Getting Auckland's Waste Sorted - AC-0450 Waste Assessment

Auckland Council waste assessment
(Produced under the auspices of the ATA) Notified October 2011
Find out more: phone 09 301 0101 or visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Limitations The preparation of the Waste Assessment has relied on information from multiple sources, including SWAP Analysis from the legacy Councils, the former Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, Permits, Contracts, Consents, and Annual Reports. The accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time and the degree of disclosure from the Waste Industry. It is not possible to calculate, with any degree of precision, up-to-date tonnage and composition of waste being disposed to landfill in the Auckland region without mandatory industry disclosure. Information has also been sought from Landfill and Refuse Transfer Station operators, who have no obligation to supply the requested information. In some instances information has been voluntarily provided, however on others the requests have been declined to supply information for this purpose. Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the time of drafting of the waste assessment. The proposed way forward, a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of data, will mitigate the potential for discrepancies / errors in further waste minimisation planning.
Contents
Contents
Executive summary 1 The Auckland Council waste assessment introduction
1.1 What is the purpose of a waste assessment and how is it conducted? 1.2 Process for development 1.3 What does this waste assessment contain? 1.4 Key terms and acronyms 1.5 Completeness and accuracy
1 8
9 9 10 10 12
Legislative and strategic context

2.1 The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) 2.2 Key legislation 2.2-1 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 No 37 2.2-2 The Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008 2.2-3 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008
13
14 15 15 15 17
2.2-4 The Local Government Act 1974 Part 31 (now repealed) and the Local Government Act 2002 18 2.2-5 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) 2.3 Other legislation 2.3-1 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the HSNO Act) 2.3-2 The Health Act 1956 2.3-3 The Litter Act 1979 (and Amendment Act 2006) 2.3-4 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 2.4 Local context What it means for Auckland Council 18 19 19 19 19 20 20
The waste problem

3.1 General data limitations, completeness and assumptions 3.2 How much waste to landfill is produced in the Auckland region? 3.2-1 Total waste to landfill 3.2-2 Data constraints and baseline waste figures 3.3 Comparison to national averages 3.4 Waste source and composition 3.4-1 Source to landfill 3.4-2 Composition of waste to landfill 3.4-3 Previous composition data 3.4-4 Domestic kerbside refuse in the Auckland region 3.4-5 Waste to managed fill and cleanfill 3.4-6 Council domestic kerbside waste composition 3.5 Diverted materials 3.5-1 Kerbside recycling tonnage and composition 3.5-2 Tonnage and composition of other diverted materials 3.5-3 Hazardous waste diversion
23
24 25 25 26 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 32
Contents
Contents (cont)
4 Existing services and facilities
4.1 Limitations and completeness 4.2 The Auckland waste market - overview 4.3 Landfills waste disposal 4.4 Transfer stations and transportation 4.5 Waste collection market 4.6 Cleanfill and managed fill disposal market 4.7 Recovered or diverted materials market 4.8 Organic waste collection and processing market 4.9 Hazardous waste collection and processing market 4.10 Summary of council provided waste services and infrastructure 4.10-1 Territorial authorities overview 4.10-2 The The former Auckland Regional Council 4.11 The former Auckland councils joint initiatives 4.12 Inventory of council service contracts 4.13 Other council waste services 4.13-1 Waste minimisation learning centres 4.13-2 Litter control and enforcement 4.13-3 Public litter bins 4.13-4 Abandoned vehicle recovery and disposal 4.13-5 Town centre cleaning 4.13-6 Stream and beach cleaning 4.13-7 Other services
35
36 37 37 38 43 44 46 50 52 53 53 54 54 55 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 58
Future demands
5.1 Demographics/population change 5.2 Commercial and industrial activity/economic conditions 5.3 Surrounding areas other regions 5.4 Consumption behaviour 5.5 Legislation - product stewardship schemes, waste levy or other regulation 5.5-1 Extended producer responsibility and product stewardship 5.5-2 Waste levy 5.5-3 Other national legislation and regulation 5.5-4 Local government regulation 5.6 Waste minimisation programmes, services and future initiatives 5.7 Community expectation 5.8 Projected future waste volumes 5.8-1 Data limitations and issues 5.8-2 Forecasts 5.8-3 Projected diverted materials 5.9 Summary of future demand drivers
59
60 62 62 63 63 63 65 65 65 66 66 67 67 67 68 70
Future planning framework

6.1 Where do we want to be? 6.2 Vision 6.3 Goals and targets
71
72 72 72
Contents
Contents (cont)
6.4 Objectives and priority waste streams 6.5 Monitoring progress 6.6 Waste minimisation targets 6.7 Consultation 6.7-1 General 6.7-2 Submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee 6.7-3 Correspondence from waste industry key stakeholders 6.7-4 Preliminary consultation meetings 6.7-5 Transpacific Industries Group 6.7-6 Envirowaste Services Limited 6.7-7 Waste Disposal Services 6.7-8 Living Earth Ltd 6.7-9 Owens IllinoisNZ (O-I) 6.7-10 Carter Holt Harvey (CHH) 6.7-11 The Glass Packaging Forum 6.7-12 Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 6.7-13 Rob Fenwick (private submission) 6.7-14 Visy Recycling NZ 6.7-15 The Packaging Council 6.8 Considerations 72 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 77 87 87 89 91 95 95 97 99 101 103 104
Options assessment
7.1 Overview 7.2 Services adequate to meet demand 7.3 Key waste streams and diversion potential - discussion 7.3-1 Organic waste 7.3-2 C&D waste 7.3-3 Contaminated soils and sludges 7.3-4 Sludge and biosolids 7.3-5 Paper and cardboard waste 7.3-6 Plastic waste 7.3-7 Glass waste 7.3-8 Special waste 7.3-9 Hazardous waste 7.4 Methods for delivering waste minimisation 7.4-1 Social marketing / behaviour change 7.4-2 Regulation and legislative change 7.4-3 Direct action by the council 7.5 Options assessment 7.5-1 General 7.5-2 Price Waterhouse Coopers Report 7.5-3 Control/influence 7.5-4 Summary strategic direction options and management models assessment 7.5-5 Options assessment by waste stream and waste hierarchy
105
106 108 108 108 109 110 110 110 110 111 111 112 112 112 113 115 116 116 116 117 118 134
Contents
Contents (cont)
7.6 Discussion and summary of options 7.6-1 Influence over waste streams 7.6-2 Organics 7.6-3 Paper and packaging 7.6-4 C&D waste 7.6-5 Hazardous waste 7.6-6 Inorganic/special waste 7.6-7 Household refuse collection funding and management options 7.6-8 Residual waste disposal options 7.7 Summary of options assessment 170 170 173 174 175 176 177 178 180 181
8 9 10
Preferred options to meet waste minimisation targets Statements of proposal Statement of public health protection
Appendix A Supporting research background papers Appendix B Consultation Appendix C Supporting reports Appendix D Medical Officer of Health correspondence Appendix E Waste Minimisation Act 2008 Waste Assessment requirements Appendix F Supporting reports and data update
183 193 195
Table of figures
Figure 1.1-1 Waste management planning process Figure 1.1-3 Key objectives Figure 2.4-1 Total waste stream and diverted materials Figure 4.4-1 Transfer station and landfill locations Figure 4.4-2 Existing waste flows of council collected waste in the Auckland region Figure 5.1-1 Auckland regional population projections to 2031 Figure 5.1-2 Map of projected population growth Figure 5.8-1 Auckland regional waste to landfill population projections Figure 5.8-2 Auckland regional waste to landfill - overall projections Figure 5.8-3 Commodity market for diverted materials Figure 8.8-1 The councils objectives and supporting opinion 4 7 21 41 42 60 61 67 68 69 184
Table of tables
Table 1.1-1 Strategic direction options and corresponding management model scenarios Table 3.2-1 Estimated total waste to landfill from the Auckland region for 2007-2008 Table 3.2-2 Comparison of total waste to landfill estimates Table 3.4-1 Estimated composition of waste to landfill in 2007-2008 Table 3.4-2 Composition of waste to landfill Auckland region (1997) 5 25 25 28 28
Contents
Contents (cont)
Table 3.4-3 Sources of waste to landfills in the Auckland region Table 3.4-4 Summary of data and estimates for disposal of material to managed fill and cleanfill Table 3.4-5 Council domestic kerbside waste composition Table 3.4-6 Private waste operators kerbside waste composition Table 3.5-1 Domestic kerbside recycling quantities for the Auckland region Table 3.5-2 Summary of data on diversion of materials from landfill Table 3.5-3 Waste types and quantities of hazardous waste collected by the HazMobile in 2008/2009 Table 3.5-4 Henderson refuse transfer station household hazardous waste collection Table 4.3-1 Landfill market share Table 4.4-1 Summary of transfer facilities in the Auckland region Table 4.7-1 Diverted materials processing facilities in the Auckland region (excluding organics) Table 4.8-1 Organics processing facilities in the Auckland region Table 4.12-1 Inventory of former territorial authority waste service contracts Table 7.3-1 Summary of waste to all landfills, cleanfills and managed fills 2009 Table 7.5-1 Transfer station owners/operators Table 7.5-2 Strategic direction options and corresponding management model scenarios Table 7.5-3 Management Model 1: Licence Model Table 7.5-4 Management Model 2: Specified Licence Model Table 7.5-5 Management Model 3: The council outsource collection services: Polluter pays refuse and recycling collection services Table 7.5-6 Management Model 4: The council outsources collection services - mix of polluter pays and rates funded refuse and recycling collection services (market provision of organics) Table 7.5-7 Management Model 5: The council outsources collection services - mix of polluter pays and rates funded refuse and recycling collection services (Council provision of organics) Table 7.5-8 Management Model 6: The council outsources collection services rates funded refuse, recycling and organic waste collection services Table 7.5-9 Management Model 7: Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with Industry Table 7.5-10 Options assessment Table 7.6-1 Comparison of waste collection per capita in the former city council areas, and various adopted funding mechanisms Table 7.6-2 Comparison of waste collection per capita in the former district council areas, and various adopted funding mechanisms Table 8.1-1 Preferred options 29 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 38 40 49 51 55 108 119 121 123 125 127
127
129
131 133 135 178
179 185
11
References
References
198
199
Chapter 1 | 1
Executive summary
1 2
Footer typeface is Bliss light 7.5pt size. Leading is 8pt
Chapter 01 Bliss light. Document header, Bliss medium 7.5pt
Executive summary | 1
Executive summary
Auckland produced an estimated 1.4 million tonnes of waste to landfill in 2009. If total volumes of domestic and industrial/commercial waste were averaged per capita across Auckland, this would represent a tonne of waste per head of population every year - about 20% more than the national average, and is this quantity is increasing every year. While Auckland generates more waste than any other region in the country, Auckland Council has less direct control of waste infrastructure (landfills and resource recovery network / transfer stations) than any other metropolitan council in New Zealand. Efforts such as the introduction of kerbside recycling have made a measurable impact on reducing waste. But even with these initiatives, the general trend has been an increase in waste to landfill on a per capita basis. This trend is true not just for Auckland, but for the whole of New Zealand. Governments core policy, The New Zealand Waste Strategy Reducing harm, improving efficiency, sets out the Governments long-term priorities for waste management and minimisation. The Strategys two goals provide direction to local government, businesses (including the waste industry), and communities on where to focus their efforts in order to deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to all New Zealanders. The goals are: Reducing the harmful effects of waste Improving the efficiency of resource use. Harmful effects from waste include the emission of harmful greenhouse gases from waste decomposing in landfills, and toxic leachate escaping into the ground. Waste requires valuable open space to be allocated for sanitary landfills, which are a nuisance to neighbours and limit future land use. Waste symbolises economic inefficiency and is the evidence of an unsustainable use of resources. As more waste is produced and landfill space becomes scarcer, the cost of disposal continues to rise.
The Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008 provides the legislative imperative and tools to support progress toward the goals outlined in the NZWS. One tool is a waste disposal levy, half of which is allocated to Territorial Authorities (TAs) on a population basis, with the Auckland Council to receive approximately $4 million each year to help fund its waste minimisation initiatives. For this, the WMA delegates responsibility to TAs, who must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts (s42). TAs must prepare a waste assessment (s51) and a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) (s43) that provides for: a) methods for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authoritys district, including i. collection, recovery, recycling, treatment, and disposal services for the district to meet its current and future waste management and minimisation needs (whether provided by the territorial authority or otherwise) In Auckland waste management and minimisation services provided at present are very fragmented. Few key facilities are owned by the council, with two large commercial waste companies owning the majority of landfills and transfer station facilities. Due to competition between these two parties and the disjointed placement of existing transfer stations in relation to landfills, the result is inefficiency in waste handling and transportation to landfill. Without access to the waste value chain, the council has limited options for taking direct action to reduce waste to landfill.
Executive summary
Also, the commercial waste industry does not have the legal imperative, as the council does, to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation. Over 30 per cent of material in landfill could be diverted to beneficial use (recycling or composting), but there is little direct incentive for the private waste industry to take further action to reduce this waste. The former councils had each previously adopted the NZWS principles and within current constraints have been actively working toward waste minimisation focussed primarily on domestic services to households. A demand forecast assessment of growth drivers shows an increasing demand for recycling and resource recovery services to minimise waste. A key opportunity to provide for cost effective waste minimisation in Auckland is to introduce enhanced resource recovery activities at all existing transfer stations. This and related options for reducing waste rely on the council having operational control of the infrastructure with a greater degree of influence and access to the waste value chain to enable separation and resource recovery prior to land filling. This will allow use of economic disincentives (e.g. gate pricing mechanisms) and source separation requirements to reduce waste by up to 200,000 tonnes per year. Other key opportunities include the introduction of a domestic (kerbside) organics collection and composting service for food and green waste. If introduced, this service will allow for approximately 100,000 tonnes of waste to be converted into valuable compost. This option would be reliant on the utilisation of the existing private transfer station network to be financially viable.
This assessment proposes a package of options for the council to achieve greater influence on the entire waste stream to landfill, to achieve a maximum level of waste minimisation for the region estimated at up to 300,000 tonnes less waste to landfill each year. Through contractual arrangements, the council can assume operational control of the existing private transfer station network, in exchange for providing landfill owners with exclusive tonnage at an agreed landfill gate rate. There has been varying degrees of support amongst key waste industry stakeholders for this approach because it guarantees their return on investment, while providing a solution to the Auckland waste problem. In order to advance negotiations the council must express its desired position. By gaining operational control of the existing transfer station network, the council can introduce a wider range of waste minimisation tools and options to support its waste minimisation policy. Figure 1.1-1 outlines the waste management planning process. This process and subsequent development of proposals and options to enable the council in the promotion effective and efficient management of waste within the region have been developed to meet the key objective of increasing influence over the waste infrastructure. Without increasing the level of influence it is unlikely that the Auckland Council will meet the requirements and intent of the Waste Minimisation Act. Furthermore the council will find it very challenging to give regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy.
Executive summary
Figure 1.1-1 Waste management planning process
Waste Management Plan Process

Waste Assessment Control/Influence on Waste Stream
Option 1
Option 2
Management models
Option 3
Waste Stream/Waste Hierarchy Options Service delivery Policy
Preferred Actions
Waste Management & Minimisation Plan
Part A Strategy
Part B Action Plan
Part C Appendix
Table 7.5-2 in section 7.5.4 details the range of strategic direction options and management models as depicted in Figure 1.1-1 above.
The range of strategic direction options have been developed with each option containing a suite of management methods which reflect some degree of control over the waste stream. After analysis strategic option 3 coupled with management model 7 is the preferred way forward. These scenarios can be seen in Table 1.1-1 overleaf.
Executive summary
Strategic direction option 3: Option 2 plus Operational influence Management model 7 only or model 7 plus one from model 1-6 Strategic direction option 2: Status quo plus new systems to maximise diversion Strategic direction option 1: Status quo plus some streamlining
Management Models Corresponding to the Strategic Direction Options

The council out sources contracts
3 Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections Note: The council awards contracts for polluter-pays refuse and recycling collection services. Organics collection provided by the market. 4 Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded Note: Contract for polluter-pays refuse collection and rates funded recycling collection services. Organics collection provided by the market. Contracts with collectors to provide refuse and recycling collection services. Refuse would be a polluterpays service while the recycling collection is rates funded. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through user charges and rates. Organics (garden waste) would be supplied by the market as per currently. Refuse, recycling and organics collections undertaken via contracts with the council. Polluter-pays refuse service. Rates funded recycling service. Refuse, recycling and organics collections undertaken via contracts with the council. Polluter-pays refuse service. Rates funded recycling service. Rates funded organics service. Contracts with collectors to provide refuse, recycling and organics services. Refuse collection is polluter pays. Recycling and organics collections are rates funded. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through user charges and rates. 5 Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded Note: Contract for a polluterpays refuse service and rates funded recycling and organic collection services. The council has contracts with collectors to provide polluter-pays refuse and recycling services. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through user charges. Organics (garden waste) collections would be supplied by the market as it is currently. 6 Rates funded refuse, recycling and organics collections Note: Contract for rates funded refuse, recycling and organic collections.
Description of service
The council provides licence to operators
Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry

7 Influence over infrastructure
Management Models
1 Licence Note: Contractors specify the types of services provided.
2 Specified Licence Note: The council specifies the collection service types.
Method
Exclusive collection licence is tendered by geographical area or potentially by 21 local board areas. Licence and tender is let on the following criteria: ercentage of waste allowed p to landfill ontractor charge to residential c properties ypes of services provided by t the contractor. Refuse and recycling collections undertaken via contracts with the council. Polluter-pays refuse service. Recycling services are polluterpays but there could be partial subsidisation to ensure cost differentials.
Exclusive collection licence is tendered by area. It is possible to correlate to 21 local board areas. Licence and tender let on the following criteria: ercentage of waste allowed p to landfill ontractor charge to residential c properties he council specifies the service t types provided.
Contracts with collectors to provide refuse, recycling and organics collection services. All collections are rates funded. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through rates.
The council has operational control of all infrastructure and kerbside residential collection contracts. The council either leases/ licences or contracts key infrastructure. Collections licensed or contracted separately but with an option for RTS / landfill owners to also provide these services. Refuse, recycling and organics collections undertaken via contracts with the council. All collections are rates funded. Refuse, recycling and organics collections and processing services undertaken via contracts with the council. Residual waste services polluter-pays All other services can be rates or polluter-pays Ability to subsidise recycling, organics and other diversion services through surpluses in RTS operations. No rates funding required. (if polluter-pays options used)
Table 1.1-1 Strategic direction options and corresponding management model scenarios
Kerbside collection services
Private contractors provide all collection services.
Private contractors provide all refuse, recycling and organics collection services.
Funding/costs
All services to be polluter-pays. The contractor is not expected to carry unacceptable credit. If it is identified that certain areas are uneconomic, or some properties are high risk, the council has the option to fund these via rates to ensure a minimum level of service is provided to all ratepayers. The council charges a licence fee to recover costs of waste .
Executive summary
Landfill disposal and RTS operation is linked to the councils disposal contracts
Cost per household for the Options and Management Models considered above is summarised below.
Council Weekly Rates ACC $3.06 NSCC $0.77 WCC (-$0.32)
The following table indicates the Solid Waste weekly rates component by the former councils by household.
RDC $1.53 MCC $4.31 FDC $1.01 PDC $2.67
It should be noted that these councils had different funding methods and services. The above table indicates 2010/11 solid waste services against rates costs and does not include polluter pays charges imposed by the councils.
Whilst these polluter pays charges vary by council it could be assumed that an average of $2 per week could be added to the above weekly costs where user charges exist. The following table indicates the proposed weekly rates component of the options to be considered;. Option 5: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $2.75 Option 6: Rates funded refuse, recycling and organics collections $4.02 Option 7: Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry (-$0.12)
Option 1: Licence
Option 2: Specified Licence
Option 3: Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections $0.69
Option 4: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $1.63
$0.66
$0.66
The following table indicates the average weekly polluter pays component of the options to be considered; Option 1: Licence Option 2: Specified Licence Option 3: Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections $2.73 Option 4: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $1.78 Option 5: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $0.93 Option 6: Rates funded refuse, recycling and organics collections $0.00 Option 7: Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry $0.93
$3.37
$3.37
It is to be noted that financials of Management Model 7 overrides the financial of management model options 1-6. Following on from the strategic direction options and management models a suite of primary and supporting actions has been evaluated. Figure 1.1-3 outlines the range of actions. The waste assessment concludes that if council is to make any progress towards waste minimisation targets, the forth coming waste management and minimisation plan will need to focus on gaining a degree of control or influence over the waste infrastructure. Without an enhanced level of control the council will struggle to meet the requirements and intent of the Waste Minimisation Act.
Executive summary
Figure 1.1-3 shows the key options developed from a suite of high level options as a result of the waste assessment process. These options will form the basis of the Councils Waste Management and Minimisation plan
Figure 1.1-3 Key objectives
Key Objectives
Reduction of waste to landfill
Reduction of harm from waste
Adherence to the hierarchy of waste
Delivery of most cost effective and efficient solution to meet WMA and NZWS while: - maximising diversion - minimising cost to ratepayers
Strategic option 3: Influence over waste infrastructure (management model 7)

aisethecostofdisposal(R1) R an organic waste to landfill (O3) B Enhance packaging design controls and EPR (P4) Marketing/Behaviour change campaign (P7) Business assistance to reduce/reuse/recycle (C5) Promote home composting (O2) Business assistance to reduce/reuse/recycle (C5) Ban packaging to landfill (P6) Promote REBRI and Greenstar to C&D sector (C3)
Lobby for container deposit legislation (P5) Support second hand charities (S4)
Enact cleanfill licensing regulation (C2)
Implementorganicwastecollection(O1) ImplementexpandedMRBfortnightlycollection(P1) InvestigateoptionsforseparateKCRmixedrecycling&glass(P2) Investigate expanding recyclable range (P3) Continue existing public place recycling (PPR), investigate expansion of PPR (P8)
The higher up the Waste hierarchy pyramid, the more: aste education is a W cornerstone in building the communities knowledge, understanding and skills in waste minimisation and recycling upport council and delivery S of its waste services and operations eople need to be provided with P knowledge and skills to take steps to avoid or reduce waste onsistently act according to C the waste hierarchy ncouragement and support E is needed for people to take personal responsibility for their waste
DevelopRRCwithC&Drecoveryfacilities(C1) Extend producer responsibility (C4) promote product stewardship/EPR schemes (H3) Develop RRC with special waste recovery facilities (S2) Regional bylaw for illegal dumping and litter (L1) Promote market development of organics (O4) educe the potential for environmental R harm caused by hazardous waste (T1) arketing/Behaviour change M hazardous waste (H4) roducer stewardship of hazardous P waste (S3)
Waste hierarchy
Reduction Re-use
Recycling Recovery
Treatment Disposal*
Minimise harm from disposal of waste*
Key
* Investigate/implement alternative inorganic waste collection methods (S1) Hazardous Waste at RRP/RTS (H1) User pays policy for household refuse (F1) Council influence over waste disposal (R1) Regional behaviour change programmes Be a tidy kiwi or similar
Primary Options (K1) Supplementary Options (S1) R Residual waste O Organics P Packaging C Cleanfill/C&D waste H Hazardous waste T Treatment S Special waste L Legislation/Regulation F Funding
Executive summary
Chapter 1 | 8
The Auckland Council waste assessment introduction
1 2
Chapter 1 | 9
TheAucklandCouncilwaste assessment introduction

This waste assessment has been prepared as prescribed in the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) s51. All territorial authorities in New Zealand are legally required to conduct a waste assessment and have regard to it in the review and preparation of their Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The WMA requires that this initial review process be completed and a new WMMP be adopted no later than July 2012. There is no exception made in the legislation for the newly formed Auckland Council (the council) with respect to completing the WMMP process in the stated timeframe. Infact the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires the Auckland Council to decide on proposals presented by 1 May 2011. The WMA also requires that this waste assessment be notified with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) when it is drafted for public consultation. This process is required at intervals of no less than every six years. The waste assessment also includes a summary review of reasonably practicable options available to the council in terms of how it can meet future demand for services as well as how it might achieve its waste management and minimisation objectives. Preferred options are considered in this waste assessment for the purposes of later incorporation into a draft waste management and minimisation plan. This is to be prepared for public consultation prior to formal adoption and implementation. This regional waste assessment is intended as a summary of the circumstances and options in relation to waste management and minimisation across the entire Auckland Council region.
1.2 Process for development

This waste assessment has been drafted during a time of major change. The assessment was prepared during the amalgamation of the seven former territorial authorities and the Regional Council into a single unitary authority for the Auckland region, the new Auckland Council. This waste assessment has been developed as part of the amalgamation process at the request of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA), and input has been provided by all of the former councils who are members of the Auckland Waste Officers Forum. The ATAs role in the waste planning process, has, as of the time of writing, been provided for by s13 (1) (cb) of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. This waste assessment draws heavily on previous work undertaken jointly by the councils of the region, such as the draft Regional Strategic Priorities for Waste (2007), the Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment (2009), and the Investigation into Options for Beneficial Processing of Food Waste (2009). For the purposes of this waste assessment, the information compiled is in relation to the whole of the region that now comprises the Auckland Council (the council) and while it will include information specific to the seven (7) former territorial authorities and the
1.1 What is the purpose of a waste assessment and how is it conducted?

The purpose of Auckland Council undertaking a waste assessment is to gather background information regarding levels of waste, existing services and future needs, to enable the council to determine a logical set of priorities and inform its activities. To determine priorities, several steps are undertaken. First, the waste assessment compiles and analyses available information on existing waste management and minimisation infrastructure, as well as data regarding waste and diverted materials produced in the Auckland region. Another key step of the waste assessment is the requirement for forecasting demand for services. This demand forecasting step is intended to provide a forward planning framework that considers both public health protection issues along with the Councils legal requirement to promote efficient and effective waste minimisation in its area.
Chapter 1. The Auckland council waste assessment introduction
Chapter 1 | 10
Regional Council of the Auckland Region, it is drafted as a waste assessment for the purposes of considering options from a whole-of-Auckland perspective. The transfer of parts of Franklin District (now incorporated into Auckland Council) into Waikato and Hauraki Districts has not been taken into account when compiling the information, as separate data for these areas are not available, and the quantities of material involved are not significant. It is important to note that while some information in this document is complex, as it has been collected from different sources and represents different waste systems in place across various communities, the main aim has been to consider regional waste issues and identify and review all reasonable and practicable options available to the new Auckland council for addressing its waste management and minimisation needs.
1.3 What does this waste assessment contain?

The waste assessment is a legally prescribed process as outlined in Appendix E, but councils have flexibility in how they undertake their waste assessments. Generally, they should include six main components: A compilation and analysis of the available data on waste streams and diverted materials in the region, and any data trends (see chapter 3) An inventory of the existing waste management and minimisation services, infrastructure and facilities for the whole of the region, including both public and privately operated services (see chapter 4) A forecast of future demand for waste management and minimisation services and consideration of waste minimisation objectives (see chapters 5-6) A review of reasonably practicable options to meet the demands and waste minimisation objectives of the region and presentation of preferred options (see chapters 7-8) Statements of Proposal related to preferred options (chapter 9).
1.4 Key terms and acronyms

Auckland Council The unitary authority created by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which combines the functions of the seven former territorial authorities (TAs) with that of the former Auckland Regional Council. For the purposes of this waste assessment, equivalent to the area covered by the former Auckland Regional Council, which represented the boundaries of the seven former TAs (It is noted that the boundaries of the new Auckland Council include changes to the regional boundary in the Franklin Ward, but information has been collected on the basis of the previous Franklin District boundary). A cleanfill is any disposal facility that accepts only cleanfill material, which is defined as material that, when buried, will have no adverse effect on people or the environment. Waste generated from the construction or demolition of a building including the preparation and/or clearance of the property or site. This excludes materials such as clay, soil and rock when those materials are associated with infrastructure such as road construction and maintenance, but includes building-related infrastructure.
Auckland region
Cleanfill
C&D Waste
Chapter 1 | 11
Key terms and acronyms (cont)

ARC Diverted Material Domestic waste ETS Landfill The former Auckland Regional Council Anything that is no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded. Waste from domestic activity in households.
Emissions Trading Scheme A disposal facility as defined in s7 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, excluding incineration. Referred to as a sanitary landfill in this document. Includes, by definition in WMA, only those facilities that accept household waste. Local Government Act A disposal site requiring a resource consent to accept well defined types of non-household waste, e.g. low-level contaminated soils or industrial by-products, such as sewage biosolids. The Ministry for the Environment Mobile Garbage Bins Materials Recovery Facility New Zealand Waste Strategy Refuse Transfer Station Territorial Authority (a city or district council) Waste means, according to the WMA: (a) anything disposed of or discarded; and (b) includes a type of waste that is defined by its composition or source (for example, organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste); and (c ) to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded.
LGA 2002 Managed fill
MfE MGB MRF NZWS RTS TA Waste
Waste Assessment WMA WMMP
As defined by s51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. A waste assessment must be completed whenever a WMMP is reviewed. Waste Minimisation Act 2008 A waste management and minimisation plan as defined in s43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.
Chapter 1 | 12
1.5 Completenessandaccuracy
This document was initially prepared between October 2009 and October 2010, using information gathered from a variety of sources, including data managed by the eight former councils of the Auckland region. Some data was also sourced from private operators or has been compiled from other published sources. The information in this waste assessment relates to the previous TA boundaries and not those of the new Auckland Council area. While every effort has been made to achieve a reasonable degree of accuracy in this assessment, it should be noted that there are significant limitations due to the level of data availability. Where readily available, actual data have been collated and recorded with their source noted. In some cases where estimates have been used, the basis for the estimates and other data limitations have been indicated.
Details regarding any limiting factors in preparing the waste assessment that are deemed to have materially impacted on the completeness or accuracy of the data, forecasts or options assessment are noted where relevant. The information obtained for the purposes of completing this waste assessment was considered appropriate when giving regard to: the significance of the information the costs of, and difficulty in, obtaining the information the extent of the TAs resources the possibility that the council may be directed under the Health Act 1956 to provide the services referred to in that Act.
Chapter 1 | 13
Chapter 2 | 14
Strategic documents and legislation are combined in New Zealand to form the basic framework for waste management and minimisation. This chapter contains a brief summary of the national policy context and key legislation that the council must consider in the development of its waste assessment and WMMP. It also discusses issues relating to the Auckland waste market and how these impact on the councils strategic objectives.
Although not previously required to specifically consider the NZWS in the development of their Waste Management Plans, each of the former seven TAs of the Auckland region either: formally adopted the NZWS 2002 vision and targets in principle as their own or drew explicit references to the NZWS in the stating of their overall objectives.
2.1 The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS)

Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the Governments core policy, The New Zealand Waste Strategy reducing harm, improving efficiency (NZWS). The NZWS provides high level direction to guide the use of the tools available to manage and minimise waste in New Zealand. Tools available include: the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Climate Change Response Act 2002 and Climate Change (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 international conventions Ministry for the Environment guidelines, codes of practice voluntary initiatives. To convey the high-level direction the Strategy has two goals: Reducing the harmful effects of waste Improving the efficiency of resource use The WMA s44 requires that councils have regard to the NZWS, or other such policy that is subsequently developed, when preparing a WMMP. The Strategys flexible approach will ensure that waste management and minimisation activities are appropriate to local situations and desired community outcomes.
Implications and recommendations:

The NZWS 2010 provides high level direction to guide the use of the tools available to manage and minimise waste in New Zealand. The Strategy allows for a flexible approach and the Government expects that councils will set waste reduction targets that are realistic for their given circumstances. All of the former TAs of the Auckland Region drew specific reference to the NZWS 2002, in their Waste Management Plans developed under the Local Government Act. They also had notably similar overall objectives that are well aligned to the waste minimisation aims of the NZWS. These waste management plans (including targets) are now considered to be the existing WMMP of the Auckland Council as a result of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. In spite of this, the emphasis of waste management systems in Auckland and New Zealand largely favour landfill disposal over waste reduction. The international waste hierarchy is often quoted but seldom implemented. This is because of conflicts of interest by waste companies and lack of incentives/disincentives to encourage the preferred behaviours. For the purposes of this waste assessment, regard has been given to the NZWS, local targets and existing targets of the Auckland waste plan. It is recommended that the council formally adopts the NZWS, as the basis for contributing to its future planning. This is discussed further in chapter 6.
Chapter 2. Legislative and strategic context
Chapter 2 | 15
2.2 Key legislation

A number of Acts of Parliament provide the legal framework for waste management and minimisation in New Zealand, with the primary legislation driving waste management and minimisation planning being the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008, the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Emissions Trading Amendment Act 2008. Taken together, these Acts provide the legislative imperative and tools to support progress toward the high-level direction outlined in the NZWS. Because the NZWS and legislation are cornerstone to waste management and minimisation, careful attention has been given to these in developing the waste assessment. The following section will provide a brief summary of the WMA and these other key Acts, stating their relevance to the Auckland Council situation.
However Council will need to decide on a high level strategic direction for the draft WMMP, before detailed analysis is undertaken to validate methodologies proposed for long-term integrated waste management and minimisation planning and services. Depending on the strategic direction chosen by Council, an extension to the 1 May 2011 deadline will have to be negotiated with the Ministry for the Environment.
2.2-2 The Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008

The enactment of the WMA in 2008 represented a change in the Governments approach to managing and minimising waste. The WMA recognises the need to focus efforts higher on the waste hierarchy as discussed in Chapter 4 in terms of reducing and recovering waste earlier in its life cycle, shifting focus away from treatment and disposal. This change in focus is reflected in new tools enabled by the WMA, such as a framework for developing accredited product stewardship schemes and the creation of a national waste disposal levy, half of which is distributed back to councils on a population basis. The WMA represents an update and modernisation of waste legislation to emphasise and promote waste minimisation. The purpose of the Act (s3) is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to protect the environment from harm; and to provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits. The Act contains a mechanism for the accreditation and monitoring of product stewardship schemes to minimise waste from products. Product stewardship relates to a process through which those involved in the lifecycle of a product or service are involved in identifying and managing its health, safety and environmental impacts from the development and manufacture through to its use and final disposal. Ideally, product stewardship schemes will be designed to promote reduction of waste at the source, as well as make recycling, treatment and disposal safer and more efficient. TAs have the opportunity to benefit from some schemes as they may improve the recovery and diversion of products they currently manage and, in some cases, TAs may be directly or indirectly involved in a scheme either on a voluntary or statutory basis.
2.2-1 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 No 37

The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 provides for the existing TAs waste management plans to be deemed to be the Auckland Councils waste management and minimisation plan (ACWMMP) from 1 November 2010. Furthermore, not later than 1 May 2011, the Auckland Council must consider and decide on proposals prepared for it by the ATA under section 13(1)(cb)(iii) of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act. It also provides for the council to review the ACWMMP, before 30 June 2012, in the manner required by the WMA.

As mentioned above, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, Section 84 (3), requires Council to consider and decide on proposals prepared for long-term integrated waste management and minimisation planning and services by no later than 1 May 2011. It is considered that this deadline will compromise the decision making framework due to the inadequate time to test and validate proposed methodologies via rigorous analytical process involving economic and commercial analysis before proceeding down any of the paths.
Chapter 2 | 16
More on this topic is discussed in section 5.5. Another key provision of the WMA is the imposition of an initial $10 plus GST levy on each tonne of waste to landfill to be paid by landfill operators. The levy will be used to fund waste minimisation projects, as it will be partly distributed to councils (50 per cent) with the rest provided to a contestable Waste Minimisation Fund. The levy will be reviewed in 2012. Initial estimates, based on population and the anticipated total waste levy to be collected, indicate Auckland Council will receive approximately $5 million per year that must, according to WMA, be spent on waste minimisation activities in accordance with its WMMP. While obviously benefiting from the waste levy, the council must carefully consider its own responsibilities under the WMA. Part 4 is fully dedicated to the responsibilities of TAs which must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts (s42). The WMA goes on to say that, when preparing a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, the council must provide for: b) methods for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authoritys district, including i. collection, recovery, recycling, treatment, and disposal services for the district to meet its current and future waste management and minimisation needs (whether provided by the territorial authority or otherwise) Part 4 also includes bylaw-making powers for waste management and minimisation that are in addition to the bylaw powers of the LGA 2002 (see section 2.2.3 below). The WMA does not prescribe specific waste management and minimisation targets, structure or content for council WMMPs, thus allowing significant local flexibility in approach. It is noted however that there is the scope within the WMA for the Minister to set performance standards for the implementation of WMMPs and for councils that are not making satisfactory progress on their plans to receive Ministerial direction to alter their WMMPs.

Waste disposal rates at sanitary landfills in the Auckland region range from $40 to $100, depending on the size of the disposal contract and which landfill is used. At $10 per tonne, the waste levy does not provide an economic disincentive to waste at a level that promotes a significant behavioural shift. Internationally, levies have tended to increase steadily over time once introduced. If this occurs, the levy will become an increasingly more effective tool for minimising waste to landfill. As the landfill rates increase with the waste levy, this will serve to incentivise alternatives to landfill, provide seed funding for their development, and see other methods for managing and minimising waste become more viable. The other possible benefit is that if the waste levy increases, the Auckland Councils own allocation may increase, depending on the amount of waste diverted from landfill, further supporting waste minimisation initiatives at a local level. The waste levy increases when combined with the anticipated cost impact from 2013 of the new Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (as referred to in section 2.2.3) on waste to landfill, this will create a greater economic incentive for waste generation to be avoided, and for councils to divert waste to beneficial use. The Auckland Council and its ratepayers will benefit financially if they can find cost-effective, sustainable methods of diverting materials from landfill to beneficial use, as they can avoid the increasing costs of waste disposal. As the cost of landfilling increases over time, this will improve the economic viability of alternatives to landfill, such as waste minimisation services. The council must also take into consideration its wider responsibilities under the WMA for the whole of the waste stream, in that the council must now promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation whether or not they are the direct service provider (s42). This is a significantly wider scope of responsibility, compared to the previous legislation, and may require the council to look at methods for addressing this responsibility that go beyond its previous limited level of activity. This is discussed in more detail with respect to the options as outlined in chapter 7.
Chapter 2 | 17
At the time of writing, there has been no specific performance standards set for councils, but any such performance standards in the future will need to be considered in the planning process as they may have a direct impact on the councils targets, strategy and waste related activities. The Auckland Council should also exercise consideration in setting the targets and objectives of their WMMP to ensure they are measurable and achievable and that resources are set aside to implement them adequately. Because councils are now required to report on their progress toward their WMMPs, they need to be transparent in their approach to ensure accountability and to avoid potential repercussions. The council will also need to exercise a transparent approach in utilising waste levy funds to ensure they are used only for waste minimisation initiatives as aligned to the Councils WMMP.
guide to the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of a confirmed method to fulfil obligations under section 62 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Draft Climate Change (Unique Emissions Factors) Amendment Regulations 2010 can also be found on the MfE website.1

The Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2009 was enacted in December and now contains definitions of waste comparable with the WMA. Presently, TAs are not specifically required by the WMA 2008 to consider greenhouse gas emissions in their waste management and minimisation planning processes. There are potentially large cost implications to the Auckland Council, as emissions liabilities are anticipated for all landfills servicing the region, even those that include gas capture technology, although their liabilities may be lower than for landfills without gas capture or flaring. Ultimately, these costs will be passed on to the council by landfill operators. Depending on the price of carbon units and the final emissions factors determined for the landfills being used (e.g. Whitford, Hampton Downs and/or Redvale Landfills, all of which have landfill gas capture technology that will reduce emissions liability), initial estimates indicate that the ETS could have the impact between $10-20 per tonne of waste to landfill, but may be more. The implications for the Auckland Council are that the ETS will increase the cost of operating landfills in the region by increasing the base cost of each tonne of waste to landfill. There is a likelihood that the emissions liability will be lower for landfills with gas capture, but they are unlikely to be exempt. Organic waste diversion is incentivised, as the relatively minor emissions from organics composting will be exempt from the ETS. For these reasons, the ETS will be an important driver of waste diversion from landfill, as it creates another economic incentive to divert materials, particularly methane-generating organic waste. It is therefore recommended that the potential ETS costs be considered when scoping options, particularly in relation to organic waste diversion.
2.2-3 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008

The Climate Change Response Amendment Act 2008 provides the basis for a New Zealand Greenhouse Gas ETS. The Act will require landfill owners to purchase emission trading units to cover methane emissions generated from the landfill. Should any future solid waste incineration plants be constructed, the Act would also require emission trading units to be purchased to cover carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the incineration of household wastes. The waste sector did not formally enter the ETS until 1 January 2011, at which time voluntary reporting can occur. Mandatory reporting requirements will apply from January 2012 and emission units will need to be surrendered as of 2013. The method to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from landfills (methane) and incinerators is yet to be regulated. However part of the Climate Change Response (Disposal Facilities) Regulations will be the same as the regulations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 Waste Minimisation (Calculation and Payment of the waste disposal levy) Regulations 2009. The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Climate Change Response (Disposal Facilities) Regulations 2010 provides an analysis of options that may prove a useful
www.mfe.govt.nz
Chapter 2 | 18
These issues have been considered when assessing the various waste minimisation options for the Auckland region, as outlined in chapter 7.
2.2-4 The Local Government Act 1974 Part 31 (now repealed) and the Local Government Act 2002
Together these Acts required councils to assess how well they provided collection and reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal of waste in their district, and made councils responsible for the effective and efficient implementation of their waste management plan. The provisions of the LGA 1974, Part 31 and the sanitary assessment provisions for refuse (i.e., solid waste) contained in Part 7 of the LGA 2002, have been repealed and these provisions are now largely embodied within the WMA. Existing waste management plans prepared under the LGA 1974 are deemed to be waste management and minimisation plans under the WMA (s43[4]). These existing plans must be revised under the WMA before 1 July 2012 (s50). The LGA 2002 contains various provisions that may apply to TAs when preparing their WMMPs, including consultation and bylaw provisions. Part 8, s145146, provide TAs with broad bylaw powers, including the specific power to make solid waste and waste management bylaws. Part 8, s158, outlines provisions for the review of bylaws. The procedure for making a bylaw, and the requirement for completing a special consultative procedure when making a bylaw, are contained in sections 155 and 156. The LGA 2002, Part 6, s77, refers to legislative requirements for TA decision-making, including consideration of the benefits and costs of different options in terms of the present, and future, social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the district. The Act also includes requirements for information to be included in a long term council community plan (LTCCP), including summary information about their WMMP.
costs/benefits and operational requirements of waste management methods. This will ensure that the implications of adopting particular activities or policies for managing waste are understood.
2.2-5 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

The RMA provides guidelines and regulations for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Although it does not specifically define waste, the Act addresses waste management and minimisation activity through controls on the environmental effects of waste management and minimisation activities and facilities through national, regional and local policy, standards, plans and consent procedures. In this role, the RMA exercises considerable influence over facilities for waste disposal and recycling, recovery, treatment and others in terms of the potential impacts of these facilities on the environment. Under s30 of the RMA, regional councils are responsible for controlling the discharge of contaminants into, or onto, land, air or water. These responsibilities are addressed through regional planning and discharge consent requirements. Other regional council responsibilities that may be relevant to waste and recoverable materials facilities include; managing the adverse effects of storing, using, disposing of and transporting hazardous wastes; the dumping of wastes from ships, aircraft and offshore installations into the coastal marine area; and the allocation and use of water. Under the RMA, TA responsibility includes controlling the effects of land-use activities that have the potential to create adverse effects on the natural and physical resources of their district. Facilities involved in the disposal, treatment or use of waste or recoverable materials may carry this potential. Permitted, controlled, discretionary, non-complying and prohibited activities and their controls are specified within district planning documents, thereby defining further land-use-related resource consent requirements for waste-related facilities. In addition, the RMA provides for the development of national policy statements and for the setting

A waste assessment and WMMP should refer to these requirements and should set out the financial, social and environmental issues and impacts, including
Chapter 2 | 19
of national environmental standards (NES). There is currently one enacted NES that directly influences the management of waste in New Zealand the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) Regulations 2004 (the NES for Air Quality). This NES requires certain landfills (e.g., those with a capacity of more than 1 million tonnes of waste) to collect landfill gases and either flare them or use them as fuel for generating electricity. The result is increased infrastructure and operational costs for qualifying landfills, although with costs potentially offset by the harnessing of captured emissions for energy generation. Unless exemption criteria are met, the NES for Air Quality also prohibits the lighting of fires and burning of wastes at landfills, the burning of tyres, bitumen burning for road maintenance, burning coated wire or oil, and the operation of high-temperature hazardous waste incinerators. These prohibitions limit the range of waste treatment/disposal options available within New Zealand with the aim of protecting air quality.
These requirements would need to be addressed within operational and health and safety plans for waste facilities. Hazardous substances commonly managed by TAs include used oil, household and agricultural chemicals, LPG and batteries. The HSNO Act provides minimum national standards that may apply to the disposal of a hazardous substance. However, under the RMA a regional council or TA may set more stringent controls relating to the use of land for storing, using, disposing of or transporting hazardous substances.
2.3-2 The Health Act 1956

The Health Act 1956 places obligations on TAs (if required by the Minister of Health) to provide sanitary works for the collection and disposal of refuse, for the purpose of public health protection (Part 2 Powers and duties of local authorities, s25). It specifically identifies certain waste management practices as nuisances (s29) and offensive trades (Third Schedule). The Health Act enables TAs to raise loans for certain sanitary works and/or to receive government grants and subsidies, where available. Health Act provisions for the removal of refuse by local authorities have been repealed by local government legislation. The Public Health Bill is currently progressing through Parliament. It is a major legislative reform, reviewing and updating the Health Act 1956, but it contains similar provisions for sanitary services to those currently contained in the Health Act 1956.
2.3 Other legislation

The following is a summary of other legislation that is to be considered with respect to waste management and minimisation planning.
2.3-1 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the HSNO Act)
The HSNO Act addresses the management of substances that pose a significant risk to the environment and/or human health, from manufacture to disposal. The Act relates to waste management primarily through controls on the import or manufacture of new hazardous materials and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances. Hazardous substances may be explosive, flammable, have the capacity to oxidise, be toxic to humans and/ or the environment, corrosive, or have the ability to develop any of these properties when in contact with air or water. Depending on the amount of a hazardous substance on site, the HSNO Act sets out requirements for material storage, staff training and certification.
2.3-3 The Litter Act 1979 (and Amendment Act 2006)

The Litter Act provides councils with powers to create Litter Control Officers who have powers to issue infringement notices with fines for those who have committed a littering offence. The Litter Act was amended on 27 June 2006. The principal amendment was to strengthen the powers of TAs infringement fees, which are now increased from the original $100 to a maximum of $400. Territorial Authorities may adopt the amended infringement notice provisions provided they pass a new resolution, including the 14 days public notification. TAs use the Litter Act as a method for regulating litter and
Chapter 2 | 20
illegal dumping, although the enforcement process is difficult and often unsuccessful. There have been very few successful prosecutions in New Zealand under the Litter Act. A council legal advisor stated that prosecuting litter offenders through the courts is not the most efficient way of dealing with the litter problem as the fines imposed are not high enough to act as a deterrent.
procured, many councils now require robust data and information (including health and safety) to ensure that they can make a considered choice of collection methodology.
2.4 Local context What it means forAucklandCouncil

The introduction of the WMA is intended as the catalyst for significant change towards waste minimisation. There is a greater focus by TAs on waste minimisation initiatives, on working regionally, and in some cases in conjunction with the commercial waste industry. Most of the separate former councils of the Auckland region have been working together over the last two years to consider how their efforts might be coordinated toward achieving the maximum waste minimisation benefit from the use of waste levy funds. In 2007-2008, through the Auckland Waste Officers Forum, a draft Strategic Priorities for Waste document was developed for the Auckland Region in response to an Auckland councils Chief Executives Forum request. This work highlighted that there are significant consistencies with respect to the adopted waste management and minimisation objectives and priority waste streams across all of the former councils. The agreed priorities for waste minimisation action were cited as: 1. Organic waste 2. Construction and demolition waste 3. Recyclables and packaging 4. Hazardous waste 5. Inorganic/special wastes 6. Illegal dumping and litter.ii These regional priorities are well aligned to national priorities and targets. They are also reflected in the individual councils current (as of 2010) Waste Management Plans. In some cases the TAs within the region are already working together to implement key opportunities.
2.3-4 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992

