The goal of any vehicle scale service program should be to ensure that equipment stays in working order with minimal downtime between service visits or over the life of the product. The losses to revenue arising from a scale failure can exceed the cost of maintenance. Adopting a comprehensive preventive maintenance (PM) program ultimately saves money over the long run. Owners should opt for a program with the level that fits their specific needs. The highest level might include parts, service visits and calibrations. For those facing little exposure to significant repairs, a basic option covering only calibrations might be the best fit.

Preventive maintenance vs. general servicing

A general service visit is typically more specific in nature—a “tool in hand” service. PM includes this type of service but also more interaction with the customer to understand the business and the role the equipment plays in it.

Along with equipment upkeep, PM servicing considers such factors as heavy-use periods, the value of supplying bench stock on difficult-to-acquire parts (so as to limit downtime) and strategies for repair if a breakdown occurs. In other words, PM is a more holistic approach to service. It does not just look at the customer’s equipment in isolation from the operation but sees the wider picture, including how proper and efficient operation of the equipment (as well as breakdowns) affects the customer’s business.

One final way of looking at the difference: General servicing puts out fires. PM servicing prevents them.

The importance of PM

In effect, a scale is a company’s cash register. Preventive scale maintenance directly equates to bottom-line dollars. Neglecting to account for the longevity of equipment can result in significant future repairs. Problems generally do not stay static or improve over time—they usually get worse. When a small issue morphs into a significant problem, wholesale repairs must be performed. These often are not budgeted for, so they result in unanticipated downtime, and they often occur at a critical time.

Downtime can be minimized or eliminated almost entirely by doing proper PM service. In one case Fairbanks Scales recently worked on, a scale experienced significant structural damage from the rusting of critical components, resulting in the need for a $38,000 full rebuild. This customer had not regularly checked the scale; had maintenance visits been performed, the issue would have been caught, and small repairs could have been completed.

Selecting service programs

Two major types of service programs are offered: open end and closed end.

Open-end service is the type most often provided in the industrial weighing industry. Service is paid for as required, also known as “pay as you go.” The service typically consists of periodic inspections that are prescheduled to specific needs and requirements.

It is called open-end service because the total cost of repairs is not limited. When service is required, the customer contacts the service provider, the service provider requests a purchase order (as promise for payment for services) and, when satisfied with financial arrangements, the service provider sends a technician to make the repairs.

Once the service company determines the nature of the damage or failure, it might either give the customer an estimate for the total cost of the complete repair or repair the scale with the final cost of the repairs being unknown.

An advantage of open-end service is that actual service costs might not exceed the amount budgeted. Some scales have a history of near-perfect performance and the need to cover any risks that could occur can outweigh the concern about unscheduled costs.

A disadvantage of open-end service is that it is impossible to know what the costs will be. Although it might be possible to know the cost of scheduled calibrations, it is impossible to predict component failures. It also is impossible to prevent failure unless the cause is apparent at the time of an inspection. When a failure occurs, policies and processes (work order requisitions, approvals and purchase orders) could delay getting the equipment serviced. Open-end service could increase downtime because service providers might have to check credit history for past-due service payments or other problems.

Another disadvantage is that parts and service repairs are typically warranted for 90 days, so repeat failures could be financially catastrophic. Customers often postpone service for known problems with their scales because they do not want to spend the money during financially slow periods. This could result in additional failures, making the repair even more expensive. These decisions often are made without a complete understanding of the financial impact an inaccurate scale can have. The losses that arise from a failure can exceed the cost of maintenance, but because they are not seen on an invoice, these actual costs often are ignored.

Closed-end service plans are far less common in the industrial weighing market. They involve a fixed price for an annual agreement period. With a closed-end service plan, extra costs above the service contract amount are borne by the scale service provider. Large service providers are better able to take this risk, so this service plan type is less available with smaller companies.

With a closed-end service plan, when service is required, it can be ordered without a purchase order, requisition or approvals, so a technician can be on-site quickly. This is the fastest, simplest way to initiate service. The greatest benefit of a closed-end service agreement is reduced risk for the customer. Much like insurance, closed-end service agreements cover the cost of most failures. This allows the customer to spend less time making arrangements between purchasing and management when service is needed. It also builds a better relationship between the service provider and the end user of the scale because the service process is less cumbersome. Closed-end service can be tailored to provide various levels of service, so coverage is customized to the customer’s preferred risk level.

