
2 8 7%
3 or more 5 4%
How many Adults and children over 12 years live in your house?
Adults 0.4 on average
1 34 29%
2 57 49%
3 or more 25 22%
39
Food Waste Recycling Questionnaire continued

ABOUT YOUR MEALS
Are lunchtime meals eaten in your house on weekdays? Results No. Results %
Yes 86 67%
No 42 33%
How often do you prepare meals from FRESH ingredients?
Every meal 29 22%
Most meals (5 times a week or more) 80 61%
Some meals (once or twice a week) 18 14%
None (mostly prepacked food) 4 3%
ABOUT THE LINER BAGS
How many of our special liner bags do you use each week?
Bags a week 2.71 on average
more than 4 12 11%
around 3 73 65%
less than 2 28 25%
This trial uses liner bags, which are supplied free.What would you consider doing if they
were not free in future?
Continue, by wrapping food waste in newspaper 48 33%
Continue, buying you own bags locally (less than £5 a roll) 28 19%
Continue, buying your bags by mail order (about £5 a roll) 3 2%
Continue, without lining the small caddy? 19 13%
No longer recycle you food waste. 44 31%
Options amended by respondent to “Continue, using Plastic Bags” 2 1%
ABOUT THE GREEN CONTAINERS
Where in your kitchen would you prefer to keep the small caddy?
On the worktop 21 16%
On the floor 71 55%
Inside a cupboard 8 6%
Outside the back door 29 22%
Is the small kitchen caddy a suitable size?
Too big 8 6%
About right 111 87%
Too small 8 6%
Is the Large container a suitable size?
Too big 9 7%
About right 109 88%
Too small 6 5%
Have both green containers kept you food waste secure?
Yes 118 94%
No 8 6%
...and relatively free of bad smells?
Yes 112 90%
No 12 10%
40
Appendix Four
Rejections Note Left
by the Crew
The note below was revised after
the issues around contamination
were known. The aim was to be
more graphical.
41
Appendix Five
Postcard Used to Request
More Bags
This postcard was delivered to
households to inform them that
replacement liner bags can be
requested and are supplied from
the collection vehicle.
42
Appendix Six - Maggot Fact Sheet

Maggot Fact Sheet
43
Appendix Seven
Communication Strategy
Wider media is inappropriate for local only schemes

Face to face talks most appropriate i.e. mosques and local groups etc.
The official Local Authority Approach
Enforcement
Before scheme
Media on wider schemes refer to food

Local language, pictorial leaflet
Labels on containers
Pictures on labels
House numbers on labels
Integrate with other calendars
Local shops, bus stops
Rejection slips, using pictures and ticks

Doorstepping
Questionnaires/informal opinions
During scheme
Postcards to inform Householders of bags replenishment

Actively deal with any objections
Congratulations to persuade Householders to carry on
Newsletters every 6 months
Fasting calendars
Local champions, opinion formers
44
Appendix Eight
April 2007 Newsletter
External Cover
Internal cover
45
Appendix Nine - List of Organisations Interested in the Project