The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 outlines health and safety responsibilities for the management of hazards in relation to employees at work. This could potentially include working with hazardous substances and the collection and management of waste. The Act requires employers to identify and manage hazards present in the workplace, provide adequate training and supervision, and supply appropriate protective equipment. Employers must take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees while at work, and in particular must take all practicable steps to (amongst other things) ensure employees are not exposed to hazards arising out of the arrangement, disposal, organisation, processing, storage, transport or use of materials in their place of work. The HSE Act places duties on any person in control of a place of work, (e.g. a principal), to ensure that people are not harmed by any hazard resulting from work activities. Those who employ contractors, therefore, have the same occupational health and safety obligations to contractors or contracted labour as they do their own employees. Employers therefore need to establish health and safety systems to manage the health and safety of any contractors or contracted labour.i Principals cannot contract out of their responsibilities for health and safety through contract disclaimer clauses. From discussions with the council waste officers of the former TAs in the region, it is believed that the council staff are aware that the council is principal to the contract and take health and safety responsibilities seriously. At the time services are
Chapter 2 | 21
Of particular relevance is the Investigation into Options for the Beneficial Processing of Food Waste (appended as Appendix C-1&2) and work in relation to the development of an enhanced resource recovery network. It is important to note that the regional priorities for waste minimisation were previously set within the context of the limited role the former councils were playing in the overall waste infrastructure and processing system at the time. The choice of priorities for the Auckland Council could change if the council assumes a greater role into the future. Waste management has been indicated as one of the Governments top eight priority environmental issuesiii and the Governments preferred policy of waste minimisation has been signalled in the revision of the NZWS, the passing into law of the WMA 2008, and the soon to be enacted ETS. The Government has clearly outlined its objectives and goals for minimising waste to landfill and reducing greenhouse emissions. While not specifically required by the WMA to consider its greenhouse emissions in waste planning decisions, there is an obvious relationship between key legislation and desire by Government to see vertical integration of these issues into planning. There are also several new legislative tools provided to enable the implementation of the New Zealand Waste Strategy. In the recently published Waste Management and Minimisation Planning Guidance for Territorial Authorities, MfE states: Effective and efficient waste management and minimisation is achieved when less waste is going to landfill, when resources are used wisely, when the economic cost of managing waste is reduced and when societal costs and risks are minimised. It is unlikely that the best individual economic, environmental, cultural and societal outcomes can be met simultaneously, and there may be a higher economic cost (for instance) to achieve optimum environmental, social and cultural outcomes. In these cases councils must weigh the costs of benefits of each aspect (economic, cultural, social and environmental) to arrive at the optimum overall solution.
Similarly, there may be a trade-off between short and long-term costs for instance, greater up-front costs may lead to lower on-going operational costs into the future. Thus, Governments preferred policy must be considered within the local context. Reorganisation of Auckland is being driven by the need for a coordinated regional strategy, decisive leadership, and robust infrastructure, facilities and services. The establishment of a single region-wide unitary authority is a critical step to overcome fragmentation issues experienced across a number of council activities, including solid waste management and minimisation. The waste situation of the Auckland region is unique. Auckland has high waste generation in terms of its total waste output for the region, yet has a low level of TA involvement in owning and managing waste infrastructure when compared to other major metropolitan areas of New Zealand. A simple breakdown of the Auckland regions waste stream is shown in Figure 2.4-1. The diagram includes all types of waste and diverted materials, and landfill is used to refer to all types of land disposal, including cleanfills and managed fills.
Council controlled waste to landfills 350,000 7%
Figure 2.4-1 Total waste stream and diverted materials
Private/commercial sources diverted materials 1,537,000 32%
Council controlled diverted materials 130,000 3% Private/commercial sources waste to landfills 2,836,000 58%
Chapter 2 | 22
While the council currently controls just 10 12 per cent of the total waste (and diverted materials) stream as shown in the figure above, it has all of the responsibility and accountability for promoting and ensuring the effective and efficient management and minimisationiv of the whole of the Auckland regional waste stream.2 The lack of control of the Auckland waste stream over the last decade has been shown to pose a major constraint on the ability of the former councils to achieve efficient and effective waste minimisation. This situation can be compared to that of Christchurch or Wellington for example, where there is significantly greater direct TA involvement and ownership of key waste management and minimisation infrastructure, often in partnership with private industry. Further discussion of this issue appears in chapter 7. The recent former Auckland Regional Council document entitled Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment (Appendix C-2) clearly articulated these key issues stating that: the overall ownership and operational structure of the waste market in the Auckland Region is clearly not optimal and that; The evolution of current governance structures has resulted in Auckland region TAs having limited tools with which to effectively influence the direction of waste management in the region. This has resulted in a focus by TAs on the council-collected waste streams over which they have the most control, but which ultimately account for only about 10% of the total waste and diverted material flows.
For Auckland to be able to achieve the objectives of the Waste Minimisation Act and meet the intent of the New Zealand Waste Strategy, it will be essential that these shortcomings are addressed.v The infrastructure that is currently owned by the individual TAs of the Auckland region is minimal and fragmented. The reorganisation of local government through the creation of the Auckland Council is a key opportunity to address these important issues through changes to how the regions waste is managed. Such changes will represent a positive step toward the Governments desired outcomes of improving Aucklands governance and in terms of achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation. These considerations have been used to frame discussion in relation to options for the Auckland Council and are discussed later in chapter 7 when the delivery of various options is assessed.
As interpreted from Waste Management and Minimisation Planning: Guidance for Territorial Authorities and from legal advice received by the former Auckland City and the former Waitakere City Councils
Chapter 1 | 23
The waste problem
Chapter 3 | 24
The waste problem
This chapter contains a summary of available information about waste and diverted material generated in the Auckland region that is recycled, recovered, treated or disposed of to landfill, cleanfill or managed fill. The information includes data about quantities, trends, composition, source and destination of waste and diverted materials. This information also provides the basis for projecting future demand for waste management and minimisation services as outlined in chapter 5 of this document. For the purposes of this waste assessment, waste is defined as waste to landfill, cleanfill or managed fill and the term diverted materials refers to discarded materials such as materials collected for recycling, composting or other recovered or treated materials that are diverted from landfill. These definitions are aligned to the WMA 2008. The scope of this waste assessment is on all waste and diverted materials, as defined above, within the Auckland Council area, including waste and diverted materials controlled by the council (approximately 12-14 per cent) and the waste and diverted materials controlled by the commercial waste industry (86-88 per cent). All solid, liquid and gaseous wastes that are contained for disposal to landfill, or diverted to cleanfill, managed fill or other treatment and/or resource recovery operation are considered to fall within the scope of this assessment (e.g. including liquid and gaseous wastes such as used oil, septic tank sludge, biosolids/ sludge that are contained then landfilled. For example, gas canisters that are collected, emptied, then disposed of or recycled). Liquid and gaseous wastes that are directly emitted to the air, land or water are dealt with by the RMA and are addressed by other council strategies and plans (e.g. wastewater). In cases where there is overlap with other council plans, such as sanitary assessments or water asset management plans for example, this will be noted.
3.1 General data limitations, completeness and assumptions

Due to the timing for development of this waste assessment, and in consideration of the source of council-provided waste and diverted materials data, the information collected for the Auckland region is equivalent to the territory covered by the former Auckland Regional Council (or the former seven territorial authorities of the region). The boundaries of the Auckland region have changed as a consequence of the separation of some parts of the former Franklin District. Due to the size of the separated areas of Franklin District and the scale of waste management and minimisation activities and associated waste and diverted materials generation in those areas, the overall impact of removing these areas of Franklin District from the analysis does not materially impact on the completeness or general accuracy of the data for the purposes of developing regional options. Therefore, this assessment has not attempted to estimate figures that exclude this recently separated portion of the Auckland region. Because this is the first formal waste assessment to be undertaken by the council with regard to the WMA s51 provisions, this waste assessment relies on existing data and information that have been gathered from the former councils of the Auckland region, including the data collated within the Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment (the Stocktake) document (Appendix C-3). For brevity, the detailed data drawn from other sources are summarised only in this document, and referenced where relevant. Therefore, the accuracy and completeness is reliant on the sources cited.
Chapter 3. The waste problem
Chapter 3 | 25
3.2 How much waste to landfill is produced in the Auckland region?

This section discusses available information regarding waste disposed of to landfill from the Auckland region.
Table 3.2-1 Estimated total waste to landfill from the Auckland region for 2007-2008
Landfill Redvale Landfill (TPI) Hampton Downs (EnviroWaste) Whitford Landfill (WDS) Claris Landfill (Council) Total estimated tonnes Estd. tonnes per year (t/yr) 717,0003 478,7824 200,000vi 650vii 1,396,432viii
3.2-1 Total waste to landfill

The total waste to landfill data in this waste assessment is an estimate of the waste generated in the Auckland region that is disposed of at one of the four landfills servicing Auckland, which are: Redvale Landfill, owned by Transpacific Industries Group Ltd (TPI) Hampton Downs, owned by Envirowaste Services Ltd (EnviroWaste) Whitford Landfill, owned by Waste Disposal Services (WDS), an unincorporated joint venture between TPI and the former Manukau City Council Claris Landfill (Great Barrier Island), previously owned by the former Auckland City Council The information reported in this section is generally based on weighbridge records or figures provided directly by the commercial landfill operators to the former Auckland Regional Council, but should be considered an estimate. An important consideration in comparing waste tonnage between years is the amount of contaminated soil to landfill, or other special wastes. Tonnage of these wastes is highly variable and linked directly to major infrastructure or remediation projects and therefore must be considered on a year to year basis. Estimated waste to landfill (refer Table 3.2-1) is based on information from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the Stocktake document.
There are gaps in data available for previous years which makes it difficult to determine accurate trends. Another estimate made by the former Auckland Regional Council in 2002-2003 is included in Table 3.22 below for comparison to the more recent estimate undertaken for the ARC. Waste per capita is a commonly used indicator for waste generation that looks at the total amount of waste produced divided by the total number of people in a defined area. It is an indicator of average waste production on a per person basis, but is not directly equivalent to the amount of waste an individual throws away each year, as waste is produced from domestic and commercial sources. Overall in the Auckland region, waste to landfill for 2007-2008 is estimated at just under 1 tonne of waste per capita, as outlined in Table 3.2-2 below.
Table 3.2-2 Comparison of total waste to landfill estimates
2002-2003 Estimated tonnes to landfill Population of Auckland region Tonnes per capita 1,050,000 1,296,000ix 0.810 2007-2008 1,396,432 1,414,700x 0.987
3 4
Estimate only Estimate only
Chapter 3 | 26
Based on this estimate, waste arising on a per capita basis in the Auckland region has increased by approximately 22 per cent over this 5 year period. This compares to a 17.04% growth in GDP over the same period for New Zealand as a wholexi, assumed to be similar or higher in the Auckland region. This shows that growth in waste per capita has exceeded GDP growth significantly. It should be noted however that this comparison is severely limited, as these data are based on Statistics NZ population estimates and tonnage estimates only, which restricts the accuracy for the purposes of demand forecasting. There is very limited detailed information available regarding waste tonnages to determine the impact of the recent recession on waste generation; however, it is likely to have impacted on waste to landfill tonnages. Estimates from several TA sources indicate that the recession has had an impact of 10-20 per cent reduction of waste to landfill in 2008-2009 when compared to the previous year.xii
The amount of contaminated soil to landfill, or other special wastes, is highly variable and is linked directly to major infrastructure or remediation projects. The occurrence of major projects creating large single sources of waste to landfill must be considered on a year to year basis as this waste stream is not always easy to predict and currently offers limited opportunities for source reduction or recovery. Therefore, these constraints must be considered when setting any baseline figure and in monitoring progress toward any local waste reduction targets. This issue is also noted in the context of forecasting of demand for waste services and in preliminary target setting as outlined in chapters 5 and 6 of this document. Further, it is specifically recommended that these data limitations be addressed through several possible means: that the Auckland Council hold discussions with the MfE regarding development of a method for gathering and gaining access to source-specific waste to landfill data for the Auckland region, as this represents a third of the countrys waste to landfill that the Auckland Council considers incorporating a source-based waste data reporting requirement into any future waste operator licensing system implemented as part of a waste bylaw that the Auckland Council work with the existing commercial landfill owners to develop a regular annual reporting method that specifically provides reliable data on waste from the Auckland region to landfill that the estimated baseline waste figure be adjusted to exclude potentially hazardous waste, for which, there is limited scope for source reduction or resource recovery activity. On the basis outlined above, an estimated baseline figure against which targets and projections could be made for the Auckland Council is: Total estimated waste to landfill for the 2007/2008 base year: 1,396,432 tonnes Waste to landfill per capita for the 2007/2008 base year: 0.987 tonnes.
3.2-2 Data constraints and baseline waste figures

Typically in sustainability reporting, targets are set against a baseline or a base year. For the Auckland Council, when considering targets in this waste assessment, the baseline could be set using the 2007/2008 estimated data, although using this method has many limitations. There are accuracy errors and limitations associated with the waste to landfill data for the Auckland region. The key limitations of this data and method for establishing a baseline in the Auckland circumstances are: The landfill tonnage originating from the Auckland region is estimated only and is not based on verified weighbridge records noting waste source Landfill data are highly sensitive to fluctuations caused by general economic conditions, therefore waste tonnages over the period 2008-2009 are likely to show substantially less waste due to the impact of the global recession (estimated at 10-20 per cent lower than in the previous year)
Chapter 3 | 27
For the purposes of applying waste reduction targets (see chapter 6), it is recommended that the potentially hazardous component of the total waste stream (primarily contaminated soils and sludges) be excluded. Waste to landfill for 2007/2008 (excluding potentially hazardous waste): 1,046,897 tonnes. It is currently difficult for the council to obtain data about waste volumes and percentage diversion from landfill from private companies that operate landfills. A council licensing regime would provide for the collection of suitable waste data. It is therefore recommended that the council consider calculating a new baseline from which to work as opposed to using the 2008 baseline that was calculated using limited data released from partial waste licensing through the region and partial release of information from private landfill companies.
3.4 Waste source and composition

This section contains information about waste sources and composition. This draws on information from a number of reports produced for the region that detail source and composition of waste to landfill. The summary information cited in this section of the waste assessment has been drawn primarily from the former Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment, as published in October 2009. More information and detail regarding the specific methods for gathering these data and their limitations can be found in the Stocktake report, which is included as Appendix C-3.
3.4-1 Source to landfill

In some cases, Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) data contain information regarding the sources of waste to landfill, which measures waste based on various categories of material such as, for example, cover material, kerbside collection, transfer station waste, special wastes, landscape waste, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, commercial and industrial waste. Unfortunately, no information is available to the Auckland Council regarding the source of waste, as the composition data which has been collected in accordance with such source categories are not publicly available. It is possible that this information may be more readily available in the future, as the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) is proposing to develop a landfill source reporting system. The status of this proposal as outlined in the 2009 discussion document is not yet known.xiii
3.3 Comparisontonationalaverages
At just under 1 tonne per capita, waste to landfill from the Auckland region is notably higher than the national per capita average for 2006, which is estimated at 0.794 tonnes.5 While details regarding the source composition of this waste are not currently available, this greater waste output per capita may be reflected in Aucklands status as New Zealands largest city. Auckland is the main import, distribution, and manufacturing centre for New Zealand. This potentially gives rise to proportionally higher levels of waste being generated in what is essentially a geographic commercial hub. This is an important reason to concentrate effort and expenditure on waste minimisation initiatives in this region, as, while it is the largest waste generating centre in the country, it also has good access to resource recovery markets and many opportunities for minimising waste that will have a flow-on effect to the rest of New Zealand.
Based on MfE estimate of waste to landfill for 2006 at 3.2 million tonnes, and population for 2006 estimate from Statistics New Zealand available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/access-data/tables/subnational-pop-estimates.aspx accessed 21/12/2009.
Chapter 3 | 28
3.4-2 Composition of waste to landfill

The following Table 3.4-1 contains a summary of the estimated aggregated landfill composition for the four landfills servicing the Auckland region. This estimate is based on resource consent monitoring data for Redvale and Whitford landfills, with an estimate made for the Claris and Hampton Downs landfills.xiv
Table 3.4-1 Estimated composition of waste to landfill in 2007-2008
SWAP Primary Classification Category Paper Plastics Putrescibles Ferrous Metals Non ferrous Metals Glass Textiles Nappies and Sanitary Rubble Timber Rubber Potentially Hazardous Total* Tonnes / yr 145,015 124,646 266,249 55,874 9,482 31,939 41,787 41,465 121,539 191,592 17,309 349,535 1,396,432 % of total 10.4% 8.9% 19.1% 4.0% 0.7% 2.3% 3.0% 3.0% 8.7% 13.7% 1.2% 25.0% 100.0%
There is no established national baseline for landfill composition data available currently, although the MfE recently undertook a national SWAP baseline study of four sites in 2007/2008 in an effort to estimate national waste composition. In comparison, the Auckland regional composition estimates do not dramatically diverge from national estimates.xvi However, due to the estimated nature of both the regional and national composition data, few conclusions can be drawn as to any differences between the Auckland region and the national data.
3.4-3 Previous composition data

A regional waste study was conducted for the ARC in 1997xvii, using the MfEs Waste Analysis Protocol (WAP). This study provided composition data for wastes received at Auckland landfills, including wastes generated from domestic, commercial and industrial sources. The waste composition breakdown from this study is shown in Table 3.4-2 below. It is difficult to draw comparison between the more recent composition estimates due to the differences in how the data were collected, changes to the WAP survey methodology and the differences in the classification systems used. Notably, the more recent composition data indicate a lower level of putrescibles (organics) but a higher level of potentially hazardous wastes than in the earlier study.
Table 3.4-2 Composition of waste to landfill Auckland region (1997)
Composition Category Organics C&D Paper Plastic Glass Metal Potentially Hazardous Other Total % of Total 27.6% 20.1% 16.4% 9.3% 2.2% 7.5% 9.9% 7.0% 100.0%
*Categories may not add to 100% due to rounding
It should be noted that the single largest component is potentially hazardous material, which is generally understood to be contaminated soil and sludges that are considered to have eco-toxic properties. There are few waste minimisation and diversion opportunities for this waste, thus this proportion of the Auckland waste stream is not examined in great detail within this assessment. The other most significant components of the waste stream are putrescibles (which is composed of garden, kitchen and other non-garden organic wastes), followed by timber and paper.xv
Chapter 3 | 29
3.4-4 Domestic kerbside refuse in the Auckland region

This section discusses information available regarding levels and composition of domestic refuse collected from the kerbside in the Auckland region. This data does not include estimates for all domestic waste, as it is limited to the weekly household kerbside refuse collected by the councils and/or commercial waste operators.xviii It excludes other domestic sources of waste such as inorganic refuse that is collected either through kerbside council collection on an infrequent basis, or that which is taken directly to a disposal facility. It also excludes council collection of street litter, illegal dumping, and public litter bins.
Table 3.4-3 Sources of waste to landfills in the Auckland regionxix
Source Commercial Waste Domestic (Kerbside) Waste Total Waste Tonnes (estd 2008) 1,166,432 230,000 1,396,432 % of total 84% 16% 100%
3.4-5 Waste to managed fill and cleanfill

A cleanfill is a land-disposal facility that only accepts cleanfill material (see Key Terms, section 1.4). A managed fill is defined as a disposal site requiring a resource consent from the former ARC to accept welldefined types of waste, not including household waste, such as low-level contaminated soils and are often mono-fills that accept a single uniform type of waste material from an industrial process. There is limited information regarding waste to managed fill and cleanfill in the Auckland Region, therefore the quantity and composition of materials has been estimated based on information in the public domain. A summary of the sources of data, its limitations, quantities and composition is outlined below: xx
Table 3.4-4 Summary of data and estimates for disposal of material to managed fill and cleanfill
Managed fill/cleanfill Managed Fills data available Managed Fills estimate for remaining sites (3) Cleanfills estimate based on available capacity or annual quantity data Cleanfills estimate for remaining sites based on cleanfill area Cleanfills estimate for remaining sites based on number of sites Estimate of total managed fill/cleanfill disposal (based on Canterbury data) Total quantity of material disposed of to managed fill and cleanfill Estimated range 1,790,000 to 2,170,000 T/yr Estimate t/yr 260,000 T/yr 360,000 T/yr 400,000 T/yr Data used 260,000 T/yr 360,000 T/yr 400,000 T/yr
Table 3.4-3 indicates that the kerbside-collected component of domestic refuse, which is currently the main focus of TA waste services, is a relatively small portion of the total waste stream in the region. The estimate of 230,000 tonnes equates to 160 kg per capita per annum and includes both the council operated residential/domestic kerbside services and waste collected by commercial waste industry operators. Further details regarding each of the seven TAs areas can be found in the Stocktake document in Appendix C-3. A further report Composition of Kerbside Refuse from Residential Properties in Auckland commissioned by the ATA in 2010 provides updated figures of estimated domestic kerbside waste. This report also estimates that 230,000 tonnes per year of kerbside waste is collected from residential properties in the Auckland region by the Auckland Council and private waste operators. The report can be found in Appendix C-4.
770,000 T/yr
770,000 T/yr
930,000 T/yr
2,170,000 T/yr
1,790,000 T/yr
Chapter 3 | 30
Source information: Managed fill Quantity information published by Watercare and NZ Steel, data held on consent files. The estimate for remaining sites is based on historical fill volumes and consent application (Winstone Aggregates, replacement for Puketutu Island Quarry including estimate of annual quantity) Cleanfill in some cases consent records have information about the total capacity, annual quantities (both in m3) and/or cleanfill area (in Ha). Total capacity was converted to an annual estimate based on consent term. Estimates for the remaining consented cleanfill sites were developed based on the number of sites and using an average quantity per Ha. Both of these methods are unreliable. Data from Canterbury are relatively detailed due to the implementation of a bylaw covering cleanfill disposal in Christchurch which includes reporting requirements. The estimates developed as noted above and those based on the per capita figures from Canterbury provide a range for the quantity of materials disposed to managed fills and cleanfills in the Auckland Region. For the purposes of analysis, and based on experience in other regions, the following waste composition has been assumed for managed fills and cleanfills: 2 per cent of the material disposed comprises green waste most consent conditions or permitted activity rules allow for a small quantity of green waste. This is typically ground cover (grass, shrubs, tree stumps etc) from site clearances 30 per cent of the material disposed comprises construction and demolition materials managed fills and cleanfills operating under permitted activity rules are able to accept concrete/rubble (inert materials). Managed fills may also accept plasterboard and limited quantities of construction or demolition timber and metals in mixed loads. The remaining 68 per cent of material disposed comprises uncontaminated soil, rock, clay, or similar material.
3.4-6 Council domestic kerbside waste composition

By combining the tonnage and SWAP audit composition information from all of the former councils, the data on total annual tonnage and composition can be calculated. The estimated composition of domestic waste is presented in table 3.4-5 below. This information has been drawn directly from the Compostion of Kerbside Refuse in Auckland (2010) document.
Table 3.4-5 Council domestic kerbside waste composition
SWAP Primary Classification Category Paper Plastics Organics Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Textiles Nappies & sanitary Rubble Timber Rubber Potentially hazardous Total Tonnes/yr 18,831 21,153 96,439 3,215 1,249 3,716 6,999 22,283 3,405 1,529 271 1,578 180,668 % of total 10.4% 11.7% 53.4% 1.8% 0.7% 2.1% 3.9% 12.3% 1.9% 0.8% 0.2% 0.9% 100.0%
The composition data above relates to the council collected tonnage only. Over 96,000 tonnes of the kerbside domestic waste collected by councils is organics, with the approximately 27 per cent of this being food waste. In all parts of the Auckland region, private waste operators offer kerbside domestic waste collection services. It is estimated that 58,000 tonnes of kerbside domestic waste is collected by these operators. The following compostion data has been compiled based on sort and weigh audits of private MGB collections in a number of districts in the Auckland region. The estimated composition of this waste is presented in
Chapter 3 | 31
table 3.4-6 below. This information has been drawn directly from the Compostion of Kerbside Refuse in Auckland (2010) document. It should be noted that all council kerbside collections contain a proportion of commercial waste in the order of 4 per cent.
Table 3.4-6 Private waste operators kerbside waste composition
SWAP Primary Classification Category Paper Plastics Organics Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Textiles Nappies and sanitary Rubble Timber Rubber Potentially hazardous Total Tonnes/yr 7,591 5,581 26,930 1,087 494 3,016 2,232 4,274 4,093 1,792 101 804 57,995 % of total 13.1% 9.6% 46.4% 1.9% 0.9% 5.2% 3.8% 7.4% 7.1% 3.1% 0.2% 1.4% 100.0%
Table 3.5-2 contains available data for diverted materials in the region, for both those materials collected both privately and by the former councils.
3.5-1 Kerbside recycling tonnage and composition

The following is a summary total of the combined tonnage and composition of kerbside recycling collected by the former councils of the Auckland region. The information is an estimated annual total tonnage based on data provided by the individual councils. Because of the variability of the data, the information reported is not representative of a single year but represents annual tonnage in recent years.xxi
Table 3.5-1 Domestic kerbside recycling quantities for the Auckland region
Material HDPE PET Mixed plastic Subtotal plastics Aluminium cans Steel cans Paper/cardboard Glass Contamination Total Tonnes/yr 1,910 2,216 2,838 6,980 566 3,207 60,410 50,268 5,270 126,701 % of total 1.5% 1.7% 2.2% 5.5% 0.4% 2.5% 47.7% 39.7% 4.2% 100.0%
3.5 Divertedmaterials
This section contains information about known sources of diverted materials generated and recycled or recovered in the Auckland region, and includes information about kerbside recycling, hazardous substances and greenwaste collection. Under the WMA, diverted material refers to anything that is no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded. Most of the data available are from services provided by the former councils. Information on privately managed diverted materials (e.g. commercial recycling operations) is not generally available and there are no regulatory tools, either at a local or national level, that provide information aggregated at a district level.
Over 120,000 tonnes per annum of recyclable material were collected by the former councils kerbside recycling services. Nearly half of this is paper and cardboard, with glass accounting for a further 40%.
Chapter 3 | 32
3.5-2 Tonnage and composition of other diverted materialsxxii

The estimate of the quantity and composition of materials diverted from landfill (and also diverted from disposal to cleanfill or managed fill) has been developed based on a combination of information in the public domain and discussions with key aggregators or processors of materials. Local authority recycling activity is an important component of the recycling market but all of the materials collected by councils are handled by one of the aggregators or processors.xxiii The data presented in the table below are based on data provided by key aggregators of materials, rather than organisations collecting materials from businesses or households. The sources and limitations of the data presented below are as follows: Commodities data from processors or exporters of materials, including Paper Reclaim, Visy Recycling, Owens Illinois and Carter Holt Harvey Wood waste data from major users and processors of wood waste in the Auckland Region. The figure presented in Table 3.5-2 is based on wood-fired boilers identified in EECAs recent national survey of heat plant and discussion with wood waste processors Organic waste major processors of organic waste including Living Earth, EnviroFert, Sustainable Waste Management, and Eco Stock Supplies. This figure is based on estimates provided by operators and does not include home composting Concrete companies converting concrete into aggregate for sale as aggregate. This figure is based on information supplied from the two major reprocessors and includes material re-processed on a demolition site for use as fill/construction material in the place of aggregate Scrap metal an estimate for the Auckland Region based on information published by the Scrap Metal Recyclers Association of New Zealand and Pacific Steel
Other estimates based on information provided by major waste producers and a number of processors. This includes re-processing of materials for sale as aggregate (steel slag), the use of plasterboard as a compost additive and shredding of wastes for matting/bedding material.
Table 3.5-2 Summary of data on diversion of materials from landfill
Material Commodities Plastics Glass Paper/Card Cans Wood waste Organic waste Composting Tonnes/yr 247,000 11,000 68,000 160,000 8,000 60,000 192,000 82,000 Sub-total Comments
247,000 (approximately half from the council collection) Auckland and export Packaging and fibreglass Auckland and export Auckland and export 60,000 Biofuel, mulch 192,000 Auckland sourced material processed in Auckland, Waikato, Taranaki and Northland Rendering, stock food 980,000 Crushed concrete, slag
Other recovery Aggregate Concrete Steel slag Scrap Metal Other Total
110,000 980,000 400,000 580,000 176,000 12,000 1,667,000
Roading aggregate 176,000 Auckland and export 12,000 compost additive, tyres, land application 1,667,000
3.5-3 Hazardous waste diversion

The following information regarding hazardous materials diverted from landfill for reuse, recycling or treatment prior to final disposal is as provided by the former Waitakere City Council and from the The Draft Auckland Regional Council Hazardous Waste Programme Annual Report for 2008-2009.xxiv Between July 2008 and June 2009 the HazMobile, AgChem and transfer station drop off programmes (drop-offs as funded by ARC and the former Rodney District Councils at the privately-owned Silverdale
Chapter 3 | 33
and Snells Beach RTSs) diverted a total of 135,490 kg (135 tonnes) of hazardous waste from inappropriate disposal to landfill (e.g. without prior treatment). This figure does not include the drop-off facility at the former Waitakere City Councils RTS. Those figures are provided separately. The HazMobile Programme, with 8,216 customers, contributed the largest amount of the overall waste stream (130,266kg or 96 per cent). The AgChem Collection (14 properties) collected 2,147kg (1.6%) and household hazardous waste dropoff facilities collected 3,075kg kg (2.3 per cent) total. 2008-2009 was the first full year without paint collections due to the introduction of an industry-led product stewardship scheme and the cessation of paint collections via the HazMobile in January 2008. This has resulted in a significant decline in both total amount of waste collected and numbers of users of the HazMobile service. With paint no longer accepted, it has become clear that waste oil is now the largest waste stream collected (72,000 litres or 55.3% of hazardous waste collected).
Table 3.5-3 Waste types and quantities of hazardous waste collected by the HazMobile in 2008/2009
Waste Type Waste oil Dry-cell batteries Lead-acid batteries Household chemicals Intractable chemicals Fluorescent and energysaving lights Total hazardous waste LPG bottles Aerosols Packaging waste Total non-hazardous waste Quantity (kg) 72,000 2,117 47,770 5,564 2,207 625 130,283 24,306 3,194 15,292 42,792 % of Total 55.3% 1.6% 36.6% 4.3% 1.7% 0.5% 100% 56.8% 7.5% 35.7% 100%
Waste Programme ensures that all waste collected is reused, recycled or disposed of in a manner that minimises adverse impacts on the environment and (where possible) keeps Auckland waste in Auckland or in New Zealand. More specifically: the wet cell (car) batteries are refurbished and re-used (or recycled if they are not able to be refurbished) hazardous chemicals and materials such as PCB ballasts are sorted and either sent to a company to be treated and made safe, or if no process is available in New Zealand, sent overseas for treatment and safe disposal small batteries (e.g. rechargeable, NiCad and lithium ion) are sent to France for treatment as no facility exists in New Zealand cell phones and cell phone batteries are sent to Starship Foundation to be on-sold as part of a fundraising initiative (where they are shipped offshore for recycling) the used oil and solvents are sent to local companies and are used in the production of bitumen or burnt in approved incinerators to generate electricity fluorescent light bulbs and energy saving bulbs are sent to a local company for safe dismantling and disposal cardboard and steel containers are recycled a small amount of non toxic rubbish is taken to landfill (approx 4 per cent in 2008-2009) flares are taken to the coastguard or fire service for disposal. Explosives, guns and ammunition (which are presented but not formally accepted) are taken to Whenuapai air base some materials are donated to community groups if appropriate e.g. good quality kerosene is donated to schools in some instances, more than one of these disposal
The former Auckland Regional Council Hazardous
Chapter 3 | 34
methods may be used e.g. LPG cylinders are sent to a disposal agent to be de-gassed, and then recycled as steel. The former Waitakere City Council is the only one of the former councils that did not participate in the HazMobile collection service. This is because it owned a refuse transfer station with a dangerous good store and the council accepted small amounts of household hazardous waste free of charge.
Table 3.5-4 Henderson refuse transfer station household hazardous waste collection
Category Waste oil Batteries Paint, thinners and other corrosives Gas bottles Total 2007/08 tonnes 28.10 43.50 15.80 27.90 115.30 2008/09 tonnes 27.90 47.20 12.20 24.70 112.00
The waste is recycled and/or treated in a similar manner as to that collected via Hazmobile, specifically: gas bottles are removed and recycled by Gas Bottle Recycle NZ batteries are sold to Dominion Batteries Ltd waste oil is removed free of charge by Waste Petroleum Combustion Ltd reusable paints, varnish, thinners etc are given away to community groups, and residents who come to collect them from the transfer station the remaining corrosives, herbicides, pesticides etc) are removed by Ray McGregor, the hazardous waste collection contractor, at a cost.
The vast majority (94 per cent) by weight is recycled.
Chapter 3 | 35
Existing services and facilities
1 2
Chapter 4 | 36
Existing services and facilities
The waste assessment must contain information indicating existing waste and waste minimisation services and facilities. This section includes a summary of information regarding waste minimisation services, facilities and waste collection and disposal services provided by the council and other organisations. The inventory of services and facilities has considered the waste hierarchy categories (as defined by the WMA) of: Reduce. Reduction refers to a lessening of waste generation, including by using products more efficiently or by redesigning products; and in relation to a product, through lessening waste generation in relation to that product Reuse. Reuse is the further use of waste or diverted material in its existing form for the original or similar purpose of the materials or products that constitute the waste Recycling. Recycling is the reprocessing of waste or diverted material to produce new materials Recovery. Recovery is the extraction of materials or energy from waste or diverted material for further use or processing; and this includes making waste or diverted material into compost Treatment. Treatment is subjecting waste to any physical, biological, or chemical process to change its volume or character so that it may be disposed of with no or reduced adverse effect on the environment (excluding dilution) Disposal.Disposal is the final (or more than short term) deposit of waste into or onto land set apart for that purpose, or the incineration of waste In many cases the services or facilities described involve multiple processes across the waste hierarchy simultaneously.
4.1 Limitations and completeness

This inventory of services available in the Auckland region is a combination of services and facilities owned, operated or managed by the former councils, as well as other waste services and facilities that are owned and/or operated by commercial entities or community groups. This inventory is not to be considered exhaustive, particularly with respect to the commercial waste industry as these services are subject to change. For the purposes of this assessment readily available information has been compiled. There is generally less information and detail regarding the commercial waste industry. While information regarding major commercial waste management and minimisation industry players is included, the list is not to be considered exhaustive and it is recognised that there are many small private operators and second-hand goods dealers that are not specifically listed. This inventory indicates the scope and level of services and facilities currently provided by the former councils of the Auckland region and the commercial waste industry. This is important, in that understanding the current services provides the basis for the Auckland Council to determine the degree to which the needs of region are presently being met and what might need to be provided to meet future demands. The information provided is not considered to be precise, particularly with respect to the commercial waste industry, but is considered accurate enough for the purposes of determining future strategy. It is also noted that the process for collating information for this assessment and other key documents has highlighted the need for improvements in the regions data and information gathering processes, such as recommendations for the development of a new regional waste bylaw and waste operator licensing system that is based on the existing Northern Alliance bylaws, in place in the former North Shore, Rodney and Waitakere areas.6
This is discussed further in the Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment, page 6.
Chapter 4. Existing services and facilities
Chapter 4 | 37
As per the WMA requirements, when adopting this waste assessment, the Auckland Council believes that the information obtained is appropriate when having regard to the: significance of the information the costs of, and difficulty in, obtaining the information the extent of the Councils resources the possibility that the Council may be directed under the Health Act 1956 to provide the services referred to in that Act the impact on the completeness of the assessment, particularly the forecast of future demands and options assessed. The inventory begins with a discussion of the overall Auckland waste management and minimisation market. It then provides a summary of the current services and facilities provided by the Auckland Council upon its establishment in November 2010, followed by a summary of the services provided by the commercial waste industry. The majority of chapter 4 has been drawn directly or summarised from the Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment (the Stocktake) as prepared for the ARC, published in October 2009, which is attached as Appendix C-3.
This distinct market has developed primarily over the last ten years, with two main factors resulting in most of the changes the privatisation of publicly-owned assets and the closures of small landfills, largely due to the introduction of the Resource Management Act 1991. The waste management industry in the region, including landfills, is currently dominated by two private sector companies Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd (TPI) and EnviroWaste Services Ltd (EnviroWaste). The TAs provide for a relatively small proportion of services to the Auckland region in comparison to the commercial market. The following sections discuss key aspects of the commercial (private) market followed by a summary of Auckland Council-provided services and facilities.
4.3 Landfills waste disposal

Up until the early 1990s, the Auckland waste market comprised publicly-owned landfills, a mix of public and privately-owned transfer stations and a largely privately-controlled waste collection market. There are currently four landfills (as defined by WMA) serving the Auckland region. These are: Redvale Landfill, owned by TPI, which opened in 1993. This landfill has a capacity of 11.5 million cubic meters (9.2m tonnes) and is expected to reach its capacity in approximately 10-11 years Hampton Downs Landfill, owned by EnviroWaste, which opened in 2005. This landfill accepts an estimated 709,000 tonnes per annum with a remaining capacity of 28 million tonnes (over 20+ years remaining life) Whitford Landfill, owned by Waste Disposal Services, a 50-50 joint venture between the former Manukau City Council and TPI. This landfill accepts and estimated 170,000 200,000 tonnes per year with a remaining capacity of 6.5 million tonnes (over 30+ years remaining life)
4.2 The Auckland waste market overview

The Auckland region waste and recovered or diverted materials market differs from others in New Zealand in terms of its size, complexity, the geographic scope it serves, and ownership of the infrastructure (transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, and landfills). Many New Zealand waste markets feature strong TA involvement in infrastructure ownership, generally with single landfills serving geographically distinct waste catchments. The Auckland waste disposal market, on the other hand, is largely served by commercial landfills that receive most of the waste from an area that spans from Far North District in the north to Waipa District in the south, a distance of 400 kilometres.
Chapter 4 | 38
Claris Landfill, owned by the Auckland Council. This is the landfill for Great Barrier Island. It is accepting approximately 600 tonnes per year and is consented until 2015 with capacity estimated for an additional 20-40 years. The estimated market share of the three major landfills that service the Auckland region is as follows:
Table 4.3-1 Landfill market share
Landfill Redvale Owner/operator Transpacific Industries Group (TPI) Waste Disposal Services (WDS) Envirowaste Services (ESL) Percentage (%) 50
4.4 Transfer stations and Transportation

When the landfills serving Auckland were within the urban areas of the region, waste was delivered directly to the facilities. Now that the major landfills are considerable distance from the urban areas, it has become necessary to establish transfer stations for the aggregation of waste, which is then bulk hauled to the landfills. Entry into the transfer station market is much less costly than the landfill market, with capital costs and operating costs being much lower and resource consents being significantly easier to obtain. Between them, the two major landfill operators in the Auckland region control the operation of nine of the seventeen transfer stations throughout the region. These transfer stations are, for the most part, situated in the central core of the region, with the former councils and smaller waste operators operating transfer stations in some smaller centres. While most of the transfer stations are open to the public, some accept only waste from commercial operators. Private ownership and restricted access linked to final disposal sites and loyalty agreements has produced significant transport inefficiencies. There are examples of council household collection trucks having to dispose of their waste at specific transfer stations or landfills passing a number of closer transfer station sites in the process. For example, collection vehicles carrying approximately 30,000 tonnes servicing two former councils virtually cross paths on their way to their nominated disposal facilities. Each truck having a round trip of approximately 48 kilometres. That is over three trucks an hour passing each other to travel across the region to landfills at the opposite ends of Auckland. All passing a number of transfer stations on their way to queue up at a landfill to tip their waste. It can be assumed that the commercial market which is over five times bigger experiences the same issues. To facilitate the economically-viable collection of waste in all areas of the region and so protect their market share, both EnviroWaste and TPI operate region-wide networks of transfer stations, even though this results, in some instances, in competing transfer
Whitford Hampton Downs
15 35
Of the three major facilities, the only local government involvement is the former Manukau City Councils joint venture with Waste Management (a division of TPI) in Waste Disposal Services, which owns and operates Whitford Landfill and the East Tamaki Transfer Station. The barriers to entry into the landfill market are significant, with substantial capital investment being required for site testing, land purchase and the resource consent process. The outcomes of the consent process are uncertain, putting at risk the initial capital investment. Due to these barriers it is unlikely that there will be any further entries into the Auckland landfill market until required by the closure of Redvale, expected to be within 10 to 15 years. If managed effectively, the combined capacity of these major landfills provides sufficient capacity to service the Auckland regions waste disposal needs for several decades. While capacity is sufficient to cope with current waste volumes, there are issues arising from the competitive and fragmented nature of the waste transport network that leads to inefficiencies. This is discussed further in the next section.
Chapter 4 | 39
stations being situated in close proximity. Examples of this are EnviroWastes Constellation Drive transfer station and TPIs Rosedale Road depot, on the North Shore. The locations and ownership of transfer stations are shown in the map included as Figure 4.4-1. To the north of the region, Mason Bins Ltd (now owned by Northland Waste Ltd) and Metropolitan Waste Ltd (now owned by Remondis Ltd) operate transfer stations in the Wellsford, Warkworth, and Silverdale areas. In the west, the former Waitakere City Council owns and operates the only major council-owned transfer station in the region (Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station) and in the east is the public-private joint venture East Tamaki Transfer Station owned by Waste Disposal Services Ltd. In total, three of the transfer stations are in joint ownership. Pikes Point is owned by Pikes Point Transfer Station Ltd, a joint venture between TPI and EnviroWaste. Wiri Transfer Station is owned by Northern Waste Handling Ltd, a joint venture between EnviroWaste and JJ Richards and East Tamaki Transfer Station is a joint venture between Transpacific Industries Group Ltd and the Auckland Council. With TPIs Redvale Landfill being to the north of the metropolitan Auckland area, and EnviroWastes Hampton Downs Landfill being to the south, the operation by each company of a region-wide network of transfer stations potentially creates transport inefficiencies, with each operator needing to bulk haul waste from one end of the region to the other. Although an arrangement for waste swapping exists between both companies it lacks both transparency and certainty. Under this arrangement both of the landfills are understood to accept quantities of waste from the other companys transfer stations. The waste swapping ameliorates some of the transregion hauling that would otherwise eventuate and, to an extent undisclosed by the operators, rationalises, at least to some degree, bulk hauling in the region. For example, some (if not most or all) of the waste from EnviroWastes Constellation Drive transfer station on the North Shore is transported to TPIs Redvale Landfill. Similarly, some (if not most or all) waste
from TPIs Papakura transfer station is transported to EnviroWastes Hampton Downs Landfill. Balance is reportedly maintained in the swapping arrangement by the landfill operators monitoring the swap tonnages and when necessary, diverting bulk hauling from an individual transfer station to the other landfill. Pikes Point transfer station, which is operated as a joint venture by both landfill operators, is centrally-located and waste from the facility could, if required, be directed to either Redvale Landfill or Hampton Downs Landfill to maintain the balance. The swapping arrangement between TPI and Envirowaste has, until recently, been based on contracts entered into every eighteen months. At the time of writing, there is no formal contract in place for the swapping arrangement. Although it is a private arrangement between two commercial entities, the waste swapping arrangement is clearly of strategic importance to the efficient operation of waste flows in the region. If this arrangement were to break down for any reason it could result in increases in waste costs, increased bulk haulage movements and resulting congestion and associated negative environmental impacts. It is assumed that these waste swapping arrangements are acceptable from a competition perspective but to the Councils knowledge, this has not been tested and further details of the arrangement are not easily discoverable. The issue of transportation of waste is particularly pertinent in the Auckland region as Auckland has significant transportation/congestion problems which create inefficiencies, not only in the waste transportation industry but to the wider Auckland and New Zealand economy. The existing rail network with the main trunk lines location near key RTSs and the Hampton Downs Landfill does provide opportunities for transportation with associated efficiency gains. As long as waste and diverted materials are required to be moved significant distances there will be transportation issues, and this means that long-term solutions to haulage will be important.
Chapter 4 | 40
The following table is a summary of the refuse transfer facilities in the Auckland region and their respective locations:
Table 4.4-1 Summary of transfer facilities in the Auckland region
Name
Constellation Drive Refuse Transfer Station Devonport Transfer Station East Tamaki Transfer Station Helensville Transfer Station Hobill Avenue Depot Papakura Transfer Station Pikes Point Patiki Road Pukekohe Transfer Station Rosedale Transfer Station
Owner
EnviroWaste Auckland Council Waste Disposal Services Auckland Council TPI TPI EnviroWaste and TPI EnviroWaste EnviroWaste TPI
Waste Stream
General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste
Location
4 Home Place, Mairangi Bay 27 Lake Road, Devonport 33 Neales Road, East Tamaki
General waste, recyclables, Mill Road, whiteware and garden waste Helensville General waste (only from Transpacific Industries) General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste and recyclables General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste (bulk), commercial greenwaste. Cleanfill is separated. General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and construction waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and construction waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste Hobill Avenue, Wiri Inlet Road, Takanini Onehunga, Auckland City Patiki Road, Avondale, Auckland City Nelson Street, Pukekohe Rosedale Road, North Shore 101 Foundry Road, Silverdale Lawrie Road, Snells Beach Ostend Road, Waiheke Island The Concourse, Henderson Hosking Place, Waiuku Rustybrook Road, Wellsford 196 Wiri Station Road, Wiri
Silverdale Transfer Station Snells Beach Waste Transfer Station and Resource Recovery Centre Waiheke Waste Transfer Station Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station Waiuku Transfer Station Wellsford Waste Transfer Station and Resource Recovery Centre Wiri Transfer Station
Metrowaste (owned by Remondis) Mason Bins (owned by Northland Waste) Auckland Council Auckland Council Auckland Council Mason Bins (owned by Northland Waste) EnviroWaste and JJ Richards
Chapter 4 | 41
The following figure 4.4-1 illustrates the locations of both the refuse transfer stations and landfills that service the Auckland region.
Figure 4.4-1 Transfer station and landfill locations
Wellsford Transfer Station
Key
Lawrie Road Transfer Station
Transfer station Transpacific EnviroWaste Council Metropolitan Wase Mason Contractors Landfill Transpacific EnviroWaste Council/Transpacific
Silverdale Transfer Station Redvale Landfill
Helensville Transfer Station
Rosedale Transfer Station Constellation Drive Transfer Station Devonport Transfer Station Waiheke Transfer Station
Waitakere Transfer Station Patiki Road Transfer Station Pikes Point Transfer Station
East Tamaki Transfer Station Wiri Transfer Station Hobill Avenue Transfer Station Papakura Transfer Station Whitford Landfill
Pukekohe Transfer Station Waiuku Transfer Station
Hampton Downs Landfill
Chapter 4 | 42
Figure 4.4-2 shows the current waste flows of council collected waste in the Auckland disposal market.
Figure 4.4-2 Existing waste flows of council collected Inefficiencies Auckland Region Waste Flows Existing waste in the Auckland region
Silverdale RTS
Redvale Landfill
Rosedale RTS Constellation RTS
Devonport RTS Waitakere RTS Patiki Road RTS
Waiheke RTS
Pikes Point RTS East Tamaki RTS Whitford Landfill
Wiri RTS
Papakura RTS
Pukekohe Landfill
Hampton Downs Landfill
Key
Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) Landfill Rail Station Rail line Waste route: Directly to Landfill Waste route: Transfer Station to Landfill Waste route: to Transfer Station ESL TPI MCC Metrowaste NSCC ACC WCC
Notes: eysourceofinefficienciesissite K ownership, with longer distances travelled to maximise profits omeroutesresultincloserRTS S being passed en-route to other RTSs or landfill further a field irecttransportfromkerbsideto D landfill may result in lost opportunities for consolidation and diversion urrentroutescreatesignificant C haulage across Harbour Bridge hicknessoflinesdoesnot T depict tonnage
Chapter 4 | 43
4.5 Waste collection market