Technology has made closed-end service even more attractive. Some companies provide wireless monitoring of weighing system electronics’ accuracy, giving the service provider warning that proactive service repairs are required. Scale owners can receive notification on their smartphones that a scale error has occurred, but they do not need to call anyone because the service company already has dispatched a technician to fix the error.

In addition, because scale owners can choose monthly, quarterly or annual charges for the service, a closed-end agreement also could help them budget for maintenance costs more accurately.

Closed-end service offers a few disadvantages, though. It would not work well for a service provider with limited resources because the risk can be extreme and requires the company to have many closed-end service accounts to survive the bad scale scenario.

For example, the Fairbanks Scales Guardian Service Plan is a “no surprises” program with multiple levels to fit specific customer needs. The highest level of this service can be all-encompassing, including parts, service visits and calibrations. Customers with little exposure to significant repairs might choose a basic option covering calibrations.

Revenue loss from scale failure can exceed maintenance costs. Regardless of the service program type, PM ends up saving time and money in the long run.

Then author is a service manager for Fairbanks Scales Inc., Kansas City, Missouri. More information is available at www.fairbanks.com.

A long-standing influence in the occupational health and safety field, OHSAS 18001 is on its way out, soon to be replaced by the new ISO 45001:2018 standard.

The ISO 45001 standard, published in March 2018, seeks to bring occupational health and safety (OH&S) in step with other ISO standards organizations could have already. More than just a name change, ISO 45001 brings the adoption of ISO structure, an emphasis on leadership and objectives measurement, risk management, communication and awareness and a reduction in prescriptive requirements. The new standard increases the prominence of OH&S management in organizations’ strategic planning processes.

Key changes

Broadly speaking, most of the changes from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001 can be placed into a few categories. The first of these is strategic OH&S management.

In the new standard, the prominence of OH&S management in an organization’s strategic planning process is greatly enhanced. In addition, to support the systems contributing to an organization’s OH&S management, leadership is more closely outlined. Clause 5 has been added, assigning specific responsibilities for those in leadership positions to promote health and safety within organizations.

Under Clause 5, top management ultimately is accountable for the management system and its effectiveness. They are responsible for integrating the management system in other business processes, ensuring the adequacy of resources allocated to the management system and to health and safety processes and communicating the importance of and conformance to the occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS). Requirements in the standard can be delegated, but ultimately top management is responsible for whether the requirements are effective.

The ISO 45001 standard expands proactivity in protecting the health and safety of not just workers but also other involved parties. These initiatives should be consistent within the context of the organization but might include hazard identification, risk assessment, emergency response processes, operational controls and/or monitoring and measurements. Unlike before, the standard emphasizes continual improvement of the management system as well as improving OH&S performance.

Internal and external communication also has become more vital in the new standard, which adds requirements for a communication strategy emphasizing both areas.

Additionally, the standard’s stance on documentation has been updated to reflect evolving technology, such as computer and cloud-based systems. To align with the ISO basis of 45001, organizations must retain the flexibility to determine when “procedures” are needed to ensure process control.

In the transition from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001, the planning requirements—found in Clause 6—have undergone some of the most drastic changes.

Overall, the planning requirements have been completely restructured to emphasize achieving the intended outcome of the OHSMS: “to prevent injury and ill health to workers and to provide safe and healthy workplaces.” The planning and risk determination processes must consider negative hazards (“risks”) and positive impacts (“opportunities”) of the OHSMS. Clause 4 outlines such issues as relevant to the OHSMS and its capabilities.

By identifying all risks proactively, appropriate actions to minimize (or, ideally, prevent) resulting undesired effects can be implemented; these actions have the added benefit of helping to continually improve the system.

Hazard identification requirements are more prescriptive in the ISO 45001 standard, requiring consideration of a variety of factors, including nearby individuals who are not under the control of the organization but could be affected by the activities or OHSMS, work areas, equipment designs, past incidents, etc.

A formal process for assessing risks and opportunities must be implemented to meet the requirements of Clause 6, and companies must maintain documented information to provide evidence of such. This section of ISO 45001 also requires up-to-date access to all legal and other requirements that are relevant to the OHSMS, with clear determinations of required communications.