Council/Consultant Council/Consultant
Organisation Organisation
or Private sector or Private sector
Aberdeen City Council Council Manchester City Council Council
Abitibi-Consolidated Recycling Europe Private sector Manchester Recycling Consortium Council
Alpheco Ltd Private sector Massey Truck Engineering Private Sector
Bath & NE somerset Council Matt Pumfrey Consultant
Bedford City Council Council MEL Consultant
Blackburn with Darwen Bor’o Council Council Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority Council
BOB Recycles Private sector Mike Hibbert Consultant
Bolton MBC Council Myerscough Collage Council
Bradford BOCS Council Nottingham City Council Council
Brighton and Hove City Council Council Novamont, Italy Private Sector
Calderdale Borough Council Council NW Recycling Forum Council
Chorley Council Council Oadby and Wigson Council
Community project in Skipton Council Oldham MBC Council
Composting Association Conference Council Organic Resource Agency Ltd Consultant
Conwy Council Council Pendle Borough Council Council
Craven District Council Council Peterborough Borough Council Council
Cumbria County Council Council Powys Council Council
CWM Environmental Council Remade Scotland Council
Cwm Harry Trust, Newtown, Wales Council Reporter from LetsRecycle.com Consultant
Danny Powell, Skipton Consultant Resource Futures Consultant
Dublin (RPS Consultancy) Council Resource Recovery forum Council
Ealing Borough Council Consultant Sece Council
Eden DC, State Vets, EA,Trading Stds Council Sefton Borough Council Council
elcrp-recycling Council Serco Consultant
Ends Report Council SITA Private Sector
Essex County Council Council Solus PR Private Sector
Ethical Solutions Consultant South Glostershire Council
Eunomia Consultant South Lakeland District Council Council
Garth Radio Private sector South Shropshire County Council Council
Greater London Housing Association Council St Helens MBC Council
Groundwork East Lancashire Council Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Council
Invercylde Council Council Straights Private Sector
James Fulford Consultant Sutton Coldfield lecture Council
Jersey and Ortec Council Swap-web Consultant
Jonathan Marsh Private sector Tameside MBC Council
Keely Borough Council Council Taylors vehicle manufacturer Private Sector
Keenan Recycling Private sector Tewsbury Borough Council Council
Lancaster City Council Council The Little Wasters Council
Leeds City Council Council University of Central Lancashire Private Sector
Leicshire County Council Consultant The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Council
Linktip Private sector Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Private Sector
London Borough of Camden Council Wales Environmental Trust Council
London Borough of Enfield Council West Dunbarton Council Council
London Remade Council Westminster City Council Council
Lund University (Sweden) Consultant Wirral MBC Council
Luton City Council Council WRAP Consultant
46
Appendix Ten - List of Suppliers Used During the Project
Telephone Number
Supplier What They Supplied Address
and E-mail Address
Comet Road
Compostable Corn Moss Side Industrial Estate 01772 641348
Bio-bag Ltd
Starch liners, trial baskets Leyland biobag@btconnect.com
PR26 7PF
179 Kent Street

City Distributors Leaflet distribution Preston 01772 887551
PR1 1PH
Haslam Mill
Built tipper body to our Chorley Old Road
Lancashire Tippers 01204 493750
design Bolton
BL13 3AS
Crown House
Gt Glemham 01728 663395
Peter Ridley Waste Indoor and outdoor
Saxmundham
Systems caddies office@peterridley.co.uk
Suffolk
England IP17 2DJ
Unit 4 Hamer Vale

Buckley Road
RCD leafleting Distribution of leaflets 01706 759420
Rochdale
OL12 9BF
Poly House
88 Park Road 0208 553 4050
Latching Baskets, potato
Sai-Pac (UK) Ltd Ilford
starch bags, containers info@saipac.com
Essex
IG1 1SF
4 Tustin Court
Composting,
Portway
SITA UK transportation, shredding 01772 325505
Preston
wastes etc
PR2 2YQ
Houston House,
12 Sceptre Court
TEG Environmental Composting service
Sceptre Point 01772 314100
Ltd provider
Preston
PR5 6AW
Unit 48 222
VCU in-vessel composting Kensal Road 020 8969 8930
VCUE
unit London www.vcutechnology.com
W10 5BN
47
Appendix Eleven “Food waste box-small box for