The barriers to entry into the waste collection market are much lower than into the landfill and RTS market and this is reflected by the substantial number of waste collectors active in the Auckland region. There is a high degree of operator turnover in the waste collection market with a high attrition rate amongst the small operators and numerous acquisitions of smaller operators by larger operators. Some recent sales of waste companies, such as EnviroWaste Services Ltd, have been to private equity firms. These firms typically restructure and often break up and on-sell their assets. They often take a short term versus a long term view and are more likely to put companies up for sale in the short to medium term, depending on market conditions. This will continue to have an impact on the stability and shape of the Auckland waste market. The main competition to TPI and EnviroWaste in the waste collection market comes from overseas entities that have gained a share of the Auckland market. Recent Australian entrants to the Auckland collection market include J.J. Richards, which operates in the commercial collections market and is, with EnviroWaste, a joint owner of the Wiri transfer station. Cleanaway Australia, which entered the New Zealand market with local authority collection contracts as EnviroWay Ltd, was a joint venture with EnviroWaste. Cleanaway Australia was purchased by TPI in 2007 and EnviroWay is now totally owned by EnviroWaste. Another Australian company has also entered the recycling collection market, with Thiess Services Pty Ltd wholly-owned subsidiary Thiess Services New Zealand Ltd now having the former Auckland City Council kerbside recycling collection contract. A further notable recent acquisition by an Australian company is Remondis, which has purchased Metrowaste Ltd. Entry into the New Zealand markets by overseas interests is not always long-lived, and frequent change of ownership is a feature of the marketplace. Waste Management NZ Ltd was, in the late 1990s, owned 60 per cent by WMX Technologies of the United States, then was largely New Zealand-owned through its
New Zealand Stock Exchange listing and then, after merging with Australian-owned TPI, is now totally Australian-owned. In another change of ownership involving foreign-controlled companies, in 1999, Waste Management NZ Ltd received Commerce Commission approval to acquire Waste Care Ltd, from its French owners, Sita S.A, at the time owned 63 per cent by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux of France. More recently, Onyx Group Limited (owned by the French Veolia Proprete), which entered the New Zealand market in 1995, had declined in the scope of its activities and is now limited to the former North Shore and the former Waitakere City Councils kerbside refuse and recycling contracts. Its commercial collection assets were sold to J.J. Richards. New entrants to the Auckland collection market may be disadvantaged by the need to make disposal arrangements at a transfer station or landfill that is operated by either TPI or EnviroWaste, organisations against which they might be competing in the collection market. The vertical integration of TPI and EnviroWaste has the potential to allow them to price their services more competitively compared to companies operating only in the collection market. Whereas the swapping arrangement that exists between TPI and EnviroWaste has, to an unknown extent, rationalised the bulk hauling of waste in the region, there is little such rationalising in the waste collection market, which generates a much greater number of vehicle movements. There are approximately 250 waste collection operators in the Auckland region, each of which has a disposal agreement that may require disposal at a nominated facility regardless of its geographical efficiency. In addition to that the council contracts approximately 65 collection trucks for kerbside waste collections. In many occasions the size of these trucks is acquired by the distance they have to travel to the nominated disposal facility, not their suitability to the residential road environment. This can cause damage to residential streets not designed to take heavy vehicles. There may be some swapping of waste loads that are disposed of directly to landfill, but, for the most part, waste collected by either TPI or EnviroWaste that does
Chapter 4 | 44
not go directly to landfill will be disposed of at one of that companys transfer stations, rather than at the nearest facility. It is likely that the competition in the waste collection and disposal markets results in lower collection and disposal costs to waste generators than would otherwise be the case. While this may have immediate economic benefits to waste generators in terms of reduced costs, it works against national and local governments waste reduction efforts, as increased cost is widely considered to be an important driver for waste reduction. This is recognised in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) s25 (b), which explains the introduction of the waste levy is to increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society, and the economy.
sites, that commonly accept industrial process wastes or soil with low levels of contamination are more rigorously controlled through the resource consent process. There are a large number of cleanfills in the Auckland Region, but as a result of cleanfillings status as a permitted activity, the exact number is impossible to determine. A 2005 survey by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) identified at least 30 cleanfill sites in the regionxxv based on information provided by the ARC. The survey also noted six managed fill sites, where low level contaminants could be discharged. Two of these sites were disposing of waste generated on-site from their own operations. An analysis conducted for this report estimates that approximately 1,770,000 tonnes of material are disposed of annually at cleanfills and managed fills in the Auckland region. Ownership in the cleanfill market is much more fragmented than in the waste market with quarry owners, transport operators and private developers all featuring in the data made available by ARC (although cleanfilling itself is a permitted activity, resource consents may be required for earthworks and sediment control). The only known involvement of the major waste operators in the cleanfill/managed fill is EnviroWastes operations at the closed Greenmount and Rosedale landfill sites. The cleanfill operations in the Auckland Region are in direct competition with the sanitary landfills and resource recovery operators for disposal of the portion of the waste stream that complies with the MfEs definition of cleanfill.7 A substantial proportion of this material is generated by construction and demolition activity. The SKM survey estimated the quantity of cleanfill disposed of in the Auckland Region to be over two million tonnes per annum, greater than the quantity of waste being disposed of to the sanitary landfills. The SKM estimate is based on per capita cleanfill disposal data collected by Christchurch City Council as no data are collated on cleanfill tonnages in the Auckland Region.
4.6 Cleanfillandmanagedfill disposal market

In the MfEs 2002 A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills, cleanfill is defined as: Material that when buried will have no adverse effect on people or the environment. Cleanfill material includes virgin natural materials such as clay, soil and rock, and other inert materials such as concrete or brick that are free of: combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components hazardous substances products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, hazardous waste stabilisation or hazardous waste disposal practices materials that may present a risk to human or animal health such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos or radioactive substances liquid waste. In terms of the former Auckland Regional Councils Air, Land and Water Plan, the deposition on land of materials that comply with the MfEs definition of cleanfill is generally a permitted activity. Managed fill
In addition cleanfills are known to sometimes accept material that is outside the MfE definition of cleanfill and so may compete for material that should technically be disposed of to a consented landfill. The extent of this activity is virtually impossible to quantify.
Chapter 4 | 45
The cost of entry into the cleanfill market is substantially lower than into the sanitary landfill market. Cleanfills require much lower levels of engineering investment to prevent discharges into the environment and have very low or negligible compliance costs. Because of these differing cost structures, cleanfills charge markedly less for disposal than sanitary landfills often on the order of 10 per cent of landfills advertised gate charges. Despite the differences in cost structures, landfills often compete with cleanfills on the basis of price to retain flow control as cleanfill tonnages are so large. As the marginal cost per tonne of landfilling is very low, a landfill could potentially still make a profit accepting cleanfill material at a price competitive with cleanfills gate charges. This is particularly the case for the disposal of clean soil, which landfills can use for cover material or for site engineering purposes. All of the landfills in the Auckland Region are required to cover exposed refuse each day to reduce odour and vermin problems and to reduce rainwater infiltration. The landfills are also required to cover cells that are not in use with thicker layers of soil than required for daily cover. For the most part, the landfills excavate cover material on-site. There is however, a cost involved in on-site excavation of cover material and any soil that can be sourced from off the site can be used to replace on-site cover material. For this reason landfills are often prepared to accept cleanfill at a much lower cost than municipal refuse. Cleanfills also compete with resource recovery operators for materials such as waste concrete. Resource recovery operators that process waste concrete into aggregate compete against the cost of cleanfill disposal to maintain flow control over their supply of material. In environmental terms, the most important aspect of the competition between cleanfills and sanitary landfills for flow control relates to the disposal of contaminated soils. Landfills are not able to use contaminated soils for engineering purposes as readily as they can clean soils and gate charges for
contaminated soils at landfills may be higher than for cleanfill materials. As there are no rigorous regulatory systems in place for the identification and tracking of materials from contaminated sites in the Auckland region, the possibility exists for cleanfills to be used illegally for the disposal of contaminated soils as a cost-saving measure by the waste generator. A proposed cleanfill site to be operated at the Winstones Three Kings Quarry in Three Kings, is currently being challenged in the Environment Court by a number of parties due to concern about the level of contaminants that may be contained in the cleanfill and compromise the quality of the groundwater. The July 2009 introduction of the waste levy has the potential to exacerbate this problem. Section 3 of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) provides for a waste levy of $10/tonne to be imposed on all wastes deposited in disposal facilities. This levy will only apply to waste disposed of at landfills accepting household waste and not to waste disposed of at cleanfills. At the time of writing (July 2009) the MfE is still considering the types of materials to which the levy will ultimately apply. The 2009 MfE document, Calculation and Payment of the Waste Disposal Levy Guidance for Waste Disposal Facility Operators, states: The situation regarding the use of discarded material for daily cover is complex, and the Ministry will provide a more complete assessment once policy work is complete. The levy applies to material or waste that is disposed of or discarded at the facility. If soil or other material brought to a facility is not reused at the facility, for instance as cover material, it may in fact be disposed of at the facility, in which case it may be subject to the levy. If the levy is applied to contaminated soils and materials suitable for use as engineering materials or cover materials by landfills, this will considerably increase the cost of landfill disposal of these materials and provide a greater incentive for their improper disposal at cleanfills.
Chapter 4 | 46
4.7 Recoveredordiverted materials market

The recovered, or sometimes now referred to as the diverted materials market, is much more fragmented than the waste market. Unlike the waste market in which the important divisions are horizontal (collection, bulking, and disposal), the recycling industry is divided into distinct markets according to material types paper/cardboard, glass, metal, and plastics. Also unlike the waste market, the recovered materials market is integrated with an international market. As virtually all waste generated in the Auckland region is disposed of locally, the only competition for disposal is between the landfill operators. Many local collectors and processors of recovered materials are, on the other hand, able to enter the international secondary materials market for sale of their materials. While low-volume, high-value materials such as aluminium have been exported for many years the increase in the secondary materials market (up until the global financial crisis of August 2008) resulted more recently in high-volume, lower-value materials such as plastic, paper and glass being exported as well. Although much of the data relating to recovered materials is considered commercially sensitive by the organisations involved, data gathered for this assessment indicates that approximately 247,000 tonnes of recyclable commodities are recovered annually. These data are presented in section 3.5.2. The major local processors of the different material types tend to have a dominant position in each marketplace. Glass is the best example of this, with Owens-Illinois (NZ) Ltd (O-I) being the only significant local processor of glass. O-I (formerly ACI Glass Packaging), at its plant in Penrose is the only manufacturer of glass bottles and jars in New Zealand. The manufacturing process uses a proportion of culled (recycled glass) along with virgin material and this process is the major user of recovered glass in the country. O-I do not collect glass from the consumer but rather rely on a network of suppliers, most of which source post-consumer glass from domestic and commercial recycling services. Prior to manufacturing, the recovered glass is processed by Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd at a plant adjacent to the O-I plant.
O-I has recently invested US$85 million upgrading infrastructure at its Penrose facility. O-I has identified that, while previously they have been able to secure for their recycling purposes 98% of the glass collected in Auckland, with the move to commingling this figure is around 50-60% as a consequence of quality issues. This has been confirmed in O-Is submission to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee in which their submission stated prior to commingling approx 2% glass collected was going to landfill, now with commingling O-Is global experience indicates that between 30 and 50% of collected glass cannot be used in the glass container manufacturing process. 8 Several aspects of this are worthy of more detailed consideration. Firstly it should be observed that the 30-50% of collected glass not used for glass container manufacturing does not mean it is going to landfill, there are other uses for glass. It is also worth noting that glass accounts for around 40% by weight of all council kerbside collections, however glass accounts for around 50% of the collection costs, around 70% of the processing/sorting costs, yet only contributes to approximately 16% of the commodity revenues, (based on published market rates). The basic principles of supply and demand cannot be overlooked in this issue. The beverage industry and O-I are the main benefactors of the councils efforts regarding glass collection, that currently (2011) costs the ratepayers $19m per annum. If the market rates paid for glass reflected the cost of collection and processing it there would be a substantial reduction in costs to the ratepayers. Methods of how this market rate increase could be achieved may include initiatives like Container Deposit Legislation (CDL), and it is important to note that O-Is stance on CDL is now neutral. This does not alter the conclusion of this waste assessment that currently council is in effect subsidising the private sector glass recycling industry to a large degree. O-Is dominance in the market lessened somewhat in the last decade when it applied quotas and substantially reduced the price paid for cullet, although this situation may improve with the addition of the new glass furnace commissioned in September 2010. It is noted that the imposition of quotas applied to glass collectors as opposed to councils significantly
OI Submission Auckland Law reform Select committee to Page 3 Chapter 13
Chapter 4 | 47
impacted on the councils contracts and budgets meaning that alternative options for glass were put in place by the councils. The new furnace has the capacity to take an extra 70,000 tonnes of glass out of the waste stream. Whereas previously it had been economically viable for glass to be shipped to Auckland from throughout the country, the price reduction in 2004 resulted in glass from some parts of New Zealand being stockpiled or alternative uses for it sought. It is understood that some cullet is now being exported to Australia and Indonesia. Recovered glass is also used in the manufacture of glasswool insulation by Tasman Insulation NZ Ltd at its Penrose factory. The glass used is pre-consumer pane rather than bottle glass. Although its market position is not as dominant as O-Is, Carter Holt Harvey (CHH) is the only company manufacturing paper and cardboard packaging from recovered materials in New Zealand. CHH has two plants using recovered materials in New Zealand, at Te Papapa, Auckland (current capacity to 100,000T p.a.) and Kinleith (current capacity to 125,000T p.a.) in the Waikato. Source material for the plants is recovered from both pre-and post-consumer sources. CHH is more vertically-integrated than O-I, with its Fullcircle Recycling division being one of the major players in the commercial paper recycling collection market partially under the Paper Chain and Paperchase brands. However, because there are offshore markets for recovered paper and cardboard other collectors have become established. They no longer need to rely totally on CHH for product sales. Paper Reclaim Ltd is one of the major independent collectors and processors in the Auckland region and while some of its recovered product is on-sold to CHH, a significant quantity is exported. Both of the major landfill operators, TPI and EnviroWaste are also active in the collection and processing of paper products. The recovered metals industry is more fragmented again than the paper recycling industry. The major participant in the recovered ferrous metal industry is Sims Pacific Metals Ltd a joint venture between Sims Metal Industries, a subsidiary of Sims Group, one of the largest metal recyclers in the world and Fletcher Building. A significant proportion of the ferrous metal
collected and processed by Sims Pacific is used at Fletchers Pacific Steel plant in Otahuhu. Both pre- and post-consumer metals are significant sources of material for the scrap metal industry. Because of the relatively high value and low volume of metals particularly non-ferrous metals, there are a large number of small participants in the scrap metal industry. These small scrap metal collectors and processors collect from industry or operate scrap metal yards open to the public. While some may on-sell to larger local organisations others bale and export their processed product. The plastics recycling industry is perhaps the least well-established of the commodity recycling industries. The low cost of plastics was a major economic disincentive to the industry until the rise in the cost of petrochemicals in the last decades. A significant proportion of the industry is business to business recycling of pre-consumer materials in which the recycler will re-granulate off-specification product and return it to the manufacturer for re-use (tolling). Recycling of this kind is relatively expensive to set up, requiring sophisticated technology to maintain quality standards. Astron Plastics is one of the more prominent of many participants in this marketplace. As recycled plastics processing is less tolerant of contamination than the other materials postconsumer recycling has been one of the more difficult markets to become established. Much of the industry resulted from the introduction of kerbside recycling by local councils which created a supply of materials that had not previously been collected. The collection of other post-consumer plastics, often commingled with other materials, became more common after kerbside recycling became entrenched. All of the major waste companies, as well as many other smaller participants now collect and process post-consumer plastics and other materials. As sophisticated processing technology is not required for small operations there are a number of small sorting lines in the Auckland region separating plastics and other materials. These include facilities owned by Rubbish Direct, Paper Reclaim, and TPI Allbrite. The market for commingled recyclables, however, is dominated by Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd at its Onehunga plant operated
Chapter 4 | 48
under a build, own, operate and transfer to Auckland and the former Manukau City Councils at the end of the contract. The increasing move towards commingled recycling collection has been greeted with a range of responses from the various recycling stakeholders in New Zealand who have an existing interest. Automated collection of glass with other materials is likely to result in higher levels of glass breakage than systems that rely on colour hand-sorting of whole bottles. The greater percentage of smaller particles of broken glass can be sorted by colour only if automated optical sorting technology is provided. If there is no optical sorting then alternative markets must be developed for the glass which is not able to be re-smelted. This is considered a limitation of commingled recycling that contributes to the cost for processing. It has been demonstrated that commingled collection using 240-litre bins and automated collection assists in the reduction of occupational safety and health risk.9 Furthermore, the range of plastics able to be effectively sorted and recovered using the near-infra-red sorting systems available in modern MRFs is much improved when compared to manual sorting. Visy is the operator of the Auckland-Manukau MRF and is also a major recycled paper manufacturer. Visy has advised that the quality of paper sorted in commingled MRFs is quite acceptable for its paper re-manufacturing processes and does not attract a lower market price if directed to export. Local recycling of the paper through the CHH Fullcircle Penrose Mill is limited due to the dated technology and the inability of the mill to handle paper/cardboard with glass contamination to the levels of overseas plants. However the Visy MRF has had some well publicised quality issues, particularly in respect of the ability of the plant to separate glass10 and this may be a factor to be considered in determining the best options for increasing recycling capacity for Auckland into the future. Visy commissioned a new glass beneficiation plant in May 2010 and have undertaken some additional upgrades of their plant to minimise glass contamination issues experienced. Analysis completed by Covec11 of current recycling
rates in various parts of Auckland, suggest that the collection method has little impact on the amount of recycling collected. Commingled collection systems are lower cost than systems with separate collections of glass. However the glass obtains a higher value when collected separately. Research states results demonstrate the value of separating glass in a commingled collection scheme because of the drop in material values and the wastage that results from full commingling. This is assuming that there is significant wastage of material from commingled collection. Further analysis carried out, assuming no wastage still suggests separate collections are better because of the increase in value of the materials and the reduction in damage cost (wear and tear) to MRFs from the glass fines. The results of this study suggest that adopting a collection system that separates glass from other materials is a better option than a fully commingled collection system. While most of the recovered materials market is structured around individual commodities, the construction and demolition recovery market is based around collecting and processing all wastes from a single industry. The C&D waste processing industry is relatively new, and has entered the marketplace as a direct response to rises in landfill charges. A C&D processing site is able to divert about 80 per cent (by weight) of all incoming waste by separating cleanfilltype materials for cleanfill disposal and recoverable materials, such as concrete, for processing. TPI has operated two of its RTS (Rosedale and Hobill Avenue) as C&D sorting facilities for a number of years. Several C&D sorting operations have also been opened recently, including facilities by Nikau Contractors Ltd, Ward Resource Recovery Ltd, W. Smale Ltd, Winstones and Smart Environmental Ltd. Other recovery options for materials associated with C&D include Envirofert Ltds land storage of plasterboard at its Tuakau facility and Reharvested Timber Products Ltd timber processing facility. The timber processing facility produces various grades of mulch from both treated and untreated timber for a variety of purposes. Wood waste is also used for fuel by several timber
9 10 11
Morrison Low 2010. An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs automated waste collections. Position report for WasteMINZ. Refer Metro Magazine Article March 2010: Climbing Mount Visy. Refer Covec Report September 2010: Impacts of Extended use of Single-Stream Commingled Recycling in Auckland.
Chapter 4 | 49
A summary list of known facilities is outlined in Table 4.7-1.

Table 4.7-1 Diverted materials processing facilities in the Auckland region (excluding organics)
Name/owner
Sims Pacific Metals Owens-Illinois (NZ ) Ltd CHH Fullcircle Ward Resource Recovery Ltd Nikau Contractors Ltd Eco Stock Supplies JJ Laughton Astron Plastics Interwaste
Key services/waste streams

Recycle scrap steel Recycle glass Recycle paper and cardboard Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste Waste food from manufacturers and processors Tyre shredding Process pre-consumer plastic waste Hazardous waste treatment & recycling (fluorescent tubes, dental amalgam, precious metals, quarantine, medical, pharmaceutical, secure waste, batteries and IT Equipment).
Location
Otahuhu Penrose Penrose Onehunga Church St, Penrose and Taniwha St, Meremere Wiri Hunua Rd Glendene Neales Road, East Tamaki Auckland Airport
Reharvest Timber Products Ltd Waste wood
Smart Environmental
Process mixed recyclables from their collections, and from James Fletcher Dr, various other facilities such as the Helensville Resource Favona Recovery Centre. Processes dry recyclables from Manukau and the former Auckland City Councils kerbside collections. Also accepts mixed dry recyclables at the gate. Onehunga
Visy (operated under contract to former Auckland and the former Manukau City Councils, also financial partners) Onyx Group Limited
Processes dry recyclables from North Shore and the former Waitakere City Councils kerbside collections. Processes recyclables from Franklin DC and from commercial collections. Scrap metal recyclers Collect, consolidate and on-sell paper, cardboard and other commodities (plastics, steel, aluminium, and glass). Construction and demolition reuse. Bricks, soil, gypsum plasterboard, silica based weatherboard, trees, made into growing mediums. Process construction and demolition waste into different grades of crushed concrete aggregate for roading, pavement, concrete blend for landscaping. Process construction and demolition waste into different grades of crushed concrete aggregate for roading, pavement, concrete blend for landscaping. Resource Recovery Centre -reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste.
Waitakere Transfer Station, The Concourse, Henderson Takanini Onehunga Penrose Auckland and Waikato
Transpacific Allbrite Ltd CMA Recycling Ltd Paper Reclaim Envirofert Limited
Adams Landscapes Limited
Panmure
W Smale Limited
Northcote Road, Takapuna Former Laminex site Kumeu
Winstones
Chapter 4 | 50
processors in the region, including Pinepacs sawmills in Kumeu and Whenuapai. Post-consumer wood waste is used for fuel by Waste Energy Burners Ltd in Onehunga. In some cases the material flows between the recovered material collectors, transfer/bulking points and processors is clear and measurable but in many cases the information is harder to obtain. Material flows that can be quantified to a reasonable degree include: Glass: the vast majority of recyclable glass in the Auckland Region is eventually delivered to Owens-Illinois (NZ) Ltd in Penrose. The only current exception to this is glass fines that are too small and contaminated to go through the plant and alternative uses for these, such as base layer material for roading and use as drainage material, as well as high end industrial reuse Paper: CHH FullCircle used to receive the vast majority of recyclable paper in the Auckland Region. They have recently lost about 30,000 tonnes per annum of this material largely to export markets Steel: Scrap steel is either reprocessed by Pacific Steel Ltd or exported Concrete: A number of demolition companies make use of on-site crushing equipment where job timing and space on site allow. Ward Demolition has a crushing operation in Onehunga for their own material that cannot be processed on demolition sites.
consumer activity such as supermarkets and processing operations. The main participant in this market is Waikato By Products Ltd in Tuakau, a subsidiary of Lowe Corporation Ltd. The collection of pre-consumer food waste for use as stock feed is well-established but until recently has most commonly been done by the farmers, particularly pig farmers, themselves. Most of this market is sourced from supermarkets and food manufacturers. In recent years this market has become more centralised, with Eco Stock Supplies Ltd now controlling a substantial segment of the market. The collection and processing of post-consumer food waste such as that generated by households, restaurants, and hotels, is in the early development stage. The main barrier to this has been the lack of a consented facility in the Auckland region. While obtaining the necessary resource consents for processing pre-consumer food waste has been relatively straightforward, the consent process for processing post-consumer food waste has proven difficult. As of writing, only a single processor serving the region, Envirofert Ltd near Tuakau, has the necessary consents, at the companys greenwaste processing operation. It is understood that commercial food waste collections have recently begun to provide material for the operation. An organic processing operation in Northland, Sustainable Waste Management Ltd near Ruakaka, is also consented to compost food wastes but mostly processes noxious wastes, such as septage, from the Auckland region and under existing consents would not have sufficient capacity to process the quantities of food wastes likely to be involved. The former territorial authorities in the Auckland region had as a group, initiated investigations into the feasibility of establishing kerbside food waste collections for residents. Compared to the food waste market the collection and processing of greenwaste is very well developed. There is an extensive infrastructure of collection facilities at most transfer stations in the region and commercial
4.8 Organic waste collection and processing market

Some segments of the organic waste collection and processing market are very well developed while others are just beginning to emerge. It is estimated that 192,000 tonnes of organic waste are diverted from landfill disposal annually.xxvi This estimate is presented in Section 3.5.2. The most developed segment of the market is the collection and rendering of pre-consumer meat and seafood waste. Most of the waste is sourced from pre-
Chapter 4 | 51
collections are available for households and businesses. The barriers to establishing greenwaste processing operations include the relatively low cost of landfill disposal against which greenwaste recovery competes, the difficulties in establishing markets for the compost products and the resource consent process. Currently, the greenwaste processing market is dominated by Living Earth Ltd which is half-owned by TPI. Living Earths main processing facility which uses open windrowing technology, recently moved from Pikes Point in Onehunga to Puketutu Island (in the former Manukau City). A large-scale vertical composting unit system at Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station which opened in 2001, closed in 2008. Several smaller operators also process greenwaste including Heards in Papakura, which shreds and composts greenwaste and other organic materials on-site and Silverdale and Warkworth transfer stations which shred greenwaste. Commercial-scale vermicomposting units are also available and have had limited uptake by businesses.
A significant proportion of the greenwaste market does not involve established disposal or processing facilities. Some large generators of greenwaste such as arborists, mulch waste on-site and dispose of it immediately as mulch. Large-scale composting of biosolids does not yet occur in the Auckland region. As a result significant waste streams such as the biosolids produced by the North Shore wastewater treatment plant are disposed of to landfill. The biosolids from Watercare Services Ltds Mangere Treatment Plant are currently disposed of at an on-site managed fill that has capacity until 2013, following Environment Court approval Watercare plans to monofill bio-solids on Puketutu Island. A Hot Rot horizontal composting unit that was trialled for processing biosolids from the Army Bay wastewater treatment plant in Rodney District ceased operation in 2007. Sustainable Waste Managements
Table 4.8-1 Organics processing facilities in the Auckland region
Name/owner
Living Earth Envirofert Ltd Sustainable Waste Management Ltd Heards Landscape Supplies PVL Proteins Waikato By-Products Remediation NZ Limited
Key services/waste streams

Compost garden waste Process organic waste through vermicomposting and windrow composting and dispose of cleanfill waste Organic waste processing through enclosed windrow process including biosolids and organic processing wastes Organic wastes, including greenwaste and demolition timber
Location
Puketutu Island, Mangere Tuakau Ruakaka, Whangarei
Boundary Road, Papakura
Fish and meat processing waste into fertiliser & tallow Great South Rd, Penrose products Fish and meat processing waste into fertiliser& tallow products Processing a range of organic wastes through vermicomposting including some wastes from Auckland food/meat processors. Also processing paunch and drilling mud from other parts of New Zealand. Lapwood Rd, Tuakau Ureti (Taranaki)
Chapter 4 | 52
Ruakaka facility composts some liquid wastes from the Auckland region such as septage from Waitakere City. Other smaller-scale operations are likely to be in operation also, processing waste from individual industries. Material flows that are more readily quantifiable: Green waste: Green waste disposed of at transfer stations, collected from businesses and households and generated by commercial landscape companies is handled by Living Earth, EnviroFert and Sustainable Waste Management. Otherorganicwastes: There are a number of processors of other organic wastes (i.e. not green waste) in the Auckland Region. Options include rendering (PVL Proteins, Penrose and Lowe Corporation, Tuakau), stock food (Eco Stock Supplies), composting/vermi composting (EnviroFert, Remediation NZ Ltd).
preservatives contaminated packaging associated with these wastes gas cylinders. A range of treatment processes are used before hazardous wastes can be safely disposed. Most disposal is either to landfill or through the trade waste system. Some of these treatments result in trans-media effects, with liquid wastes being disposed of as solids after treatment. A very small proportion of hazardous wastes are intractable and need exporting for treatment. These include polychlorinated byphenyls, pesticides and persistent organic pollutants. The number of participants in the hazardous waste market is relatively small. In recent years both TPI and EnviroWaste have acquired existing businesses to establish a greater presence in the market. EnviroWaste purchased Chemwaste Industries Ltd in 2007 and now operates it as a division of its Technical Services subsidiary. In 2005, TPI purchased Nuplex Industries Ltd Environmental Services group and then purchased Medismart Ltd in 2007. Also in 2007 TPI purchased the non-medical waste business of Medi-Chem Waste Services Ltd. An associated company, International Waste Ltd, operates the steam sterilisation unit at Auckland airport, which treats much of the quarantine and medical sharps waste from the region. The former councils have been providing services to enable collection of what is primarily household hazardous waste as well as agricultural chemicals. The collections are implemented through a combination of drop off centres and mobile collections run as part of the HazMobile programme. There are currently three drop-off stations at transfer stations, which were subsidised by the former councils. These are: Waitakere RTS This is a fully council-owned transfer
4.9 Hazardous waste collection and processing market

The hazardous waste market comprises both liquid and solid wastes that, in general, require further treatment before conventional disposal methods can be used. The most common types of hazardous wastes include: organic liquids, such as those removed from septic tanks and industrial cesspits solvents and oils, particularly those containing volatile organic compounds hydrocarbon-containing wastes, such as inks, glues, and greases contaminated soils (lightly contaminated soils may not require treatment prior to landfill disposal) chemical wastes, such as pesticides and agricultural chemicals medical and quarantine wastes wastes containing heavy metals, such as timber
Chapter 4 | 53
station which accepts small amounts of household hazardous waste. The cost of operating the drop-off centre has been fully funded by the former Waitakere City Council. (the former Waitakere City Council did not participate in the HazMobile programme) Two other drop-off centres in north Auckland located at privately owned transfer stations at Silverdale and Snells Beach. While these are private transfer stations, the drop-off facilities were funded fully by the former Auckland Regional and the former Rodney District Councils. Agricultural chemical collections were funded by the former Auckland Regional Council until July 2009, when an industry funded agricultural chemical collection service was initiated by 3R Group. The former Auckland Regional Council and now the Auckland Council, supports this service through an agreement with the providers, Agrecovery, in order to ensure the service is largely free for rural residents in the Auckland region. Further information about council-provided hazardous waste collection services are contained in section 3.5.3.
14 per cent of the total waste and diverted material stream. While this is a relatively small proportion of the total, the individual contracts let by the former TAs for kerbside refuse collection and disposal are amongst the largest individual waste contracts in the region. The terms of these contracts have grown longer over time with seven to ten year contract periods becoming the norm. Longer contracts allow the contractor to pay off the expensive capital equipment required over a longer period of time in theory resulting in lower costs to the council. TA refuse and recycling contracts are of great importance to many of the major private waste operators. For new entrants to the Auckland market, these contracts are often sought as an entry point into the market allowing a company to establish in the region with a single, substantial contract and to then increase their market share from that point. Some operators are totally reliant upon the council business and these operators would not be able to operate if these contracts were lost. For the major waste operators that own landfills, TPI and EnviroWaste, the TA collection contracts are not essential, although they still tender competitively for them. These large operators rely primarily on their commercial collections and landfill operations to remain profitable. The regulatory role of the former Auckland TAs increased significantly in the last decade. Most of the former councils had bylaws in place to regulate and control the setting out, collection, transportation, and disposal of refuse. The bylaws aimed to protect public health and amenities, minimise traffic disruption and encourage waste minimisation. The more recent waste bylaws include provision for the licensing of waste collectors, and the three former TAs to the north of the region, Rodney District, North Shore City, and Waitakere City, adopted similar bylaws that requires licensed collectors to report regularly on the quantities and types of waste collected from each district. In August 2009, the former Franklin District Council also adopted a solid waste bylaw that is very similar to the North Shore, Rodney and Waitakere
4.10 Summary of council provided waste services and infrastructure

4.10-1 Territorial authorities overview
Although the former TAs in the Auckland region did not control strategic waste infrastructure assets to the same extent as councils elsewhere in New Zealand the council still plays a major role in the regional domestic waste market. This role is due largely to the magnitude of the waste and recycling contracts controlled by local government, the Councils role as a regulator and the statutory obligations placed upon the council by the WMA. The combined waste streams controlled by the former TAs of the Auckland region comprised approximately 16-20 per cent of the overall waste disposed of to landfill making the council by far the single largest generator of waste. When considering the control of recovered materials and recycling waste streams as well, the council is involved with approximately 12-
Chapter 4 | 54
bylaws, although under the new Franklin bylaw licensing is required from February 2010. The statutory obligations placed on TAs by the WMA and its predecessor, the Local Government Amendment (1996) Act, require TAs to become actively involved in the waste market by planning and implementing waste reduction initiatives. Through major initiatives such as kerbside recycling TAs have developed significant services and infrastructure assets that would otherwise not have been commercially viable. These initiatives have, in turn, also strengthened the overall recycling industry by providing a critical mass of recovered materials that otherwise might not have been available. The other main type of initiative for waste reduction undertaken by the former TAs was in the education and promotional area. The larger TAs employed staff directly in this field. In the smaller councils the educational role was generally included in that of the relevant council officer.
4.11 The former Auckland councils joint initiatives

The Auckland regions former TAs worked as a group on a number of waste issues and initiatives. Some of the initiatives undertaken as partnerships between the former TAs included: shared integrated kerbside refuse and recycling collection and processing (MRF) contracts between North Shore City and the former Waitakere City Council initiated 2004 Manukau and Auckland Citys joint venture with Visy Recycling to establish the materials recovery facility in Onehunga for the processing of kerbside recyclables from both cities; and joint recycling collection contract initiated 2007 Rodney, Waitakere, and North Shore adoption of a standardised waste bylaw, including operator licensing and waste data gathering initiated 2004 all of the former TAs representatives met regularly through the Auckland Waste Officers Forum. The Forum initiated many region-wide projects including investigations into the feasibility of councils providing kerbside food waste collection and processing and the development of a regional waste strategy ongoing the HazMobile mobile hazardous waste collection service. The Auckland HazMobile was co-ordinated by the former ARC and provided in conjunction with all of the former TAs (except Waitakere) initiated 2000 Be a Tidy Kiwi anti-litter campaign. All of the former TAs ran a three-year campaign to encourage residents to take personal responsibility for littering initiated 2004 Create your own Eden. All of the former TAs (except Waitakere) participated in this programme to promote home composting regional in 2004 WasteWise Schools. An Education for Sustainability programme that assists schools to reduce their
4.10-2 The former Auckland Regional Council

Under the Resource Management Act 1991, regional councils do not have any specific waste management functions other than those relating to managing the environmental effects of waste, particularly discharges. The role of the former ARC in waste management reflects the diminished functions given to it by legislation. Prior to amalgamation, as well as its regulatory role relating to resource consents for the waste industry the ARC was involved in: the HazMobile mobile hazardous waste collection service and hazardous waste programme (drop off centres and agrichemical collection) initiated in 2000 in cooperation with most TAs in region WasteWise Schools became regional in 2004 EnviroSmart became regional in 2005 RENEW waste exchange network initiated by ARC in 2000 facilitation of product stewardship programme(s) where appropriate. It is envisaged that these functions will be merged into the wider waste management functions of the new Auckland Council.
Chapter 4 | 55
waste, WasteWise Schools was supported by all of the former TAs and the ARC regional in 2004 all of the former TAs and ARC sponsored the EcoBiz programme in the Auckland region, a nationwide programme that provided businesses with the tools to adopt an accredited environmental management system initiated in 2005. This collaboration continues with a new business sustainability programme being implemented throughout 2010 the Auckland Sustainability Framework project a partnership project between all of the former TAs
and the ARC. The project was also in collaboration with central government agencies coordinated through the Government Urban and Economic Development Office (GUEDO) adopted 2007 Waitemata Harbour Clean Up Trust a joint initiative involving the former Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau TAs as well as organisations such as Water Care and Ports of Auckland.
4.12 Inventory of council service contracts

Table 4.12-1 Inventory of former territorial authority waste service contracts, changes to table for expiry dates (these have been amended to first expiry date excluding optional contract extensions)
Service description
The former Auckland City Council Kerbside refuse collection & disposal East Great Barrier collection & landfill Rakino refuse & recycling collection The former Franklin District Council Kerbside refuse collection bags Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing The former North Shore City Council Kerbside refuse disposal The former Papakura District Council Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection The former Waitakere City Council Waste transport from transfer station Waste disposal from transfer station
Contractor
Enviroway Ltd Great Barrier Cartage Morris Brown
Expiry
June 2013 June 2011 June 2012
EnviroWaste Services Ltd EnviroWaste Services Ltd Enviroway Ltd Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd
June 2013 June 2013 June 2017 June 2022
Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd
May 2014
Smart Environmental Ltd Waste Management
Sept 2011 June 2012
Smith & Davies Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd
June 2012 May 2014
Chapter 4 | 56
Service description
The former Franklin District Council12 Kerbside refuse collection bags Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Waiuku transfer station operation The former Manukau City Council Kerbside refuse collections Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Operation of East Tamaki transfer station and Whitford Landfill (owned by Waste Disposal Services JV.) The former North Shore City Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Devonport Transfer Station Inorganic refuse collection The former Papakura District Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection The former Rodney District Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside recycling collection
Contractor
Expiry
EnviroWaste Services Ltd Envirowaste Services Ltd Enviroway Ltd Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd Envirowaste Services Ltd
Feb 2014 Feb 2014 June 2013 June 2013 Annual contract
Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd Waste Disposal Services Enviroway Ltd Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd Waste Disposal Services
June 2012 None June 2017 June 2022 December 2012 None
Onyx Group Ltd Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Living Earth Ltd Onyx Group Ltd
June 2015 June 2014 June 2015 June 2015 June 2013 June 2015
Waste Management Smart Environmental Ltd Smart Environmental Ltd Waste management
June 2013 Sept 2011 No contract Annual contract
None private operators only Smart Environmental Ltd June 2013
12
Franklin kerbside recycling collections only in urban areas.
Chapter 4 | 57
Service description
The former Waitakere City Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Waste transport from transfer station Waste disposal from transfer station
Contractor
Expiry
Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Smith & Davies Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd
June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 2013 2013
4.13 Other council waste services

The following is a description of other waste management and minimisation services provided by the former TAs that has not been captured in the sections above.
from outside this area. The former North Shore City also contracted out some of its waste minimisation programmes to a local environmental education centre called Kaipatiki Ecological Restoration Project (KERP) located in Glenfield. These programmes have generally been for North Shore residents.
4.13-1 Waste minimisation learning centres

All the former Auckland councils (territorial and regional) provided community waste minimisation programmes either directly or in some cases by funding community groups or contractors to deliver educational programmes and services. Waste minimisation programmes include a number of regional as well as local programmes. These joint education / behaviour change programmes are listed in section 4.11. There is just one council-owned waste minimisation learning centre in the region at the Waitakere Transfer Station. This centre is available for all of the former Waitakere City schools and groups and also by request from groups outside of Waitakere. There are several other centres that were contracted to the former TAs to provide services including a waste minimisation centre located at the Visy MRF, which provides a free waste minimisation programme under contract to the former Auckland and the former Manukau City Councils. The Visy education centre is generally provided for Auckland and Manukau residents but is also available on request to other groups
4.13-2 Litter control and enforcement

The approach to the former councils litter control and enforcement function varies throughout the region and may be managed as part of waste, roading, parks or environmental protection/enforcement services. By way of example the former North Shore City Council managed public litter bins and street sweeping under roading services and litter control within parks through Parks services, whereas Waitakere and Manukau Cities and Franklin and the former Rodney District Councils managed litter as part of their waste services. In Waitakere all collection contracts were managed by in the field waste minimisation officers who also act as litter control officers. The former Auckland City Council had a separate unit Streetscape Services that managed litter on road reserves or around assets such as street furniture, bus stops etc. They were also responsible for installing and maintaining litter bins, street sweeping and berm mowing. Bins and litter in parks were managed through parks services, while litter collected in stormwater traps was collected and disposed of as a water services function.
Chapter 4 | 58
4.13-3 Public litter bins

The former Waitakere City Council, the former Manukau City Council and the former Rodney District Council managed the installation, maintenance and emptying of public litter bins within the scope of solid waste services. The other former Auckland TAs split the responsibility for litter bin management across other groups such as Streetscape Services (The former Auckland City Council) and parks.
litter collection, street sweeping and cleaning of public toilets. The other former TAs carried out town centre cleaning under parks, roading or community sections within their council.
4.13-6 Stream and beach cleaning

Stream cleaning could be undertaken by parks, roading, waste, water or community sections within the council. Some cleaning was provided as a waste service depending on the location. For example, stream cleaning in the former Auckland City was the responsibility of Metrowater. However, the waste team managed the cleaning up of waterway areas that are not defined as streams (e.g. gullies). The former Waitakere City Council managed all stream cleaning as a solid waste service. In the former North Shore, this was a parks unit function. Beach or harbour cleaning/litter removal may be undertaken as a waste function, possibly through involvement in the Waitemata Harbour Clean-up Trust. The trust is a voluntary organisation that was developed by the former Waitakere City Councils Solid Waste Business Unit at the request of the Mayor of Waitakere. This is now a regional activity funded by the former Auckland, Waitakere, North Shore and the former Manukau City Councils, the Auckland Regional Council, Watercare and Ports of Auckland and oversees the removal of litter from Waitemata Harbour and the inner gulf islands as well as promoting clean and rubbish-free waterways. The trust is currently only sponsored for a three year period and is not a statutory requirement for the council. Private individuals and other organisations can also elect to become a sponsor or make a donation to the trust. The long term sponsorship and operation of this trust and the services it provides will need to be considered in the medium term by the new Auckland Council.
4.13-4 Abandoned vehicle recovery and disposal

All the former TAs took responsibility for the recovery and disposal of abandoned vehicles in accordance with their own procedures. These procedures addressed recovery of costs (where possible) as well as notice for removal and owner claim provisions. In most cases the management of abandoned vehicles was administered outside of the waste services team (generally roading). The LGA 1974 s356 sets out a procedure for how this process is to be conducted in terms of notification requirements and recovery of vehicles. Exceptions to this were the former Waitakere City and the former Auckland City Councils which provided direct abandoned vehicle services from within the waste group. If not claimed, abandoned vehicles taken to the Waitakere Transfer Station were either sold or drained and parts recovered for recycling or disposal. This allowed the council to recover costs through the revenue from vehicle sales and also allowed safe and maximised recovery of fluids and recyclable materials. The former Auckland City Councils waste budgets funded the management of abandoned vehicles from the gulf islands, while those encountered on the mainland were managed through the roading unit. This split between mainland and gulf island services was driven by logistical issues in that wastes services owned assets that could be used for vehicle storage and used for shipping material back to the mainland.
4.13-7 Other services

Some of the former councils also undertook the management of closed landfills, which were managed from either, or a combination of, waste budgets and parks budgets. Some cleaner production programmes were also paid for from waste budgets.
4.13-5 Town centre cleaning

The former Waitakere and the former Manukau City Councils carried out town centre cleaning as part of their solid waste services. These services could include
Chapter 13|| 59 Chapter
Future demand
1 2
Chapter 01 Bliss light. Document header, Blisswaste problem Chapter 3. The medium 7.5pt
Chapter 5 | 60
Future demand
Consideration of current and future demand for waste management and minimisation services is essential to forward planning and service delivery. Effective assessment of the demand for services in the short, medium and long term ensures the sustainable provision of waste services for a region. One of the key reasons for carrying out a forecasting and future demand planning exercise is to ensure that the Auckland Councils initial Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has considered and adequately caters for this demand. In interpreting the WMA s51 where it is demonstrated that current and future demand is currently being met through existing services, facilities and programmes a detailed options assessment for this particular service may not need to be undertaken. The following section identifies key drivers of growth in the Auckland region, and how this can be expected to impact on future service provision. Comments are also made with regard to the adequacy of the current service to meet future demand. The future demand for waste services will be driven by a number of key drivers including: demographic change e.g. population, household changes change in commercial and industrial activity/ economic conditions land use changes impact of waste flows from other regions
chapter. The rest of chapter 5 provides an overview of what are viewed as the most relevant primary demand drivers for the Auckland region.
5.1 Demographics/population change

The Auckland region has a provisional estimated population of 1,436,400 in 2009.xxvii The region is experiencing significant growth and this trend is expected to continue into the future, with some areas expected to grow more quickly than others. As indicated in the figures below the Statistics NZ medium projection for growth indicates that the region will be home to 1.7 million people by 2021.
Figure 5.1-1 Auckland regional population projections to 2031.
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
2006
2011
2016
2021
2026
national policy and legislation e.g. product stewardship schemes / waste levy impact of waste minimisation programmes, future initiatives community expectation. Secondary drivers also impact on demand for waste services but are indirect in nature. Examples of such drivers are climate change that leads to increased grass growth and/or storm events and subsequently increased soil and greenwaste to landfill. There are many secondary drivers such as these that impact on waste demand but due to the level of uncertainty in their impact they will not be discussed further in this
Low (1.2%)
Medium (1.6%)
High (2.1%)
Projection figures stated above bars are for medium projection only
The areas anticipated to grow the most dramatically in terms of total population increase are in the former central Manukau area, followed by Auckland central. Based on the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy published by the Auckland Growth Forum in 1999 it is anticipated that the growth in population in the key centres of development will be accompanied by an increase in economic development activity. Land use change will also be apparent as a result of this continued growth.
Chapter 5. Future demand
2031
consumption patterns/product quality
1.37m
1.48m
1.60m
2,000,000
1.71m
1.82m
1.93m
Chapter 5 | 61
Projected Population Change, 2006-2021

As per Statistics NZ CAU-level projections, 2006-base Figure 5.1-2 Map Change>1500 per CAU Labels arbitrarily limited to of projected population growth
Long Bay
Projected Population Change, 2006-2021

As per Statistics NZ CAU-level projections, 2006-base Labels arbitrarily limited to Change>1500 per CAU
Long Bay
Fairview Albany
Kumeu
Greenhithe Takapuna Central
Whenuapai West Hobsonville
Albany
Waiheke Island
Fairview
CBD and Fringe Sturges North Henderson South Parrs Park
Mt Wellington North St Johns Glen Innes West
Kumeu
Greenhithe
Beachlands-Maraetai
New Lynn Onehunga SE
Whenuapai West Hobsonville Edgewater Pakuranga Central
Takapuna Central
Papatoetoe North Papatoetoe Central Papatoetoe West Papatoetoe East Mangere South Mangere East Manukau Central Wiri Otahuhu West Kohuora Homai East
Donegal Park Ormiston Point View
Key
CBD and Fringe
Sturges North Henderson South Parrs Park
Population change, 2006-2021 -50 1500 New Lynn 1501 5970

Onehunga SE
Takanini South
5971 17200
Papatoetoe North Papatoetoe Central Papatoetoe West Papatoetoe East Mangere South Mangere East Manukau Central Wiri Otahuhu West Kohuora Homai East
Chapter 5 | 62
5.2 Commercialandindustrial activity / economic conditions

A key indicator of commercial and industrial activity and overall economic conditions is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Across New Zealand GDP has fluctuated over the last 10 year period but remained positive throughout, with the average annual GDP growth over a 10 year period of 1998 to 2008 being 3.9 per cent. The recent move towards negative growth driven by the global recession has an expected result of reduced waste to landfill as production declines however, over the long term, growth is expected with an average over the last 10 years projecting growth to continue at or above 3 per cent per annum in the Auckland region. As waste arising has traditionally been coupled to economic activity indicators such as GDP it is anticipated that without significant change in how waste is managed e.g. increased diversion / resource recovery activity or changes to legislation, growth in waste per capita is likely to continue along previous trends (there was an estimated 22 per cent increase of waste to landfill per capita between 2003 and 2008). The recent recession is believed to have resulted in a measurable decline in waste to landfill in various parts of New Zealand as seen in some territorial authority waste to landfill figures. The local impact is difficult to measure, however, because there are few baseline data available and because of the timing of the introduction of the waste levy and accompanying waste data reporting, which commenced in July 2009. This trend has also been seen in the domestic waste figures in the Auckland region with Manukau for example seeing an 11 per cent decrease in all waste collection service waste volumes in the 2008-2009 compared to the previous year. This downward trend appears to have continued and is beginning to level out in October 2009. It is generally assumed that despite the recession, growth will begin in 2010 with an increasing trend over the medium to long term.
Other specific examples of changes to commercial and/or industrial activity that impact the demand for waste services are large-scale infrastructure and development projects. For example the recently commenced Victoria Park motorway tunnel will generate in the region of 100,000 tonnes of contaminated material that will need to be landfilled as the waste is not suitable for cleanfill disposal. Also, the closure or changes to the designation of any current cleanfills or managed fills will impact on the future demand for landfill. For example the Greenmount Landfill (a former sanitary landfill now closed to accepting general waste) is currently operating as a managed fill for the purposes of filling the site to reach final site closure contours. It is a commercial operation and is expected to be filled by approximately 2015. The specific tonnage entering the site is known to be significant although the specific nature and volume is uncertain. It is understood that at least some of the material is contaminated and will not be suitable as cleanfill. Once this site has closed there will be further demand on the existing landfills in the region and this may have an adverse impact on their lifespan.
5.3 Surrounding areas other regions