Taking the above into account, Clause 6 subsequently calls for actions to be planned within the OHSMS as appropriate to address issues in accordance with the hierarchy of controls requirements found in Clause 8.1.2.

Changes to the verbiage regarding OH&S objectives also have been made in Clause 6, including the need to ensure objectives are either measurable or capable of evaluation and to account for the results of worker consultation. Planning for the achievement of objectives must include any resource requirements, methodologies for evaluating or monitoring and how the actions will be integrated within the organization’s business processes. The retention of documented information should serve as evidence of achieving these standard requirements.

The certification process

For those unfamiliar with ISO certification, becoming certified is a multistep process for first-time applicants. Documentation for OHSMS must be established first, following ISO 45001:2018 requirements, followed by training to and implementation of the OHSMS requirements. Implementation should be supported by internal system audits, compliance evaluation and a review of the system based on input from the internal audit.

Once the systems are in place and documentation has been well-established, the organization will contract with an accredited certification body, and Stage I and Stage II audits will be scheduled. Once any nonconformities are addressed and results of the audit are clear, the accreditation body will issue the new ISO 45001 certificate.

The authors work for Perry Johnson Registrars Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan. To keep up with the latest news on ISO 45001 or to learn more about what the change from OHSAS 18001 will mean for your company, contact them through www.pjr.com or by calling 248-358-3388.

Municipal recycling is very much alive. Recycling of most materials—paper, glass, metals, plastics and electronics—has increased almost consecutively for the last 45 years, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Challenges in the global marketplace (China restricting imports of recyclables) hasn’t stopped most material recovery facilities (MRFs) and municipalities from collecting and processing recyclables, but it has spurred changes. MRFs are upgrading their processing equipment and technology to manage materials more efficiently and to produce high-quality recyclables. Municipalities are reevaluating their recycling programs, and MRF operators and municipalities are renegotiating recycling contracts.

As MRF operators propose price increases to cover their processing costs, some cities have ended their municipal programs rather than pay these higher costs. For example, Surprise, Arizona, began diverting recyclables to landfill in August in response to falling commodity prices and rising processing costs at a third-party-operated MRF.

Once haulers, processors and municipalities go through these growing pains—renegotiating contracts, retrofitting facilities and educating residents to reduce contamination in the recycling stream—the U.S. recycling industry will have better processes, operations and recycling programs as a result.

Time for change

Since the summer of 2017, when China began to restrict imports of recyclables, MRFs have had to contend with rising processing costs.

In 2017, processing costs ranged from $25 to $40 per ton compared with an average cost ranging from $60 to $120 per ton today, says Michael Timpane, vice president of process optimization and material recovery and a principal with the consulting firm Resource Recycling Systems (RRS), Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC), Brattleboro, Vermont, is a nonprofit organization that focuses on minimizing waste and advancing sustainable action in 11 states in the Northeast region. Lynn Rubinstein, executive director of NERC, says recycling processing costs in Maine range from $70 to $115 per ton. Recycling tipping fees in that state are as much as $140 per ton compared with $65 to $85 per ton for landfill tipping fees. She says contamination fees have reached $70 per ton; the prices are constantly in flux.

Providence, Rhode Island, was paying more than $40,000 per month in contamination fees, according to a market update Rubinstein gave in April.

In some areas, MRF operators have shown a lack of interest in submitting bids for municipal recycling contracts, which is what Santa Monica, California, learned when it reached out to 30 prospective MRF operators when its contract with longtime hauler and processor Allan Co., headquartered in Baldwin Park, California, ended in June. Only two companies submitted proposals. Allan Co., which has processed Santa Monica’s recyclables since 1993, proposed a contract that would have raised the city’s recycling rates from $25 to $65 per ton, or $1 million per year.

Based on the city’s review of other contracts, it learned that Bakersfield, California, has gone from earning $25 per ton for its recyclables to paying $70 per ton. San Diego is anticipating a $2.4 million decline in recycling revenue, and Philadelphia’s recycling budget could increase by $2 million as a result of higher processing costs.

According to a report prepared by Santa Monica Public Works, Allan Co.’s contract was a “reasonable reflection of the new reality in recycling.”