List of some of the comments from kitchen smells too much. The
Householders and Waste Management scheme needs rethinking.The small
Industry Representatives caddy gets in the way in the kitchen
so it is kept outside.”
“Having a small kitchen the caddy
Comments from Householders takes up space and can start to smell
especially in warm weather. Cats
“Bags brilliant, not leaking, awkward knock over the caddies; it would be
on worktop, want to try basket?” better if we could put it in the grey
“It is a good deed would like liner for bin.”
25L, regular drops too.”
“Rang in missed bin. Smells less on Comments from Waste
floor! Like AWC.”
Management Industry
“A very good scheme, would not
lose it.” Representatives
“An excellent service-Not one
missed collection from it’s “We were delighted with your
introduction-Helpful operatives-” presentation and feel that you added
real value. The feedback on your
“A first class scheme.”
presentation has been excellent and
“Collections are not always done- you have been given an overall
Bins are sometimes missed in the feedback score of 4 out of 5.
summer months-Flies are great Delegates commented on your
problem even when the bins are speech as useful, interesting and
securely closed definite increase in relevant and the only improvement
the number of flies in the house and they would like to make would be
outside around the large green to give you more time to speak as
container.” they wanted to know more (but
“If the bin bags split when bin men that’s our fault for limiting your time!)
empty them-They don’t pickup what K.Gilbraith. London Remade
has been dropped it is just
left in the street/rd-This is not
“Much of what we saw that
acceptable and should be looked into
day went on to form our own food
at once.”
waste collection trials ...(in Preston)
“Green bins should be emptied fully its the enthusiasm of the team
sometimes bits left in-In summer behind it that makes ideas work on
& hot weather bad smells & flies the ground and actually deliver and
occur-Recycling boxes should be this was very evident on the open
emptied weekly as they got too day last Autumn. Where we benefited
full every other week-But no space was by having over 18 months to
for extra tubs.” plan, to learn, to adapt and in short
“As many others in small terraced to use your hard work as a template
houses I have plants that need and in this respect if you hadn’t been
pruning etc. and I have a hedge so obliging and generous with your
between my house next so lots of time, views and hard facts I don’t
hedge cutting in summer-I would like think our confidence levels would
to be able not to waste this have been so high!”
but as we do not have small brown S. Watson, Bedfordshire CC
bin there is nothing I can.”
48
“I must compliment you on the “On the back of visiting you and the
excellent quality of your new Waste Strategy priorities food
communication and engagement with waste has moved right up our
your customers, the use of so many agenda.”
pictures in leaflets and the rigorous P.Florentine. Craven DC
cost and performance monitoring
which you carry out.These were all “I would like to thank you and your
very useful for us to observe and be team once again for all of your
informed by.” assistance as part of the ROTO25
V.Hunt, Consultant to Leics CC scoping study.The information you
provided us with regarding the
“Our visit on Monday was ideal - practical aspects of actually operating
real chance to see containers in a kitchen waste collection scheme,
action. That was the main objective plus the opportunity to watch your
for the day - to better understand team in action, was of inestimable
how crews use the containers, look value to us in designing what WRAP
at shortcuts to intended functionality, hopes will be the next industry
etc. We are very keen to ensure that standard kitchen waste collection
containers are totally fit for purpose, vehicle.This has, and continues to be,
and that feedback from users is a most challenging project, so your
taken on board in terms of product knowledge and enthusiasm for the
evolution. This was great opportunity work you undertake was one of the
to bounce around further ideas high points of our research.
regarding container evolution.” Thank you.“
T Musgrove , Director of J Carruthers, Director.
National Accounts. Straight Plc Ethical Innovatory Solutions Ltd
“I’m happy to report that following

your advise we are now successfully
completing a separate waste food
collection to 7000 properties. Having
‘’walked the streets’’ of Preston with
you and your colleagues together
with my Technical team we feel
more able to cascade operational
procedures to the new crew on the
new collection round. I feel, having
seen it first hand, to be more
confident in being able to deliver
specific instructions and advise
accordingly.”
J Lord. Calderdale DC
49
Appendix Twelve The Project’s Work Programme
50
51
52
Notes
Notes

Kitchen Composting Trial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kitchen Composting Trial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kitchen Waste Composting Trial End of Trial Report June 2007

Kitchen Waste Composting Trial End of Trial Report June 2007

Executive Summary The initial planning stage of the

going through the process of The project took the decision to

Background hand it over at the end; this has proven

The project sought to investigate

The Collection Scheme The project covered one refuse

Literature was changed after an Participation

Monday participation in the summer down to

streets. There was some evidence of a Doorstepping was seen to be an

TONNAGE : Year on Year Comparison

Collection System Midway through the project baskets

or a sharp stalk not noticed by The Vehicle

An onboard device gave the driver a When considering which method to

Communications Strategy Written

Events invited, there was even a birthday cake

The Composting Operating Procedure

Dry post-consumer wood (scrap compostable material and dropped

ABPR 2003 Requirements for End Product and End Users

This had several knock on effects; heating up to the required

Health and Safety

Depending on the process being

A short video showing the

Cost Saving Ideas

Do not have a dedicated project

The project is a partnership between Lancashire Environmental Fund, Lancashire

Cost per household

Cost per Tonne £555.41

Cost per participation

Working closely with the asian as the parameters required were

Appendix Three - Postal Survey Results - Food Waste Recycling Questionnaire

Food Waste Recycling Questionnaire continued

Appendix Six - Maggot Fact Sheet

Wider media is inappropriate for local only schemes

Media on wider schemes refer to food

Rejection slips, using pictures and ticks

Postcards to inform Householders of bags replenishment

Appendix Nine - List of Organisations Interested in the Project

Appendix Ten - List of Suppliers Used During the Project

179 Kent Street

Unit 4 Hamer Vale

Appendix Eleven “Food waste box-small box for

“I’m happy to report that following

Appendix Twelve The Project’s Work Programme

You might also like