There are some waste tonnes that flow into the Auckland region for disposal at one of its major landfills, such as waste from the Far North District and Whangarei District. The vast majority of waste from Whangarei District will cease to enter Auckland following the 2011 opening of a new Whangarei District landfill at Puwera. Any tonnes from Whangarei and the Far North that do continue to travel to Auckland will be relatively insignificant. A significant portion of waste generated in the Auckland region is disposed of in the Waikato at EnviroWastes Hampton Downs landfill. Aside from this flow of waste there is also a significant amount of diverted materials, such as recyclable materials, that flow into the Auckland region for processing. This demand is generally catered for by the commercial waste/diverted materials market.
Chapter 5 | 63
One important consideration is that other regions may also provide for additional capacity with respect to resource recovery opportunities, such as organics processing. Due to the scarcity of suitable land in the Auckland region for processing of diverted materials, such as organics composting, the Auckland Council may need to look for solutions that are outside its territorial boundaries when considering future options.
respectively compared to 0.37 kg per capita and 0.33 kg per capita in the former Auckland and Manukau council areas where rates funded waste collections were used. Another example of how these factors can be influenced is through the establishment of product stewardship schemes for priority products. There are a number of local community based social marketing programmes that have arisen over the last decade, including several initiated in the Auckland region. All of these policies and programmes have the common aim of reducing waste generation at a household level by targeting these particular influencing factors. The Auckland Council is likely to continue with existing initiatives to influence consumption behaviour both at a local and national level, and improve on them over time. These approaches are discussed further in the next sections and are also considered when scoping options.
5.4 Consumptionbehaviour
Consumer behaviour is a key driver for household waste generation in particular. OECD research indicates that there are number of factors that influence household waste generation including: family composition e.g. household numbers and children household income and size attitude toward the environment and recycling presence of volume-based /polluter pays charging systems for waste frequency of waste collection technological shifts/product supply changes increased product packaging presence of infrastructure and services to enable resource recovery.xxviii These issues are the target of many New Zealand policies and programmes at both a local and national level. Obviously factors such as family size and household income will be difficult to influence. However, there are positive correlations between attitude toward the environment and waste generation that can be influenced. Other important factors are the presence of volume-based charging systems such as polluter pays schemes and/or other economic disincentives such as waste levies. Evidence from waste audits completed in October 2010 clearly show greater recyclable material recovery rates in the former council areas where polluter pays household waste pricing was implemented. With recovery rates for aluminium cans being higher in the former Waitakere and North Shore council areas (0.97 kg per capita and 0.94 kg per capita
5.5 Legislation product stewardship schemes, waste levy or other regulation

Legislation, particularly the WMA contains several mechanisms aimed at reducing waste to landfill such as the waste levy and product stewardship provisions. There are also a variety of local regulatory measures that can affect demand for services.
5.5-1 Extended producer responsibility and product stewardship

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is essentially an approach to promote total life cycle environmental improvement of product systems by extending the responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to various parts of the entire life cycle of the product including the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product. As such EPR shifts the responsibility for waste and discarded materials from local government to private industry and these costs are then incorporated into the product price. The focus is on keeping products
Chapter 5 | 64
from entering the waste stream and to facilitate product design that promotes recycling. The products commonly targeted by such schemes include packaging, batteries, solvents, paper, used cars, tyres and used electronic goods, although in theory, any product may be managed in this way. Like EPR, Product Stewardship (PS) aims to shift the responsibility for waste products away from local government. Product Stewardship however puts the onus on all parties involved in the lifecycle of the product including the designers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers, recyclers and disposers of products. Product Stewardship encourages producers and other parties to internalise a substantial proportion of the environmental costs arising from the final disposal of their products. The terms EPR and Product Stewardship are often used interchangeably. Although there are some differences between the two concepts, their purpose and aim are similar to take the financial and physical burden of product waste away from local government and to facilitate the best environmental end for products at their end of life. Product Stewardship can be managed as a voluntary scheme or made mandatory with regulatory economic instruments. The efficacy of voluntary schemes however is questionable, especially where they are not backed by the threat of regulation. For example, there are many products that are difficult or hazardous to dispose of, yet the industry takes no responsibility for ensuring final disposal of the product. Schemes are often required to allow for disposal costs to be added to a product, such as in take back or deposit refund schemes which work well in some countries for products such as tyres or containers. Other issues stem from the rapid nature of technological change and the resulting obsolescence of some products, even before the end of their useable life. For example, traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions are quickly being replaced by LCD and LED version. While the CRTs are often reusable and / or recyclable, there is little market for these products any longer and no mandatory scheme in place to ensure
their proper recycling or disposal. Thus many such electronic goods and their hazardous components end up in landfill and no thought is taken of this issue by producers to consider disposal impact in the design of the product. Product stewardship schemes accredited under the WMA are likely to focus on minimising waste but they may also reduce other environmental impacts during the products lifecycle. Some schemes may work to ensure a product is disposed of properly or recycled, while other schemes may work to make changes in the design of a product to reduce the use of toxic material. This would likely reduce both the environmental impact of manufacturing and make recycling easier. The WMA provides for regulations to be developed in relation to the priority products that are identified by the Government. At the time of writing, the Government has not formally nominated priority products although a trial accreditation process has been undertaken for waste oil. The Government has since signalled its preference for non-regulatory methods, such as the development of voluntary schemes only. It is uncertain at this time if any further products will develop accredited schemes and what influence these schemes will have on reducing the generation and / or disposal of these wastes. In recent discussions with MfE, the former councils of the Auckland region indicated that the products or classes of product they wished to see nominated as priorities are: oil tyres electronic waste packaging waste (eg glass) agricultural chemicals. The form of any accredited scheme will be based on the product itself and will be developed with the input of the key stakeholders and the industry. The council could continue to lobby to see schemes developed and could play an important part in facilitating the development of some schemes. This is due to their independent third-party position in the industry. This
Chapter 5 | 65
is important particularly where an industry sector is working to develop a voluntary scheme but is concerned about the risks of industry collaboration or about free riders, which often hinder scheme development. Free riders are industry players that choose not to participate in a voluntary scheme, as they can reap the benefits without supporting scheme costs. In these cases, if all free riders cannot be brought into a scheme voluntarily, legislation to mandate the scheme will be required. The council also has the opportunity to benefit from some schemes as they may improve the recovery and diversion of products they currently manage and, in some cases, TAs may be directly or indirectly involved in a scheme either on a voluntary or statutory basis. For example a number of TAs and regional councils have helped start and/or currently participate and fund several voluntary product stewardship take back schemes such as for paint, used oil and other hazardous materials (e.g. HazMobile), although these are generally focused at the end of the product life cycle. Depending on the design of the product stewardship scheme, these programmes have the potential to reduce the demand (and cost) for current services offered by the council if the management of the products becomes the responsibility of the producer.
Emissions Trading Scheme and the potential for a national cleanfill standard to be developed, as these could have a key impact on the types and quantity of waste disposed to landfill.
5.5-4 Local government regulation

Along with national policy and regulation, local government regulation has an impact on demand for waste management and minimisation services. Local government regulation occurs at a consenting level for major waste and diverted materials facilities such as landfills, managed fills and for some cleanfills. The success of consent applications, or the consent conditions themselves, can play a part in impacting demand. For example, Watercare Services Limited planned to dispose of biosolids in an old quarry site at Puketutu Island beginning in 2013 but their consent application was rejected in 2009 by the former Auckland Regional and the former Manukau City Councils. Watercare challenged this finding and an appeal was taken against Watercare by the Makaurau Marae Maori Trust in the Environment Court. This matter has now been resolved and following the approval of the Environment Court, will see the quarry area of the island rehabilitated with clean fill and treated biosolids from the adjacent Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant to create a new regional park. As Watercare Services manages 115,000 tonnes per year of biosolids, if they had lost the appeal, this material will most likely have been disposed of to landfills across the region. This would have represented nearly an 8 per cent increase in solid waste to landfill from the Auckland region just as a result of this single decision.xxix Local government can also use regulation, such as bans on materials to landfill and other waste bylaw provisions, to manage waste, particularly where alternative services exist to deal with the waste stream in question. Although potentially powerful tools, these have not been widely taken up in the Auckland region. Waste bylaws are discussed in more detail in section 7.3.2.
5.5-2 Waste levy

Aside from the product stewardship provisions of the WMA 2008, the Act also contains waste levy provisions, which, as discussed in chapter 2, will provide funding to promote waste minimisation initiatives and, if increased over time, will provide a disincentive to wasteful behaviour. This waste levy has the potential to be a very powerful tool to support waste minimisation objectives and the council should consider the impact of the levy and make submissions to Government on the future of the levy when its effectiveness is reviewed in 2011.
5.5-3 Other national legislation and regulation

Another consideration is the potential for additional legislation and its impact, such as the recently-enacted
Chapter 5 | 66
5.6 Waste minimisation programmes, services and future initiatives

Further to the existing waste education and minimisation programmes being run in the region, with new funding available through the Waste Minimisation Act (waste levy), additional waste minimisation programmes and services are under consideration and may be funded from beyond 2010. During 2010 the former councils waste education officers undertook a comprehensive review of existing waste education and minimisation programmes and developed a draft Waste Education Strategy (Refer Appendix A-10 Background Papers). This strategy will be aligned with the adopted WMMP. This was prepared in response to the Councils responsibilities under the WMA to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation and in recognition that education programmes are an effective tool with which to meet legislative requirements providing they are adequately resourced. This area of behaviour change and waste minimisation targeting businesses, community and schools will likely be increasingly focused on, as the per tonne waste levy increases in the future, as is common in OECD countries once a levy is introduced. These programmes are expected to have an effect on waste to landfill, reducing overall tonnage through diversion. Depending on the type of programme, it may be difficult to directly attribute reduction of waste to landfill to some programmes. However, other potential future services, such as introduction of a household organic waste collection service, would have a quantifiable reduction of waste to landfill, which will have the impact of reducing demand for landfill space into the future. While there may be a reduction in the demand for landfill, if the Auckland Council provides additional waste minimisation programmes and services, then there will be a corresponding increase in demand for resource recovery and waste minimisation services and infrastructure and awareness and education supporting these.
5.7 Communityexpectation
The existing Waste Management Plans (the Plans) of the former councils can be considered an additional indicator of community feedback and expectations. Adopted after consultation with the community the targets specified within these Plans broadly indicate demand for reducing the damage to the environment through waste generation and disposal. All of the Plans (excluding Franklin District) have taken note of moving towards zero waste and include specific waste reduction targets. All of the Plans commonly note a number of key priority waste streams and issues, which include organics, hazardous waste, recyclables / packaging, inorganic and special wastes (including construction waste) and illegal dumping and litter. The objectives and desired community outcomes in relation to waste minimisation as reflected in these Plans are clearly not being met by the existing council and commercial market services. This is evident in the waste data that shows there is still an increasing volume of waste being generated on a per capita basis. This essentially indicates a need for additional services to meet these community outcomes along with local and national targets. The objectives and targets for the future Auckland Council WMMP (AWMMP) will be discussed further in chapter 6. Aside from community expectations regarding targets for waste reduction, a number of communities also have expectations about the types and levels of service they receive. For example, some communities, such as the former North Shore City, have a user-pays philosophy for collecting waste. User-pays councils believe this is the fairest approach to charging for waste collection, as it connects the charge directly to volume on a regular basis. By comparison, the former Manukau City Council provides most waste services in accordance with a targeted rates-funding principle. All users who have access to a service are charged a targeted rate. This option enables consistent services to be provided across varied communities. It also avoids exposure to competition which, under individual user-pays programmes can see a councils user-pays
Chapter 5 | 67
programme undercut by commercial services in the most easily serviced and therefore most profitable areas. Also, by using targeted rates, comprehensive services (refuse, recycling, organics) can be designed with appropriately-sized containers to encourage good recycling behaviour and waste minimisation. For councils to provide optimum cost effectiveness and efficiency in dealing with the whole waste stream, the targeted rate approach may compromise the principle of direct user-pays but this may be justified to meet efficiency and effectiveness objectives. Concerns regarding levels and delivery of services, particularly with respect to household refuse collection options, are discussed in more detail in chapter 7.
operator licensing system, are outlined in section 3.2.2. The background to this issue and detailed recommendations for addressing it are also dealt with at length in the Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment contained in Appendix C-3.
5.8-2 Forecasts
Giving consideration to anticipated growth and the drivers noted earlier, several different projections can be made on the waste generated within the Auckland region.
Figure 5.8-1 Auckland regional waste to landfill population projections Waste Projections by population Growth
5.8 Projected future waste volumes

5.8-1 Data limitations and issues
Tonnes
2,500,000
2,000,000
As highlighted in chapter 3 there are accuracy errors and limitations associated with the waste to landfill data for the Auckland region, which restrict the accuracy of waste estimates and demand forecast projections. The key limitations of relying on these data for establishing a baseline in the Auckland circumstances are: the landfill data are as provided by commercial landfill operators and have not been verified directly using weighbridge records noting waste source landfill data are highly sensitive to fluctuations caused by general economic conditions the amount of contaminated soil or other special wastes to landfill is highly variable and is linked directly to major infrastructure or remediation projects. Large one-off projects or other changes can have a significant impact on demand for landfill space. On this basis recommendations for improving the data gathering methods for the Auckland region, such as implementation of a region-wide waste
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000 0
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
High popn projection (2.1%) Medium popn projection (1.6%) Low popn projection (1.2%)
The figure 5.8-1 above gives the Statistics New Zealand high, medium and low growth scenarios for the Auckland region and the shows effect on waste generation to 2031. Due to the recent recession and the unknown impacts this will have on growth in the region, a medium growth band has been selected as the estimate for further analysis.
20
31
Chapter 5 | 68
Figure 5.8-2 Auckland regional waste to landfill overall projections Projected waste to landfill
7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 Tonnes 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0
The equal weighting projection takes a simple average of the three other projected rates (1.6 per cent, 3.0 per cent and 6.6 per cent) and creates an adjusted waste growth rate of 3.7 per cent. This assumes that population, GDP and existing waste trends all have an impact on waste generation but not a cumulative effect. This would result in 2,232,000 tonnes per annum by 2021. These projections must be noted as estimates only and are not based on Council-verified weighbridge records. The figures were also estimated during a period of rapid population growth and economic activity, which may reflect a higher projection into the future than is likely. It could generally be expected that actual waste projections may be more in line with economic activity and population growth projections over a longer time frame. The key issue demonstrated overall is that there is likely to be a continued upward trend in waste generation, including on a per capita basis, unless more action than at present is taken to reduce waste to landfill.
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Recorded data (6.6%) Equal weighting to each (3.7%) Estimated GDP (3.0%) Popn based (medium) (1.6%)
The figure 5.8-2 above shows a variety of waste projections. The first projection is based on population only, which is estimated to increase at an average of 1.6 per cent per year over the period. It shows that by 2021, the region can expect to be producing 1,677,000 tonnes of waste per year. This projection is based on population growth only, meaning that all other factors are held static (such as waste generation increase per capita). This would assume that the trend toward increasing waste per capita would hold static and that the only increases would be attributable to population growth.xxx If Gross Domestic Product (GDP) alone is used as a growth predictor (estimated at a 3 per cent increase per year), this shows a somewhat higher forecast of 2,051,000 tonnes of waste per annum by 2021.xxxi The recorded waste data line indicates that in pure tonnage terms waste to landfill has increased, on average, by 6.6 per cent per year over a five-year period. The only data available used in this projection are based on just two waste to landfill estimates for 2003 and 2008 thus the data are not robust enough to be considered accurate for forecasting purposes.
20
31
5.8-3 Projected diverted materials

Economic fluctuations also have an impact on the supply of and demand for diverted materials. Resource recovery activities, such as recycling are reliant on both a source of discarded materials (e.g. kerbside recycling schemes) and a market demand for these materials. Kerbside recycling operations will provide a relatively steady supply of materials, although this supply is likely to be impacted by the economic conditions that affect consumption levels. Demand for these materials will be reflected in commodity prices. If demand for these materials results in the commodity price dropping below the cost of collection and landfilling, it is possible that materials that were once diverted to beneficial reuse or recycling may once again be landfilled, be stockpiled, require additional subsidy, or in some cases, be illegally dumped. This emphasises the importance of monitoring economic trends over time, particularly when considering the sustainability and economic viability of recycling and/ or recovery operations.
Chapter 5 | 69
It is generally expected that volumes of diverted materials will show a similar trend to waste projections and vary in accordance with the factors that influence waste generation such as population, economic growth, consumption, and production patterns. Additionally, various factors will impact specifically on the market for diverted materials which will act to divert more or less material from landfill. Demand for and supply of substitute resources, product quality, overseas markets and transport costs, centralised processing centres as well as other community and waste minimisation programmes will all have an effect on the amount of waste that becomes diverted material. With demand and supply determining the competitive market price it is expected that as the price for diverted materials increases, supply will also increase and more material will be diverted from landfill. The following figure indicates several key markets and the market fluctuation over the last 10 years.
Figure 5.8-3 Commodity market for diverted materials
3,000 2,500 US$ / Tonne 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
The graph indicates that the market for diverted materials is extremely variable, especially since 2006.xxxii The large fall in commodity prices that occurred during the 2008-09 period was due to the world-wide financial crisis. Of note to waste generation is that diversion of waste materials is financially less viable during recessionary periods, with correspondingly low competition for resources and low prices for diverted materials. As increased economic activity occurs and resources are more sought after on the market the demand for, and cost of, diverted material will increase. Combining this with existing waste projections, it can be expected that diverted material volumes will be in line with existing waste generation trends and that there will be a correspondingly higher tonnage of these materials during periods of higher prices. The key risk particularly for lower value commodities such as various grades of plastic and for glass, is that when the market price drops these products may be stockpiled, disposed to landfill or require additional subsidy by the council to support their continued recycling.
1/ 11 / 1/ 199 08 8 / 1/ 199 05 9 / 1/ 200 02 0 / 1/ 200 11 1 / 1/ 200 08 1 / 1/ 200 05 2 / 1/ 200 02 3 / 1/ 200 11 4 / 1/ 200 08 4 / 1/ 200 05 5 / 1/ 200 02 6 / 1/ 200 11 7 / 1/ 200 08 7 / 1/ 200 05 8 /2 00 9
Tin 99.85% Copper Grade A Aluminium 99.7%
Chapter 5 | 70
5.9 Summary of future demand drivers

In taking the above demand drivers into account it is noted that there will be continued pressure on existing waste management and minimisation infrastructure and services. While there is adequate landfill disposal capacity in the near to medium term future, recent trends in waste growth show that current methods for minimising waste are not achieving the former councils Waste Management Plan targets. With relatively high projected population growth there will be an increasing demand over time on the councils kerbside collection services. These demands can generally be met, through expansion of fleet and collection routes. If waste minimisation objectives continue to be important to the community, demand will continue for kerbside collection of recyclables and there will be increased demand for the collection of other recoverable materials as well as the associated processing infrastructure. There may be increasing pressure on existing resource recovery centres to expand their capacity and, if these objectives are to be met there is likely to be a need for transfer stations not currently providing recovery services to improve their operations.
Disposal at major landfills is expected to have sufficient capacity for several decades, if landfill space is used efficiently. The closure of Redvale Landfill in approximately 10-15 years may put additional pressure on transportation systems as waste from some areas may need to be transported further afield. If waste trends continue as they have in recent history and there is high population growth, Redvale Landfill may end up facing earlier closure and this will put additional pressure on landfills further afield as well as pressure on the transportation network. There is a general view by the former TAs in Auckland that the commercial waste market will provide for this core waste disposal function into the future. But if Redvale closes, this increases the risk of higher disposal costs for all of Auckland due to increased transport costs and associated greenhouse emissions. There is also the risk of lessened market competition and cost increases associated with development of any further landfills. For these reasons, waste minimisation opportunities should be maximised as a method to avoid ongoing waste disposal cost increases into the future and the Auckland Council should revisit its current preference for reliance on the commercial landfill market. These issues will be discussed further in relation to the options for meeting waste minimisation targets and demand for services in chapter 7.
Chapter 5 | 71 3
Chapter 6 | 72
6.1 Where do we want to be?

The first five chapters of this waste assessment reviewed the current situation with respect to waste management and minimisation industry and services in the Auckland region and have considered the potential impact of growth and other drivers over the next 10+ years. The purpose of the analysis has been to assess future demand for various services and to determine the suitability of the current services when considering both public health protection and waste minimisation objectives. This exercise has also established an estimated baseline from which any future goals and/ or targets will be set, as well identifying key waste streams and priority areas. This section considers the Auckland Councils potential vision, goals, objectives and targets for achieving waste reduction and methods for meeting the forecast demand for services.
6.3 Goals and targets

Each of the former TAs Waste Management Plans took note of the Governments goals with respect to waste management and minimisation as outlined in the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2002. The goals are to: lower wastes liabilities and risks to society reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently.xxxiii The last goal in this list could be changed for the Auckland region to: maximising local economic benefit in the Auckland region through efficient recovery and use of materials. The revised NZWS 2010 has been released by the Ministry for the Environment in October 2010. In addition, the former Auckland councils all adopted waste reduction targets influenced by the NZWS 2002. These targets ranged between 20 to 100 per cent waste reduction to landfill by 2020. Pursuant to the LGATP Act 2010 s84 (2) these are now the formal targets of the Auckland Council.
6.2 Vision
Reducing harm, improving efficiency is the title slogan for the New Zealand Waste Strategy (2010) and represents the Governments vision for a society that values its environment and resources. The Strategy plays an overarching role in the comprehensive toolkit (legislation, international conventions, MfE guidelines, codes of practice and voluntary initiatives) for managing and minimising waste in New Zealand. All the former councils of the Auckland region formally acknowledged the vision and objectives of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (2002) however not all councils adopted a formal zero waste policy or strategy in their Waste Management Plans, which now form the Auckland Council Waste Management Plan. Therefore, for the purposes of this Auckland Council waste assessment, the title slogan of the NZWS 2010 is recommended for adoption into the draft WMMP.
6.4 Objectives and priority waste streams

The NZWS 2010 contains two goals: reducing the harmful effects of waste improving the efficiency of resource use. The Strategy suggests when planning waste management and minimisation activities, local government, business and the community should assess the potential for harm associated with wastes and use the assessments to focus on the areas of greatest concern. Territorial Authorities should through their WMMPs, increase their focus on reducing the harmful effects of waste on the environment. At a workshop held in September 2009 waste officers from the former councils of the region agreed that
Chapter 6. Future planning framework
Chapter 6 | 73
reduction of waste to landfill was the Councils primary waste management objective, with the second objective being cost efficiency. This could be reflected in the objective statement as To achieve cost effective waste management and minimisation. Priority waste streams for the Auckland region were identified previously by waste officers as part of the development of the draft Regional Strategic Priorities for Waste document prepared in 2007 and are further reinforced within the former councils Waste Management Plans (that through legislation (s84(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 became the Auckland WMMP from 1 November 2010 until such time as the Auckland Council adopts its WMMP). This document developed a set of priority waste streams and an accompanying action plan. The priority waste streams identified were: 1. Organic waste 2. Construction and demolition waste 3. Recyclables and packaging 4. Hazardous waste 5. Inorganic/special wastes 6. Illegal dumping and litter.xxxiv These priorities waste streams are nearly identical to the major waste streams identified as having significant diversion potential as outlined in section 3.4 of this assessment. As noted previously, these priorities were established prior to the WMA 2008 and in the context of the former councils having very limited control/ influence over the waste stream. These priorities may change somewhat if the Auckland Council assumes a different role or gains further control/influence of the waste value chain into the future. The objective of cost effective waste minimisation and the priority waste streams are also very well aligned with Government policy and reflect the former councils Waste Management Plans. As such, they have been used as the basis for scoping options in this waste assessment and are recommended for adoption as the basis for the Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
6.5 Monitoring progress

Accurate measurement of progress toward any targets will be a challenge for the Auckland Council primarily because the data on waste to landfill are not readily available. This problem can be resolved over time if assistance is provided by the MfE in terms of introducing their proposed system to gather information about waste sources. This would be particularly useful if the data gathering system also includes information on geographic source. An alternative to the MfE system is for the council to ask major landfill operators to provide the necessary data regularly on a voluntary basis or for the council to introduce a waste operator licensing system similar to that in the former North Shore, Rodney and Waitakere districts. Another issue is that ongoing measurement and monitoring of progress toward any waste reduction target will need to consider the variable nature of landfill disposal, which is greatly impacted by difficult to predict events such as large one-off construction and demolition projects, natural disasters or contaminated sites remediation. Other sources of variability include the impacts of recession or rapid economic growth. All of these factors will need to be discussed in any future monitoring strategies that address progress in implementing the WMMP. Typically, the most difficult elements to monitor and measure are some of the waste minimisation activities that promote individual action such as home composting or raising environmental awareness in areas such food waste reduction or shopping with regard to packaging etc. The previous councils employed a range of initiatives to monitor and measure progress and a suite of new monitoring activities could be developed from these. Another key consideration is the level of contaminated soil/hazardous waste to landfill. As this waste stream can be so large and variable (yet with little opportunity to address the issue at source). For example, in 2007-2008 it is estimated that potentially hazardous material (primarily contaminated materials) composed
Chapter 6 | 74
25 per cent of the total waste to landfills serving Auckland. This means, that in order to achieve for example a waste reduction target of 20 per cent, a 27 per cent reduction of the remainder of the waste stream is required.
approach (of controlling a minor proportion of the waste stream) does not shift it is likely that significant waste minimisation will not be economically feasible. This will be discussed further as part of the options assessment and scenarios presented in chapter 7.
6.6 Waste minimisation targets

The New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010 provides the council with flexibility to set local targets for waste minimisation. It is therefore recommended that the Auckland Council consider a 20 per cent baseline reduction of waste to landfill (excluding potentially hazardous contaminated soils and sludge waste as discussed in section 6.5) as a preliminary target for the purposes of scoping options in this waste assessment. The council can also consider setting operational targets for any new initiatives with the view to measuring waste diversion that is directly attributable to initiatives and services that are likely to impact on the target e.g. measurement of organic waste diverted from landfill if a domestic kerbside collection is introduced. This will serve as an alternative method for measuring progress and service performance. A 20 per cent baseline target is challenging it equates to approximately 210,000 fewer tonnes annually to landfill by 2015 (if potentially hazardous waste is excluded). For it to be achieved at a regional level a fundamental change in the councils approach to waste management and minimisation is required. This change will include the councils further provision of enhanced or new recycling and resource recovery services and the council gaining greater access to the waste stream as well being involved with national initiatives. The economic feasibility of many of these initiatives relies on the council gaining operational/ administrative control of the waste value chain at the transfer station level. If the councils current
6.7 Consultation
6.7-1 General
Preliminary consultation with identified key stakeholders and an information review has been completed to inform the development of this waste assessment. A summary of the outcome of this consultation follows for each stakeholder and where appropriate is listed according to: submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee (Refer appendix B-1) meeting minutes and correspondence received from waste industry key stakeholders (Refer appendix B-2) preliminary consultation meetings held with waste industry key stakeholders (2nd and 3rd September 2010). (Refer appendix B-3)
6.7-2 Submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee

In submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee a number of industry organisations commented on waste options and the current waste situation within the Auckland region. These submissions were made to influence the shape, make up or direction of Government policy and legislation for the new Auckland Councils waste management and minimisation planning. In a report13 prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers to the Auckland Transition Agency they summarised submissions received as follows:
13
Price Waterhouse Coopers March 2010: Solid Waste: High level options Assessment.
Chapter 6 | 75
Key Submission Points

Advocate exploration of CCO Model Advocate establishment of CCO Model Advocate ATA or AC having legal instrument to establish a PPP, if they agree Waste delivery (transport to remain private) TPI/MCC Whitford Tip (WDS) not positioned in property area of Auckland Council (AC) Compulsory requirement for AC to engage/consult with industry on waste minimisation plan Appropriate lead times allowed when changes to bylaws occur, to allow industry to adapt To delete moratorium on ACs requirement not to sell/dispose of existing CCOs until July 2012 to only apply to wholly owned CCOs, eg. not WDS Commerce Act/legislative exemption to allow ATA to enter discussions with industry
Enviro Transpacific Waste Industries
Living Earth
6.7-3 Correspondence from waste industry key stakeholders

Where there has been additional correspondence with key waste stakeholders that relates to waste in the Auckland region the key points are summarised and presented in the tables in section 6.8.
are a party, company or body the Auckland Transition Agency considered of assistance in preparing the draft WMMP. Meetings were held with: Waste Advisory Board individual representatives only Ministry for Environment Packaging Council of NZ Glass Packaging Forum Owens Illinois NZ Visy Recycling New Zealand Limited Transpacific Industries Group Limited Envirowaste Services Limited Living Earth limited Carter Holt Harvey Limited (Full Circle). The results of this preliminary consultation has been summarised and is presented in the consultation summary tables in section 6.8. , also detailed minutes are in Appendix B-3.
6.7-4 Preliminary consultation meetings

In September 2010 a preliminary consultation round was scheduled with key waste stakeholders to inform the development of the waste assessment and draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. This preliminary consultation round was targeted at key stakeholders who met the following criteria. They either: own major strategic waste infrastructure or currently have major waste contracts (other than solely for collection) with the Auckland Council, or are representatives of industry groups fundamental to the intentions of the draft WMMP, or have an administrative interest in the Waste Minimisation Act, or
Consultation summary
6.7-5 Transpacific Industries Group
TranspacificIndustriesGroup(NZ)Ltd(TPI)isoneofthemainprovidersofcomprehensivewasteandenvironmentalservicesinAustraliaandNewZealand.Withaparticularfocusontheliquid,hazardousandsolidwastemanagementmarkets,TPIhaveestablishedastrong presencethroughoutAustraliaandNewZealand.AlongwithEnviroWasteServicesLtd,TPIprovidesthemajorityoflandfillservicestoservetheAucklandRegion.
Correspondence/Meeting Minutes Transpacific Industries Group with ATA
Between parties
Key points of TPI correspondence
References
TPI wished to state 3 points.
Transpacific Industries Group (TPI) with ATA Waste Plan Consultation Meeting Minutes 13 July 2010
1. TPI wished to understand what progress has been made by the ATA with respect to the new councils Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and where the ATA were currently at.
2. TPI wished to understand what the consultative process is for Waste Disposal Services. (WDS) is an unincorporated joint venture between TPI and the former Manukau City Council that owns the landfill at Whitford.
3. TPI are concerned that the ATA are relying on 4 reports in compiling the Auckland Councils draft WMMP, and that these reports contain serious errors, which are misleading and provide misinformation to the team compiling the WMMP draft. ATA Response;
These reports are:
TAsSolidWasteHighLevelOptionsAssessmentdatedMarch2010 A
heformerAucklandRegionalCouncilsAucklandWasteStocktakeandStrategicAssessmentdatedOctober2009 T
orkingDraftofAucklandCouncilWasteAssessmentdatedFebruary2010 W
heformerWaitakereCityCouncilofficersreportWasteManagementintheAucklandRegiondated T September2009
These reports were compiled by one or more of the following consulting firms; riceWaterhouseCoopers(PwC) P orrisonLowConsultants(MLC) M inclairKnightMerzGroup(SKM) S asteNotConsultingLtd(WNC) W unomiaResearch&Consulting(ERC) E ATA Response; ItisnotedPWCreliedonthefollowingextractfrompage2ofTPIssubmission; TPIsubmitsthatthereisastrongcasefortheenablinglegislationtorequiretheAucklandTransitionAgency(ATA) andAucklandCounciltoexplore,inconjunctionwithwasteindustryparticipants,themeritsofestablishingaCCOfor the management of Waste. This would create a framework for Council to enter into Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the region (e.g. the Transwaste Canterbury model). InadditionTPIorallypresenteditssubmissiontotheAucklandGovernanceLegislationCommitteeinMarchandthe Committeereportof24May2010ontheLocalGovernment(AucklandLawReform)Bill(112-2)noted; ExemptionfromtheCommerceAct1986. WeheardsubmissionsfromthewasteindustrythatthebillshouldbeamendedtoexempttheAucklandCouncil (andtheproposedCCO)fromtherestrictivetradepracticesprovisionsinPart5,section58,oftheCommerceAct 1986.Thesesubmittersarguedfortheexemptiononthebasisthattheywantedtohaveexclusivecontroloverwaste, through the control of transfer stations and landfill sites. We consider that the current processes, whereby any council proposalthatbreachessection58oftheCommerceActcanbeapprovedbytheCommerceCommissiononthebasis ofpublicbenefit,aretheappropriatemechanismstoobtainanexemptionfromtherestrictivetradeprovisionsofthe CommerceAct.Wedonotconsiderthatthebillshouldbeamendedtoincludeanexplicitexemption.(page33)
TPIwereconcernedthatthePwCreportincorrectlystatedthatTPIssubmissiontotheAucklandGovernance LegislationCommitteesupportedCommerceAct/legislativeexemptiontoallowcrossindustrydiscussionsto occur.TPIorallysubmittedtoSelectCommitteeandthiswasrecordedintheCommitteereportontheLocal Government(AucklandLawReform)Bill(112-2)
Chapter 6 | 77
Chapter6. Future planning framework
It should be noted that TPI had commercial interests in 3 of the 4 waste companies to make submissions to the AucklandGovernanceLegislationCommittee.
Correspondence/Meeting Minutes Transpacific Industries Group with ATA (cont)
Between parties
ATA Response; The PWC report clearly states;
References
TPI were concerned that references in the reports were misleading and failed to recognise the waste swappingarrangementbetweenTPI,andtheirdirectcompetitorEnvirowasteServices(ESL).
GiventhelocationofRedvaleandHamptonDownsatoppositeendsofthecity,refusetransferstationoperators(primarily TPIandESL)areunderstoodtouseavolumeswappingagreementtoavoidtransportinefficiency.Howeverwehavebeen advised that there are still many inefficiencies in these arrangements that have been confirmed by major industry players 3.3,EnviroWasteServicesLtd,SubmissiontoAucklandGovernanceLegislationCommittee,February2010(Page4) In addition the Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment report goes further; WithTPIsRedvaleLandfillbeingtothenorthofthemetropolitanAucklandarea,andEnviroWastesHamptonDowns Landfillbeingtothesouth,theoperationbyeachcompanyofaregion-widenetworkoftransferstationspotentially creates transport inefficiencies, with each operator needing to bulk haul waste from one end of the region to the other. Thisissuehasbeenaddressed,toanextentthatisuncertainduetothecommercialsensitivityoftheinformation,bythe landfilloperatorsswappingwastefromtransferstations.Underthisarrangement,bothofthelandfillsareunderstood toacceptquantitiesofwastefromtheothercompanystransferstations.Thewasteswappingamelioratessomeofthe trans-regionhaulingthatwouldotherwiseeventuateand,toanextentundisclosedbytheoperators,rationalisesbulk haulingintheregion.Forexample,some(ifnotmostorall)ofthewastefromEnviroWastesConstellationDrivetransfer stationontheNorthShoreistransportedtoTPIsRedvaleLandfill.Similarly,some(ifnotmostorall)wastefromTPIs PapakuratransferstationistransportedtoEnviroWastesHamptonDownsLandfill.Balanceisreportedlymaintained intheswappingarrangementbythelandfilloperatorsmonitoringtheswaptonnagesand,whennecessary,diverting bulk hauling from an individual transfer station to the other landfill. Pikes Point transfer station, which is operated as ajointventurebybothlandfilloperators,iscentrally-locatedandwastefromthefacilitycould,ifrequired,bedirected toeitherRedvaleLandfillorHamptonDownsLandfilltomaintainthebalance.TheswappingarrangementbetweenTPI andEnvirowastehas,untilrecently,beenbasedoncontractsenteredintoeveryeighteenmonths.Atpresent,thereisno formal contract in place for the swapping arrangement. Although it is a private arrangement between two commercial entities, the waste swapping arrangement is clearly of strategic importance to the efficient operation of waste flows in the region. If this arrangement were to break down for any reason it could result in increases in waste costs, increased bulk haulage movements and resulting congestion and associated negative environmental impacts. (page 23) TPIwereaskedwhetherthisarrangementhadbeenexaminedbytheCommerceCommissiontowhichtheyconfirmedit had.WhenaskedwhatdatetheCommerceCommissionhadexaminedthisarrangementtheywereunablegiveaprecise answer,andindicatedthisquestionisbetteraskedtothepreviousManagingDirectorofWasteManagementLtd. WhenquestionedfurtherastoanypossiblelegalissuesasaresultofthewasteswappingarrangementTPIweredirectly asked how any mass imbalance issues are dealt with between the two companies to which TPI stated that they were minorandofnoconsequence. TPI were asked if there is any financial transaction between the two companies as a result of the waste swapping arrangement to which they stated there were none. TPI were again asked if there is any invoice raised between the two companies as a result of the waste swapping arrangement, be it on a monthly or annual basis. TPI again confirmed that there is no invoice, nor transaction between the two companies as a result of the waste swapping arrangement. ATAResponseletterdated29October2010; FinallyanyfurtherclarificationonthewasteswappingarrangementbetweenyourselvesandEnvirowasteServicesLtd.(ESL) You stated at our meeting that: ThereisnofinancialtransactionthattakesplacebetweentheseTPIandESLasaresultof,orinrelationtothiswaste swap arrangement. This swap arrangement had been considered and accepted by the Commerce Commission. It would be useful if you are able to confirm these two points.
Chapter 6 | 79
Between parties
ATA Response; Page2ofTPIssubmissiontotheAucklandGovernanceLegislationCommitteestates;
References
TPIrejectedthatanytransportinefficienciesexistintheAucklandareaasstatedinvariousreports.When TPIwereaskedtoquantifywhattransportinefficienciesdoexisttheystatednothingofsignificance,when questionedwhetherthisisofsuchasmallvolumeitwouldnotbeworthmentioningtheyagreedthatitis not worth a mention.
ThiswouldcreateaframeworkforCounciltoenterintoPublicPrivatePartnerships(PPPs)intheregion(e.g.the Transwaste Canterbury model) This may assist with improving transport efficiencies in the waste sector and also assist Council with achieving its long term waste minimisation objectives ATA Response; DevonportresidentialwastewillbypassDevonportRTS,ConstellationDriveRTS,RosedaleRTSandSilverdaleRTSto disposedirectlyatRedvaleLandfill. The ATA waste project team are aware at the time these reports were compiled that waste collected from the former AucklandCityCouncilwasalsodirectlytransportedtoRedvalelandfillwhenuptosevenotherRefuseTransferStations are closer to the point of collection. TPI claimed that in many cases it was more efficient to directly transport this waste toRedvaleasopposedtoconsolidatingloadsataRTS. WhenTPIwerequestionedwhatvolumeofdomesticcollectedwastetheypermit,orispermittedtobedisposedofin the centrally located Pikes Point refuse Transfer Station they declined to answer citing commercial sensitivity. AnauditofallAucklandwastecontractsrevealsthatnodomesticwasteisdisposedofatthePikesPointRefuseTransfer Stationdespiteitsidealproximityfordomesticwaste ATA Response; TPIwereaskedwhatvolumeofwastecomesintoTPIsRosedaleRoadfacility,againstwhatissenttolandfillthey declined to answer due to commercial confidentiality. When asked just to give a percentage of waste reduction they declined to provide this. ATA Response; ItwaspointedouttoTPIthatthispractiseiscontrarytotheNationalWasteStrategy,includingthecurrent governments own environmental party policy that states; Inotherplaceslocalauthoritieshavebeenproactiveinestablishinguserpays,safewastedisposalpoliciesand kerbsiderecyclingfacilities.Buttheireffortsaresometimesbeingundercutbywastecompaniesofferingacheap,bulk wheelie bin service, which effectively removes the incentive on households to segregate their wastes for recycling. Again this is possible because these operators are not being charged the full costs of meeting the communities waste managementobjectives(Chapter15,NationalPartyBlueGreenPolicy) ATA Response letter dated 29 October 2010; OnlyoneofthereportsyourefertoisthepropertyoftheATAandinfinalform.ThatisthePwCreportanditmakes no reference to having ever consulted with any of the industry members; in fact on numerous ocassions the PwC reportclearlystatesthecontrary.WithrespecttotheARCorWCCreportsthesehavebeenpreparedbythoseagencies andATAhashadnoinvolvementinthatprocess.IhavehoweverviewedcorrespondencefromoneoftheARCreport authors who states; TherewasnocallforthestocktaketeamtoengagewithTPIanyfurtherthanwedid.Therewerethreetypesof informationweneededregardingTPIsoperations: edvalecompositionthiswasinthepublicarenaintheformoftheSWAPaudits R onnagetoRedvaleARCsuppliedaggregatedtonnagedata,andEnviroWasteprovidedHamptonDownsdata.No T further input from TPI was needed or sought. ecoveredmaterialsCraigFormandidnotrespondtorepeatedqueriesforinformationwithintheverytight R timeframes for the project. PIwereawareofwhywewereaskingfortheinformationanddidnotrequesttoreviewthereportpriortopublishing. T
TPI also stated that it is misleading to state in the report that kerbside waste collected on councils behalf bypasssuptothreeothertransferstationstodisposeatanominatedfacilityasitfailedtorecogniseother factorssuchascapacity.InadditionTPIstatesthatNorthShoreCitywasteisdisposedofattheclosest landfill.
TheoptionoftheAucklandcouncilhavingagreatercontroloftheRTSmarkettofurtherinfluencewaste reduction was put to TPI who suggested that the current kerbside collections are already removing most recyclables from the waste stream, therefore there is little need.
TPI stated that they position themselves to compete against councils kerbside collections as they see this as healthycompetitionfortheconsumerto;getcheapestwastedisposaloptions
TPI to ATA Correspondence 27 July 2010
TPI submitted that there had not been any consultation with TPI prior to the preparation of reports by the former WaitakereCityCouncil,theformerAucklandRegionalCouncil,PriceWaterhouseCoppersorMorrisonLow.
Chapter 6 | 81
Between parties
ATA Response letter dated 29 October 2010;
References
YouhaveindicatedthatlandfilltonnesfromAucklandhavereducedby20%between07/08and09/10.Whatyou have not indicated however is; ThereliabilityofinformationfromyourcompetitorEnvirowasteServicestotallandfilltonnesfromAuckland. W hythisreductionhasoccurred.Historicallywastevolumeshavebeendirectlyrelatedtoeconomicactivity.Given the recent economic recession, do you consider this in any way connected to the decline in volumes over the past few years? YouhavepresentedatableofCounciltonnestolandfillpresumablytoreinforcethissuggesteddecline, demonstratingtheformerManukauCityCouncilat16.9%withtheformerNorthShoreCityCouncilat13.4% andfinallytheformerWaitakereCityCouncilat26.6%.Isuggestinthiscaseyouarenotcomparingsimilarwaste streams.WCCscomparativefigureisonly9.2%andwenotetheexplanationwasgiventoyouatthemeeting statingpriceincreasesatWCCRTShadensuredsimilarvolumessimplymovedtoPatikiRoad.Itisalsointerestingto note that all three councils put the recent decline of council waste down to the recent economic recession. Waste Flows Y oualsostate;Givenmostcouncilsalreadyhavekerbsiderecycling,thereislittleopportunitywiththiswaste stream.Alreadyreducedseetonnesabove.Althoughwedidnotrespondtothisclaimatourthemeetingit shouldbenotedthattheSolidWasteAnalysisProtocol(SWAP)weightauditsofallsevenAucklandlocalcouncils domestickerbsiderefusecollectionsshows;Theproportionofmaterialsthatcouldstillberecycled,usingthe existingkerbsiderecyclingservices,variedbetween11%and28%inthesevenaudits.Theproportionofmaterials thatcouldbecompostedvariedbetween38%and50%.Theproportionthatwaspotentiallydivertiblefromlandfill disposal(eitherthroughbeingrecycledorcomposted)variedbetween60%and66% ATA Response letter dated 29 October 2010; WithrespecttoWDS;IhavereadWDSswrittensubmissiontotheAucklandGovernanceLegislationCommittee,and IanKennedysemailtomedated7April2010andyoucontinuedinferencesofaproposal. I suggest if you have an offer to make then I recommend you detail this in writing so the Auckland Council representatives may consider it. With respect to TPI recycling. As earlier mentioned it would be beneficial if you were to provide data of; waste in vs wastetolandfillatyourRosedaleRoadfacilityasopposedtoprovidingtheincompletegraphyouhaveenclosed. Waste flow data. You appear to have made an error in these charts. There appears to be no representation of the 20,000tonnesoftheformerNorthShoreCityCouncildomesticwastethatgoesdirectlytoyourRedvalelandfill.
TPI stated that they have a focus on recycling and that they are already achieving 20 per cent waste to landfill reduction targets. TPI stated that the figure of 1.4 million tonnes of waste disposed of from the AucklandRegionisfactuallywrongandmisleading.TPIstatedthatwastefromtheAucklandregionhas reducedby20percentsince2008andthatwastedisposedofatHamptonDownscomesfromsouthofthe AucklandRegionnotfromAucklandandtherefore,basedontheirownknowledgeoftheircompetitorTPI confirmedtherehasbeena20percentreductioninwasteintheAucklandRegionoverthepast3years.
TPI to ATA Correspondence Re-tableconceptwherebyAucklandCouncilcoulddisposeofanadditional50,000tpaofresidual 20 August 2010 wasteintoWhitfordLandfillpost1July2011,whichcouldpotentiallyachieveasaving..forCouncil
Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee Submission from TPI
Submitter
Key points of TPI submission
References
Page 2, Section 4 paragraph 1 Page 2, Section 4 paragraph 4 strongcaseforenablinglegislationtorequiretheAucklandTransitionAgency(ATA)andAucklandCounciltoexplore, inconjunctionwithwasteindustryparticipants,themeritsofestablishingaCCOforthemanagementofwaste shouldincludearequirementforAucklandCounciltoengageandconsultwithwasteserviceprovidersandwaste generators to ensure that the best possible long term integrated and waste management solutions for the region is achieved Page3,Section5 thereisauniqueopportunitythroughthisenablinglegislationfortheATAandAucklandCounciltoexplore,in paragraph 1 conjunctionwithwasteindustryparticipants,themeritsofestablishingaCCOformanagingwaste
Transpacific Industries Group to Select Committee
PIaresupportiveoftheAucklandlawreform.Theysubmittedthattheresastrongcaseforenabling T legislationtorequiretheATA,theAucklandCouncilandwasteindustryparticipantstoexplorethemerits ofestablishingaCouncilControlledOrganisation(CCO)orPublicPrivatePartnership(PPP)venture.
heybelievethattheATAandAucklandCouncilshouldberequiredtoengageandconsultwithwaste T service providers.
Chapter 6 | 83
PIthinkthatthereisauniqueopportunitythroughenablinglegislationtoexplorethemeritsofaCCO T for waste
Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee Submission from TPI (cont)
Between parties
Page3,Section5 potentialtoreviewtheoverallinfrastructureintheregionforsolidwasteandconsiderPPPsandprivatesector paragraph 3 participation as part of its overall future strategy Page3,Section5 more efficient use of waste infrastructure in the region (roads, landfills transfer stations, recycling facilities and paragraph 4 hazardouswastemanagement improvedoverallgovernanceinthewastesector
References
CCOcouldhavethepotentialtoreviewoverallwasteinfrastructureintheregion A
ThebenefitsofaCCOapproachincludeimprovedoverallwastemanagementgovernancefortheregion
PIbelievethatthereisarequirementthattheATAshouldengageandconsultwithcommercialproviders T of waste management services
Page5,Section8 thetransitionagencyshouldberequiredtoconsultwithCommercialprovidersofwastemanagementservices;and paragraph 2 waste generators
Preliminary consultation meeting TPI with ATA
Party
2 September 2010 Collection Methodology
Date
Key points of TPI consultation