Despite recommendations from Santa Monica Public Works, the Santa Monica City Council rejected the contract and is now paying to transport recyclables elsewhere for processing.

DeBary, Florida, also is among several communities to suspend its municipal recycling program in response to a price hike to a previously free processing service for the city’s recyclables.

Going forward, recycling and processing costs, which typically have been integrated with waste and recycling collection services, will need to be separated in municipal contracts, Timpane says. This change will allow pricing models for recycling to adjust when processing costs decrease or when commodity values rebound.

Timpane says changes in municipal contracts also will lead to more public-private partnerships in the industry.

“Right now, we’re upgrading our equipment, and we are not even processing recyclables directly.” – Nick Morell, recycling coordinator, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

A phoenix rising

The market disruption has inspired innovation and investment.

The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has stopped processing recyclables for the time being while the county upgrades its Puente Hills MRF, which helps Los Angeles County meet the 50 percent diversion rate required under California law.

“It’s a very complicated field at this point,” says Nick Morell, the districts’ recycling coordinator. “Right now, we’re upgrading our equipment, and we are not even processing recyclables directly. We’re shipping them out to another local MRF that processes on our behalf until we get our new modern equipment up and running that’s more efficient in managing the material stream.”

State agencies also are stepping in to help struggling municipalities, haulers and processors with recycling infrastructure grants and resources. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has launched a recycling IQ kit for municipalities. MassDEP also has introduced grants for sustainable material recovery programs and business recycling development to spur investment in equipment and develop new markets for targeted materials, including glass.

Michigan’s Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority (MCSWMA) removed glass from its recycling program in 2018 and has been transporting recyclables out of state for processing. However, with funding from Closed Loop Partners, New York, and a recycling infrastructure grant from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), the county is building a single-stream MRF and glass processing facility.

Brad Austin, director of operations for MCSWMA, says changes in the global recycling market “opened the door” to improve recycling in the region and allowed the county to “look at things a little different and recognize where we are.”

The county also is starting a separate monthly curbside collection for glass, which will be repurposed for use in local road and landscaping projects.

Shared responsibility

To be sustainable, costs of municipal recycling programs should not rest on MRFs or cities alone but should be shared among all entities. The concept of shared responsibility is becoming a trend in municipal recycling, says Timpane, who has observed more collaboration between MRF operators and cities on education and outreach efforts around contamination issues.

Early mornings, Daniel Dempsey, solid waste and recycling manager for the Public Works Bureau in Akron, Ohio, checks curbside recycling bins. He peers into recycling bins, pulling out unacceptable materials, including plastic film, and leaves it on residents’ doorsteps with educational pamphlets about the city’s recycling program.

While education is only a piece of the puzzle, municipalities have found that a sense of shared responsibility is one solution to curb rising recycling costs.

“A lot of communities have successfully avoided [cost increases] during contract renewals by demonstrating their commitment to get engaged in community education and having a really positive response among behavior in their community,” Rubinstein says.

The author is the digital editor for the Recycling Today Media Group and can be reached at kmaile@gie.net.

Earlier this year, Rye, New York-based Sims Metal Management announced its plans to drive strategic growth throughout the company through 2025, which includes expanding its existing metals, electronics and municipal recycling businesses and establishing new businesses that will reduce waste and produce energy.

Metals recycling accounts for the largest share of Sims’ business at roughly 80 percent, says Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director Alistair Field. “Our e-recycling (Sims Recycling Solutions) and municipal recycling (Sims Municipal Recycling) businesses represent 15 percent and 5 percent, respectively. There is growth potential in each of our lines of business.”

Sims’ strategic growth plan addresses each of these business segments in addition to targeting new opportunities in waste to energy. The company says it will use its auto shredder residue (ASR) to generate electricity, installing and operating seven plants within 10 years with the long-term goal of eliminating its waste disposal and energy costs.

“Sims Metal Management is strongly positioned to become a global leader in the circular economy, acting as responsible stewards for the environment,” Field said when the company announced its growth plan. “Innovation and our long-standing focus on providing better solutions in recycling will fuel our success.”

He says Sims uses its purpose to “create a world without waste to preserve our plant” as a “lens through which we evaluate opportunities and initiatives that are presented to us.”

Field continues, “Our business and the industry are changing, and so are people’s perceptions on how companies are addressing sustainability. Our purpose has allowed our employees to really think about why we do what we do—and how we can do it better and more efficiently. By having a clearly defined goal in mind, we are seeing a diversity of thoughts and opinions that is truly allowing us to set a course for a more sustainable world. Employees now have the freedom to think about innovation at Sims with respect to waste reduction in a long-term strategic environment.”

Field shares how this vision shapes Sims’ growth strategy in the interview that follows.

Recycling Today (RT): How do you plan to execute your goals of doubling your nonferrous business and growing your ferrous business in the U.S. by 40 percent in the next six years?

Alistair Field (AF): We plan to accomplish our goals for the metals business through a combination of organic growth and acquisitions that meet our investment criteria. We have significant growth opportunities in our existing markets, and we have a diverse supplier base that we will leverage to assist with our growth plans.

RT: Is Sims planning investments in auto shredder downstream sorting technology for nonferrous scrap? What form will such investments take?

AF: We have made significant investments in downstream sorting technology across the globe in the past two years partly in response to the Chinese National Sword initiative and partly to gain competitive advantage. These investments include optical, infrared, laser and color sorting technologies, and we will continue to invest to maintain our competitive position.

RT: How do you plan to achieve your goal of recycling 10 percent of data storage centers before the end of 2025?

AF: We are focusing on large organizations and technology companies that provide cloud solutions and have significant volumes of data center equipment coming to the end of its life and in need of recycling. Most companies are just starting to identify the need for cloud equipment recycling, so we are in a unique position to address this at an early stage. Currently, we have a number of long-term, established relationships with large technology companies, and we provide an efficient and effective service to them safely every day.

RT: Among Sims’ goals for the next six years is becoming the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) supplier of choice for recycled plastics. What investments are you making in this area to achieve this goal?

AF: We work with a select group of OEMs and their supply chain partners to collect, sort, process and create specific grades of recycled plastics for use by the OEMs in new equipment manufacturing. Our recycling facilities have installed both wet and dry sorting and separation equipment to produce streams that are attractive to plastic molders for product manufacturing.

RT: Sims says it wants to lead change in the municipal recycling sector. What changes are necessary to ensure the viability of curbside recycling? Are you targeting specific cities to contract with? Will this require building new material recovery facilities (MRFs)?

AF: There are a number of changes needed to create sustainable curbside programs going forward. Some of these are longer term infrastructure realignments—particularly in the area of domestic paper mill and pulping capacity—and we are starting to see investment in this area now. Some are in the realm of municipalities and the public to “clean up” the stream. And there is a need for the brands and manufacturers producing the products we must ultimately manage to fully engage in creating a circular economy by ensuring their products are recyclable and have recycled content.

In terms of MRF operation, there is a need for state-of-the-art processing capacity and technology to ensure we can efficiently achieve high recovery rates and produce quality products.

Regarding contracts, we will target larger cities and metropolitan areas (in excess of 1 million people) in order to have the volumes needed to justify the investment of time and resources. We will also look closely at regions where Sims already has a strong existing presence with our metals business and where there may be strategic synergies. There are existing publicly owned facilities that we will compete to operate, and there may be situations where a new MRF is required or justified. However, the need for new [MRFs] will be based on specific local circumstances.

RT: In the municipal recycling sector, are you focusing on certain sorting technologies that you feel hold the most promise?

AF: We are always looking to lead in the application and development of advanced technologies to perform tasks more efficiently and at lower cost or to sort and recover previously unrecoverable materials.

There are advancements in identification technologies utilized by optical sorters, such as adding laser and machine-learning systems to NIR (near-infrared) detection. Recent advancements in robotics also hold promise for reducing cost and adding to the sophistication of our sorting capability.

RT: Regarding your plans to capture energy from the nonmetallic portion of your ASR, what factors will you take into account in your site selection?

AF: We expect to have the capability to process ASR material in the United States and Australia. Currently, we are evaluating available technologies to best fit our materials, and our plan is to make a technology decision by year-end and then select the most appropriate Sims site to begin feasibility studies.

RT: Do you have any plans to recover the plastic contained in your ASR? Why or why not?

RT: Please tell me about your initiatives designed to attract and retain talent.