PIfavourwheeledbincollectionsystemsasopposedtobagcollections.Theybelievethattheuseofwheeledbincollectionsystems T reducehealthandsafetyissues.TheTPIBoardhaveresolvedthattheywillnottenderforbagcollectionservices. ecyclingcrate-basedservicesarenotTPIscollectionsystempreference. R PIfavourseparateglassrecyclingcollectionusingLEVmethodology. T Views on Councils role PIthinkthattheCouncilshouldfocusonthereductionofenvironmentalharmandresourceefficiency. T PIdisagreewiththeintentoftheWMA.Theybelievethatreductionofwastetolandfillonceitisproducedisnotrelevantandthat T focusshouldbeplacedonreducingwastepriortoproduction.Oncewasteisproducedtheyconsiderlandfillingismostefficientand effective method of handling that waste. PIthinkthatthecouncilshouldbedealingonlywiththewastethatitcontrols. T PIbelievethatwastecollectionservicesshouldbeprovidedviatheprivatemarketorcontractorstothecouncil.Theysuggestthat T thecouncilmaywishtotenderforcollectionservicesforpotentially4-5areasforthewholeregionandaward7yearcontracts.They believe that this would maintain competition and be the most cost effective solution. PIbelievethatrecyclinghasincreasedsignificantlyinrecentyearsandthatthewastestreamtolandfillhasalreadybeenreducedby T 20percent.Theybelievethatthereisnoneedforthecounciltorecyclemoreaskerbsiderecyclingisalreadymaximised. PIbelievethatthecouncilshouldplaynoroleinmanagementofcommercialwaste. T Organics PIareinterestedincompostingorin-vesselorganicsprocessingtechnologybutbelievelandfillingisthebestuseoforganicsto T generate gas and electricity. PIsviewisthatcompostingisnotsustainable. T Control / Influence over Infrastructure fthecouncilbecomesinvolvedintheadministration/operationalcontrolofRTS/landfillsthenTPIwouldfavouraPPPtypeoptionboth I forexistingandfutureinfrastructure.Theyseethecouncilasanequitypartnerwithoneormoreprivateparties PIbelievethatWhitfordLandfillwillprovidebenefitstoCouncil. T
Transpacific Group Industries with ATA
Chapter 6 | 85
6.7-6 Envirowaste Services Limited
EnviroWasteServicesLimited(ESL)deliverswasteandrecyclingservicesforcommunitiesandbusinessesthroughoutNewZealand.ItisamajorserviceproviderintheAucklandregion.AsignificantproportionofwastegeneratedintheAucklandRegionisdisposedofatESLslandfill facility in the Waikato.
Preliminary consultation meeting ESL with ATA
Party
2 September 2010 Influence / Control of waste stream
Date
Key points of ESL consultation

SLwillworkwiththecouncilunderanyadministrative/operationalcontrolproposedbythecouncilforwasteservices E SLsupportsPPParrangementsforuseoftheexistingRTSnetworkforaRRCnetworkandwishtoexploreopportunitieswiththe E council and TPI to achieve this businessassessmentisneededofWhitfordLandfilltodetermineifthisfacilitywillfitintheAucklandCouncilwastefacilityproposal. A Glass Collection Methodology SLagreeswithseparateglasscollections,theybelievethosepartiesthatbenefitfromtherecyclingoftheglassshouldcontributeto E the additional collection cost to the council. Organics SLforseesorganicwastecollectionsbeingprovidedthoughthecouncilorothercollectors.Someorganicswillstillbelandfilled.This E will provide for energy generation at landfills. Green cells at landfills may also be an option. SLagreesthattherearebenefitsfromdivertingorganicsfromlandfill,butthatabanongreenwastefromlandfillswouldsignificantly E impact on landfills Current Inefficiencies and Diversion from Landfill SLstatethattherehasbeennosignificantdiversionofwastefromlandfillinrecentyearsasithasnotbeeneconomicallyviable E heybelievethatdomesticrecyclingdiversioncouldbeincreasedandthateducationiscriticalforachievingthis. T heybelievethattoreducewastetolandfillrequiresthecouncilssupportthroughfundingandregulation.Thiswillassistinresolving T issues of health and safety and infrastructure. SLthinkthatthecurrentcollectionandRTSmarketdonotserviceAucklandregionefficiently E heyagreethatwastediversionisdifficultmatchedagainstthecurrentlowlandfillgaterates. T
EnviroWasteServicesLtd(ESL)withATA
6.7-7 Waste Disposal Services
Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee Submission from Waste Disposal Services
Submitter
Section 21
Key points of WDS submission
References
infulfillingtherequirementsplacedonitbypart1clause11(2)oftheBill,theATAberequiredtoconsultwith WDS,anexistingCCTO,inrelationtoachievinglong-termintegratedwastemanagementandminimisationplanning and services
Waste Disposal Services with ATA
DSthinkthatthecouncilhasarequirementtoconsultwiththemasa W CCOpartnerregardingWMMPplanningandoptions
Chapter 6 | 87
6.7-8 Living Earth Ltd
Living Earth Limited isamajorNewZealandsupplierofcompostandcompostbasedproducts.ItsfacilitiesarelocatedinboththeAucklandRegionandanewfacilityrecentlyopenedinCanterbury.Theproductsitproducesaresuppliedtotheruralandlandscapesuppliesmarkets as well as home gardeners.
Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee Submission from Living Earth
Submitter
Page 2 paragraph 2 Page 2 paragraph 7
Key points of Living Earth submission
References
TheBillshouldbeamendedtoprovidefortheAucklandCouncilspotentialconsolidationofthesolidwasteassets, suchasregionalorganicwasteprocessingfacilityintoaCCOratherthanabusinessunit. Themanagementofregionalsolidwasteissuesshouldnotbedealtwithinapiecemealway.Aseparatededicated CCOtomanageregionalsolidwastematters,includingexistingJVsContractsorotherarrangementsforwaste including to facilitate the development of a regional waste processing facility.
LivingEarthtoSelectCommittee
onsolidationofwasteassetsthroughaCCOshouldoccurratherthan C management through a council business unit
Page2paragraph5 LELbelievesthesefactorswouldbebestaddressedbyaCCOwithaboardofappointeddirectors. Page 4 paragraph 3 Divertingorganicwastefromlandfillisatoppriority,foodandgardenwasterepresentsabout50percentoftotal waste to landfill.
Organicwasteisatoppriority
Preliminary Consultation Meeting Living Earth with ATA
Party
3 September 2010 Organics General
Date
Key points of Living Earth consultation

ivingEarthstatedthatkerbsideorganicsseparationisthebiggestopportunitytoreducewastetolandfill. L hisalignswiththeWMA,theNZWS,proposedrevisedNZWS,andtargetsenvironmentalharmbyremovingorganicsfromlandfill T reducing leachate and gas production. heybelievethatfocusisneededonthebeneficialuseofmaterials.Thevalueofcompostintherestorationofsoilsissignificant. T nAucklandregionalcompostingfacilityisproposedbyLivingEarth.Progresstowardstheprovisionofsuchafacilityisrestrictedby A lowlandfillpricesandco-ordinationoftheindividualcouncilsinregion. ivingEarthsexperienceinCanterburyisthattheuseofcompostcanbeeconomicallyachievedwithspreadingcostslessthanthe L costs of fertiliser. heWellingtonorganicsinitiativewasafailureduetothecostsofthetechnologyandtheinclusionofbio-solidswiththegreenwaste. T Organics Auckland ivingEarthspreferenceforanAucklandorganicwastefacilitywouldbeamodularcompostingplantwiththeabilitytoexpand L and that this type of arrangement is best owned and managed in a structure where there is a public good focus rather than solely commercial. hepolitical3yearcycleisacheck/balanceforpricing.Localgovernmentiswellpositionedtoensurethisbalance. T rganicscollectiongenerallyrunsefficientlywithcollectorsgoingtotheclosestRTSbutcollectionefficiencyiscompromisedby O potentially three service providers servicing the same street affecting route density. This is not financially feasible. ivingEarthbelievethatthereisanoptionforagardenwaste/foodwastecollectiontobeundertakenbythecouncilwithexcess L garden waste being collected by private collectors. mixedfoodwaste/greenwastecollectioncouldbecompletedonafortnightlybasis. A
LivingEarthtowithATA
Chapter 6 | 89
Preliminary Consultation Meeting Living Earth with ATA (cont)
Party
hebinsizewouldbedictatedbythefrequencyofcollection T ivingEarthbelievethatif140Lbinsareusedthattheywouldbeunderutilisedfrombothsetoutandcapacityperspectives L
Date
Key points of Living Earth consultation
hereisaneedtoco-ordinaterefuseandorganicscollectionservicessothatissuesofchoice/conveniencedonotimpactuponthe T organics collection service. hreebinwastecollectionsystemsareacceptabletohouseholds. T esourceconsentconditionsofWaikatoDistrictaredifferenttothoseofAucklandregionwhichallowsfordifferentmodels. R Education ivingEarththinkthatthecouncilshouldfocuseducationonresourcerecoveryandrecycling.Inparticulareducationshouldfocuson L reducing contamination of the inflow stream and sustainable markets for finished products.
6.7-9 Owens IllinoisNZ (O-I)
O-INewZealand(formerlyknownasACIGlassPackaging),basedinPenrose,Auckland,istheonlymanufacturerofglassbottlesandjarsinNewZealand.Itproduces50,000bottlesanhour,cateringforavarietyofbeverageandfoodcustomersthroughoutNZ.Itoperatestwoglass furnaces from its Auckland plant.
Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee Submission from Owens-Illinois-NZ (O-I)
Submitter
Page 3 Section 13 Page 3 Section15 Page 3 Section16 Page 4 Section18 Page5 Section28
Key points of O-I submission
References
OI-NZhasrealconcernswiththeapproachestakenbyexistingAucklandAuthoritiestorecycling. Comminglingsystemresultsincontaminationofglass....becauseitcannotberecycled,theglassislikelytobe diverted to landfill priortocomminglingapprox2.percentglasscollectedwasgoingtolandfill,nowwithcommingling,O-Isglobal experienceindicatesthatbetween30and50.percentofcollectedglasscannotbeusedintheglasscontainer manufacturing process. O-INZviewscomminglingasbeingawastemodel(i.e.collectthewasteanddealwithit)ratherthanarecovery model,whichwouldinvolveamodelwhererecyclablesarecollectedwiththeintentionofproducingahighqualityend product (with commercial value) for the recycling market. O-INZconsidersthatcurrentassetsandarrangementsregardingAucklandswastecouldberestructuredinsucha way that would be hugely beneficial for Auckland regions waste minimisation targets iftheATAandAucklandcouncildonotreviewtherecyclingstrategyinlinewithbestpracticemethodology,the consequencesforAucklandwillbesignificant.
Owens-IllinoisNewZealand
ConcernswithAucklandscurrentapproachtorecyclingglass
ominglingofglassby4ofthe7TAsisresultinginlessrecycledglass C and more landfilling
ominglingofglassinrecyclingcollectionsisawastemodel C
ucklandscurrentassetsandarrangementsforwasteneedrestructuring A
Chapter 6 | 91
Correspondence Owen-Illinois NZ
Between parties
Page 1 Page 2
Key Points of O-I Correspondence
References
O-Iarepreparedtoinvestininfrastructureorotheroptionstoincreaseofthevolumeofglassthatcouldberecycled forhigh-valueendmarkets. O-IspreferenceisforglasstobecollectedseparatelyfromotherrecyclablesfromhouseholdsintheAucklandregion. separateglasscollectionwouldincreasethevalueoftheglasscollected,andsignificantlyincreasetheamountof glassrecycledinAucklandAsignificantincreaseintheamountofglasscollectedinAucklandthatcouldberecycled intohigh-valueendmarkets. Asignificantreductionincontaminationofotherrecyclables,suchaspaper,plasticandmetals,fromglass. Page 2 MaximisinginvestmentandlocalemploymentopportunitiesinAuckland. Page 3
Owen-IllinoisNZ/ MorrisonLow& AssociatesLtd
-Iarepreparedtoinvestininfrastructureorotheroptionstoincreasethevolumeofglassthatcouldbe O recycledforhigh-valueendmarkets
-Iprefersseparatecollectionofglasstoincreasethevalueoftheglassandtheamountrecycled. O
11 September 2010
heseparatecollectionofglasswouldreducecontaminationofotherrecyclablessuchaspaper,plasticand T metals from glass.
hissystemwouldalsomaximiseinvestmentandlocalemploymentopportunities. T
rovidegreaternetbenefitsforAuckland P
educecarbonemissions R O-IconsidersthatthenewAucklandCouncilshouldbearsomeresponsibilityfortheadditionalcoststhatwouldbe associated with separate collection of glass.
mproveinternalenvironmentreputation I Page 3
heseparatecollectionofglasswouldbeconsistentwiththeGlassPackagingForumsstewardshipscheme T
-Ibelievesthatthecouncilshouldbearsomeresponsibilityfortheseparatekerbsidecollectionofglass O andasksthatacollaborativeinvestment/businessplanisagreedbetweenallparties(thecouncil,collectors, industry stakeholders) Page 4
hemessageofseparateglasscollectiontothepublicshouldalsobeacollaborativeapproachwiththe T council taking the lead.
O-IconsidersthattheleadroleinconveyingamessageofseparateglasscollectiontoAucklandratepayerwouldlie withtheAucklandCouncil.butO-Iwouldliketodiscussfurtherwithkeystakeholderswhatassistanceitmight provide in this regard.
Preliminary consultation meeting Owen-Illinois with ATA
Party
2 September 2010 General
Date
Key points of O-I consultation

hemoreglassthatcanberemovedfromthewastestreamthebetter. T -IhavenocapacityissueswiththecommissioningofthenewglassfurnaceinSeptember2010.Anextra70,000tofglasscanbe O processed now. ucklandersexpectrecycledbottlestoberemanufacturedintoaglassbottleanditisthecouncilsresponsibilitytofacilitatethat A happening. Glass Collection Methodology headditionalcostsofseparateglasscollectionshouldbecontributedtobythosethatbenefite.g.industryandusersoftheservice. T -Idoesnotseethatresidentswillconsideratwobinrecyclingcollectionsystem(glassseparatefromotherrecyclables)asan O inconvenience. hepromotionofanyservicechangeforglassshouldbeacollaborativeapproachbetweenthecouncil,Visy,OI,thePackagingCounciletc T Views on other Initiatives ottlebanksaresubjecttoabuse. B ontainerDepositLegislation(CDL)isexpensiveanddoesnotworkeffectivelyinAustralia. C
Owen-IllinoisNZ(O-I)andATA
Chapter 6 | 93
6.7-10 Carter Holt Harvey (CHH)
CarterHoltHarveyisAustralasiasleadingforestproductscompany,withsignificantinterestsinwoodproducts,pulp,paperandpackaging.CHHisNewZealandslargestpaperrecycler.ItrecyclespaperandcardboardcollectedintheAucklandRegionthroughitsmillsatPenrose andKinleith.
Preliminary consultation meeting Carter Holt Harvey with ATA
Party
3 September 2010 Current Issues
Date
Key points of CHH consultation

apercollectedforrecyclingfromtheformerAucklandandManukauCitiesisnotreceivedbyCHHduetoglasscontaminationandthe P needtoreprocessthepaperwhichisexpensive. heVisyMRFhasunderperformedtodateduetodesignissues.TheseissuesarebeingaddressedbyVisy. T heCHHPenroseMillisoutdatedcomparedtooverseasplantsthatcanmanageglasscontamination.ThePenroseMillhasahigher T on-goingoperational/maintenancecostandiseconomicallynotworthre-investingin. HHrequirethecurrenttonnageofpaperprovidedbytheformerWaitakereandNorthShoreCitiestomaintainviabilityofthePenrose C Mill. Glass Collection Methodology ecyclablescollectionmethodologyinsomepartsofNZischangingtoseparatepapercollectionse.g.DunedinandWellington. R HHbelievethatseparatepapercollectionbenefitswouldoutweighcosts. C heyestimatethattheseparatecollectionofglasswouldprovidebenefitsforVisyifglassiscoloursortedatkerbside.Thiswouldalso T reduceMRFmaintenancecosts. hecostofaseparateglasscollectionshouldbebornebythosewhobenefit.Theadditionalserviceshouldbecostneutraltothecouncil. T hehealthandsafetyofmanualcollectionrunnersisanissueLEVneedtobeusedwiththedriversortingifrequired. T eparatecollectionsofglassandorganicwastewouldincreasethenumberofreceptaclesto4thatresidentsmuststore.CHHbelieve S that this is the limit to the number of bins that a resident would accept. Education hecouncilshouldfocusonpubliceducationaboutthefactthatrecyclablematerialisnotreprocessedinNZ.CHHsviewisthatthereis T apublicwillingnesstopayforNZreprocessingandthatthisneedstohappen. ocusisalsoneededonincreasedrecyclingandglasscontaminationofotherrecyclables. F hereistheabilityforAucklandtoserviceotherpartsofNZ. T
CarterHoltHarvey(CHH)withATA
6.7-11 The Glass Packaging Forum
TheGlassPackagingForum(GPF)isanon-profitorganisation,whichaimstoensuretheongoingperformanceofglassasenvironmentallyacceptablepackaging.
Preliminary consultation meeting Glass Packaging Forum with ATA
Party
2 September 2010
Date
Key points of Glass Packaging Forum Consultation

Glass Related Issues e-regulationofimportingofglassmeansthattheGlassPackagingForumnowhaslimitedreach. D ocusshouldbeplacedonincreasingthepercentageofglassgoingtohighervaluediversion.Thepublicneedtobeinformedofwhat F happens to glass. All parties should contribute to additional costs of separate glass collection.
GlassPackagingForumwithATA
Chapter 6 | 95
Preliminary consultation meeting Glass Packaging Forum with ATA (cont)
Party
Date
Key points of Glass Packaging Forum Consultation

roductstewardshipisasharedresponsibilitybuttheonusneedstobeontheindustrialsector.OIcannottakesoleresponsibilityfor P glassastypicallyonly50percentisproducedbythemandtherestisimported. Glass Collection Methodology heGlassPackagingForumapproveofaseparateglasscollectionoptionandthinkthatadditionalcollectioncostsshouldbeshared T betweenallthepartiesinvolved.Thecostsofalternatives(importedglass)aremoreexpensive. Education ouncilshouldfocuseducationonallrecycledmaterials.Theyneedtobelievewhattheyaredoingisworthwhile. C
6.7-12 Ministry for the Environment (MfE)
TheMinistryfortheEnvironmentisthegovernmentdepartmentthatreportsonthestateoftheNewZealandenvironmentandthewaythatenvironmentallawsandpoliciesworkinpractice.
Correspondence Ministry for the Environment
Between parties
Page 1
Key points of correspondence MfE
References
WasteAdvisoryBoard (WAB)toHonNickSmith
3August2009
heWABrecommendedenablinglegislationtoallowforownershipandcontrolarrangementsinthewaste T disposal sector through a PPP between the council and private sector to facilitate transport efficiencies and waste disposal pricing that reflect true environmental costs.
Enablinglegislationisplannedlaterthisyeartoprovidefortheestablishmentofthenewcouncilsinfrastructureand utilities.TheBoardrecommendsthatthelegislationisdraftedtoallowforownershipandcontrolarrangementsinthe wastedisposalsectorthatmaydifferfromthecurrentmodel..itwillbeuptothenewcouncilandprivatesector players to agree to any new infrastructural design. TheWasteAdvisoryBoardrecommendsthattheproposedAucklandCouncilutilitiesenablinglegislationprovidesfor the possibility of a PPP between the Council and private players to facilitate transport efficiencies and waste disposal pricing that reflects true environmental costs.
HonNickSmithtoWaste ecognitionthatoneAucklandCouncilwillenablearangeofwastemanagementandminimisationoptions R AdvisoryBoard to be considered for the region
Page 1 paragraph 2
26August2010
heMinisternotedconcernthatlandfillgatefeesmaynotcapturethefullenvironmentalcostofwaste T disposal in the Auckland region
InotetheconcernsthatyouraiseaboutcompetitionintheAucklandmarketandthepossibilitythatlandfillgatefees may not capture the full environmental cost of waste disposal. I predict that any practical long term solution for this issuewillbecomplexasitwillneedtobalanceenvironmentalconcernswithhealthymarketforces.However,alikely ingredient for success will be a greater level of cooperation between council and industry.
ebelievesthatthereisaneedtobalanceenvironmentalconcernsvsmarketcompetition H
esupportsagreaterlevelofcooperationbetweenthecouncilandindustryforapracticallongterm H solution.
Preliminary consultation meeting Ministry for the Environment with ATA
Party
Date
Key points of MfE consultation

View on the councils responsibilities hecouncilneedstomakeitsowndecisionstakingintoaccounttheWMArequirements. T tisthecouncilsresponsibility(unders42-43WMA)topromoteeffectiveandefficientwastemanagementandminimisationwithinits I district. This includes for all waste in the region not only that which it controls. hecouncilneedstobeproactiveinimplementingarangeofoptionstomanagetheregionswaste. T hefundingofwasteservicesisachoiceofthecouncil,howeverratesfundingislesstransparentthanusercharges. T
Ministry for the Environment(MfE)
3 September 2010
Chapter 6 | 97
Preliminary consultation meeting Ministry for the Environment with ATA (cont)
Party
iversionofwastefromlandfilliskeytomeetingtherequirementsoftheWMAaswellasconsistencywiththewastehierarchy. D hecouncilhasakeyroletoplayineducation.Thefocusofeducationshouldbeonreductionofwastetolandfill. T MfE initiatives/views fcouncilsdonotdivertwastetheMinisterfortheEnvironmenthastheabilitytowithholdwastelevyfunds. I fEiscurrentlyinvestigatingcouncilslevyexpenditure.ItwillbereportingbacktoMinisterbyJuly2011. M fEsviewisthatorganicwasteshouldbedivertedfromlandfill.Organicwasteshavebeneficialuseswhennotlandfilled. M fEwouldbedisappointedifAucklandlandfilloperatorsareabsorbingthecostofthelandfilllevyasthisundermineswaste M minimisation particularly when combined with low landfill gate rates. fEisawarethatthereareinefficiencieswithintheAucklandwastemarketwhichneedtobeaddressed. M
Date
Key points of MfE consultation
fEhavenotseenanyinformationtoprovethatwastetolandfillintheAucklandregionhasreducedby20percentinthelast2-3years. M The WMA promotes ongoing effort to reduce waste to landfill. ecyclablesdiversionshouldbeincreasedthroughthemostefficientsystem. R hefocusofthenewcouncilshouldbeonthehierarchyofwaste,minimisingwastetolandfill,usingmaterialsmoreefficiently, T focusing on greater economic value, playing a lead role to achieve waste minimisation objectives, collaboration with industry, improving informationgatheringandthequalityofinformation(industryneedstoplayitspartinthis). roductstewardshipisonetoolforreducingwaste. P oluntaryproductstewardshipschemestodatehavehadlimitedscopeandabilitytoachievetheirobjectives.Mandatoryproduct V stewardship schemes may be a future option. evisionoftheNZWSisdueforcompletionbytheendof2010 R
6.7-13 Rob Fenwick (private submission)
RobFenwickistheChairmanoftheWasteAdvisoryBoard,aDirectorofLivingEarthLtdandachampionoftheenvironment
Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee submission from Rob Fenwick
Submitter
Page 2 Section a Page 4 paragraph 3 Page5 paragraph 1 Page 11 paragraph 3
Key points of Rob Fenwick submission
References
billbeamendedtoprovideforAucklandCouncilthepotentialconsolidationofthesolidwasteassetsintoaCCO rather than a business unit CommerceActexemptionsoATAcanenterintodiscussionswithindustryparticipants
RobFenwick
SupportforaCCOforsolidwaste
TheremaybeCommerceActimplications
ThereareimpedimentstowasteminimisationinAuckland
Price
marketcompetitionbetweentwoprivatelandfillownersisproducingpricingthresholdsthatdonot captureexternalenvironmentalcostsofdisposal.Foraslongasthistrendcontinuesitwillunderminetheaimsof the WMA misalignedrelationshipsbetweenAucklands11transferstationsandthelandfillsresultinginsignificanthaulcost wastage and traffic congestion misalignedpriorities...leadingtopiecemealanduncoordinatedapproachandabsenceofaregionalstrategy BillbeamendedtoexpresslyestablishaCCOoftheAucklandCouncilinrelationtosolidwastefunctionsinawaythat contributes to affordable, integrated and sustainable solid waste services in Auckland
Misalignedcommercialrelationships
Misalignedpriorities
Chapter 6 | 99
FormationofaWasteServicesAgency
Preliminary Consultation Meeting Members of the Waste Advisory Board with ATA
Between parties
3 September 2010 Views on Auckland Councils Role
Date
Key points of Members of the Waste Advisory Board consultation

nefficienciesexistintheAucklandwastemarketthatareresultinginthecouncilsobligationstoreducewastetolandfillnotbeingmet. I heWMArequireswastereductiontolandfill.Thecouncilisrequiredtotakealeadroleandisresponsibleforhelpingachievewaste T reduction.TheActisonlyonetool.Othertoolsincludevoluntaryinitiatives,education,economicincentives.ThecouncilsWMMPneeds to identify the suite of options heWMMPneedstoaddressthisissueandstatethecouncilsposition. T ransparencyofcostsisneededwhichwouldnotbeevidentthroughratesfunding. T Glass Collection Methodology Any additional cost for separate glass collection services should be met by users. Other Issues andatoryaccordsworkbetterthanvoluntaryones.Regulationisrequiredtoaddressissues. M tisexpectedthattheNZWSwilltargetreductionofwastethatcausesharmincludingapriorityfocusonenvironmentalharm. I
MembersoftheWasteAdvisoryBoardintheirindividualcapacity
6.7-14 Visy Recycling NZ
VisyNZispartoftheworldslargestprivatelyownedpackagingandrecyclingcompany.
Preliminary consultation meeting Visy Recycling with ATA
Party
2 September 2010 Contamination Issues
Date
Key points of Visy Recycling consultation

heVisyplanthashadanissuewithmanagingmixedrecyclablesandinparticularglass. T HHhavenotabletomanagethecontaminationofpaperfromglassfinesatthePenroseMillcomparedwithoverseasfacilitiesthatcan. C isycancopewithglassfromeitheraseparateorcomingledcollectionsystem. V lassquantitylevelshavenotreduced,buttherehavebeenqualityissuesandtheabilitytocopewithquantitiesatthefacility.These G havebeenlargelyresolvedwiththebeneficationplantcommissionedinMay2010.Thestockpiledglasswillberecoveredin7-9months. ieldlossis15-18percentmadeupofshardglassandothercontaminants.Thismaterialisusedforaggregates,highendindustrialuses Y and is not landfilled. ecoveryratescanpotentiallybeimprovedbutthisisaVisycommercialdecisionthatrequirescapitalinvestment. R heVisyfacilitycancopewiththeentireAucklandregionskerbsiderecyclablesfrom1November2010aswellasincreasedcommercial T recyclables. Glass Collection Methodology separateglasscollectionservicewouldbeatanadditionalcostandlessconvenientforresidents.Thereisaneedforasimplecollection A methodology and a limit to the number of bins. Education and CDL isydonothaveaviewonCDL. V
VisyRecyclingNZ
Chapter 6 | 101
isybelievesthatthecouncilneedstofocusoneducationaboutcontamination.Theythinkthatthethreecardenforcementsystem V used by the former Manukau City works well
6.7-15 The Packaging Council
ThePackagingCouncilisanon-profitorganisationwhichaimstopromotetheenvironmentallysustainableandresponsibleuseofpackaginginbusinessandthecommunity.
Preliminary Consultation meeting Packaging Council of NZ with ATA
Party
2 September 2010 General erviceconsistencyacrosstheAucklandregionisneeded. S rganicwastecollectioniscritical. O hecombinedcollectionofpaperandglasscreatecontaminationissues,particularlyattheVisyMRF. T hePackagingCouncilhasnopositiononfundingofcollectionservices. T
Date
Key points of Packaging Council of NZ consultation
PackagingCouncilofNZ
hePackagingCouncildonotsupportCDL.Theybelievethatthisisanexpensivewayofcapturingasmallpartofthewastestream. T hePackagingCouncilhaslimitedinfluenceoverimportedmaterialsbecauseNZisapackagingtaker. T heydonotsupportreturningwastetoastorethatsolditduetocomplicationssuchashealthandsafety,logistics,costsassociated T with such a scheme. heysupportthewastelevyfundsbeingspentonwasteinfrastructureprojects. T hePackagingCouncilagreesthatregulationhasitsplace. T Glass Collection Methodology hereisanissuewiththequalityofglassandrecyclablesreceivedforprocessing.ThePackagingCouncilwouldliketoimprove T recyclablesqualityandbuildNZprocessingcapacitytopreventexportingofrecyclablematerialsbutthisneedstobeeconomicalorit would not be sustainable. hereisaneedtoseparateglassfromotherrecyclablescollection. T dditionalcostsofaseparateglasscollectionshouldbesharedpossiblybythosethatwillfinanciallybenefit. A roductstewardshipneedssharedresponsibilityalongthesupplychainfrommanufacturerstoconsumersandincludedesignoptimisation. P ollaborationisneededacrossthesupplychainandnotbyaddressingwastereductionattheendofthepipe. C Education asteminimisationandtheWMAarenotwellunderstoodbythepublic.Thecouncilshouldfocusonpromotingwasteminimisation, W the intent of product stewardship and the choice with regard to waste minimisation.
Chapter 6 | 103
Chapter 6 | 104
6.8 Considerations
There are a number of issues to consider when investigating the practicality of future options. There is a need to: planwastemanagementandminimisationinthe longtermforthecommunitysinterestasalignedto desired community outcomes continuemovingtowardsdiversionofwastefrom landfill and achievement of the councils waste reduction targets considermethodsforovercomingAuckland-specific barriers and limitations to achieving cost effective waste minimisation e.g. gaining further access to /influenceontheexistingwastestreambeforeit goestolandfill(only12-14percentofthetotal waste and diverted materials stream currently in the council control) considerthedegreetowhichthecouncilis involved in providing for waste management and minimisation services and its specific role in promoting cost effective waste minimisation improvethemonitoringofwasteintheAuckland region, including volumes and composition, plus enhanced gathering of information regarding commercial and industrial sources of waste considertheeconomicfeasibilityofneworimproved services, to ensure rates and other costs are not increased unnecessarily workcollaborativelyandeffectivelywiththe commercial waste sector to obtain economies of scale through sharing facilities, collection services, educational/promotionalprogrammes,andfunding arrangements e.g. application for and use of waste levyfundsfromtheWasteMinimisationFund
realisethatthecostofdisposaltolandfillwill increase with the imposition of the national waste levy on all waste disposed to landfill and with the introductionoftheEmissionsTradingScheme considertheclimatechangeimpactsofwaste activities and services and seek to minimise these rationalisethetransportlogisticsofwasteand divertedmaterialtoensuremaximumefficiencyand to reduce negative impacts continuetheGovernmentspreferredfunding principleoffullcostpricingandthattheuserofthe service pays provideeconomicincentivesanddisincentivesto promote diversion of waste from landfill, where this is found to be efficient and effective considertheuseoftheallocatedwastelevyfunds for waste minimisation initiatives that are identified andcostingprovidedforinthecouncilsWMMP setrealisticandastutetargetsandassociatedactions that the Auckland Council intends to achieve provideforfundinginthecouncilsLTCCPand subsequentAnnualPlanstomonitorprogress throughAnnualReportsandreportprogressto theMfEonimplementationoftheWMMP,asnow requiredbytheWMA considertheeconomicsituationontheexpected amount of waste or recovered materials when setting any new or revised targets and planning for services.
Section 1 | 105
Options assessment
1 2
Section 01 Bliss light. Document header, Bliss medium 7.5pt
Chapter 7 | 106
Options assessment
7.1 Overview
This section reviews the practicable options available to meet the forecast demand for waste management and minimisation services in the Auckland region. In developing these options, consideration has been given to the key waste streams for diversion, future demand issues, the preliminary waste minimisation target of 20 per cent reduction of waste to landfill (excluding contaminated soil waste) and the impact of economic conditions and community concerns. This chapter includes: a discussion of key waste streams to be targeted for diversion a discussion on methods of delivering waste minimisation information about options available to meet the forecast demands of the district with an assessment of the suitability of each option a discussion of these options and scenarios for how packages of options might be implemented a statement of the councils intended role in meeting the forecast demands. The options assessment considers the key issues of how waste services are to be delivered and of control/ influence of the waste market. It is documented in the form of a comparative options matrix broken down by the priority waste streams identified in this assessment and key service components. The options assessment should not be considered an exhaustive list of options or specific actions that can be implemented as part of a WMMP but includes those options that have been assessed as being reasonably practicable.
The options at this stage are broadly strategic in nature and do not include detailed operational review of service delivery models although in some cases operational considerations are highlighted where relevant. The assessment is to be used as a starting point for considering practical methods for meeting demands focusing on the biggest potential benefit for the cost. Preliminary objectives and targets for waste management and minimisation from chapter 6 have been considered in an effort to scope the suitability of options. Do nothing options are not considered. Taking no action beyond the status quo will result in the Auckland Council failing to meet its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act which has the primary objective of minimising waste to landfill. For example, the option of not providing a hazardous waste collection service is not considered as alternative services or appropriate product stewardship schemes do not yet exist. Therefore a do nothing option is considered unviable as it does not promote waste minimisation. Existing council services as outlined in chapter 4 (such as the joint community education and behaviour change programmes) are anticipated to continue in some form, although the council reorganisation may impact on how they are operationally delivered. These existing services are not always assessed against alternatives. In some cases options representing existing services are included, where services work in cooperation with other options or where they can be expanded or improved on, or where alternatives exist for comparison.
Chapter 7. Options assessment
Chapter 7 | 107
The structure of options is as follows:
Key Objectives
Reduction of waste to landfill
Reduction of harm from waste
Adherence to the hierarchy of waste
Delivery of most cost effective and efficient solution to meet WNA and NZWS while: - maximising diversion - minimising cost to ratepayers
Critical Action: Control or influence over waste infrastucture

Reduction
Re-use
Recycling
Recovery
The higher up the Waste hierarchy pyramid, the more education/behaviour change is required
Treatment
Disposal
Chapter 7 | 108
A discussion of the options follows the matrix, highlighting key issues and points of difference.
The following table 7.3-1 provides estimated quantities of waste from the Auckland region disposed of to landfill, managed fills, and cleanfills.
Table 7.3-1 Summary of waste to all landfills, cleanfills and managed fills 2009
Waste Stream Classification Green Waste Other organic waste C&D Waste Rubble Timber Paper Metal Plastics Textiles Glass Other Soil/inert Total Tonnes Proportion T/yr to landfill 80,000 187,000 313,000 121,000 192,000 145,000 66,000 124,000 42,000 32,000 408,000 1,397,000 44% 260,000 1,040,400 1,790,000 56% T/yr to cleanfill/ managed fill 30,600 NA 459,000 T/yr to all fills 110,600 187,000 772,000 121,000 192,000 145,000 66,000 124,000 42,000 32,000 668,000 1,040,400 3,187,000 100%
7.2 Services adequate to meet demand

In interpreting the WMA s51, where it is demonstrated that current and future demand is currently being met through existing services, facilities and programmes, a detailed options assessment and/or statement of options does not need to be undertaken. Some services may appear to meet aspects of these criteria, such as waste disposal services provided by the commercial waste industry/private landfill market, which do meet current demand and are likely to meet demand into the short to medium term. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of these services and their overall alignment to the councils objective for cost effective waste minimisation require they be considered further. This issue of reliance on the commercial waste industry and the councils future role in providing such services is discussed in more detail later when considering disposal options.
7.3 Key waste streams and diversion potential discussion

Potentially divertable materials are components of the waste stream that have been identified as targets for possible diversion from landfill mainly through recycling or recovery activities. The trends, scale and composition of material, along with market and technological processing factors are discussed briefly and will guide consideration of options and future planning later in this assessment. While capturing all waste within a particular stream is unlikely and is dependent on a number of factors, a discussion of the largest potentially divertable waste streams is outlined below, as taken directly from the Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment document.xxxv
The table illustrates that there are significant quantities of most material classifications which are being disposed of and which could potentially be recovered. The largest waste streams to landfill that could be targeted for recovery include: C&D waste, contaminated soil/sludge, other organic, paper waste, plastic waste, and green waste. The potential for recovery of these waste streams is discussed briefly in the following subsections which are drawn largely from the Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment.
7.3-1 Organic waste

There are three key organic waste streams that are the main targets for increased recovery: green waste, household food waste and commercial food waste.
Chapter 7 | 109
Organic waste, in particular food waste, is the largest remaining fraction of the domestic collected waste that has not yet been targeted for diversion. In addition, there are still significant quantities of organic material from commercial sources that could be diverted and put to beneficial use. Significant ongoing work has been undertaken by the former TAs to address both the household and commercial streams. The Auckland Waste Officers Forum Organic Waste Working Group has undertaken work on technology options for managing organic waste and organic waste collection from households. Further reseach can be found in Appendix C-1&2. Research undertaken on behalf of Enterprising Manukau on diversion of industrial and commercial food waste has highlighted that a large amount of food processing waste is already diverted, largely for processing as stock food. The data collected for this report highlight that opportunities remain to increase the proportion of other organics diverted with key sources likely to include households and commercial kitchens (hospitality and institutional). Key challenges in this regard include developing cost effective collection systems and encouraging the introduction of technology capable of processing putrescible waste. Watercare Services Limited (WSL) have indicated that they would be willing to receive food waste into their existing treatment systems in order to capture methane for energy generation. Their preference is for food waste from commercial manufacturing sources where the nature of waste can be predicted. Early indications are that trials of up to 1,000 tonnes per annum could be carried out. Key to the recovery of organic material will be ensuring there are processing facilities capable of accepting the separated organic wastes at a price that is competitive with landfill. There will also be a need for bulking and transfer facilities capable of handling putrescible material. As with all diverted materials, viable markets for the recovered material will be critical. Up until the present the diversion of organic waste from the municipal stream in particular has been driven by waste minimisation efforts, while demand for the
products of the process has tended to lag behind. This has meant relatively low prices and the need to rely on gate fees to ensure economic viability of the facilities. Diversion of greater levels of organic wastes would result in substantial additional tonnages (potentially in the order of 60 70,000 tonnes per annum) requiring markets and work would be essential to develop these markets to ensure the material is put to beneficial use. As has been shown by the former TAs, the Auckland Council is likely to have the ability to exert considerable influence over the recovery of this waste stream.
7.3-2 C&D waste

In tonnage terms, C&D waste is estimated to be the largest stream of material that could be diverted. The estimate of the total quantity of C&D waste disposed of is subject to significant uncertainty due to the lack of information for cleanfills and managed fills. However, there is clearly a significant amount of C&D waste disposed of to landfill and there is an opportunity to reduce the disposal of this material through supporting existing diversion activity. Success in reducing this waste stream to landfill will be heavily reliant on the ability of the council to gain further access to the waste stream, such as through sorting and resource recovery efforts at transfer stations. Much of what is identified as C&D material is currently sent to cleanfill, so efforts that target this material for recovery will in part depend on what controls are in place around cleanfills. Specific opportunities relate to increasing the processing and use of recycled crushed concrete that is at present mostly cleanfilled. There is further opportunity to recover or re-use untreated timber although the quantity of untreated timber is relatively small. While materials such as crushed concrete have existing uses, other materials such as plasterboard and treated timber are more problematic and will require research and the development of processing infrastructure and markets before recovery will be viable. There are emerging initiatives for the diversion of clean plasterboard (from manufacturing and, potentially,
Chapter 7 | 110
construction off-cuts), but these rely on establishing an effective logistics chain from building sites to processors such as by incorporating resource recovery activities into existing transfer station operations. MfE is working with the construction industry to increase the diversion of this waste stream. Key drivers in Auckland for the diversion of C&D waste include the trend to seeking Green Star accreditation for new buildings and refurbishments, the market for recycled aggregate, and the rising cost of landfill disposal.
consents for a monofill landfill of biosolids at Puketutu Island for the next 35 years. The beneficial reuse for these materials is still being investigated and is focused on direct application to land such as in remediation projects or in direct forest application as this will further extend the life of the monofill.
7.3-5 Paper and cardboard waste

Although there is a well established paper and cardboard collection and processing industry, waste composition analyses indicate that there are still large quantities of potentially recoverable materials being landfilled. This issue is likely to require further analysis but achieving higher levels of diversion may well require addressing the price structures around landfilling or introducing legislative measures to provide greater incentive for recovery. The Auckland Councils ability to take direct action on improving recovery of this material may be limited unless the council has administrative/operational control of the resource recovery network (transfer stations). Maximum diversion may also require further economic disincentives or that regulatory measures be put in place.
7.3-3 Contaminated soils and sludges

Contaminated soils make up a significant portion of materials disposed of to landfill. There is currently a lack of detailed information on the composition and origin of these materials, which restricts any analysis of potential for improving diversion. Generally, it is understood that contaminated soils come from remediation and development sites. In Auckland the majority of these soils go to landfills as there are currently no incentives to consider alternative options that are less cost effective. Alternatives may include, for example, land farming or in situ remediation however these are currently limited by cost. Therefore, under current circumstances and in considering the relatively low cost of landfilling there are few opportunities for the council to directly pursue options to reduce this waste stream.
7.3-6 Plastic waste

Over 90 per cent of plastics are disposed of to landfill, suggesting there is significant opportunity to increase recovery and recycling. Plastics have been one of the last commodities to be addressed in terms of diversion. This is largely due to the sensitivity of plastics to contamination and unfavourable collection and transport logistics as a result of their light and bulky nature. Apart from HDPE and PET, there are limited domestic markets for plastics meaning most recovered plastic is sold on international commodities markets. In the short term the key to increasing diversion is likely to lie in improving separation and the quality of recovered materials in order to access the higher value and more stable international markets. This will rely, in part, on the councils ability to gain administrative/ operational control of the waste value chain such as through the resource recovery/refuse transfer station network.
7.3-4 Sludge and biosolids

It will be important for the council to address the issue of sludges that are currently being sent to landfill, managed fill, or cleanfill. There may be opportunities to put biosolids to beneficial use. Facilities capable of processing biosolids to the Grade AA standard do not currently exist in the Auckland region.xxxvi If biosolids are to be targeted for diversion, it would be important that this is identified early in the design and procurement of any new regional composting facilities. The councils water and wastewater company, Watercare Services Ltd. is the largest producer of these materials (categorised in Table 7.3-1 as other waste to managed fill) and has a biosolids strategy that is being implemented. Watercare curently has resource
Chapter 7 | 111
Taking a slightly longer term view there may be scope to further develop local processing infrastructure to enhance diversion. Issues that have been identified during the preparation of this report include: limited local capacity to process the range of plastics currently in the waste stream limited local capacity to handle products containing mixed plastics limited interest in processing ;dirty plastics e.g. from food containers washing and shredding infrastructure. There has been a significant amount of work exploring opportunities to increase the recycling of plastics including development of the Packaging Accord and a wide range of initiatives by Plastics NZ. In both cases work has included design issues being addressed (materials selection, easy deconstruction/disassembly) and review of increased options for the recycling of plastics once they become waste. In the short term there would be benefit in discussing opportunities to work with the plastics industry and waste collectors to reduce the amount of plastics disposed of to landfill. Where tangible opportunities become apparent there may be a case for accessing, in collaboration with industry, waste levy funding to undertake research, feasibility studies or project development.
including: higher contamination rates increased public confusion reduced commodity prices restricted markets, increasing reliance on exports to limited markets. A higher proportion of final glass product is also downgraded to construction aggregate rather than being made into new bottles. This will have important implications for the revised NZWS as the focus potentially shifts to looking at reducing environmental harm (GHGs).14 To increase the quantities of glass for high value products may necessitate a separate glass collection services which could incur additional costs. One of the key issues is who should pay these additional costs. There is a strong argument that those that benefit should. Wellington City Council has recently introduced 140L wheeled bins for a mixed collection of dry recyclables excluding glass and organics. It is proposed that glass will be collected separately in the existing 40L recycling crates; this will be collected on alternate weeks to the dry recyclables in the new wheeled bin. It is expected to cost $3 million a year and will be funded from the councils other waste activities such as rubbish bag sales, landfill fees and the waste levy.
7.3-7 Glass waste

Auckland currently landfills 32,000 tonnes of glass per annum. The majority of this is dicarded materials as waste. In the Auckland region the council only has influence over kerbside collections. Based upon the former Auckland councils kerbside collection figures 94 per cent of the glass was recycled. The former Auckland councils achieved significant diversion from landfill. However it has been estimated that up to 50 per cent of collected glass cannot be used in remanufature of new bottles. Further evidence is emerging both within NZ and world-wide regarding the unintended negative consequences of the commingled collection system
7.3-8 Special waste

In this context, special wastes include used oil, tyres, end of life vehicles, batteries and electronic goods. As with hazardous wastes they can cause a disproportionate level of harm if not properly managed. A number of these wastes are candidates for product stewardship schemes and also fall under the category of hazardous waste (see section 3.5.3). Some of these wastes are already the subject of voluntary industry initiatives but these voluntary schemes generally do not have comprehensive coverage or do not target a full range of materials or sources. There are
14
A study, by consulting firm Grant Thornton, finds that tonnage-based programs to divert glass from landfills dont pay enough attention to the environmental effects of alternative methods of waste diversion. The report focuses specifically on glass (see pages 10-18) and notes that a program to remove glass from the waste stream by grinding it into sand-replacement building and filtration products generates more carbon dioxide than if the glass was sent to landfill. The report concludes that using the glass in the manufacture of new containers in a closed-loop system is clearly the most environmentally friendly way to go. The report also recommends that the UK target its funding efforts at finding ways to promote closed-loop glass recycling in the face of the growing use of commingled glass collection.
Chapter 7 | 112
likely to be significant opportunities to enhance the capture and diversion of special wastes from landfill through mandatory and/or further voluntary product stewardship schemes. However, if national product stewardship schemes do not eventuate, which is likely as the current Government has stated its preference to promote only voluntary programmes at this time, the burden of waste management and minimisation will remain with local government. There is also potential for some legacy wastes to remain after the introduction of a product stewardship scheme. In these cases, the council may need to continue providing a service to collect these wastes, an example being the Resene PaintWise scheme which does not collect all paint products. A further example being the Agrecovery agricultural chemical scheme which does not collect all agricultural hazardous waste and charges farmers for the service (compared to the free collection service that was provided by the former Auckland Regional Council).
Government policy outlines an overarching objective of reducing waste to landfill. The council is proposing a preliminary target of reducing waste to landfill by 20 per cent in line with the previous waste plans of the former Auckland councils previous commitments. These objectives will not be achieved if the new council takes a similar approach to waste minimisation as the seven former councils did. There are generally three broad approaches that are available to TAs to achieve their objectives and from which options for minimising waste are typically drawn. From experience the effectiveness of each of these approaches varies significantly and a combination of these approaches is usually used. The three approaches to change behaviour and achieve waste minimisation objectives are: social marketing/behaviour change regulation and legislative change direct action/partnering with industry.
7.3-9 Hazardous waste

Hazardous waste is of particular concern due to the disproportionate level of harm it is capable of causing. There is a lack of good quality information on the movement and handling of hazardous wastes in the Auckland region particularly hazardous waste generated by commercial businesses. There is some information with regard to household hazardous waste that is collected and reported on as part of the former ARCs Hazardous Waste Programme (e.g. HazMobile, transfer station drop-offs and AgChem collection programmes). This programme is discussed further in section 3.5.3. The issues associated with lack of information about hazardous waste are not unique to Auckland.
7.4-1 Social marketing/behaviour change

Community-based social marketing (CBSM) is the term given to methods for promoting behaviour change that are carried out at the local level and involve direct engagement with the community. These approaches draw on marketing and social psychology theory toward developing programmes that go well beyond creating public awareness of issues. CBSM methods allow for specific behaviours to be targeted by researching barriers, creating incentives and in providing for easy-to-uptake solutions that are designed to solve common waste minimisation problems. Environmental psychologist and a leading expert in the design of programs to promote sustainable behaviour, Doug -McKenzie-Mohr PhD states in his publication, Fostering Sustainable Behaviour; The emergence of community-based social marketing over the last several years can be traced to a growing understanding that programs which rely heavily or exclusively on media advertising can be effective in creating public awareness and understanding of issues related to sustainability, but are limited in their ability to foster behaviour change.
7.4 Methods for delivering waste minimisation

The key objective for effective and efficient waste minimisation is to reduce waste to landfill. This objective is clearly reflected in the WMA, the NZWS and is defined in each of the seven former councils existing Waste Management Plans.
Chapter 7 | 113
Activities falling into this category range from the promotion of kerbside recycling to the Create Your Own Eden home composting programme. In some cases, these programmes underpin or are incorporated into regulatory enforcement and implementation actions (e.g. the Be a Tidy Kiwi anti-litter campaign). They are also sometimes used to promote utilisation of the councils own waste minimisation services and are generally designed to target a specific behaviour. For example councils can provide cleaner production advice and incentives to businesses or advocate for voluntary extended producer responsibility schemes. In some cases councils may also seek to change behaviour in part by advocating and supporting relevant research and development into new markets for recovered materials. One of the advantages of these types of programmes and schemes is that they are often relatively low cost and low risk and can lead to positive engagement with the community. They are however challenging to design and in some cases are more difficult to measure in terms of effectiveness in changing behaviour or in measuring the specific waste minimisation outcome. These programmes may be less effective if not well designed and combined with other actions, such as providing service choices or use of regulatory measures to prompt changes in behaviour. In that sense they do not always provide a cost-effective solution in themselves and each programme must be specifically designed and evaluated in terms of its performance against objectives and desired outcomes. While the former councils in the Auckland region were generally coordinated in their promotional programmes, these programmes have not been able to demonstrate that they have produced significant, quantifiable results in terms of waste reduction to landfill. They are most successful when used in combination with the provision of direct council services that can be utilised by the community. Often better outcomes would be achieved from such programmes if they were undertaken nationally on a coordinated basis using consistent messages and programmes, rather than by individual councils.
7.4-2 Regulation & Legislative change

This involves using legal mechanisms such as bylaws or district and regional plan rules to force behaviour change and promote waste minimisation and the beneficial use of resources or advocating for a legislative change. The Council could advocate for changes to the relevant legislation to ensure the responsibility of miminising waste is not only Councils but also shared equally by the private waste industry. The Council could encourage the Minister for the Environment to provide specific regulation pursuant to the WMA to provide for Aucklands unique situation. This would require the industry to be accountable for meeting the Waste Minimisation Act objectives for the 85% of the waste stream to landfill that they currently control. (This could be seen as a least risk option, although the time frame is likely to be lengthy.) An example of regulation will be, some councils have used local bylaws to prohibit the disposal of certain materials in either their kerbside refuse collection or from landfills or cleanfills. Others have imposed licensing systems to assist in the management and identification of those who are generating, transporting and disposing of various waste materials. The advantage in using regulation at a local level is that it can be an effective means to limit certain materials being disposed of to landfill, particularly where there are suitable alternatives available to enable the recovery of the banned materials. In the case of the Auckland region, bylaws that include bans on certain materials (such as greenwaste) have not been used widely and information about their enforcement and effectiveness is not available. Use of bylaws to impose regulatory disposal bans is difficult to enforce because the council is not generally in control of the transfer stations, resource recovery centres or landfills. Bans are also difficult to enforce if there are inadequate collection services (or other alternatives to disposal) for the banned material. There is some evidence to suggest that bans can be successful when implemented at key waste infrastructure. In Tasman District, the council has
Chapter 7 | 114
imposed an operational ban on greenwaste to landfill requiring materials to be sorted at the council-owned transfer station and landfill. This compares to the neighbouring Nelson City Council that does not have such a ban at their own transfer station or landfill, while they do have differential pricing. Nelson City, despite having nearly the same population as Tasman District has over one third less greenwaste diverted from landfill as a consequence.xxxvii Another example is the successful implementation of the Christchurch City Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 and its 2003 predecessor. These bylaws have enabled the council to prevent anyone from disposing of anything to a cleanfill site without an appropriate licence. The bylaw contains provisions limiting the type of materials that may be disposed to cleanfills and requires cleanfill operators, on behalf of the council, to collect composition, source and volume data for material disposed to the cleanfill. The operation of the bylaw is self-funding due to an annual licence monitoring fee paid by licence holders. Three former councils of the Auckland region were among the first to partner with others (North Shore City, Rodney District and the former Waitakere City Councils) to implement similar bylaws. These bylaws created a sub-regional waste operator licensing system and imposed a local waste levy for the purposes of improving management of nuisance caused by waste and its reduction through application of an economic disincentive. This regulatory approach was only partially successful, as the local waste levy and components of the licensing system were later found by the Courts to be ultra vires.15 While the process of developing sub-regional bylaws helped act as the catalyst for development of the WMA and the new national waste levy, the result demonstrated that councils without control of key waste infrastructure have fewer regulatory tools at a local level to assist them in meeting their waste reduction objectives. It was also found that regulatory tools are challenging to develop, costly to administer and difficult to enforce. This is particularly relevant in Auckland, where local government currently has little direct involvement in the operation of waste
infrastructure. Therefore, it is recommended that this type of approach be used to support other initiatives but not be relied upon in itself to achieve significant waste minimisation objectives. Legal advice 16 obtained during the writing of this waste assessment confirms that the Auckland Council can make bylaws under section 56(1)(b) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to regulate the collection and transport of waste. The Auckland Council can also make bylaws under section 56(3) of the WMA to provide for the licensing of persons who carry out the collection and transportation of waste under section 56(1)(b). In addition a bylaw may provide that all collection services are to be serviced privately and that a person has exclusive rights to collect and transport waste from the kerbside (with no restriction on other collections from private properties) as long as this meets the overall obligations and objectives of the council under the WMA. To facilitate this, licence areas may be established that correlate to the 21 local board areas. A licence may contain a number of terms and conditions including: waste reduction targets with the tenderer identifying a range of services and associated costs to achieve these, which can then be incorporated into a licence specification that private contractors can provide all collection services, including refuse, recycling and organics as long as this meets the overall obligations and objectives of the council under the WMA key performance indicators to ensure that collectors are reducing the amount of waste (over time) disposed of to landfill and the requirement to provide reports setting out the quantity, composition and destination of waste collected and transported by the licensee. The council may also introduce direct polluter pays through a bylaw (i.e. the payment relationship may be between the contractor and customer, not through rates funding). This can be done in some areas, while in others rates may be used where a contractor would be unwilling to take on the risk of payment.
15
16
It should be noted that councils still have the powers to create economic incentives and disincentives when they are charging for the services they provide however the use of this provision is limited in the Auckland region because of the lack of councils management control of key waste infrastructure. Kensington Swan 24 September 2010 Matter Number WAI395/614
Chapter 7 | 115
Licences could be introduced by the council not only for collection services but also separately for the operation of transfer station facilities. The waste assessment has considered the option of obtaining further control of activities at transfer stations or other private waste facilities through use of bylaw regulation. 17 This would involve licensing transfer stations, specifying diversion targets and activities along with implementation of a performance bond system. Initial legal advice is that while this is possible, the judiciary has taken a narrow interpretation on bylaw powers so this option carries a degree of risk to the council and could be subject to legal challenge. However it has been suggested that consultation with industry be considered to reduce this risk. For the purposes of this waste assessment this option has not been given a high priority as a preferred option but may be given further consideration in the future during the development of a solid waste bylaw.
fully commingled recycling and an organic waste collection service (in combination with other methods) are on target to reduce total waste to landfill by 20 per cent over the previous year.xxxix Councils that own (or control through a Public Private Partnership) and operate their waste infrastructure also have the advantage of readily using economic incentive and/or disincentive fees at their facilities and using the funds to further advance waste minimisation in accordance with their WMMP. One example is differential pricing, such as setting a high waste disposal charge and offering free or reduced-cost drop-off for recyclable/recoverable materials. This can only be effective where local government has access to the waste stream such as a transfer facilities and/ or landfills, and where councils have made investment into appropriate kerbside recycling services and processing facilities (e.g. materials recovery facilities and composting operations). It is acknowledged widely that these types of direct actions, particularly when combined with other methods, are considered good practice because they have the potential for delivering sustainable benefits in terms of minimisation of waste to landfill and by promoting efficient use of resources. The main constraint on progress towards achievement of the Auckland Councils waste minimisation objectives is the councils lack of access to the waste stream and the absence of management control of waste infrastructure. Control over Aucklands waste infrastructure has moved to waste companies over the last 15-20 years. Thus decisions on what will be recycled and what will be landfilled are naturally made with shareholders in mind rather than obligations on council. A fundamental concept that has wide agreement amongst waste reduction experts around the world is that the community should maintain control of the waste stream. Conversely waste companies do their best to gain flow control in order to determine waste goes usually to landfills. The Auckland Council representing the community, would need to have access to all waste infrastructure to enable it to build in resource recovery systems that will result in the waste reduction outcomes that the community is
7.4-3 Direct action by the council

The most effective and quantifiable method for changing behaviour and minimising waste to landfill is through direct action by the council. These methods generally involve doing it yourself by providing services that divert waste away from disposal (e.g. kerbside recycling, kerbside organics collection and composting, resource recovery facilities at transfer stations, resale shops, waste sorting facilities etc.) These services are generally funded through a combination of rates and user charges and are often underpinned by community based social marketing campaigns to promote community use of the service. Ownership or administrative/operational control of key waste infrastructure by the council combined with provision of major kerbside services to households and businesses would provide for the most effective and efficient reduction of waste. The introduction of 3-bin systems in conjunction with the ownership of resource recovery facilities and transfer stations, such as in seen in Christchurch and Timaru, has been shown to achieve a high level of domestic waste reduction. In the case of Timaru, there has been a 70 per cent diversion of domestic waste from landfill to beneficial reuse through a combination of recycling and composting.xxxviii In Christchurch, changes to service delivery by introducing
17
Kensington Swan matter number WAI395/614.
Chapter 7 | 116
increasingly expecting. This means that the community owned or controlled waste minimisation resource/ recovery system should be the gateway through which all resources must pass before being handed onto the waste industry to dispose of once all value has been extracted. The only way that Aucklands waste and resource recovery infrastructure can be brought together to work cooperatively and maximise efficiencies is by being under the control of the Auckland Council. There is an opportunity to address this situation through increased partnership with the commercial waste industry. The options assessed and scenarios presented in this waste assessment reflect this.
7.5-2 Price Waterhouse Coopers Report

The Auckland Transition Agency commissioned Price Waterhouse Coopers to undertake a high level desktop review of future governance and management options for Auckland solid waste. The report entitled Solid Waste: High Level Options Assessment (March 2010) noted that: Meeting the challenges of Aucklands solid waste sector will require that four key issues are addressed: rationalisation and costs; waste minimisation; control over the waste stream; and funding. The report identified the problem Auckland faces as: Aucklands solid waste environment is unique. Auckland generates more solid waste than any other region in New Zealand (based on household and commercial output) and also has the lowest level of Council involvement in ownership and management of waste infrastructure. Within section 2.3.3 of the PWC report the issue of control is further expanded upon: Direct ownership/control or partnership has been demonstrated as being an effective means of achieving waste minimisation objectives. Christchurch and South Australia are examples of this approach. Collectively, the Auckland Councils have little control over the waste stream directed to refuse transfer stations and landfills at present. Although difficult to estimate, total household refuse and inorganic waste collections appear to be in the order of 250,000 tonnes per annum. This is only 14 per cent 18 of the total waste generated within the Auckland region that is ultimately sent to landfill. The much larger portion, estimated at 86 per cent, reflects commercial and construction waste where the Councils have little or no influence. A majority of the refuse transfer stations are controlled by the private sector, particularly ESL and TPI, and the only council ownership of major landfill assets is the 50 per cent interest held by the former Manukau City Council in the Whitford landfill, which is substantially smaller than privately-owned Redvale and Hampton
7.5 Options assessment

7.5-1 General
Based upon the analysis undertaken to complete this waste assessment the following key objectives are apparent that: the Auckland Council has responsibility to reduce total waste to landfill not only the waste that it collects at the kerbside through the council services but also that collected by private operators there should be reduction of harm from waste adherence to the hierarchy of waste maximises economic value the most cost effective and efficient solution minimises costs to ratepayers. There are a number of key issues that need to be addressed and decisions made in order to achieve these objectives. These are: That the council needs to confirm how much influence or operational control of the waste stream is required to achieve meaningful reduction of waste to landfill. This is a fundamental issue if the council is to meet its legislative responsibilities Funding decisions are required about how services are to be funded and their cost effectiveness Services to be provided service levels and the consistency of service across the Auckland region need to be addressed.
It is assumed that total waste is in the range of 12-14%.
18
Chapter 7 | 117
Downs. Within section 4.3 of the PWC report it is stated that: The only means of gaining real control over the waste stream is via key assets such as refuse transfer stations, which have direct control over the waste directed to landfill, recycling or cleanfill, or landfills themselves. Such control could be achieved through: acquisition of assets by way of purchase or lease; legislation/regulation; or public/private partnership. A range of ownership/control models exist, each with advantages and disadvantages and these are detailed on page 12 of the PWC report.
operational influence over transfer stations Operational influence over transfer stations can be achieved by negotiating an agreement with the landfill owners. This would require the two private landfill owners to form a joint venture putting the three landfill servicing Auckland into a single structure. Council would then enter into a contractual arrangement with this landfill joint venture that would provide council exclusive rights for Auckland waste into these landfills. This would be additionally enforced by an Auckland solid waste bylaw. Aucklands 17 existing Refuse Transfer Stations would then either be operated under direct council specification, or directly managed by council as with the Waitakere Refuse Transfer Station. Council would in turn pay the landfill joint venture through a formula yet to be negotiated. If this arrangement cannot be achieved an alternative would be through the landfill contracts with one of the current major infrastructure owners, then the council has the opportunity to have either just a tolling arrangement at the RTSs or greater management control of transfer stations, which would enable greater resource recovery. Each of the above mentioned options considered has its own issues and benefits when considered against the following key criteria: reducing the harmful effects of waste improving the efficiency of resource use. Other issues that need to be considered when reviewing scenarios are: hat the revised New Zealand Waste Strategys t focus is on reducing harmful effects from waste, and improving the efficiency of resource use that the intent of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 is to reduce waste the need for alignment with the existing WMMP objectives of the former Auckland councils financial impacts (costs/income or savings) bylaw implications Political party policy (polluter pays focus) key stakeholders views
7.5-3 Control/influence
Operational control or influence of waste management infrastructure has been identified as a critical issue for Auckland if there is any chance of the council meeting its waste minimisation objectives. It is acknowledged that there are a range of proposed strategic options and management models available to the council, each with varying degrees of control or influence that can be implemented to deliver waste services to Auckland Councils ratepayers. At one end of this range lies a waste licence management model whereby the council achieves some limited control with respect to specifying minimum service levels but otherwise lets the private market provide the services. However, this control is limited as it only extends to the current household waste stream, estimated as 15 per cent of the entire waste stream. At the other end of the spectrum proposals include options whereby the council would control/influence the entire waste stream. As mentioned earlier, this can be achieved by a mix of methodologies. These are likely to include: developing solid waste bylaws, dvocating for legislation to require industry to a comply with the WMA and encouraging the Minister for the Environment to provide specific regulation pursuant to the WMA to provide for Aucklands unique situation.
Chapter 7 | 118
alignment of services. The ultimate outcome to be considered when analysing any option is the ability of that option to reduce waste in the most cost effective manner while minimising environmental harm.
7.5-4 Summary strategic direction options and management models assessment

Several variations of management model and strategic control/influence options for obtaining a greater degree of operational control of the waste infrastructure have been identified. All of these options share some common features most notably the underlying need to link waste disposal contracts with landfill and RTS infrastructure control. All management model options include the provision for RTS operations to be linked to disposal. This forms an integral part of the overall package that will be tendered out. The range of options outlined, all contain varying degrees of control of the RTSs that is obtained through direct negotiation, or contractual agreements following a tender process. While the options share some commonality they also contain key differences in terms of funding, collection methods and the waste streams addressed. Table 7.5.2 provides an overview of the range of strategic options, and outlines the management method for achieving each option. It also summarises the kerbside collection services and funding/costs implications of each option.
It should be noted that the first series of management model options all contain a threshold, where only partial control (12 per cent) can be obtained. To obtain complete control of the RTS network it is essential that all the transfer stations are included. It is also key that the two main waste infrastructure owners are engaged and supportive of this approach. While a full control option is preferred, achieving partial control by working with just one waste infrastructure owner is possible. This would still represent an opportunity for significant improvement over the current situation. Based on current infrastructure ownership this partial level of control by the council could be from 35 per cent to 65 per cent. It needs to be emphasised that work on Strategic Option 3, management model 7 is still preliminary. The methodologies to achieve influence will need to be tested and validated through a rigorous analytical process involving economic and commercial analysis before proceeding down any of the paths. Once the governing body endorses the strategic direction, discussions and detailed work can commence to lay out the best way forward. This will be undertaken as part of the drafting of the WMMP.
Chapter 7 | 119
Table 7.5-1 Transfer station owners/operators
Transfer station
Constellation Drive Transfer Station Devonport Transfer Station East Tamaki Transfer Station Helensville Transfer Station
Area
Mairangi Bay Lake Road, Devonport East Tamaki Mill Lane Helensville
Owner /operator
Envirowaste Council Waste Disposal Services Owned by the council run under contract TPI Envirowaste/TPI. JV Envirowaste Envirowaste TPI Metrowaste Masons contractors Auckland Council owned operated under contract by TPI Owned and operated by the council Owned by the council operated by Envirowaste Owned by the council operated by Masons Contractors Envirowaste
usage
High >30,000tpa low< 15,000tpa low< 15,000tpa low< 15,000tpa low< 15,000tpa High >30,000tpa High >30,000tpa Medium = 15,000 30,000tpa High >30,000tpa Medium = 15,000 30,000tpa low< 15,000tpa low< 15,000tpa High >30,000tpa low< 15,000tpa low< 15,000tpa Medium = 15,000 30,000tpa
Papakura Transfer Station TPI Takanini Pikes Point Transfer Station Patiki Road Transfer Station Pukekohe Transfer Station Rosedale Transfer Station Silverdale Transfer Station Onehunga Avondale Pukekohe Rosedale Rd North Shore Silverdale
Snells Beach Transfer Station Snells Beach Waiheke Waste Transfer Station Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station Waiuku Transfer Station Wellsford Waste Transfer Station Wiri Transfer Station Waiheke Henderson Waiuku Wellsford Wiri
Improving waste diversion by increasing the councils involvement and influence in the transfer station network as opposed to continued private sector dominance within the transfer station network is desirable as the council does not have an imperative to shareholders to make profit out of waste. Additionally the council has responsibilities to consider social, economic and environmental factors in decision making and operations as required under the Local Government Act. Furthermore, it has a clear imperative to minimise waste under the WMA that is not required of private sector counterparts. This is
evidenced in case studies from the former Waitakere transfer station where a significant range of low value or individual waste items were diverted for re-use and resale. This additional council remit to focus on sustainability, waste minimisation and social outcomes allowed greater diversion potential as opposed to the tendencies at private transfer stations to divert a minor amount of higher value waste only when economic conditions allowed. Tables 7.5-3 7.5-9 provide further analysis of each of the individual options identified in table 7.5.2.
Strategic direction option 3: Option 2 plus Operational influence Management model 7 only or model 7 plus one from model 1-6 Strategic direction option 2: Status quo plus new systems to maximise diversion Strategic direction option 1: Status quo plus some streamlining
Management Models Corresponding to the Strategic Direction Options

The council out sources contracts
3 Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections Note: The council awards contracts for polluter-pays refuse and recycling collection services. Organics collection provided by the market. 4 Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded Note: Contract for polluter-pays refuse collection and rates funded recycling collection services. Organics collection provided by the market. Contracts with collectors to provide refuse and recycling collection services. Refuse would be a polluterpays service while the recycling collection is rates funded. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through user charges and rates. Organics (garden waste) would be supplied by the market as per currently. Refuse, recycling and organics collections undertaken via contracts with the council. Polluter-pays refuse service. Rates funded recycling service. Refuse, recycling and organics collections undertaken via contracts with the council. Polluter-pays refuse service. Rates funded recycling service. Rates funded organics service. Contracts with collectors to provide refuse, recycling and organics services. Refuse collection is polluter pays. Recycling and organics collections are rates funded. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through user charges and rates. 5 Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded Note: Contract for a polluterpays refuse service and rates funded recycling and organic collection services. The council has contracts with collectors to provide polluter-pays refuse and recycling services. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through user charges. Organics (garden waste) collections would be supplied by the market as it is currently. 6 Rates funded refuse, recycling and organics collections Note: Contract for rates funded refuse, recycling and organic collections.
Description of service
The council provides licence to operators
Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry

7 Influence over infrastructure
Management Models
1 Licence Note: Contractors specify the types of services provided.
2 Specified Licence Note: The council specifies the collection service types.
Method
Exclusive collection licence is tendered by geographical area or potentially by 21 local board areas. Licence and tender is let on the following criteria: ercentage of waste allowed p to landfill ontractor charge to residential c properties ypes of services provided by t the contractor. Refuse and recycling collections undertaken via contracts with the council. Polluter-pays refuse service. Recycling services are polluterpays but there could be partial subsidisation to ensure cost differentials.
Exclusive collection licence is tendered by area. It is possible to correlate to 21 local board areas. Licence and tender let on the following criteria: ercentage of waste allowed p to landfill ontractor charge to residential c properties he council specifies the service t types provided.
Contracts with collectors to provide refuse, recycling and organics collection services. All collections are rates funded. Council charge residential properties for services it provides through rates.
The council has operational control of all infrastructure and kerbside residential collection contracts. The council either leases/ licences or contracts key infrastructure. Collections licensed or contracted separately but with an option for RTS / landfill owners to also provide these services. Refuse, recycling and organics collections undertaken via contracts with the council. All collections are rates funded. Refuse, recycling and organics collections and processing services undertaken via contracts with the council. Residual waste services polluter-pays All other services can be rates or polluter-pays Ability to subsidise recycling, organics and other diversion services through surpluses in RTS operations. No rates funding required. (if polluter-pays options used)
Table 7.5-2 Strategic direction options and corresponding management model scenarios
Kerbside collection services
Private contractors provide all collection services.
Private contractors provide all refuse, recycling and organics collection services.
Funding/costs
All services to be polluter-pays. The contractor is not expected to carry unacceptable credit. If it is identified that certain areas are uneconomic, or some properties are high risk, the council has the option to fund these via rates to ensure a minimum level of service is provided to all ratepayers. The council charges a licence fee to recover costs of waste .
Chapter 7 | 121
Landfill disposal and RTS operation is linked to the councils disposal contracts
Chapter 7 | 122
Cost per household for the Options and Management Models considered above is summarised below.
Council Weekly Rates ACC $3.06 NSCC $0.77 WCC (-$0.32)
The following table indicates the Solid Waste weekly rates component by the former councils by household.
RDC $1.53 MCC $4.31 FDC $1.01 PDC $2.67
It should be noted that these councils had different funding methods and services. The above table indicates 2010/11 solid waste services against rates costs and does not include polluter pays charges imposed by the councils.
Whilst these polluter pays charges vary by council it could be assumed that an average of $2 per week could be added to the above weekly costs where user charges exist. The following table indicates the proposed weekly rates component of the options to be considered;. Option 5: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $2.75 Option 6: Rates funded refuse, recycling and organics collections $4.02 Option 7: Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry (-$0.12)
Option 1: Licence
Option 2: Specified Licence
Option 3: Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections $0.69
Option 4: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $1.63
$0.66
$0.66
The following table indicates the average weekly polluter pays component of the options to be considered; Option 1: Licence Option 2: Specified Licence Option 3: Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections $2.73 Option 4: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $1.78 Option 5: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $0.93 Option 6: Rates funded refuse, recycling and organics collections $0.00 Option 7: Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry $0.93
$3.37
$3.37
The following tables 7.5-3 7.5-9 look at each of the above management models identified above in more detail.
For each management model the following have been assessed: role of the council logistics risks/issues costs of each model and the source of funds i.e. polluter pays vs rates funded percentage waste reduction expected any further considerations.
Table 7.5-3 Management Model 1: Licence Model
Detailed description
Role of the council
Operational issues/ logistics

fprivatecontractorsfailtoprovide I rivatecontractorsprovideall P collectionservicesrefuse,recycling serviceCouncilmayberequiredto interveneandpickupthecost andorganics hecouncilwouldstillneedarates T hecouncilmayhavetosubsidise T fidentifiedthatcertainareasare I elementtocovercorecouncilcosts someareaswhereprivatecontracts uneconomicthenoptionforthe i.e.contractmanagement,waste counciltobulkfundthese(viarates) areuneconomical educationandenforcementcosts toensureminimumlevelsofservice rivatecontractorsmaynot P providedtoallratepayers T respondtonewwasteminimisation hecouncilmayhavetosubsidise uneconomicareasviarates objectivesorrequirementswithout nefficienciesordiscrepancies I adjustmentstocontractual betweenservicelevelsin21board astelicensingpaidforbylicence W arrangements areas feebyallwasteoperators C Borderissuesincontractsbetween ontractorssplitinto21areasmay ikelytobemostexpensiveoption L beunlikelytoinvestinmajorwaste 21areas forhouseholds minimisationorrecoveryplant ifferentlevelsofserviceor D illbelittleconsistencyacross W capableofdeliveringonaregional methodologiesbetweencontract theregion basis areasmayrequirealternativewaste educationorcoreservicesupport optionsresultinginduplication andinefficienciesandapotential inabilitytousearegionalapproach torealisesavingsandeconomies ofscale icencesmayneedtobeawarded L todifferentcompanieswithin21 areastoavoidcomplicationswith CommerceActprovisions eedtohavecompetitiveROI N process ayrequirestrongbylawwith M licensingprovisionsandstrong licensingenforcementtoensure orguaranteecomparableand appropriatelevelsofservice icenceprovisionwouldhaveto L includeminimumservicelevels anddiversionpossibilitiestoensure wasteminimisationaimsofthe councilaresupported illneedtorelyonstrongdataand W reportingtoguaranteeanylevelof diversionfromlandfill eedtolimitlengthofcontracts N toavoidpotentialconflictswith CommerceActprovisions.i.e.less than 5 yrs llservicestobepolluterpays A (ifcostsandlevelsofservice appropriate)
Risk
Cost of each option and source of funds
Percentage waste reduction expected
Other considerations (Waste hierarchy/ NZWS/ LGA)
1 Licence Model. Contractors specify the types of services provided
ettinglicences L
Key Aspects
icencemanagementand L coordination,managementand settingandmonitoringofKPIs
eporting R Licencemodelbutwithall collectionservicesprovidedprivately MMPplanning W icenceareascancorrelatetolocal egulatoryenforcement L R boardareas21intotal icensingenforcement L icenceandtenderisletonthe L romotionofeffectiveand P followingcriteria: efficientwasteminimisationand - ercentageofwasteallowedto p management landfill anagementoflandfilldisposal M - ontractorchargetoresidential c contracts properties
E lthoughpercentageofwastesetby achlicenceorlicenceareamay A licenceconditions.,accesstogeneral needtobeindependentlyassessed toascertainenvironmentalharmor wastestreamstilllimitedsoless opportunitiesforincreaseddiversion resourceefficiencyelements fromlandfill hecouncilhasanobligation T undertheLGA2002toinclude, heorganicscollectionoffers T initsWasteManagementand potentialwasteminimisation MinimisationPlan,provisionfor savingsof25%ofkerbsidewasteto landfillbydivertingtheorganicand residualwaste putresciblecontent heNZWSsupportspolluter-pays T
- ypesofservicesprovidedbythe t contractor
hecounciltospecifybandsof t wastereductiontendererto identifyrangeofservicesand associated costs to achieve these thecouncilwilldecidewhatto implement.Servicesprovidedwillbe apricevslevelofservicetradeoff.
principles,andsoaresidualwaste atesfundedschemesallowfurther R coverageanduptakebutstilllimited collectionsystemshouldideally toresidentialsector,consequently provideforpolluter-paystobe implemented 80%ofwastestreamremains beyondthecouncilcontrol hecouncilwasteofficersand T industryexpertshaveindicated anyoptionsimilartoorretaining statusquoforwastemanagement inAucklandwillresultinafailureto meetexistingNZWStargets
rivatecontractorsprovideall P collectionservicesforexample refuse,recyclingandorganics
equiresseparatelandfilltender R needtohavecontrolofdisposal
Chapter 7 | 124
Table 7.5-4 Management Model 2: Specified Licence Model
Role of the council
Risk
2 Specified Licence Model. Council to specify types of services provided.
Lettinglicences
Key Aspects
Licencemanagementand coordination,managementand settingandmonitoringofKPIs
Ifprivatecontractorsfailtoprovide Allservicestobepolluterpays Ifidentifiedthatcertainareasare (ifcostsandlevelsofservice service.Thecouncilmayberequired uneconomicthenoptionforthe appropriate) tointerveneandpickupthecost counciltobulkfundthese(viarates) toensureminimumlevelsofservice Thecouncilmayhavetosubside Thecouncilwouldstillneedarates providedtoallratepayers(similarto elementtocovercorecouncilcosts someareaswhereprivate model1) i.e.contractmanagement,waste refusecollectioncontractsare educationandenforcementcosts uneconomical Inefficienciesordiscrepancies betweenrefusecollectionservice Thecouncilmayhavetosubsidise Privatecontractorsmaynot levelsin21boardareas uneconomicareasviarates respondtonewwasteminimisation Possibleborderissuesinrefuse contractsbetween21areas Wastelicensingpaidforbylicence feebyallwasteoperators Thecouncilchargeswastelicensing feetocoverwasteminimisation costs Likelytobeoneofmostexpensive optionforhouseholds Willbelittleconsistencyacrossthe region objectivesorrequirementswithout adjustmentstocontractual arrangements
Reporting Licencemodelbutwithall collectionservicesprovidedprivately WMMPplanning Licenceareascancorrelatetolocal Regulatoryenforcement boardareas21intotal Licensingenforcenment Licenceandtenderletonthe Specificationofcollectionand followingcriteria: service types percentageofwasteallowedto Managementoflandfilldisposal landfill contracts contractorchargetoresidential properties
Althoughpercentageofwastesetby TheNZWSsupportspolluter-pays principles,andsoaresidualwaste licenceconditions,accesstogeneral wastestreamstilllimitedsoless collectionsystemshouldideally provideforpolluter-paystobe opportunitiesforincreaseddiversion implemented fromlandfill Limitedaccesstowiderwaste Theorganicscollectionoffers potentialwasteminimisation streamandlackofcontrolraises savingsof25%ofkerbsidewasteto difficultiesmeetingintentor aspirationsofWMAandNZWS landfillbydivertingtheorganicand putresciblecontent Difficultiesgivingappropriateregard Ratesfundedschemesallowfurther towastehierarchyindecision coverageanduptakebutstilllimited makingaslimitedopportunity to operate in areas other than toresidentialsector,consequently treatmentanddisposalofwaste. 80%ofwastestreamremains beyondthecouncilcontrol Optionsrestrictedtocollectionand disposalmethodologies
Thecouncilspecifiestheservice types provided
Contractorsproviderefuse,recycling andorganicsservices
Requiresseparatelandfilltender needtohavecontrolofdisposal
Differentlevelsofserviceor Optionstilldoesnotofferaccess methodologiesbetweencontract towidernonresidentialwaste areasmayrequirealternativewaste educationorcoreservicesupportfor streamsomissesupto80percent ofwastetolandfillmakingwaste refusecollectionoptionsresultingin minimisationobjectivesdifficultto duplicationandinefficienciesanda achieve potentialinabilitytousearegional approachtorealisesavingsand Needtolimitlengthofcontracts economiesofscale toavoidpotentialconflictswith CommerceActprovisions.i.e.less Thecouncilcontrolofrecycling than 5 yrs andorganicscollectioncanyield potentialsavingsandallowuniform Licencesmayneedtobeawarded supportforrecyclinganddiversion todifferentcompanieswithin21 programmes areastoavoidcomplicationswith CommerceActprovisions NeedtohavecompetitiveROI process
Acouncilbylawmayprovidethat allcollectionservicesareprovided privatelyaslongasthismeetsthe overallobligationsandobjectives oftheCouncilundertheWMA, licenceareasmaybeestablished, licencescanbeforcollectiononly withseparatedisposallicences,KPIs canbeincludedinlicencestoensure wastereductiontolandfill
Chapter 7 | 126
Table 7.5-5 Management Model 3 : The council outsource collection services: Polluter pays refuse and recycling collection services
Role of the council

Riskthatpolluterpaysrecyclingmay Recyclingservicespolluterpays notbeadoptedbyallresidentsor couldhavethispartiallysubsidised ratepayers toensurecostdifferentials Limitstonewinfrastructure Polluterpaysgeneralrefusewould investmentinmarketsuppliedareas havetobemoreexpensivethan i.e.organics marketledorganicscollection. Subsidiesmaybenecessarytogain Existinguptakeofmarketled anylevelofindirectcontrol organicshasnotresultedin significantuptakeordiversionfrom landfill Lacksrealisticopportunitiestogain widercontrolofwastestream Nodirectaccesstowiderwaste streamsolackscontrolofupto 80%ofwastetolandfill,therefore lacksabilitytoinfluencemajority ofwasteproducers,resultingin minimalwastetolandfillreductions
Risk
3 Polluter pays refuse and recycling collection services
Lettingtenders
Key Aspects Difficultforthecounciltopromote arangeofoptionsandguidanceto supportoperationalrequirements forprivatemarketleadinitiatives Limitedoptionsofinvestmentin neworganicsinfrastructure Thecouncilcontrolledcontracts allowsforminimallevelsofservice provision Lackofdirectcouncilcontrolmay requireothermeansofcontrolsuch asbylawsandenforcement
Organicsprovidedbymarket
Contractmanagementand coordination,managementand settingandmonitoringofKPIs
Organicsserviceprovisionwouldbe suppliedbythemarketresultingin arangeofcollectorsandprocessing options
Limitedaccesstowiderwaste streamandlackofcontrolraises difficultiesmeetingintentor aspirationsofWMAandNZWS Difficultyingivingappropriate regardtowastehierarchyindecision makingaslimitedopportunity to operate in areas other than treatmentanddisposalofwaste. Optionsrestrictedtocollectionand disposalmethodologies
Responsibilityforlicensingand Thecouncilcontrolledcontracts withcollectorstoproviderefuseand licensingenforcement recyclingserviceswhichwouldboth Reporting bepolluterpaysfunded WMMPplanningand Requireseparatelandfilltender implementation needtohavecontrolofdisposal Regulatoryenforcement
Promotionofeffectiveand efficientwasteminimisationand management
Managementoflandfilldisposal contracts
Table 7.5-6 Management Model 4: The council outsources collection services: Mix of polluter pays and rates funded refuse and recycling collection services (market provision of organics)
Role of the council

Organics(gardenwaste)wouldbe suppliedbythemarketresultingin arangeofpossiblechoicesandend products Lacksaregionalendpoint/process fororganics Limitedscopetoaffectprivatenon residentialwaste Polluterpaysorganicswillnot provide certainty for processors to investinnewinfrastructure
Risk
4 Mix of polluter pays and rates funded refuse and recycling collection services
Lettingtenders
Key Aspects
Opportunitiesexistforutilisationof Polluterpaysorganics(aspercurrent TheNZWSsupportspolluter-pays wastelevyfundingfornewservices situation)hasnotresultedinhigh principles,andsoresidualwaste (organics) diversion rates collectionsystemprovidedby polluterpaysrefuseiscompatible Licensingpaidforbywaste Lacksaccesstowiderwastestream collectionoperators Refusepolluterpays Recyclingratesfunded
Refusepolluterpays
Recyclingratesfunded
Responsibilityforlicensingand licensingenforcement
Organicsprovidedbymarket
Reporting
Contractswithcollectorstoprovide refuseandrecyclingservices
WMMPplanningand implementation
meaningdiversionopportunitiesare Limitedaccesstowiderwaste limited streamandlackofcontrolraises difficultiesmeetingintentor aspirationsofWMAandNZWS
Organics(gardenwaste)would besuppliedbythemarketasper currently
Regulatoryenforcement
Chapter 7 | 128
Difficultiesgivingappropriateregard towastehierarchyindecision makingaslimitedopportunity to operate in areas other than treatmentanddisposalofwaste. Optionsrestrictedtocollectionand disposalmethodologies
Table 7.5-7 Management Model 5: The council outsources collection services: Mix of polluter pays and rates funded refuse and recycling collection services (Council provision of organics)
Role of the council

Lacksawholeofregionendpoint/ processfororganics Contractorswillneedtoworkwith wasteinfrastructureprovidersto assesswastediversionoptionsand opportunities
Risk
5 Mix of polluter pays and rates funded refuse and recycling collection services
Lettingtenders
Key Aspects
Contractforpolluterpaysrefuse, ratesfundedrecyclingandorganic wastecollection
Reporting
Contractswithcollectorstoprovide refuse,recyclingandorganics services Levelsofverticalintegrationwithin theAucklandwastemarketmay restrict options Anyoptionsthatappeartorestrict wasteoperatorsmaybesubjectto legalchallenge Thecouncilcontrolofrecycling andorganicsthroughratesfunded programsshouldensurethey present cheaper options than privatesectorpolluterpaysoptions. Thecouncilwouldneedtoensure adegreeofcontroloverprivate polluterpaysrefusetoensure appropriatecollectioncharges, thisislikelytobelimiteddueto CommerceActprovisions
Thecounciltosetminimumservice levelsandexplorediversiontargets
Contractorstostateservicelevels andcostsforarangeofdiversion targets
Limitedrangeofinfrastructure providersandexistinglongterm contractualarrangementsforsome areasmayresultinlimitedrangeof choicesforcollectioncontractsin termsofrecoveryoptions
Limitedaccesstowiderwaste Polluterpayswouldneedtobemore Opportunitiesexistforutilisationof Anewkerbsideorganicscollection wastelevyfundingfornewservices couldcouldproducewaste streamandlackofcontrolraises expensivethanotherbeneficial (organics) minimisationreductionofupto difficultiesmeetingintentor wasteoptionsavoidundermining 25%inthekerbsidewastetolandfill aspirationsofWMAandNZWS beneficialcollectionsystems Recyclingandorganicsratesfunded byreducingtheorganicscontentof Difficultiesgivingappropriateregard Lackscontrolmechanismsfor Refusewouldbepolluterpays theresidentialwastestream towastehierarchyindecision privateandnonresidentialwaste Licensingpaidforbywaste Wider80percentofnonresidential makingaslimitedopportunity streams collectionoperators wastelargelyunaffectedhence to operate in areas other than Minimumservicelevelswillneed minimaloveralldiversionona treatmentanddisposalofwaste. tobemadeinconsultationwith regionalbasis Optionsrestrictedtocollectionand wasteandrecyclinginfrastructure disposalmethodologies providers
Provisionoforganicscollection
Chapter 7 | 130
Table 7.5-8 Management Model 6: The council outsources collection services: Rates funded refuse, recycling and organic waste collection services
Role of the council

LargeAucklandwidecontractsneed significantleadintimesforplant andequipment
Risk
6 Rates funded refuse, recycling and organic waste collection services
Lettingtenders
Key Aspects
Refuse,recyclingandorganicsall ratesfunded Willneedtoalignpreviousratings andUAGCsystemsofformer councils Riskofasmallnumberofoperators tenderingforwholearea,riskof potentialmonopoliesorfurther verticalintegration Largecontractsforwholeof regionmayexposethecouncilto significantlevelsofriskifcontractors failtocomplywithcontracts Failuretoprogresswaste minimisationanddiversiongiving appropriateregardtowaste hierarchymayresultinlossofwaste levyrevenuewhichisaconsiderable sum
Reporting
Operators/tenderersmayofferbulk Wastelevycouldbeutilisedfornew Anewkerbsideorganicscollection wasteminimisationservices wouldcouldproducewaste discountsmeaningthemorethat minimisationreductionofupto isdisposedofthelowertheunitcost Optionsexisttousewastelevy 25percentinthekerbsidewaste and so the incentive is to dispose of fundingfornewservices Controlexercisedthroughparticular tolandfillbyreducingtheorganics moreratherthanless servicelevelsintendersona contentofthewastestream regionalbasiswillallowinvestment Limitedoptionstoapplypolluter paysprinciple innewinfrastructure
TheNZWSsupportspolluter-pays principles,andsoaresidualwaste collectionsystemshouldideally provideforpolluter-paystobe implemented,limitedmechanisms toapplythistoratesfunded systems
Thecouncilcontractswith collectorstoproviderefuse, recycling,inorganicsandorganics collection Increasedwastetolandfillasaresult ofincreasedcapacityinsomeareas movingawayfromhistoricpolluter pays
Difficultyingivingappropriate regardtowastehierarchyindecision makingaslimitedopportunity to operate in areas other than treatmentanddisposalofwaste. Optionsrestrictedtocollectionand disposalmethodologies
Chapter 7 | 132
Table 7.5-9 Management Model 7: Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with Industry
Role of the council

PossibleCommerceActimplications Reducedcompetitioninthe Aucklandwastemarket Noratesfundingrequired Directcontrolthroughlicense/lease orcontractualarrangementoffers controlofwastestream MaybeissueswithCommerceAct Allservicespolluterpays Greaterdegreeofinfluenceover wholewastestreamoffersgreater diversionfromlandfill
Risk
7 Landfill & RTS exclusive contract Operationalcontrolofall infrastructureandkerbside with Industry residentialcollectioncontracts Councilhaseitheraleaseor
licensesorhasacontractual arrangementofkeywaste infrastructure
Lettingtenders
Responsibilityforlicensing
Collectioncontractstendered separatelybutoptionforRTS/ Landfillownertoalsoprovidethese services
Reporting
WMMPplanning
Provisionofrecyclingcollections
TheNZWSsupportspolluter-pays principles,andsoaresidualwaste collectionsystemshouldideally Abilitytosubsidiserecycling, provideforpolluter-paystobe Anallpolluterpayssystemmaylead organicsandotherdiversionservices Directcontrolofwastehasbeen implemented proventobeeffectiveinminimising toillegaldumpinginsomeareas throughsurplusesinRTSoperations waste(ascounciloperatedtransfer DirectcontrolofRTSnetworkallows Duetocostsleaseoptionassumed stationsareabletodivertwaste forefficientandeffectivewaste Abilitytoutilisewasteminimisation steamsoflessvaluethantheir managementandminimisation levyfornewschemes privatecounterparts) Allowsforimprovedresource Allowsdifferentialpricing recovery at transfer stations (improvedefficiencyinresource use) Allowscounciltopromotewaste effectiveminimisationacrossentire wastestream Allowseffectiveinterventionatall stagesofwastehierarchy
Refuse,recyclingandorganics collectionandprocessingservices undertakenviacontractswiththe council
Provisionofrefusecollection
Optionfortollingarrangements exist
AdministrationofRTSnetwork
Landfilldisposalratesandtonnage agreedupfront
RTSleased/licencedorcontracted tothecouncil
Chapter 7 | 134
Chapter 7 | 135
7.5-5 Options assessment by waste stream and waste hierarchy

Thefollowingsupportingoptionscouldbe implementedtoprovidesupporttothepreferred strategicdirectioninfluenceoptionandmanagement modelalreadyidentifiedinsection7.5.4. Thereviewofthesesupportingoptionshasincluded: considerationofthereasonablypracticableoptions areviewanddiscussionoftheeconomic, environmental,socialandculturalcostsandbenefits inrelationtotheseoptions howeachoptioncancontributetothegoalsofthe NZWSanditsgeneralpositiononthewastehierarchy howtheoptionwillimpactonthecouncilsdraft wastemanagementandminimisationgoals howtheseoptionswillimpactonfuturedemand, suchasissuesofcapacityofinfrastructure thecouncilsintendedroleinrelationtoeachoption. Theoptionsassessmentmatrix(Table7.5-10)is arrangedinthreepartsusing: asummaryoftheproposedoption theprioritywastestreamsasidentifiedfirstbythe draftAucklandRegionalStrategicPrioritiesfor Wastereport,asoutlinedinsection6.4,andas reconfirmedbythedataanalysisconductedinthis assessment considerationofacommonsetofcategories(social/ cultural,environmental,economic). Theoptionsweredrawnfromallthreekeymethodsfor deliveringonwasteminimisation,includingbehaviour changeandeducationprogrammes,regulation,and directcouncilactionwhererelevant.Optionswere scopedbyasking:Whatwouldneedtooccurforthe regiontoachievea20percent(ormore)reduction inwastetolandfill?Whereoptionsrequiremore investigationastotheirlegality,overallfeasibilityor operationalconstraints,thisisnotedintheassessment matrixanddiscussion. Thisassessmentprovidesabroadcomparisonofthe sustainabilityadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthe
variousoptionsinconsiderationofthesocial-cultural, environmentalandeconomicissues,impactsand costsand/orbenefits.Thisreviewprocesshasbeen undertakenbecauseallTAshavearequirementunder LGA2002s77toconsiderthebenefitsandcostsof differentoptionsintheirdecision-making.Aspartof this,theyaretoconsiderthepresentandfuturesocial, cultural,environmentalandeconomicwell-beingofthe community.Theoptionsmatrixisintendedtoprovidea transparentmethodfordocumentingthisapproach. Acommonsetofcategoriesisusedforcomparing options.Thecategoriesforassessmenthavegenerally includedconsiderationofissuesorcriteriaasrelevant tothegivenoptionsuchas:
Social cultural issues

healthandsafetyconsiderations(includingpublic health,staff,contractor-relatedissues) publicconcern/interest partnership/communityinvolvement theleveltowhichtheoptionsupportsproducerand consumerresponsibility
Environmental issues
wasteminimisatione.g.volumeofwastereduction/ diversionofwastefromlandfill resourceefficiencybenefits environmentalharm climatechangerelatedissues/impacts
Economic issues
estimatedcostfortheoptione.g.onapertonneof wastediverted/reducedbasis(roughorderonly wherethereisinformationavailable) considerationofrevenuearisingwhererelevant othereconomicimpacts,suchasavoidedcostsor otherbenefitstothecouncilorotherstakeholders. Otheroperationally-relatedconsiderationsforeach optionarealsonoted,whereappropriate,suchas timing,administrativeandcontractualconsiderations, futureflexibility,reliability,constraintsorother operationalrecommendations.Writtendiscussionof thekeyoptionsfollowsthematrix.
Table 7.5-10 Options assessment
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Social/cultural issues
Economic issues, costs/benefits
Operational Issues
Item Waste Number stream/ service component
(NZWS Goal: Lower liabilities and risks to society from waste)
Contribution to NZWS and the council targets/Hierarchy Position
Organic waste options Reduceswastetolandfillatsource, homecompostingisbestoverall environmentaloption Maybeareductioninlandfilldisposalcostsforindividualhouseholds and/orthecouncildependingonhowrefusecollectionisfunded Lowcostoptione.g.$200,000perannumcurrentlytowardprogramme operations,compostbinincentives,subsidies,coursesbuthighcostona pertonnebasisalthoughtheremaybeothereconomicbenefitsthatare difficulttoquantify Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis Preparepromotionalmaterial Comparisonrequiredbetweenpromotionalinvestmentandoutcomeof promotion Needtodesignandtest programmes,improveovertime Hierarchy position Reduction NZWShasafocuson
O1.
400tonnewaste reduction.
Promotesindividualaction andresponsibility
Continuepromoting homecomposting andreductionof greenandfood waste(statusquo)
Publicinterestanduptake
Notsuitedtoallhouseholds and sections
reducingharmfromwaste Needtoconsiderincentivesnotjust Contributestowaste advertising minimisation Agreemediafordistribution Completesurveyofusefulnessof promotion Mosteffectivewhenincooperation witheconomicdisincentivesto wasteorregulatoryban Maybemoreeffectiveifprovided incooperationwithanorganics collectionservice Thereareopportunitiestopartner withcompostproduct-makersto increaseuptakeofcompostingtobe exploredfurther Requiresdevelopmentoflargescale processingfacility Economiesofscaledictatethat either2facilitiesoruseofexisting refusetransferstationsisrequired Requirespartnershipand/or contractualarrangementwith commercialwasteindustrytobe economicallyfeasibleandsharerisk Requiresadditionalfundingsuchas throughthewastelevycontestable fund/goodcandidateproject Willbemosteffectivewithan educationcampaign Hierarchy position Recycling NZWShasafocuson reducingharmfromwaste Contributestowaste minimisation Providesforrecovery Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithafeasibility studyrecentlycompleted Reductionatsourceand recovery Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestream
Estimatedcost of$400per tonne,butwith othersocialand ongoingbenefits thataredifficult toquantify.
Quantitiesuncertainbutrelatively smallreduction(e.g.Lessthan400 tonnesperyearif2000families Programmescanbedelivered participate) bythecouncildirectlyor throughcommunitygroups Reducesmethaneandleachate generatingmaterialstolandfill CanbedoneAuckland region-wideonaconsistent Reducesrelianceonpetrochemical basedfertilisers basis Hasnogreenhouseemissions associatedwithcollectionand processingcomparedtoother options Quantifiablereductionbenefits difficulttomeasureathousehold scale
O2.
80,000+tonnes Requirespartnershipand/ ofwastediverted. orcontractualarrangement withprivateenterpriseto Estimatedcostof developprocessingsystem $65+pertonne
Implementa councilorganic wastecollection andprocessing system.Thiscan becouncilrun,or throughcontract and/orpartnership withcommercial enterprise
forprocessing, pluscollection costs.
Willbemost effective if combinedwith OptionO4Ban onsomeorganic wastetolandfill.
Divertsahighvolumewastestream Assessmentofcostsindicatesthatlowestcostprocessingoptionswillbe fromlandfill(80,000+tonnesof intherangeof$65+pertonneplusthecostofcollection foodwasteandlimitedgreenwasteor Landfilldisposaliscurrentlycheaperthancostofdiversion,althoughcosts morepotentiallyifexpandedbeyond areincreaseduetothewastelevyandemissionstradingscheme(ETS) households) Thereisalreadysource Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis separationofsome Reducesorganicwastetolandfilland Willassistinavoidingthesecostsintothefuture greenwastee.g.Private associatedmethaneemissions(Not Thereisaminorcosttothecouncilassociatedwiththelossof subscriptionservices allmethaneemissionsarecaptured revenueassociatedwithgasgeneration(e.g.Whitford)thoughrelatively Severalcouncilsalreadyhave inlandfillsevenwhentheyhavegas nominalastherewillstillbeconsiderableorganicsinlandfill.Thisloss capturetechnology) supportfromresidentsto willbeinconsequentialasmostorganicsdegradepriortogascapture implementsuchasystem Canleadtoreductioninfrequencyof infrastructureinstallation refusecollection MayassistprivatelandfilloperatorsinreducingtheirETSliabilitiesand thuscosts Requiresfurthermarketdevelopmentforproductstoreducecostper tonne Needtoconsiderbenefitsofelectricitygeneration/revenuegivenshortage Canleadtoreductioninfrequencyofrefusecollection Willbemosteffectiveifcombinedwithpolluterpaysrefusecollection
Willbemosteffectiveifcombined withotherincentives(e.g.Bylawban and/orcollectionsystempricingand design) Mayonlybeappropriateforurban households
Chapter 7 | 137
Summary
Operational Issues
Organic waste options Divertsahighvolumewastestream fromlandfill(60,000tonnesof foodwaste Greenwasteundertakenbyprivate collectors Hierarchy position Recycling NZWShasafocuson reducingharmfromwaste Contributestowaste minimisation Providesforrecovery Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithafeasibility studyrecentlycompleted Requiresdevelopmentoflargescale Landfilldisposaliscurrentlycheaperthancostofdiversion,although costsaretoincreaseduetothewastelevyandemissionstradingscheme processingfacility (ETS) Requirespartnershipwith commercialwasteindustrytobe Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis economicallyfeasibleandsharerisk Willassistinavoidingthesecostsintothefuture Requiresadditionalfundingsuchas throughthewastelevycontestable fund/goodcandidateproject Willbemosteffectivewithan educationcampaign
O2a.
Separatekerbside collection(food) crateorbin
Greenwaste byprivate collectors (statusquo)
Requirespartnershipand/ orcontractualarrangement withprivateenterpriseto developprocessingsystem
Potentialto Thereisalreadysource remove60,000T separationofsome fromwaste greenwastee.g.Private stream subscriptionservices
Reducesorganicwastetolandfilland Thereisaminorcosttothecouncilassociatedwiththelossofrevenue associatedmethaneemissions(not associatedwithgasgeneration(e.g.Whitford)thoughrelativelynominal allmethaneemissionsarecaptured astherewillstillbeconsiderableorganicsinlandfill Severalcouncilsalreadyhave inlandfillsevenwhentheyhavegas MayassistprivatelandfilloperatorsinreducingtheirETSliabilitiesand capturetechnology) supportfromresidentsto thuscosts implementsuchasystem Canleadtoreductioninfrequencyof Requiresfurthermarketdevelopmentforproductstoreducecostper refusecollection tonne
Willbemosteffectiveifcombined withotherincentives(e.g.Bylawban and/orcollectionsystempricingand Needtoconsiderbenefitsofelectricitygeneration/revenuegivenshortage design) Canleadtoreductioninfrequencyofrefusecollection Mayonlybeappropriateforurban Willbemosteffectiveifcombinedwithpolluterpaysrefusecollection households
O2b.
Commingled OrganicCollection crate/bin
Requirespartnershipand/ orcontractualarrangement withprivateenterpriseto developprocessingsystem
Assessmentofcostsindicatesthatlowestcostprocessingoptionswillbe Requiresdevelopmentoflargescale processingfacility intherangeof$65+pertonneplusthecostofcollection Economiesofscaledictatethat Landfilldisposaliscurrentlycheaperthancostofdiversion,although costsaretoincreaseduetothewastelevyandemissionstradingscheme either2facilitiesoruseofexisting refusetransferstationsisrequired (ETS) Requirespartnershipand/or contractualarrangementwith commercialwasteindustrytobe economicallyfeasibleandsharerisk Requiresadditionalfundingsuch asthroughtheWasteMinimisation Fund/goodcandidateproject Willbemosteffectivewithan educationcampaign
Hierarchy position Recycling NZWShasafocuson reducingharmfromwaste Contributestowaste minimisation Providesforrecovery Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithafeasibility studyrecentlycompleted
Thereisalreadysource separationofsome greenwastee.g.Private subscriptionservices
Maximisesdiversionfromlandfill (80,000+tonnesoffoodwaste andlimitedgreenwasteormore potentiallyifexpandedbeyond households)
Reducesorganicwastetolandfilland Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis associatedmethaneemissions(Not Willassistinavoidingthesecostsintothefuture allmethaneemissionsarecaptured Thereisaminorcosttothecouncilassociatedwiththelossofrevenue Severalcouncilsalreadyhave inlandfillsevenwhentheyhavegas associatedwithgasgeneration(e.g.Whitford)thoughrelativelynominal capturetechnology) supportfromresidentsto astherewillstillbeconsiderableorganicsinlandfill implementsuchasystem Canleadtoreductioninfrequencyof MayassistprivatelandfilloperatorsinreducingtheirETSliabilitiesand refusecollection thuscosts Requiresfurthermarketdevelopmentforproductstoreducecostper tonne Needtoconsiderbenefitsofelectricitygeneration/revenuegiven shortage Canleadtoreductioninfrequencyofrefusecollection Willbemosteffectiveifcombinedwithpolluterpaysrefusecollection
Willbemosteffectiveifcombined withotherincentives(e.g.Bylawban and/orcollectionsystempricingand design) Mayonlybeappropriateforurban households
Chapter 7 | 139
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) WWTPisincentivisedtoimplement Sludgeandbiosolidsmanaged differentlyacrossregion Hierarchy position Recovery (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
O3.
Investigation of options for beneficialrecovery ofsewagesludge/ biosolids
Estimated tonnes and costs requirefurther investigation.
Thematerialisalready treatedandistheresultof awastewatertreatment by-product
NZWShasafocuson reducingharmfromwaste Mayrequireadditionalfeasibility studyorlandapplicationonatrial Contributestowaste basisbeforeintroducingdiversionon minimisation alargerscale Thecouncilcouldassistin researchingandsupportingoptions
Thereareproduct Thereareusesofthe qualityissuesthat materialbutanumber constrainuses of constraints as there is someresistancetotheuse and diversion. ofbiosolidwasteforland Solutionmaybe application requiredbeyond
2013forthe bulkofbiosolids ifanalternative tolandfillisnot found.
Thecouncilscurrentlyhave differenttreatmentand disposalmethods
Thereareculturalissues associatedwiththe applicationofbiosolidsto land(e.g.PuketutuIsland dispute) Processingfacilityrequired/alternativecollectionsareavailablebutthey arethroughprivateoperations Mayrequirepartnershipand/orcontractualarrangementwithprivate enterprisetoprovideviablefacilityandadditionalcollectionservices Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojects WillassistinavoidinglevyandETScostsinfuture Maycosthouseholdslessintothefuturetodivertthantolandfillthis materialduetolevyandETScosts Maybedifficulttoenforce,somecostsassociatedwithdevelopmentand introductionofthebylaw Thereisaminorcosttothecouncilassociatedwiththelossofrevenue associatedwithgasgeneration,thoughrelativelynominalastherewill stillbeconsiderableorganicsinlandfill
Estimated20,000+tonnesperyear Atpresenthighercollectionandprocessingcostsfordiversionasopposed todisposalaswastetolandfillorviaothermeanssuchasmanagedfilling potentialforwasteminimisation(for biosolidscurrentlylandfilled) Thecouncilhasanincentivetofindalternativeusetoavoiddisposalfees e.g.landremediation,triallingforestapplication IfWatercareServicesbiosolids requirelandfillingbeyond2013,then Thereareresourceconsentcostsinvolvedinlandapplication tonnageswillbewellabove125,000 Wastelevyfundsareavailableforwasteminimisationprojects tonneperannum Currentmanagedfillingofmostbiosolidsisexcludedfromnationalwaste Materialalreadysourceseparatedso disposallevycost easy to divert DiversionwillassistinavoidinglevyandETScostsinfuture Reducesorganicwastetolandfilland TheWWTPoperatorislikelytobearallthepromotionalcostsand associatedmethaneemissions economicbenefitfromdiversion Canimprovesoilfertilityandreduce dependenceonpetrochemical-based Thecouncilcouldassistindevelopingbeneficialreusese.g.through subsidyfortrials,assistancewithresourceconsentcostsetc fertilisers
O4.
Wouldrequireachangetothe councilswastebylawtointroduce theban RequiresDeterminationReportand bylawdrafting Enforcementdifficultiesand administrationwouldaddtocosts toimplement Wouldonlybepracticalif implementedintandemwitha collectionandprocessingsystem
Hierarchy position Reduction and Recovery NZWShasafocuson reducingharmfromwaste Contributestowaste minimisation Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwitha feasibilitystudyrecently completedforcollectionand processingoforganics
Banonsome organicwaste tolandfill(e.g. greenwasteorfood waste)implemented throughregulation/ bylaw
Somediversion optionsexist intheregion currentlybut likelytobea seriousoption onlywhenlarge scalediversion opportunities availableto residential customersexist.
Bansarenotpopular,but Wouldsupportdiversionifasuitable havebeenimplementedin systemwasinplaceasalternativeto someareaswherealternative disposal collectionservicesare Reducesmethaneemissions provided associatedwithorganicwasteto Thisshouldbeconsidered landfill furtherinthefuturein Canimprovesoilfertilityandreduce tandemwithprovisionofa dependenceonpetrochemical-based collectionservice fertilisers
O5.
Promotemarket developmentforthe processedorganics (e.g.compost) industry Haspotentialtocontributeto wasteminimisationoforganicsand accompanyingemissions Maynotleadtoimmediateorshort termquantifiablewastereduction
Supportsbroader objectives.
Thiscouldbe undertakenonits ownorwithother actions.
Thisoptionhasthepotential Hasthepotentialtosupportother tocreatenewmarkets,jobs optionsintermsofincreasing demandfordivertedmaterial Canbeconductedvia
partnershipand/or contractualarrangement withotherorganisations
Hasthepotentialtocreatenewmarketsforresourcesandeconomic Requiresstafftimetoidentify Hierarchy position benefitstothecouncilandotherstakeholdersifprocessingcostsdecrease suitableprojectsand/orpartnerships Reduction asaresultandsubsequentlywastedisposalcostsarediminished and/orcontractualarrangement NZWShasafocuson Wastelevyfundingbeabletobeusedtosupporttheseprojects Maybemoreeffectiveifindustryled reducingharmfromwaste Contributestowaste minimisation Supportsreductionand recovery
Chapter 7 | 141
Supportsotheroptions
Summary
Operational Issues

Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithafeasibility studyrecentlycompletedfor collectionandprocessingof organicsthatdiscussesmarket issuesandconstraints Thecouncilspreferredroleis thatoffacilitationonly,and notadirectroleinmarket developmentatthistime
Promotemarket developmentforthe processedorganics (e.g.compost) industry
Thismaybean Otherorganisationssuch industryrole,with ascommercialcomposting thecouncilacting sectorhaveacommercial onlyasfacilitator. interestandarepursuingthis option Directdiversion
difficultto quantify.
O6.
Thematerialisalready Promoteuseof Alternative treatedandistheresult FoodWasteDisposal tokerbside ofawastewatertreatment Units collectionof by-product foodwaste wouldneedto Thereareusesofthe beexpanded/ materialbutanumber promotedto of constraints as there is effectivelyreduce someresistancetotheuse foodwasteto ofbiosolidwasteforland landfill. application Potentiallycheapercostinconjunctionwithpromotionandprivate greenwasteservices
Improvecompositionofbio-solids arbonsourcetoassistin c thebiologicaltreatmentfor theremovalofnitrogenand phosphorous
WSLwouldneedtoassistinpromotingandsupplyingofFWDunitsat theircosttobeeffectiveatremovinggreaterquantitiesoffoodwaste fromwastestream
WSLdonotprovideservicestothe entireAucklandregioni.e.North ShoreandRodneyhaveseparate systemasdoruralareas
Hierarchy position Reduction
NZWShasafocuson reducingharmfromwaste Wastewaterreticulationsystemhas Contributestowaste carryingcapacitylimits minimisation
Thecouncilscurrentlyhave differenttreatmentand disposalmethods
Thereareculturalissues associatedwiththe applicationofbiosolidsto land(e.g.PuketutuIsland dispute)
Paper and packaging Costofimplementingservicecanbesimilartocratesystemsonaper tonne/perhouseholdbasiswherethereareeconomiesofscale Increasedyieldswouldmeanthatcostspertonnecouldreduce RequireslargescaleMRFformaximumcosteffectivenessinsorting commingledrecyclables(thereareseveralexistingfacilitiesinAuckland) PiggybacksoffexistingMRFonthecouncilland Insomecases,commodityvalueofrecyclablesprocessedinaMRFis reduced Needtoconsiderhowsystemcould Hierarchy position beexpanded Recycling Issuesassociatedwithglassfinesto beinvestigatedfurther Furtherinvestigationisneeded regardingexistingfacilitiescapacity andcapability Contributestowaste minimisationtarget Supportsfurtherrecycling Doesnotpromoteupstream productstewardship/ packagingreduction
P1.
Investigatethe expandeduseof MRBfortnightly recyclingcollection
Estimatedat Increasinguseacrosscountry Evidencefrommostcouncils 4,000-10,000+ andpublicinterest demonstratesthatrecyclables tonnesadditional Userssometimescomplain collected(yields)increasebetween diversion 15-30percentoverpreviouscrate aboutstoragespaceforMRB dependingon basedsystemattributedtoincreased Possiblecontamination combinationwith capacity,userfriendly,particularly issuesalthoughother other options paper councilsexperienceonly (e.g.regulatory recyclablecontentofkerbsiderefuse 4percent banetc). isintherangeof10,000+tonnes Moreuserfriendlythan potential bags/cratesinmanycases
Chapter 7 | 143
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Receptaclesarereusableandare madefromrecycledmaterial Couldhelpresidentstoreducetheirrefusecosts Issueswithproductqualityas impactedbyprocessing/sorting method Reductioninlandfilldisposalcosts,avoidswastelevy/ETS Needtoconsidermarket competitionissues Councilshavegenerally supportedrecycling (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
-toreplaceand expandthe recyclingbag/ bincollections insomepartsof theregion(e.g. Franklin,Papakura, Rodney) commercialwastesourcesaswellto gainevengreaterwasteminimisation benefits
Estimatedcost of$0-$30per additionaltonne.
Difficultyforsomeelderly andphysicallyimpairedto manage,taketokerb
Landfillspacepreservedforlowvalue Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectstosupport Lessuserfriendlyforthosein materials recyclingimprovements ruralareas/longdriveways Moreefficientuseofplant/fleetetc Couldbecommercialservicesynergiesthatoffergreatereconomic canreduceoverallemissions Improveshealthandsafety benefittoinvolvedcouncils situationforcollectors Couldprovideafacilitytobeusedfor
Haspotentialto becostneutral comparedto currentservice ifeconomiesof MixedRecyclables scaleachieved. includingglass
Reducesneedformanual collectionrunners
Papercouldbein orout Reducesrelianceonvirginpaper
Provisionofrecyclingservices doesnotbroadlyencourage SomematerialssortedbyMRFneed alternaterecyclingmethodsasnot producerresponsibility suitableforcurrentmarkets Likelytobesuitableinat
leasttheurbanisedportions oftheformerFDC,PDCand RDCareas
P2.
InvestigateOptions foraseparateKCR mixedrecycling serviceswithglass collectedseparately
KCRandglass collectedon alternativeweeks.
Hasrecentlybeen implementedinWellington CC
Needtoconsiderhowsystemcould Hierarchy position Recycling beexpanded Furtherinvestigationisneeded regardingexistingfacilitiescapacity andcapability Needtoconsidermarket competitionissues Lessconvenienceandmore receptacles Contributestowaste minimisationtarget Supportsfurtherrecycling Doesnotpromoteupstream productstewardship/ packagingreduction Councilshavegenerally supportedrecycling
VariationofP1 above
Collectioncostswillsignificantlyincreasecoststocollectglassare Evidencefrommostcouncils demonstratesthatrecyclablescollected alreadyhighincomparisontoreturnsgained (yields)increasebetween15-30per Quantityandqualityofglasswillincreaseincreasevalueandreturnon centoverpreviouscratebasedsystem product Potentialfor Interestinotherurbanareas attributedtoincreasedcapacity,user additional acrosscountryi.e.Dunedin Thosethatbenefitshouldpayadditionalcostsargumentthat friendly,particularlypaper diversion ratepayers/thecouncilshouldnotpaymore Twobinstomanageon Recyclablecontentofkerbsiderefuse dependingon alternativeweeks Costofimplementingservicecanbesimilartocratesystemsonaper isintherangeof10,000+tonnes combinationwith tonne/perhouseholdbasiswherethereareeconomiesofscaleand Userssometimescomplain potential other options increasedrevenuefromlesscontaminationandhigherqualityproduct aboutstoragespaceforMRB (e.g.regulatory Receptaclesarereusableandare Increasedyieldswouldmeanthatcostspertonnecouldreduce Reducedcontamination banetc). madefromrecycledmaterial issues RequireslargescaleMRFformaximumcosteffectivenessinsorting Significant Landfillspacepreservedforlowvalue commingledrecyclables(thereareseveralexistingfacilitiesinAuckland) Moreuserfriendlythan additional materials bags/cratesinmanycases collectioncosts- PiggybacksoffexistingMRFonthecouncilland Moreefficientuseofplant/fleetetc Haspotentialto Difficultyforsomeelderly Insomecases,commodityvalueofrecyclablesprocessedinaMRFis canreduceoverallemissions andphysicallyimpairedto becostneutral reduced Couldprovideafacilitytobeusedfor manage,taketokerb comparedto commercialwastesourcesaswellto Reductioninlandfilldisposalcosts,avoidswastelevy/ETS currentservice Lessuserfriendlyforthosein gainevengreaterwasteminimisation Couldhelpresidentstoreducetheirrefusecosts ifeconomiesof ruralareas/longdriveways benefits Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectstosupport scaleachieved. Improveshealthandsafety SomematerialssortedbyMRFneed recyclingimprovements Thecouncil situationforcollectors alternaterecyclingmethodsasnot Couldbecommercialservicesynergiesthatoffergreatereconomic alreadymeeting Provisionofrecycling suitableforcurrentmarkets benefittoinvolvedcouncils itsobligations. servicesdoesnotbroadly OptimisesyieldforOI,resultingin encourageproducer lessuseofvirginmaterial responsibility Reducesrelianceonvirginpaper
Chapter 7 | 145
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Greatervolumeofrecyclables collected/wasteminimisation Increasesresourceuseefficiency wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectse.g.to subsidisecosts Reviewfacilitiescapacitytoensure canaccommodateexpandedrange Ifchangedfromcurrentpromote expandedrangeofrecyclables Contractormaynotwishtoexpandrangeofrecyclablesinthetimeofa recessionwhenmarketsarevolatile,returnsaredownandsomeproduct isalreadybeingstored Agreewithcontractor(s)rangeof recyclablestobecollected Hierarchy position Recycling (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
P3.
Nominalcostif marketisgood, butrelatively smallwastemin benefit. Recycling
Highpublicinterestand demand
Investigate expandingrangeof recyclablescollected throughkerbside, ruralmobile recyclingcentres andrefusetransfer stations Canresultinthereductionin thevolumesofpackagingwaste produced Someschemesmaynotbeascostefficientasthecurrentcouncilfunded schemes Lowerscosttoratepayers,putscostontoproducers/consumers Couldresultinsmallreductioninthecouncilrevenuefrommarketingof recoveredmaterials Resultinminimisingpackagingthat goestolandfill Coststositwithproducersandconsumersunderidealcircumstances Councilshavelesscontrolover schemesandhowtheyoperateand theirrole Councilsmaystillneedtofillgaps dependingonschemedesign Thereisminimalpoliticalwillata nationalleveltoseeanEPRsystem forpackaging
Confusionwithpublicover whatcanberecycledifit changesfrequently
Contributestowaste minimisationbutatrelatively minorlevel Councilshaveallsupported recycling Hierarchy position Reduction and Recycling Reductionatsource Haspotentialtoreduceoverall amountofpackagingthat requiresrecycling Councilsallhaveahigh interestinseeingpackaging addressedbyproducers
P4.
Enhancepackaging designcontrolsand extendedproducer responsibility(EPR) forpackaging materials
Government responsibilitybut canbesupported bythecouncil.
Highpublicinterestand demand
Producerresponsibility encouragesinnovationand redesigntominimisewaste
Putsresponsibilitywith producersandconsumers not ratepayers
P5.
willassistinavoidinglevyandETScostsinfuture maycosthouseholdslessintothefuturetodivertthantolandfillthis materialduetolevyandETScosts
Introducebanson recyclablepackaging materialtolandfill suchasthrougha regionalbylaw(e.g. Paper/cardboard, recyclablesbanin householdwaste orbanonunsorted wasteattransfer stations) Couldbeextendedtocommercial wastestreamforsomeproductsfor widerwasteminimisationpotential Increasesresourceuseefficiency
Maybepractical becauseof existingrecovery systemsbut difficultto enforce and monitor.
Bansarenotpopular,but Wouldsupportdiversionthrough havebeenimplementedin existingservices someareaswherealternative Mayhavesomeupstreamimpacton collectionservicesare productdesign provided Hasthepotentialtosupport reductionofapproximately10,000 tonnesofrecyclablematerialstillin householdwastestreamforexample
Wouldrequireachangetothe councilswastebylawtointroduce theban
Hierarchy position Reduction and Recovery Contributestowaste minimisation Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithcurrent collectionandrecovery systemsinplacetosuit household/domesticuse Requiresdeterminationreportand bylawdrafting Enforcementandadministration Wouldonlybepracticalif implementedintandemwitha collectionandprocessingsystem Difficulttoimplementandmonitor atlandfillas1majorlandfillis outsideregion
maybedifficulttoenforce,somecostsassociatedwithdevelopmentand Mayonlybeapplicablefor domesticban introductionofthebylaw Widerbanoncommercialunsorted wasteonlyfeasibleifthecouncil controlsRTSnetwork(Strategic DirectionOption3Management Model7)
Chapter 7 | 147
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Hasthepotentialtoreducewaste tolandfillbutmaybedifficultto quantifyoutput CostsexpectedtobesimilartothatoftheCreateYourOwnEden programme(homecompostingCBSMprogramme)e.g.$200,000kper annum Relativelyhighcostpertonneofdiversionwhencomparedtoother optionsbutwithwidersocialandeconomicbenefitsfromreducing consumptivewaste Theseprogrammesruncountertotheoverallobjectivesofthepackaging industry(e.g.toproduceandsellmorepackaging) Costsforprogrammerangesbasedontheirscope,durationandintensity, Requiresongoingprogramme levelofincentives,andevaluationcosts developmentandimprovement Hierarchy position Reduction and recovery (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
P6.
Marketing/ behaviourchange campaignto promoteincreased recyclingand/or smartshopping towardreducing packaging consumption
Programme Highpublicinterestand abilitytoget demand quantifiablewaste Promotessourcereduction reductionneeds Consumerresponsibility tobemonitored. encouragesbehaviourto Workswellwith minimisewaste other initiatives. Consumerdemandchanges mayinfluenceproduct manufacturers
Someprogrammesmayworkwell Contributestowaste aspartnershipswithothersectorsof minimisationatsource theindustry Allformercouncilshave Thecouncilrequirespurchasing existingprogrammesto policythatsupportswaste addresstheseissuesthatcan minimisation beexpandedorimproved
Canbeconductedin partnershipand/or contractualarrangement withotherorganisations and/orothersectorse.g. packagingindustry Reduceslitter Improvesqualityofallrecycling Administrativecostsforthepartiesresponsibleforimplementationand administrationofthescheme Mayincreasecostofpackagingandpurchaseofproducts Reducescostsofrecyclingservicesforthecouncil Providesincomeforthecouncilandthirdsectororganisations
P7.
Supports recycling/ recovery objectives.
Providesforthirdsector organisationsinvolvement andincreasesrecyclingrates
LobbyGovernment aboutContainer DepositLegislation (CDL)Enhanced productstewardship and increases in wastelevy
Mayincreaseparticipation rates
Recyclingtonnagewouldreduce affectingthecouncilscontractual arrangementswithcollectorsand processors Scavengingofmaterialsfromthe collectionbinsmayincrease
Hierarchy position Recovery Improvingtheefficiencyof resourceuse
P8.
PublicPlace Recycling
Raisesawarenessofrecycling Reduceslitter
Allowsparticipationin Divertswastefromlandfill environmentalchoicesaway fromhome
Supports100percentpurebranding.Cleangreenimage,NZresponsible Mayrequireadditionalcontracts tourismdestination orcontractvariationsforongoing maintenanceandcollectioncosts Wastelevyfundingcanbeused Highcostpertonneofmaterialrecoveredcomparedtootherinitiatives PotentialIssueswithroadcorridor andtransportCCOadministration
Hierarchy position Reduction and Recovery Reducedharmfromwaste Improvingtheefficiencyof resourceuse
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste options Canhelptoidentifynewmarketsfor wastediversion Canhelptopreventnuisancefrom illegaldumpingofdifficultproducts to dispose of Thecounciltimeandresourcesrequiredtosupportbusinessassistance projects Requiressuitablemarket developmentprojectstoinvestigate Hierarchy position Reduction Contributestowaste managementand minimisation C&Dwasteisaprioritywaste streamrecognisedbythe formercouncils
C1.
SupportsC&Dsector
Businessassistance forreduction, reuse/recyclingof recoveredC&D wasteincluding enhancedwaste exchanges(status quo) Identitywherefurtherwaste minimisationcanbeaddressedby businesses,bothforC&Dmaterials andotherwastestreams Maybelimitedinitialbenefitsbut overmediumtolongerterm
Economicbenefitintherecoveryofmaterialsbenefitcouldbetoeither Requiresspecialistskills thecouncilorbusinesses Mayworkbestinpartnershipand/ orcontractualarrangementwith Mayhelpthecouncilandbusinessestosaveondisposalcostsinlonger industry(e.g.throughEnviroSmart term typeprogramme) Relativelylowcostapproach Wastelevyfundingavailabletosupporttheseprojects Oneapproachcouldbetoprovidewiderbusinessadvice
Willassistthecouncil Thiscouldbe inpreventingnuisance undertakenonits bysupportingindustry ownorwithother developingmarketsfor actions. wastesandinplanning sectorstotargettoincrease Thecouncils wasteminimisation roleisgenerally facilitation/ Promoteslongterm advice. upskilling
Chapter 7 | 149
Directdiversion difficultto quantify.
Createsemployment opportunities
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Potentialtodivertahighvolume wastestreamfromlandfill Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts emissionsassociatedwithC&D activity Landfilldisposaliscurrentlycheaperthancostofdiversionofsome products,althoughcostsareincreaseduetothewastelevyand EmissionsTradingScheme(ETS) Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis Willassistinavoidingtheserisingcostsintothefuturefordisposaland transportofwaste MayassistprivatelandfilloperatorsinreducingtheirETSliabilitiesand thuscosts Requiresfurthermarketdevelopmentforproductstoensureviabilityof recovery operations Requirespartnershipand/or contractualarrangementwith commercialwasteindustrytobe economicallyfeasible Mayrequireadditionalfunding suchasthroughtheWaste MinimisationFund/goodcandidate project Willbemosteffectivewithmarket developmentprojectsandwiththe councilsbusinessadvisoryservices Willbemosteffectiveifcombined withotherincentives(e.g.Bylawban and/orcollectionsystempricingand design Easieroptionistogetpartnership and/orcontractualarrangementfor controlofexistingcommercialRTS network Assessmentofcostsindicatesthatlowestcostoptionwouldbeforthe counciltoworkinpartnershipand/orcontractualarrangementwith privateindustryinuseofexistingcommercialRTSnetwork Requiresdevelopmentoflargescale resourcerecoveryfacilities Hierarchy position Recovery and recycling Contributestowaste minimisation (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
C2.
DevelopResource RecoveryParks/ Networkconcept withC&Drecovery facilities
Currentlyonly WaitakereRTS andseveral smallersitesfully incorporate this concept.
Goodpublicsupportand interest
Requirespartnershipand/ orcontractualarrangement withcommercialwaste industrytodevelopexisting 50,000orgreater RTSintoResourceRecovery tonnesofwaste centres tolandfillor Thereisalreadysource cleanfillbut separationofsomeC&D quantitiesare materialsprovidedthrough highlydependent arangeofoperatorsinthe onavailabilityof region,butthesecouldbe markets. improveduponundera
Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithafeasibility studycompletedin2008
Onlyfeasibleif thecouncilhas management controlofRTS network.
councilcontrolledmodel
Severalcouncilsalreadyhave sucharesourcerecovery systeme.g.WaitakereRTS operationandsomesmaller RTS
Willbemost effective if combinedwith other options (C1Business assistance Strategic Option3and management model7 andLicence Operators). Potentialtodivertahighvolume wastestreamfromlandfill Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts emissionsassociatedwithC&D activity Increasesresourceuseefficiency Improvementstobuildingdesignfor usersresultinginincreaseenergy efficiency Councilsarealreadysupportingtheseprogrammestosomedegree withinexistingbudgets Landfilldisposaliscurrentlycheaperthancostofdiversionofsome products,althoughcostsareincreaseduetothewastelevyand emissionstradingscheme(ETS)
Increasesresourceuse efficiency
C3.
Promotescontinuationof existingprogrammes
Existingprogrammescanbe expandedon Needtoquantifythebenefitsin termsofwastereduction
Hierarchy position Reduction Contributestowaste minimisation Allformercouncilshavebeen supportingtheseprogrammes atsomelevel
Tonnesmay bedifficultto quantifybut participation dependent.
Promoteslongterm upskillingoftheC&D industry
PromoteREBRI &Greenstar programmesto C&Dsector(waste plans,source separation,design plans) (statusquo)
Mosteffectiveif combinedwith C1Business assistance.
Improvementstobuilding designforusers
Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis Willassistinavoidingtheserisingcostsintothefuturefordisposaland transportofwaste Mayassistprivatecompaniesinreducingtheiroperatingcosts Requiresfurthermarketdevelopmentforproductstoensureviabilityof recovery operations
Chapter 7 | 151
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Costisforresourcestolobbycentralgovernmentinrelationtothese priorityproducts Wasteminimisationfundingavailablebothatlocalandnationallevelto developthese Likelytobeundertakenatanational Hierarchy position level Recovery and Recycling (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
C4.
Extendedproducer responsibility promoteproduct stewardshipscheme developmentfor C&Dproducts(e.g. plasterboardetc) EPRschememayavoiddownstream treatmentanddisposal
Thecouncilhas littleinfluence -product stewardship haspotentialto reducetonnes significantly.
Involvesbusinessestherefore Potentialtodivertahighvolume wouldpromotedesignfor wastestreamfromlandfill minimisingwaste Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts Wellsupportedbythepublic emissionsassociatedwithC&D activity
Maydevelopinnovativesolutionsthathavelongtermeconomicbenefits Governmenthassignalleditwillnot Contributestowaste legislateintheshortterm minimisation Allformercouncilshavebeen lobbyingregardingsomeC&D wastes
Mosteffective ifcombined withC1. Potentialtodivertlargevolumeof materialsthatareinappropriatefor cleanfilldisposal Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts emissionsassociatedwithC&D activity Reducestheabilityformaterialsfrom contaminatedsitestobeillegally disposedoftocleanfills Reducingenvironmentalharm throughdisposalofinappropriate (notcleanfill)materials Selffundingthroughlicencemonitoringfee Requiresenactmentofbylawand monitoringofcompliance Hierarchy position Reuse Contributestowaste minimisation Providesforrecoveryand recycling Providesaccuratedatatothe counciltoassistmeasurement ofitstargets
C5.
Enactcleanfill licensingregulation
Minimises disposalto cleanfill.
Assistsinthe managementof cleanfillsthrough controlling disposalofcertain typesofmaterials tocleanfills.
Cleanfilloperatorsmay objecttopayinglicence monitoringfeeandbeing requiredtocollectdataon behalfofthecouncil
Providesthe councilwith accuratedata aboutcleanfills.
Hazardous waste options Removalofpotentiallyharmful materialsbeforetheyarereleased intotheenvironment Costofprovisionofacollectionserviceishighduetostaffand equipmentrequirementstomeetregulatoryaspectsofsuchprovision Hierarchy position Recovery, Recycling, Treatment and Disposal at source and Recovery Wasteminimisation UseofRTSnetworkwillrequire managementaccesstothese facilities Resourceconsentsrequiredfor hazardouswastestorage Scopeofwasteacceptancemustbe consideredinprogrammedesign Reductionofharmtothe environmentandpeople Overtimeproductstewardship introductioncouldprovideservices tohouseholders,negatingthe needforcouncilservicesforsome materials(e.g.Oil,fluorescentbulbs/ tubes,LPGcylindersetc)
H1.
Providehazardous wastecollectionfor householdseither throughHazMobile or incorporated into ResourceRecovery Park/RTSnetwork (statusquo)
Mostefficientand Thereishighdemandfor convenient to the these services publicwouldbe Removalofpotentially hazardouswaste harmfulchemicalsand dropoffsitese.g. materialsfromhouseholds. atRTSnetwork. Provideeducationabout theharmassociatedwith hazardousmaterialsandthe alternativestohazardous materials
Dropoffsitescanbecostlytosetupbutongoingcostspredominantly Opportunitytoreuse,recycle,recover associatedwithstaffingthesiteanddisposalofmaterials and/ortreatmaterialstominimise Supportsrecycling/recoveryindustriesestablishedtoaddressspecial landfillwasteandassociated hazardouswastes emissions Recoveryofsomeitemscanhelptoavoidhighdisposalcosts Avoidanceofcontaminatedland Existingprogrammehascontributedtodevelopmentofatleast1 issuesthroughinappropriate productstewardshipscheme(forpaint)whichhashadtheimpactof disposale.g.throughfarmersburying loweringcostssomewhat agriculturalchemicalstoavoid Managedcollectionsthrough Whetheradropoffserviceoramobilecollectionservice,thereisaneed disposalcosts a drop off is safer for forassociatedpromotionandeducationoftheexistenceoftheservice collectorsandpublic andtoencourageareductioninhazardousmaterialusage
Chapter 7 | 153
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Thematerialsacceptedbythese servicesneedstobeconsidered further(e.g.isasbestostobe included) Anyservicemustbefreefordisposalofhouseholdhazardousmaterials whichmostneedremovingfromthecommunity,thusgenerallyrates funded (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
Canhelppreventillegal dumpingofmaterials
Doesnotwellsupport producerresponsibilityfor products
Providehazardous wastecollectionfor householdseither throughHazMobile or incorporated into ResourceRecovery Park/RTSnetwork (statusquo)
Forareaswithout adropoffsite, theHazMobile service is effective andcanbe cost effective ifsufficient numbers attend(i.e. comprehensive marketingof the service.
Promotesconsumer responsibility
Provideseducationabout whatmaterialsareharmful totheenvironmentand whatcanbedonetoprotect theenvironment
Doesnotincludeinfluence ofconsumerpurchasingof hazardousproducts Withanyexpansionofservicesthere Hierarchy position istheconcernthatdemandmay Recovery, Recycling, outstripcapacity Treatment and Disposal at source and Recovery Includingsmall/medbusinesses Wasteminimisation Reductionofharmtothe environmentandpeople Difficultiesdrawinglinehowwill staffknowwhatbusinessesare eligibleandwhicharent Scopeofwasteacceptancemustbe consideredinprogrammedesign wouldrequiremorefrequent collectionstoavoidbeing overwhelmedwithcustomersor requiredropoffcentres
H2.
Enhancecollection and/ordropofffor smalltomedium businesses
Businesseswould liketobeableto useHazMobile serviceandfind currentprivate disposaloptions limitedandcosts prohibitive.
Removalofpotentiallyharmful Wouldbeexpensivetoprovideandmayrequiresubsidyand/or Highdemandforthese materialsbeforetheyarereleased combinationofuserfees servicesdoesnotseemtobe intotheenvironment metbytheprivatemarketin Costscouldbecomeexcessiveifnotmonitoredorsubsidisedthrough acosteffectivemanner Opportunitytoreuse,recycle,recover userfees and/ortreatmaterialstominimise Protectionofpublichealth Canavoidthecostsofillegaldumpingorimproperdisposalcurrently landfillwasteandassociated bycollectingthematerials experienced emissions Mayreducelevelsofillegally Potentialtoexpandschemetoschoolsandcommunitygroups.Thisis dumpedhazardousmaterials Provideseducationaboutwhat morepracticalalthoughstillexpensive materialsareharmfultothe Mayprovideanoutletfor environmentandwhatcanbedone educationofalternativesto toprotecttheenvironment hazardousmaterialuse Thematerialsacceptedbythese Encouragesconsumer servicesneedstobeconsidered responsibility further(e.g.isasbestostobe Doesnotpromoteproducer included) responsibilityforthese products
H3.
Researchand developmentof recycling/recovery marketforsome hazardousproducts
Somere-issuingofmaterialsoccurs throughtheHazMobileprogramme currently Someproductstewardship developmentoccursaspartofthe HazMobileprogrammecurrently Consideredtobeanongoing researchcomponentofthe HazMobileprogramme
Hierarchy position Recovery, Recycling, Treatment and Disposal at source and Recovery Wasteminimisation Thecouncilrolelikelytobe facilitation/supportonly
Mostmaterials Smallsocialbenefitwith Minimalquantifiablebenefitsinshort Minimalimpactoncostsifmaterialsre-issued whichareable re-issuinge.g.givinggood termforwasteminimisation Costsforscopingandresearchprojectsareuncertainandwithout tobereused/ qualitychlorinetoschools Manyhazardousmaterialsdegrade certaintyofbenefit recycled,are forre-use-however,there withageandarethereforeunableto Wouldhavebenefitinlongertermtoanynewindustriesthatarisefrom alreadyrecovered. areliabilityissuesifincidents bereused/recycled research Insomecases occurusingre-issued Potentialtoreuseunopenedpackets therearenolocal materialsprovidedbythe ofhazardousmaterialsboughtinfor markets. council disposalifatadropoffcentreandis identifiable
Chapter 7 | 155
Summary
Operational Issues

Mosteffectiveifsupportedthrough Hierarchy position existingbusinesswasteminimisation Recovery, Recycling, programmes(e.g.EnviroSmart) Treatment and Disposal at ratherthandirectthecouncilrole source and Recovery Wasteminimisation Thecouncilrolelikelytobe facilitation/supportonly Thecouncilinvolvementindevelopingschemesforhazardousmaterials isbeneficialastheindependentnatureofthecouncilisofassistance inbringingmanydifferentcompaniestogethertofindasolutiontoa problemthatthecouncilis(throughnecessity)providingaservicefor,at ratepayers cost Hierarchy position Requiresacommitmentofstaff time,developmentfundingandseed Recovery, Recycling, Treatment and Disposal at funding source and Recovery Someproductstewardship developmentoccurscurrentlyas partoftheHazMobileprogramme. Consideredtobeanongoing researchcomponentofthe HazMobileprogramme NZWSandcouncilshave hazardouswastereduction targets NZWSimpliesproduct stewardshipfocuson hazardouswaste wasteminimisation Hierarchy position Reduction Wasteminimisation
Bestifthecouncil Canhelptocreate/foster supportswider newindustries businesswaste Doesnotwelladdress minimisation producerresponsibilityor initiatives. consumerresponsibility
H4.
Promoteproduct stewardship/EPR schemesforsome products
Beneficialto thecouncil and ratepayers ifPSscheme ultimately replacesan existingongoing service.
Ifwelldesigned,suchschemesmake Socialbenefitasproduct iteasierforhouseholderstodispose stewardshipschemesusually ofhazardousmaterialssafelyand provideamoreconvenient reducetheriskofwasteenteringthe service and not at ratepayers environment cost
ThecostofdevelopingPSschemesisinthecouncilsfavourifit Reducesriskofenvironmentalharm Producerresponsibility ultimatelyremovestheongoingneedforaservicetobeprovidedand encourageswastereduction Wasteminimisationbenefitinany costsaremetbyproducers atsourceaswellaslifecycle reductionofwastethroughdesignof management(e.g.recycling, scheme MayhaveeconomicbenefitstonewindustriesthatarisearoundPS disposaletc) schemes Haspotentialtocreatenew industries Reducesriskofhazardousmaterials enteringtheenvironmental Reducesriskofenvironmentalharm Hasthepotentialtoreducewasteto landfillbutmaybehardtoquantify precisely Costofproductionanddistributionofinformationandresources Costsforprogrammerangesbasedontheirscope,durationandintensity, levelofincentives,andevaluationcosts Relativelyhighcostpertonneofdiversionwhencomparedtoother optionsbutwithwidersocialandeconomicbenefitsfromwaste reduction
H5.
Marketing/ behaviourchange campaignto promotereduction ofhazardouswaste consumptionandto ensuresafediscard
Alternatives tohousehold hazardous materials promotion.
Reducespotentialforharm tohouseholdersespecially children
Difficultiesgettingmessagesacross togroupswhomostneedtohear themessageESOL,immigrants, childrenandyoungpeople,people whorent Requiresongoingprogramme developmentandimprovement Someprogrammesmayworkwell aspartnershipswithothersectorsof theindustry
Safehandling anddisposal ofhazardous materials promotion.
Makeshouseholdersaware ofwhatmaterialsare hazardoussotheycanbe morecarefulandconsider alternatives
Encourageshouseholderto disposeofmaterialscarefully
Consumerdemand mayinfluenceproducer responsibility
Doesnotwellpromote producerresponsibility
Canbeconductedin partnershipand/or contractualarrangement withtheindustrysector forthatproductorother organisations
Chapter 7 | 157
Summary
Operational Issues
Inorganic/special wastes options Doesnotpromoteawaste minimisationethic Iscosteffectiveforbulkcollection,butisanexpensiveservicetoprovide andmanage
S1.
Offerannual(or2 yearly)inorganic wastecollection (similartostatus quoinsome communities)
Providesawellusedandhighly rated service for collectionofbulk waste.
Doesnotpromoteproducer orconsumerresponsibility forthewaste
Thisservice, whilerelatively costeffective,is countertoThe councilswaste minimisation objectives.
Verypopularwithresidents, yethighestnumberof complaintsaboutnuisance duringcollectionandcrime associatedwithcollection, scavengingetc
Encourageslargeamounts ofwastetobedisposedof easilywithoutconsidering alternatives
Operationallythemostdifficult Hierarchy position Disposal collectiontomanageduetoillegal Supportswastemanagement dumpingissues,incorrectplacement Mayhelptoeliminateriskofsome Onmasscollectiondevaluestherecovery/recyclabilitydueto objectiveswithaimof ofmaterials,scavengingandcrime householdsusingillegalmeansof scavenginganddamage/vandalism protectingpublichealth associatedwithcollection disposalandavoidbackyardtips Ratesfundedsocostsaresharedbyallratepayerseveniftheydonotuse Doesnotsupportwaste thatcausenuisanceorenvironmental the service minimisationobjectives harm Maynegativelyaffectthe councilwastereduction targets
Easymethodforresidents whomayhavedifficulty utilisingalternativemethods (e.g.unabletodrivetothe transferstation)
Healthandsafetyissues relatingtokerbsideplacement, scavenging,andcollection Discontinuationofrates-fundedinorganiccollectionswillreducecoststo Willresolveoperationalissues ratepayers associatedwithinorganickerbside collectionservices Shouldillegaldumpingincreaseasaresultofcessationoftheservice therewillbeincreasedtothecouncilforitsremoval Hierarchy position Disposal Maylowerpublichealth protectionifthismaterial isstoredonresidential propertiesinsteadofbeing properlyrecycled,recoveredor treatedbeforelandfilldisposal Supportswasteminimisation objectives
S2.
Discontinueregular inorganiccollection servicewithout offeringalternative
Community demandfor aninorganic collectionservice ishigh.
Operationaland economicissues ofcollecting inorganic Willencourageresidentsto materialswillbe consideralternativesfortheir removedwiththe unwantedinorganicmaterials cessation of the Someresidentsmayhave service. difficultyutilisingalternative Environmental methods(e.g.unabletodrive nuisanceand tothetransferstation) harmmay Healthandsafetyissues increase. relatingtokerbside placement,scavenging,and collectionwillberemoved
Mayassistpromoteproducer Mayassistinpromotingawaste orconsumerresponsibility minimisationethic forthewaste Illegaldumpingandbackyardtips Willremovecomplaints mayincreasecausingnuisanceor aboutnuisanceduring environmentalharm kerbsidecollectionandcrime associatedwithcollection, scavengingetc
Chapter 7 | 159
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Likelytoresultinlesswasteto landfillduetouptakeofalternatives Mayincreaserevenuesfromrecyclingandrecoveryofthematerial Costneutralincomparisontoprovidinganannualbulkwastecollection orcanbelowercostdependingondesignofservice Wouldcompetedirectlywithprivatecollectionproviders FormerWaitakereCitysystemmay bedifficultinruralareas RequiresaccesstoRTSnetworkto maximiserecovery Moreoftheinorganiccouldbe targetedforrecovery Lessenvironmentalharmfrom hazardousmaterialsdisposedof incorrectlywhichiscommon Maybemoreinefficientintermsof vehicletripsifuptakeofondemand serviceishigh Willreducecostsforbothcollectionanddisposaldependingonuptake (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
S3.
Investigateoptions foralternative collectionmethod, towardmaximising diversionratese.g. similartoWaitakere Citybyrequest collectionservice
Doesnot supportwaste minimisation objectives butprovides alternativeto currentservice.
Reducespotentialfrom harmfrominorganicrefuse onbermtobothpublicand collectors
Reducespotentialfrom unsuitablesubstances leftoutforcollectione.g. hazardouswaste
Recentlyimplementedserviceneeds Hierarchy position Disposal tobeevaluatedintermsofcost, Contributestowaste efficienciesandimplementation managementand issues minimisation Currentcollectionisdifficultto Theformercouncils managebuthighlydesiredbymany recognisedthisasakey communities wastestreamandareafor improvement
Encouragesgreater consumerresponsibilityfor managingtheirwastethan currentsystem
Currentsystemisahigh sourceofcomplaints,but yetahighlydesiredservice theremaybebacklash againstanychangethough thiswouldbeagood alternative
Scavengingandcrime associatedwithinorganic collectionwouldbereduced
Doesnotwellpromote producerresponsibility Canhelptoidentifynewmarketsfor wastediversion Canhelptopreventnuisancefrom illegaldumpingofdifficultproducts to dispose of Identitywherefurtherwaste minimisationcanbeaddressed Relativelylowcostapproach Wastelevyfundingavailabletosupporttheseprojects Assessmentofcostsindicatesthatlowestcostoptionwouldbeforthe counciltoworkinpartnershipwithprivateindustryinuseofexisting commercialRTSnetwork Requiresdevelopmentoflargescale resourcerecoveryfacilities Easieroptionistogetpartnership and/orcontractualarrangementfor controlofexistingcommercialRTS network Wastelevyfundsavailableforwasteminimisationprojectssuchasthis Hierarchy position Recovery and Recycling Contributestowaste minimisation Maybelimitedinitialbenefitsbut overmediumtolongerterm Potentialtodivertadditional recoverablewastesforreuseor recyclingfromlandfill Thecounciltimeandresourcesrequiredtosupportmarket developmentprojects Economicbenefitintherecoveryofmaterialsbenefitcouldbeto eitherthecouncilorbusinesses Mayhelpthecouncilandbusinessestosaveondisposalcostsinlonger term Requiressuitablemarket developmentprojectstoinvestigate Requiresspecialistskills Mayworkbestinpartnershipwith industry Hierarchy position Disposal Contributestowaste managementand minimisation C&Dwasteisaprioritywaste streamrecognisedbythe formercouncils
S4.
Marketand/ orProduct Stewardshipscheme developmentfor reuse/recyclingof recoveredspecial wasteincluding enhancedwaste exchanges
SupportsC&Dsector
Willassistcouncilsin Thiscouldbe preventingnuisanceby undertakenonits developingmarketsfor ownorwithother wastesandinplanning actions. sectorstotargettoincrease wasteminimisation Directdiversion difficultto Promoteslongterm quantify. upskillingoftheindustry
S5.
DevelopResource RecoveryParks/ Networkconcept withspecialwaste recoveryfacilities
20,000orgreater Goodpublicsupportand tonnesofwaste interest tolandfillbut Requirespartnershipwith quantities commercialwasteindustry dependent on todevelopexistingRTSinto markets. ResourceRecoverycentres
Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts Landfilldisposaliscurrentlycheaperthancostofdiversionofsome emissionsassociatedwithproduction products,althoughcostsareincreaseduetothewastelevyand EmissionsTradingScheme(ETS)
Chapter 7 | 161
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Requirespartnershipwith commercialwasteindustrytobe economicallyfeasible (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
DevelopResource RecoveryParks/ Networkconcept withspecialwaste recoveryfacilities Willbemosteffectivewithmarket developmentprojects Willbemosteffectiveifcombined withotherincentives(e.g.Bylawban and/orcollectionsystempricingand design) Mayincurlandfillfeesifmarket developmentisslowandstockpiles existforgreaterthan6months Potentialtodivertadditional materialsfromlandfill Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts emissions Lowcostoptionwithdirectbenefitstothecommunity Modelsarealreadyoperatingin othercouncilsandwithinAuckland Needsfurtherinvestigationbefore development
Onlyfeasibleif Thecouncilhas management controlof RTSnetwork (Management model7).
Willbemost effective if combined withOption C1Business assistance.
Potentialtodivertadditional Willassistinavoidingtheserisingcostsintothefuturefordisposaland Thereisalreadysource recoverablewastesforreuseor transportofwaste separationofsome recyclingfromlandfill recyclablematerials,butthis MayassistprivatelandfilloperatorsinreducingtheirETSliabilitiesand couldbeimprovedundera Beneficialreuseofmaterialscuts thuscosts councilcontrolledmodelto emissionsassociatedwithproduction Requiresfurthermarketdevelopmentforproductstoensureviabilityof includeothermaterials recovery operations Severalcouncilsalreadyhave sucharesourcerecovery systeme.g.WaitakereRTS operationandsomesmaller RTS
Allformercouncilshad nominatedthisasapriority wastestreamwithafeasibility studycompletedin2004 Mayrequireadditionalfundingsuch asthroughtheWasteMinimisation Fund/goodcandidateproject
S6
Support/promote second hand charities and community businessesthat recover and trade re-useablematerial
Theremay befurther opportunitiesto promoteexisting services.
Positivebenefitsofjob creation and provides affordableoptionsof materialinthecommunity
Hierarchy position Reduction, Reuse, Recycling Contributestowaste minimisation Researchisrequiredtofindoutwhat Thecouncilrolemaybeto iscurrentlybeingdivertedandwhat providesupport/funding furtherpotentialexists
Communityinvolvementin minimisingwaste
Buildscapacityfor communitytodirectlybe involvedinprovidingfor wasteminimisation
Illegal dumping and litter options Licensingsystemlargelypolluterpaysforadministration Thecouncilstaff/consultanttimerequiredtodevelopbylawand setupsystem Setuplicensingsystem Administerlicensingsystem Collatedata Hierarchy position Recovery Contributestowaste management Addresseswastedisposal
L1.
Consistentregional bylawthat addressesillegal dumpingand litterandseesthis functioncombined acrossregioninto solidwastefunction
Doesnothave Commercialsectorinterest/ Canhelptopreventnuisancefrom alargewaste concern,somebacklashto illegaldumpinginsomeinstances minimisation bylawsthatinvolvelicensing Identitywherefurtherwaste impact,butpublic Willassistcouncilsin minimisationcanbeaddressed health/nuisance preventingnuisanceandin protection planningsectorstotargetto focussed. increasewasteminimisation
Enablesthecounciltobetter measureprogressagainst planandfulfilnational reportingrequirements
Chapter 7 | 163
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Costsforprogrammearebasedontheirscope,durationandintensity, levelofincentives,andevaluationcosts Difficulttomeasurecostsagainstbenefitswhencomparedtoother optionsbutprogrammehaswidersocialandeconomicbenefitsfrom reducinglitteringbehavioure.g.communitypride,tourismetc Reductiontothecouncilofillegaldumpingremovalcosts Requiresongoingprogramme developmentandimprovement Hierarchy position Reduction and Recovery (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues
L2.
Continueand/or improveregional behaviourchange programmeBea tidykiwiorother similarprogramme
Hasthepotentialtominimiselitter Programme Highpublicinterestand andwastetolandfillbutmaybe abilitytoget demand difficulttoquantify quantifiablewaste Promotessourcereduction reductionneeds Reductionintheamountoflitter &consumerresponsibility tobemonitored. improveshabitatqualityinstream byencouragingbehaviourto andseabeds Workswell minimisewaste/litter withregulatory Doesnotencourageproducer initiatives. responsibilityforthewaste
Canbeconductedin partnershipwithother organisationsand/orother sectorse.g.packaging industry/fastfood/retail
Someprogrammesmayworkwell Contributestowaste aspartnershipswithothersectorsof minimisationatsource theindustry Allformercouncilshad Peopleresourcerequiredtoprovide programmestoaddressthese facetofacecommunityeducation issuesthatcanbeexpanded orimprovede.g.Rubbish Litterauditsbeforeandaftercan patrolprogrammeofthe beusedtomonitorprogrammes formerAucklandCityhadan success 80percentsuccessratefor removalofillegaldumpingby perpetrators
Engagescommunitywiththe problem
Household refuse collection funding and management options Welltestedandrelativelyeasyto administerthroughratessystem Ratesfundingpoliciesdonot constrainthemethodofdeliveryin termsofcontainercanbebagsor binsetc Hierarchy position Disposal Wastemanagementobjective toensurepublichealthis protected
F1(A).
Ratesfundedpolicy (e.g.generalrates fundingofthe councilprovided refusecollection)
Fundingpolicy needstobe determinedas thismayhavean influenceonthe modeofdelivery.
Allowsdisadvantaged Doesnotprovideforvolumecharging Doesnotprovidedirectvolumecharging,sounfairtothosewhodonot communitiesequalaccessto thereforelittledisincentivetoreduce generatemuchwaste wasteservicesatsamecost wasteandassociatedemissions Canbeaveryefficientsystemtomanageasprovidesauniformservice toalldespitedifferencesin Doesnotpromotewaste acrossthecommunitywithoutissueswithundercuttingbycommercial wastegeneration/household minimisationbehaviour wasteoperators sizeetc Virtuallyeliminatesroleofprivateoperatorsnotunderthecouncil Wellalignedwithsomeformer contractincollectinghouseholdwaste(reducescompetition) TAspolicies(e.g.Manukau)
Doesnotencourage householdresponsibilityfor wastegeneration
Theremaybesome communitiesthatarekeento maintaincurrentsystem Fairermethodofallocatingcostsasisbaseddirectlyontheservicebeing Welltestedandrelativelyeasyto provided(e.g.bin) administerthroughratessystem Canbeanefficientsystemtomanageasprovidesauniformservice acrossthecommunitywithoutissueswithundercuttingbycommercial wasteoperators Virtuallyeliminatesroleofprivateoperatorsnotunderthecouncil contractincollectinghouseholdwaste Isbettersuitedtoawheeledbin servicebutcouldbeusedforabag serviceaswell Theremaybeoptionstoincorporate otherpolluterpaysprinciplesinto thechargingmechanism,e.g.by introducingapaybyliftcomponent thoughthiswouldaddsignificant additionaladministrationresources Hierarchy position Disposal Wastemanagementobjective toensurepublichealthis protected
F1(B).
Targetedrates fundedrefuse collection
Fundingpolicy needstobe determinedas thismayhavean influenceonthe modeofdelivery.
Targetedratesusecanoffera IfusedintandemwithanMGB moretransparentmethodfor serviceoflimitedsize,thereisthe linkingcostofaserviceto abilitytorestrictwasteoutput/ thewastegenerator volumesomewhat
WellalignedwithsomeTA policies(e.g.AucklandCity)
Chapter 7 | 165
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Transparentchargingbasedonhouseholdwastevolumesdisposedof Abilityofhouseholdstoreducetheirwastecostsbyfindingalternatives todisposal Welltestedandcanbeeasyto administerifsystemsarewell established (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues

Providesforvolumecharging thereforeaneconomicdisincentive toreducewasteoutputata householdlevelandassociated emissions

Hierarchy position Disposal Wastemanagementobjective toensurepublichealthis protected
F2.
Polluterpayspolicy assumingthe councilprovided service
Fundingpolicy needstobe determinedas thismayhave aninfluenceon modeofdelivery.
Encourageshousehold/ wastesgenerator responsibilityforwaste
Thereareconstraintstoapplying Wellalignedwithsome Systemcanbeinefficientifthereisstrongcompetitionintohousehold polluterpaysprincipleswithsome TAspolicies(e.g.Franklin, Polluterpaysprinciple collectionmarketbycommercialwasteindustry formsofcollectionmethods(e.g. NorthShore,Papakura,and Polluterpayssystemsarelinkedwith contributestowaste Systemcanbemoreexpensivetomanagedependingonstructure/admin therearenoestablishedpayby Waitakerehavepolluterpays) lowerwasteoutputs minimisationobjectives oftheservicee.g.polluterpaysbagspurchase,distributionetc weightsystemsforwheeledbin throughsourcereduction Theremaybecommunities Polluterpayssystemsaresometimes Mayrequirepayment/subsidytocontractorstocollectfromoutlying collection) keentomaintaincurrent associatedwithillegaldumping, areas,areaswithlessdensity,astheymayotherwisecherrypickeasiest Thecouncilcontractconditions system whichcancauseenvironmentalharm areas canprotectthecouncilfrom Incentiviseswaste User-payssystemscanresultinwider Thecouncilprogrammeissusceptibletocompetitionfromcommercial competitionfromitscontractor minimisation useofprivatewheeliebins,which operators in easy to service areas providingaprivatecollectionservice increasewastedisposal in the contracted area
F3.
Polluterpays policyassumes commercialfree marketnot councilprovided service
Fundingpolicy mayhavean impactonmode ofdelivery.
Encourageshousehold/ wastesgenerator responsibilityforwaste
WellalignedwithsomeTAs policies(RodneyDistricts currentsystem)
Requireslicensingof operatorstoensurea minimumlevelofservice qualityandcoverage
Mustbeadministeredinconjunction Hierarchy position Disposal withawellenforcedlicensing Wastemanagementobjective systemtobeviable toensurepublichealthis protectedalthoughifnot wellmanagedandregulated, someareasmaynotbe servicedcorrectly Polluterpaysprinciple contributestowaste minimisationobjectives throughsourcereduction
Givesusersachoice of service provider and container,frequencyetc Someareasmaynotbewellserviced, thuscausingnuisancefromrefuse accumulation Bagsintowastestream Litter Bagsarecheaperthanbins
Providesforvolumecharging Transparentchargingbasedonhouseholdwastevolumesdisposedof thereforeaneconomicdisincentiveto Abilityofhouseholdstoreducetheirwastecostsbyfindingalternatives reducewasteoutputatahousehold todisposal levelandassociatedemissions Systemcanbemoreexpensivedespitemarketcompetition,asless Polluterpayssystemsaresometimes efficientthanhavingasinglecollectorworkingacrossaregionina associatedwithillegaldumping, concentrated fashion whichcancauseenvironmentalharm Benefitsarespreadacrossawidervarietyofwasteoperatorsthanina Theremaybesomeinefficiencieswith councilprovidedservice thissystemduetohavingmultiple Mayrequirepayment/subsidytocontractorstocollectfromoutlying operatorscollectingmaterialsinthe areas,areaswithlessdensity,astheymayotherwisecherrypickeasiest samearea(e.g.additionaltruckson areas road/relatedemissions)
Goodforthosewhodonot producemuchwaste
F4.
BagsvsBins
Willdependupon Convenienceofbins fundingoptions chosen and other collectionservices forrecyclingand organics.
Healthandsafetyissues
Hierarchy position Disposal
F5.
Combinationofall Generallythesameissuesasassociatedwiththeaboveoption,althoughwithsomewhatmoreadministrativedifficultyinmanagingtheservices oftheaboveoptions Forexample,refusecollectioncouldbefundedpartlybygeneralrateswithapartialpolluterpayscomponent(e.g.suchassystemswhere52refusebagsareprovidedfree,thenresidentspayforadditionalcapacity)
Ortargetedratesystemthatincorporateseitherapaybyliftorpaybyweightcomponenttoimproveonitspolluterpayscomponent(ifviable)
Allowingacombinationmayprovideforgreaterflexibilityinhowservicesarefundedandthusdesigned,ratherthanapplyingastrictfundingpolicytowaste
Chapter 7 | 167
HierarchypositionDisposal
Summary
Operational Issues
Residual waste disposal and management options Hierarchy position Thecouncillackscontrolofmost majorcommercialRTS,thereforenot Reduction feasibleundercurrentconditions Promoteswasteminimisation Wouldrequirepartnershipand/ Allowsforincreasedwaste orcontractualarrangementwith minimisationactivityand industry servicestobeintroduced Shouldbeadministeredwitha licensingsystemtoprotectagainst illegaldumping Wouldrequirefurthermodelling todetermineoptimumgaterate increase Wouldrequirethecouncilto haveamoredirectrole
R1.
Raisethecostof disposingofwaste atallrefusetransfer stationstopromote wasteminimisation e.g.locallyapplied disincentive to waste
Onlyfeasibleifthe Encourageswastegenerator Providesforgreatervolumecharging FundingfromthelocallevyappliedattheRTSgatecanbeusedtofund wasteminimisationinitiatives,includingdiversionofmaterials,new councilhascontrol responsibilityforminimising disincentivetowaste waste marketdevelopment,additionalcollectionservices ofgateatallRTS Wasteleviesareassociatedwith inregion.(See Providesalocaldisincentive lowerwasteoutputsandfundswould MaycausewasteflighttootherregionsoutsideAucklandiflevyis StrategicDirection towastefulbehaviour beusedtowardwasteminimisation excessive 3Management (e.g.100,000ktonnes+perannum Maycausebacklashifcost Model7). diverted) increaseisexcessive The Mayresultinadditionalillegal methodologiesto dumpingtoavoidfees achieveinfluence (regulation, legislativechange, directaction)will needtobetested andvalidated througha rigorousanalytical processinvolving economicand commercial analysisbefore proceedingdown any of the paths. Costslikelytobeexcessiveasmajoroperatorsarenotincentivisedto divertwasteawayfromtheirlandfills Wouldbefundedbyrates/andorwastelevy
R2. Allowsforadditionalmaterialsto berecoveredfromthewastestream throughimprovedsourceseparation orrecoveryatRTS Maybelesseffectiveunlessfully alignedtokerbsideservices
Hierarchy position Disposal Promoteswasteminimisation Wouldneedtodeterminetargetsfor differentcomponentsofthewaste stream Wouldneedtodeterminemethods tobeused Allowsforincreasedwaste minimisationactivityand servicestobeintroduced Wouldallowforwaste industrytohavethemost directrole
Paythecommercial Costsmaybe wasteindustry excessive. tomeettargets (e.g.Paythemto runRTStocertain conditions/recover wastes)
Buildswasteminimisation capacityofcommercial operatorsatRTSfacilities
Wouldrequirepartnershipand/ orcontractualarrangementwith industry
Maybeseenasratepayers fundingcommercial operationstotheirown benefit
Doesnotencourage separationatsourceorwaste minimisationtogenerators
Chapter 7 | 169
Summary
(NZWS Goal: Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste) Costsarenotcertainasnocouncilinterestinthelandfills Ifamajorlandfillcloses,therewillbeonly1keyplayerinthemarket reducedcompetitioncanleadtoincreasedcosts TheCouncildoesnotshareinanybenefitsoflandfillownership (NZWS Goal: Provide economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently)
Operational Issues

Commercialoperatorswilldo minimumrequiredtomeet environmentalprotection requirements/consentconditions Thecouncilhasnomeanstoapply economicdisincentivestowasteor torecovermaterialsfromthewaste stream Statusquo(althoughthecouncil hasaninterestinonecommercial landfillatWhitford,butisnot involvedinthemanagement) Ensurespublichealthis protected Thecouncilhasaminimal roleandexpectstheprivate markettoprovidethisservice

Hierarchy position Disposal
R3.
Relyonprivate/ commercialwaste industrytoprovide fortheregions wastedisposal needs
Statusquo.Has Avoidsthecouncilrisk riskforcontinued associatedwithdeveloping cost increases newdisposaloptions withnoabilityto Closureoflandfillswithin influencewaste theAucklandregionleads minimisation. towastebeingdisposedin otherregionsequityissues
Newlandfillsarevery difficulttosite
Wasteindustryhasno incentivetominimisewaste tolandfill Expensivetoinvestindevelopingnewinfrastructureortopurchasean interestinexistinglandfills Somelevelofinterestincommerciallandfillswouldsharecostbenefits withthecouncil Wouldrequirepartnershipand/ orcontractualarrangementwith industry Hierarchy position Disposal
R4.
Thecouncilinterest and/orpartor fullownershipof landfills
Allowsforgreater Riskindevelopinganynew Thecouncilinterestistoensure prediction of disposaloptions wastetolandfillisminimisedand costsandwith thattheenvironmentisprotected Caninvolvepartnershipand/ someinfluence orcontractualarrangement Economicdisincentivescanbe overwaste withwasteindustry appliedtothegate,whichservesto minimisation. reducewastetolandfill Canpromotethecouncil Thisoptionmay wasteminimisation Anysurplus/profitcanberetained notbenecessary objectivesatlandfill forusetowardwasteminimisation ifmanagement operationallevel activities controlofRTS canbeachieved throughindustry partnership(see Strategicdirection option3and management model7). Potentialresourceconsentissues Thecouncilownershippotentiallybestfinancialoption
Ensurepublichealthis protected Needtodeterminelevelofinterest Thecounciltakesamore andwhetherthisisrestrictedto directroleinensuringaccess currentlandfillsordevelopinganew to this service landfill
R5.
Impactsonlocalcommunity
Hierarchy position Disposal Promotesefficientuseof resources Moredirectroleforthe council
WhitfordLandfill tobecomekey AucklandCouncil disposalfacility
WhitfordLandfill tobeutilisedby AucklandCouncil asmaindisposal location.
Needtoascertainimplicationsof existingcontractwithTranspacific IndustriesGroup/WasteDisposal Services
Chapter 7 | 171
Section 1 | 172
7.6 Discussion and summary of options

Thefollowingsectionfirstlydiscussesthestrategic directioninfluenceoptionsandthemanagement modelsaspresentedintheTables7.5-2to7.5-9and secondlykeyissuesarisingfromtheoptionsassociated withthewastestreams,themainadvantagesand disadvantagesofdifferentapproaches,comments aboutcostsandbenefitsaswellasanyconstraints associatedwithimplementingtheoption.Comments arealsomaderegardingtheoverallcontributionof theoptiontowardthecouncilskeyobjectivecost effectivewasteminimisation.
7.6-1 Influence over waste streams

Takingintoaccountthecouncilskeyobjectivesthat: theAucklandCouncilhasresponsibilitytoreduce total wastetolandfill(notonlythewastethatit collectsatthekerbsidethroughthecouncilservices) thereshouldbereductionofharmfromwaste adherencetothehierarchyofwastemaximises economicvalue themostcosteffectiveandefficientsolution minimisescoststoratepayers meetingtargetscontainedintheexistingwaste managementplanoftheAucklandCouncilinherited asaresultoftheLocalGovernment(Auckland TransitionalProvisions)Act2010(LGATP) Thekeystrategicoptionisforthecounciltogain accesstothewastevaluechaintoenableseparation andresourcerecoverypriortolandfilling.Thiscanbe putinplacethroughmanagementcontrolorinfluence oftheexistingresourcerecovery/transferstation network. Aconstantthemethroughoutthisassessment istherelationshipbetweenthesuccessofwaste minimisationeffortsandcontrolofthewastevalue chain.Thewastevaluechainistheflowofwaste materialsfromtheirpointofgenerationtocollection, transferandconsolidation(transferstations)and thenontofinaldisposalatlandfillor,insomecases, diversiontobeneficialreuse.
ThecommercialwasteindustryintheAuckland regionisgenerallyincontrolofthewastevaluechain throughitsownershipoflandfillsandmosttransfer stations.Theindustryisinthebusinessofsecuring wastebycollectingitfromsource,transportingand consolidatingthewaste,thentransferringittotheir landfillsforfinaldisposal.Whilesomematerialsare recoveredfromthisvaluechain,thecommercial wasteindustrydoesnotsharethesameimperative toreducewastetolandfillasthecouncildoesandin fact,thisnationalpolicyaimisnotintheircommercial bestinterest.Thelifespanoflandfillsis,inmostcases, limitedbythetermsofresourceconsentsand,asa result,itisintheinterestofthelandfilloperatorto maximisetheirreturnoninvestmentbydisposingof themaximumamountofwastepossiblewithinthe landfillslifespan. Forthecounciltheinterestinhavingaccesstothe wastevaluechainisnotmotivatedbymaximising profitbuttoimprovewasteminimisationoverthe longterm.ThisisaguidingprincipleoftheWaste MinimisationActandunderpinstheformercouncils existingWasteManagementPlanswhichasaresultof theLGATPbecomethewasteplanofAucklandCouncil untilanewoneisreviewedandadoptedbefore July2012. Accesstowasteatcriticalpointsinthevaluechain, suchasthepointoftransferandconsolidation, willallowthecounciltheopportunitytomaximise resourcerecoveryanddivertwastetobeneficialreuse. TheAucklandCouncilhasthepotentialabilityto regionallycoordinatetheuseofexistinginfrastructure anddevelopastrategyforamoreefficientsorting, consolidationandtransportationnetworkoftransfer andresourcerecoverystationsacrosstheregion. Manyoftheoptionsconsideredinthisassessment relyonaresourcerecoverynetworktobeachievable (e.g.useofeconomicdisincentivesand/orregulatory measures)oreconomicallyviable(e.g.organicsand increasedinorganicwasteandC&Drecovery).Thiswill alsomakemanyserviceseasierforAucklandresidents andbusinessestoaccessandimprovetheoverall logisticsofwasteoperationsintheregion,particularly thoserelatingtotransportinefficiencies.
Chapter 7 | 173
Therearesignificanthurdlestothecouncildeveloping anynewinfrastructure.Costswouldbeextensive andthereiscompetitionfromtheprivateoperators withassociatedrisks.Forthisreason,anarrangement utilisingexistinginfrastructureprovidesthemost cost-effectivesolution,withkeypartiespartneringto achievesharedobjectives(awin-winsituation). Thisoptionwillrequirecontractualarrangements forthecounciltoformpartnershipswithstrategic infrastructureowners.Thecouncilinfluenceofthe resourcerecovery/transferstationnetwork,whether ownedorleased(overalongterm),orcontractedover alongtermorlicencediscritical.Thiswillprovide greateraccesstothewastestreamandcontrolfor thepurposesofintroducingwasteminimisation methodsatthesefacilities.Otherefficienciestobe gainedincludeimprovementstotheconsolidation andtransporthandlinglogistics,aswasteflowsinthe Aucklandregiondonotalwaysmakeeconomicor environmentalsense(seesection4.4). AstudywasundertakenfortheAucklandcouncilsin 2005entitledReclaimingAucklandsResources:A ResourceRecoveryNetworkfortheAucklandRegion. Thisstudyidentifiedthebenefitsofdevelopinga networkofresourcerecoveryfacilitiesacrossthe Aucklandregionconsistingofsevenmajorresource recoveryparksandupto60smallercommunity recyclingdepots.Itproposedthatthenetworkwould befundedfromsavingsfromtheinorganiccollections, amodestlevyonwaste(whichcanbeappliedatthe transferstationgate)andthesaleofreusableand recyclablematerials. Whileallformercouncilsagreedthatthisapproach wasdesirable,duetotheirlackofownershipor managementcontrolofinfrastructureandthefinancial implicationsofdevelopingnewfacilities,itwasnotat thatstageaviableoptiontopursue. However,ifcommercially-heldinfrastructurecanbe utilisedbyCouncil,thenthisschemewouldbecomea realisticoptionthatwillcontributetowardsignificant wastereduction.
Thisstrategicoptionsupportedbythemanagement model7wouldhavethefollowingkeyfeatures: therewouldbeacontractualagreementbetween theAucklandCouncilSolidWasteBusinessUnitand thetwomainwastecompanies,TPIandEnviroWaste, whoownthemajorityoftransferstationsand landfills theRTSnetworkwouldcontinuetobeownedbythe privateoperatorsbuttheiroperationstransferred toAucklandCouncil,wholeasethefacilitiesand assumecontroloftheiroperationorthenetwork couldbeoperatedbytheprivateoperatorsunder directcouncilspecification kerbsidewastecollectedbyboththecouncil(under existingcontractarrangements)andcommercial operatorswillbetakentothenearestRTSto rationalisetransportmovements landfillownershipremainswithTPIandEnviroWaste Servicesbutwithanexclusiveagreementwiththe counciltodisposeofallresidualwastetothenearest landfillatanagreedratethatishigherthancurrent averagegaterates thecouncilhastheabilitytoapplyeconomic disincentivesattheRTSlevelandcanimplement resourcerecoveryactivitiesatallfacilities allwastetothelandfillfromtheAucklandregion wouldbeagreedtopassthroughanAuckland CouncilRTSfacilitybeforegoingforfinaldisposal. Towardthisaimpreliminaryanalysisdonebyaformer councilintheAucklandregion,indicatesthatthe councilisnotrequiredtopurchaseanyfurtherassets, anditwouldonlyretainownershipofthecurrent councilassets,whichare: RTSWaitakere,Devonport,Helensville,Waiheke, Waiukuandahalfshare(withTPI)inEastTamaki LandfillhalfshareinWhitfordLandfill(withTPI), ClarisLandfillonGreatBarrierIsland MRFfutureownershipofOnehungaMRF (developedunderBOOTarrangementwithVisy Recycling) MRFWaitakereOnyxMRF(developedunderBOOT arrangement).
Chapter 7 | 174
ThemodelreliesoncontroloftheremainingRTS networkandaccesstolandfillviacontractual arrangementswithTPIandEnviroWaste(ideally withbothbutcouldoperatewithoneofthekeyRTS owners).Thecouncilwouldhavetoagreetopaythe existinglandfillownersanagreedfeefordisposalof wastetolandfill.Inreturn,thecouncilwouldgain managementcontroloftheRTSnetwork. Thecouncilwouldthenhavetheabilitytocontrolthe transferstations,settheirgatecharges,implement aresourcerecoverymodel,andfurtherinvestand developorganicwasteinfrastructureinordertomeet itswasteminimisationobjectives. Thereareanumberofkeyreasonswhythewaste industryhasindicatedinterestinthismodel,it: removestheneedforthetwolandfilloperatorsto constantlycompeteforsufficientrefusevolumeto flowintotheRTSsandlandfills givesanassuredminimumrevenuestreamto landfills(ifbasedonaguaranteedminimum tonnage)andincreasesthelandfilldisposalcharge abovethatofthecurrentrate.Thiswouldresultinan annualisedgainforlandfilloperators thecouncilandthelandfilloperatorswouldsharein theefficiencygainsduetotherationalisationofthe RTSandlandfillnetwork reducescommercialoperatorsresponsibilityforthe RTSnetwork leavesoperatorswithfullaccesstoprofitableincome streamsfromwastecollection,transportation andlandfilloperationsaswellasotherwaste minimisationspecialistservices(e.g.organics processing). Thecombinedwasteminimisationresultofthese optionsisintherangeof200,000to300,000tonnes reductionofwastetolandfilleachyear.Thisis estimatedasfollows: 15percentdiversionofthegeneralwastestream (upto129,000tonnesperannum)canbeachieved bybetterutilisationoftherefusetransferstations andimplementationofimprovedresourcerecovery processes.
Inaddition,aproposedkerbsideorganicscollection servicewillfurtherincreasethediversionofwaste fromlandfillbyupto200,000tonnesperannum. Thiswillnotonlyhelpmeetwasteminimisation targets,butwillalsoextendthelifeofAucklands existinglandfills,delayingtheneedandassociatedcost ofanewlandfilldevelopment(estimatedtobearound $50M). ThereductioninAucklandwastetonnageofthislevel willresultina12percentreductioninNewZealands totalwastestreamtolandfill.
Implications and recommendations

Managementcontrolorinfluenceofthewaste streamiscriticaltoachievingwasteminimisationin theAucklandregion Withoutobtainingagreaterdegreeofcontrolover infrastructurecouncilisunabletomeetthetargets adoptedinitswastemanagementplan Continuedengagementwithkeywasteindustry playersisrequiredtounderstandtheirposition, willingnessandabilitytocollaborateconstructively indiscussionsconcerning: ptionstoachievethecouncilswaste o minimisationobjectivesandsupporttheNZWS targets otentiallegislativemattersarisingfromtheWMA p opportunities rovisionofdatatoassistinthedevelopmentof p keyperformanceindicatorsinthedraftWMMP Thecouncilshouldseekacontractualarrangement withthetwomajor(orcouldbeone)commercial landfillownerstoprovideexclusivetonnageon thebasisofgainingcontroloftheexistingtransfer stationnetwork Thisoptionunderpinsanumberofotheroptions, withtheneteffectofreducingwastetolandfillin theorderof200,000to300,000tonnesperyearat noadditionalcosttotheratepayers Ifthisoptionisnotputinplace,theresultis significantlyhigherratepayerorexternalfunding wouldberequiredtoimplementlimitedwaste
Chapter 7 | 175
minimisationoptions(suchastheintroductionofa householdorganicscollectionandprocessingservice) Theexistingwastemanagementsystemforthe Aucklandregionhasatotalannualcosttoratepayers (viaratesandpolluter-pays)ofapproximately$85M whichwillreducesignificantlybyimplementingthis option.Itisestimated rates charges for solid waste service would not be necessary Averagepolluter-payschargesfromallmeans(rates, councilpolluterpayschargesandprivateusercosts) willreducefromthecurrentannualhouseholdcost ofaround$161perannumto$115perannum
liabilityandthuscost.Thismayservetofurtherdisincentivisediversionoforganicsfromlandfillasthese arethekeycontributortomethaneproduction. Becauseorganicsareaprioritywastestreamthere hasbeensignificantworkundertakenbytheformer councilsoftheAucklandregiontodevelopasolution todivertorganics(kitchenfoodwaste,greenwasteand commercialfoodwaste)fromlandfills. Arecentfeasibilitystudywasundertakento investigatepotentialprocessingoptionsformanaging organicwastecollectedfromhouseholdsandsome commercialkitchens.Theoutcomesofthisstudy indicatethatorganicsprocessingwhenconductedona largescale,iscost-competitivewiththecostofrefuse collectionanddisposal,particularlywiththerising costsoflandfillduetothewastelevyand,from2013, theETS.xl Anotherstudy,byEnterprisingManukau,revealedthat asignificantportionofcommercialfoodwastefrom foodprocessingindustriesisalreadybeingdiverted successfully,mainlyasstockfood.xliThisemphasises thatthebestwasteminimisationgainswillbeinthe designofasystemthatfocusesmainlyonhousehold foodwasteandhospitalityandcateringwaste. Thepotentialforwastereductionbyimplementinga householdkitchenfoodwastecollectionaresignificant, withtonnageestimatedintherangeof80,000+per annumwiththepotentialforevenfurtherdiversion ofadditionalfoodwasteandgreenwastedepending oncollectiondesignandextent.Theimpactofsucha schemecouldbeintherangeofuptoa10percent reductionofwastetolandfillovercurrentlevels. Duetothespecialistnatureoftheorganicsprocessing industrythekeyissueforAucklandCouncilisto identifyasuitableprocessingtechnology,site(s)and anindustrypartner.Thereisafurtherconstraintinthat themosteconomicallyviableoptionsforprocessing organicsrequiretheuseoftwokeyrefusetransfer stationstoallowforconsolidationofmaterialfor moreefficienttransporttoaregionalfacility.Asthe AucklandCouncilownsasinglemajortransferstation, thesuccessofthisinitiativereliesontheAuckland Councilgainingbetteraccesstoand/oroperational controlofthecommercialtransferstationnetwork.
7.6-2 Organics
Organicwastemakesupoveraquarterofallwaste disposedtolandfillandoverhalfofthedomestic (household)wastestream. Itisassociatedwithleachateandtheproductionof methane,apotentgreenhousegas.Atpresentthere aregreenwastecompostingservicesfortheAuckland region.Facilitiescapableofprocessingregional-scale quantitiesofhouseholdand/orhospitalityfoodwaste areavailableoperatedbyEnvirofert. Whilethethreemajorlandfillsservingthe Aucklandregionareallsanitarylandfillswithhigh environmentalstandards,includinggasrecovery systems,itisgenerallyrecognisedthatalllandfillshave environmentalimpactsthatarenotfullymitigated. Thus,theseimpacts,suchasfugitivemethane emissionsaredrivingcurrentGovernmentpolicyto reduceorganicwaste,asdemonstratedbytheWMA andtheproposedEmissionsTradingScheme(ETS).In addition,organicmatterhasfargreaterbenefitswhen appliedtothesoilratherthanbeingsolelyusedforgas generationfromlandfill. Asdiscussedpreviously,undertheproposedETS, allmajorlandfillswillhaveliabilitiesandtherefore anticipatedcostincreasesarisingfromtheiremissions. Theremaybespecialallowancesoruniqueemissions factorstobedeterminedforsomelandfillsbased ontheircalculatedemissions.Thismayallowsome landfillstodemonstratealowergreenhouseemissions
Chapter 7 | 176
Itshouldbenotedthattherearealternativeviews regardingorganicsmaterialsinlandfills.Landfill operatorshavesuggestedthattheproductionof methaneisthemostcosteffeciveandefficient methodofdealingwithorganics.However,itcanbe arguedthatinclusionoforganicwasteinlandfills,even underabio-reactormodelwithenergycapture,isthe poorercousintodiversionandreuseoforganicwaste whenbothreducingtheharmfuleffectsofwasteand improvingefficiencyorresourceuseareconsidered. Methaneisapotentgreenhousegas,notaproductof organicwasteperse,butaproductoforganicwaste onlywhendisposedoftolandfillunderanaerobic conditions.Indeedlandfillgastoenergyprojectswill likelyresultinperverseoutcomes,suchasdiscouraging thediversionoforganicwastefromlandfillsand actuallyincreasingtheamountofmethanebeing released.Internationaltrendssupportincreased organicsdiversion(EClandfilldirectives,USlandfill bans).Aneconomicanalysis/lifecyleassessmentof diversiontechniquesallsupportdiversionoforganics andthisshouldbereflectedinclearguidanceinthe NewZealandWasteStrategy. Thisisakeyissueandislinkedtothesuccessofother keyoptionsdiscussedlaterinthisassessment.
changeandpromotewasteminimisationand beneficialuseofresources.Abylawcanbeusedto supportanorganicwastecollectionandprocessing serviceorasadeterenttodisposingorganicwaste tolandfill.Communityengagementandeducation programmescanalsoencouragewastediversionand organicwastespecificinitiatives.
7.6-3 Paper and packaging

TheAucklandregionhasmadesignificant improvementsinitsrecoveryofpackagingmaterial (paper,plastic,glass,aluminium,tin)overthelast decade,withalloftheformerTAsnowhavinga kerbsiderecyclingscheme,includingtwocouncildevelopedmajorMaterialsRecoveryFacilities(MRFs). Whiletherehavebeensignificantin-roadswith respecttodevelopingefficientrecyclingcollection andprocessingsystems,thesamecannotbesaid forreductionofthetotalvolumeofpackaging materials.Therehasbeenlittlequantifiableactionby thepackagingindustryitselftowardimplementing aregimetoreducetheproductionofpackaging materials,asdemonstratedbytherecently-expired PackagingAccord.Thismaybebecauseitisnotinthe commercialself-interestofthepackagingindustryto reducepackagingmassbalance. Severalimprovementsmaybepossibleforkerbside recycling,suchasthebroaderintroductionof commingledormobilerecyclingbincollection systems,whichgenerallyhaveahighercapacity andyieldandareknowntocontributetoasafer workingenvironmentforcollectionstaff.These systems,however,dorequiresophisticatedprocessing technologythatcanbeexpensivetoprovideandis pronetooperationaldifficultiesthatmaycausea devaluationofcertainmaterialsthataretobesoldon thecommoditiesmarket. Qualityoftheproductisacriticalissueandoptions tominimisecontamination,bothatthekerbsideand alsointheprocessingiskey.Theoptiontokeepboth glassandpaperseparatedoutfromtheothermixed recyclablesneedstobeconsidered.

Thecouncilintroductionofahouseholdorganics (e.g.kitchenwasteandgreenwaste)collectionand compostingsystemistheoptionthatwillhave thelargestimmediateimpactonreducingwaste tolandfillintheAucklandregion.Assuminga65 percentrecoverythiswoulddivertapproximately 80,000ormoretonnesandcontribute,initself, approximatelya6percentreductionintotalwaste tolandfill(comparedto2008levels)19 Thisoptionisreliantonaccesstorefusetransfer stationstobeeconomicallyviable Thisprojectisagoodcandidateforuseofwastelevy fundingandaprojectsuitableforapplicationtothe nationalWasteMinimisationFund Othertoolstoseekreductionoforganicwasteto landfillincludetheuseofbylawstoforcebehaviour
19
hisisequivalenttoanapproximate5%percapitawastereductionbasedona1.6%wastetonnagegrowthandpopulationgrowthrateappliedto T anassumedintroductionoftheservicein2011.Theactualpercapitalreductionofwastewillbebasedontheactualtonnageandpopulationgrowth occurringduringthisperiodandthecontributionofthisservicetothenationaltargetwillbesensitivetosuchgrowth.
Chapter 7 | 177
Theabilityoftwostreamkerbsidecollectionsystems (commingledsystemsupplementedwithaseparate collectionforglass)todeliverconsistentlyhigh levelsofproductqualitymeanstheyareinamore advantageouspositionwhensellingintomarketand willgenerallycommandhigherpricesandmaintain demandduringdownturnsinthemarket. Therefore,thesuccessofMaterialsRecoveryFacilities needstobeinvestigatedfurthertodeterminetheir longtermsustainabilityandviability.Initialstakeholder engagementwithindustryindicatesthatexisting infrastructurehasthecapacitytoprocessmaterialsfor thewholeregionwhetherthematerialsarepresented inacommingledorsourceseparatedfashion.The qualityoftheproductforsalecouldbeimprovedon throughoptimaluseofthefacilitiesavailable.There arealsooptionsforcontinuing,expandingand/or improvingthebehaviourchangeorientedprogrammes operatingintheregionthattargetconsumer behaviour. Inadditiontokerbsideservicespublicplacerecycling alsoneedstobeconsidered.Existingservicesshouldbe maintainedtobuildtheprofileofrecycling. Governmenthassignalledthatpackagingwasteis notconsideredaprioritywastestreamanditdoes notintendtocreatemandatoryproductstewardship schemes(suchascontainer/packagingdeposit schemes).Forthisreason,itisanticipatedthat demandforcouncil-fundedpackagingcollectionand recyclingschemeswillcontinuetogrow.TheAuckland CouncilshouldcontinuetolobbyGovernmenttosee mandatoryproducerresponsibilityschemesputin placethatwillhavethebenefitofreducingtheoverall productionofpackagingwaste. Ofallpackagingwastecategories,therearestill largequantitiesofpotentiallyrecoverablepaperand cardboardaswellasplasticsgoingtolandfillinthe Aucklandregion20.Thesewastestreamsrequirefurther investigationtodeterminehowtheymightbetargeted intermsofmarketdevelopment,economicincentive/ disincentiveschemesor,alternatively,bansoncertain materialstolandfill.

Recoveryofpackaging(10,000tonnesperannum) couldbeimprovedthroughavarietyofmeans, particularlybyimprovingtherecyclingservicese.g. throughprovisionof240LMRBforallareaswiththe exceptionofasmallnumberofareaswherebagsare deemedmoresuitableforoperationalpurposes(e.g. AucklandCBD)oranadditionalreceptacleforthe separatecollectionofglassbutthisrequiresfurther investigation Bansoncertainrecyclablematerialsbeingdisposed oftohouseholdwastecanbeconsideredandmay supportevengreaterrecovery,althoughtheyare difficulttoenforce Bansondisposalofpaperandpackagingmaterials orrequirementsforsource-separatedwasteisonly viableifthecouncilhascontrolofthewastevalue chainthroughthetransferandsortingnetwork Publicplacerecyclingmaintained.
7.6-4 C&D waste

Constructionanddemolitionwasteisthesingle largestwastestreamtolandfillandcleanfill.Thereis littledetailedinformationfortheAucklandregionon thespecifictypesofC&Dmaterialgoingtolandfill andcleanfilloritssource,althoughmaterialssuchas timber,rubble,concreteandplasterboardareknownto becommonmaterialsthathavepotentialforreuseor recycling. Currentlythereareanumberofsitesthatalready separatesomeC&Dwastematerialsfordiversionto cleanfillorforbeneficialreuse.Asthenationaltargets focusonreductionofwastetolandfill,thereisless scopeforfurtherreductionunlessmarketsforthese materialsareimproved. Thereisaneedtocreatenewmarketsorimproved marketsforsomeproductssuchasplasterboard.There arealsoissuesinrelationtoseparationoftreated versusuntreatedtimberthatimpactontheviability ofresourcerecoveryoperations.Someoftheseissues canbeaddressedeitheronindividualC&Dsitesor dealtwithatsortingfacilities.Thereisalsoatrend towardpromotingon-sitewasteseparationanddesign
20
RegionalsummaryofkerbsideSWAPdatarefertoUpdatesummaryofkerbsideSWAPs.xls(AppendixC).
Chapter 7 | 178
forwasteminimisationthroughprogrammessuchas REBRIandGreenStaraccreditationsystems. ThekeyopportunityfortheAucklandCouncilwith respecttotheminimisationofC&Dwasteisto increaseitspromotionoftheseexistingprogrammes toworkondevelopinglocalmarketsforproducts andtodevelopsuitablesortingfacilitiesaspartof theexistingRTSnetwork.Thiswouldrequiregaining accessand/oroperationalcontroloftheexisting commercialRTSnetworkasthiswouldbemoreviable incomparisontodevelopingnewstand-alonefacilities. Thiswouldalsohavesynergieswiththerecoveryof othermaterials,suchasorganics,packaging,inorganic andspecialwastes. TheAucklandCouncilshouldalsocontinuetolobbyfor themandatoryaccreditationofproductstewardship systemsforC&Dwastematerials.Unfortunately, theGovernmenthassignalledthatitintendstoonly promotevoluntaryproductstewardshipprogrammes atthistimeandthatitwillcontinuetorelyonexisting councilinfrastructure,whereitexists,forthecollection ofmanyproducts. Theenactmentofcleanfillregulationbythecouncil wouldbeaneffectivemeanstolimitcertainmaterials beingdisposedoftocleanfill,particularlywherethere arealternativesavailabletoenabletherecoveryofthe bannedmaterials.Inadditionthiswouldprovidethe councilwithaconduitforthecollectionofaccuratedata toassistmeasurementofitswasteminimisationtargets.
Abilitytocollectaccuratedataaboutthecomposition, sourceandvolumeofmaterialsgoingtocleanfill.
7.6-5 Hazardous waste

Thesafeandeffectivemanagementofhazardous wasteisastatutoryrequirementandhasstrong politicalsupportforbothpublichealthand environmentalreasons.Theexistingsystemrelieson theHazMobilemobilecollectionregime,withdrop-off centresprovidedatonlythreetransferstationsacross theregion,withallcostsbeingbornebythecouncil. Awidersystemofdrop-offcentresexistedpreviously intheregion,butwithcommercialindustryownership ofmosttransferstations,thiswasnolongerinthe interestsoftheprivatewasteindustryandsubsidising thesedrop-offstationswithoutdirectmanagement controlbecametooexpensive. TheHazMobilewasdesignedasanalternativebutitis alsoanexpensivesystemandisnotasconvenientfor usersorassafetomanageasadrop-offcentre.While theformerWaitakereCityCouncil,theformerRodney DistrictCouncilandARCprovidedadrop-offcentre forresidentsinareasnotservedbytheHazMobilea widenetworkofdropoffcentresattransfer/resource recoverycentresisneeded.Thiswouldbebest undertakenincooperationwiththedevelopmentofa resourcerecoverynetworkusingexistingcommercial transferstations.Thiswillrequireresourceconsent forthedevelopmentofappropriatehazardouswaste storagesitesbutwiththeadvantagethattheAuckland Councilcanseektomaximisediversionopportunities whilealsoprovidingwideraccessforresidentsand smallbusinesses. Theotherkeyoptiontobeaddressedistheneedfor continuedlobbyingbytheAucklandCounciltosee hazardouswastetypesnominatedaspriorityproducts formandatoryproductstewardshipschemes.National schemesarebelievedtobemoreefficientthan relyingonvoluntary,council-fundedmethods,suchas HazMobile.Thecouncilshouldalsopushforthedesign ofanyschemestobeheavilyreliantonproducers fundingthecostforrecoveryofthesewastestoensure theyareproperlyincentivisedtoreducethesewastes atthesource.

SeparationofC&Dwasteattransferstationshas thepotentialtoreduceover50,000tonnesof wastetolandfilleachyearbutthisrequiresfocuson marketdevelopment.Thisreductionwillalsorequire increasesinlandfill/disposalcosts(e.g.additional levies,ETScost-relatedincreases)tobeviable Itwillrequirepartnershipand/orcontractual arrangementwithindustrytointroducearesource recoverystrategyandmethodologyatallmajor commercialtransferstationsintheregion Reductioninthedisposalofinappropriatematerials tocleanfillse.g.contaminatedfillandnon-inert materials
Chapter 7 | 179

Hazardouswastemanagementisimportantin protectingpublichealth Thecouncilcollectionsofhouseholdhazardous wasteshouldcontinueuntilsuchtimeasthey arenolongerrequired,withdrop-offcentresthe preferredpolicy.Mobileservicesshouldberetained untilsufficientcoverageoftheAucklandregionis obtainedviadrop-offfacilities.Thisisreliantonthe councilaccesstocommercialtransferstationstobe viable Thecouncilcanplayanimportantroleinfacilitating developmentofproductstewardshipschemesand shouldlobbyformandatoryschemesforseveral hazardouswasteproducts.Theseschemeswillbe moreeffectiveinreducinghazardouswasteatsource thanbyofferingthecouncilcollections.
abilityforcontractedwastecollectorstomaximisethe diversionofreusableandrecoverablematerialisalso affected,withmuchofthematerialofanyvaluebeing damagedorremovedbyscavengers. TheformerWaitakereCityCouncilrecently implementedaservicetocollectmaterialfrom individualhouseholdsonanasneededbasis.The serviceallowsdiscardedmaterialtobesortedfor properrecycling,recoveryortreatmentbeforelandfill disposal.Thisdoesprovideanalternativethat,if proven,maychangepublicandpoliticalopinionand couldberolledoutacrosstheregion.FranklinCouncil alsohasapolluterpayssystemthatiscurrently workinginruralcentres. AnotherkeyissueisthattheGovernmenthassignalled itsintentionnottolegislateformandatoryproduct stewardshipschemesatthistime.Whileanumberof specialwastessuchaselectronicwaste,whiteware andtyresareknowntobeanissue,theGovernments currentpolicyistoseevoluntaryschemesdeveloped overthenextseveralyears.Thereforeitisnot anticipatedthattheseschemeswillhavethedesired wastereductionimpactascomparedtoamandatory requirement.TheAucklandCouncilshouldcontinue toprovidetheMfEandGovernmentwithinformation abouttheeffectsofthesewastes,thecostsof managingthemandthebenefitsofamandatory productstewardshipscheme.
7.6-6 Inorganic/special waste

Therearetworelatedwastestreamsdiscussed,which arehouseholdinorganicwastesandspecialwastes suchaswhiteware,tyres,electronicwasteandother irregularanddifficult-to-dispose-ofitems. CurrentlymostoftheformerTAsoperatesomeform ofregularinorganichardrefusecollection.Obviously theprovisionofinorganiccollectionservicesgoes againstthewasteminimisationphilosophy,asitallows easydisposalofmanyitemsthatmayhavepotential forrecycling,reuseorotherrecoverymethods.Todate therehasbeenpublicandpoliticaloppositiontothe removaloftheserates-fundedcollectionservicesand therearenowide-scaleproductstewardshipschemes inplaceyettodealwiththesewastes. Thetraditionalinorganiccollectionmodelcreates problemsforratepayers,industryandthecouncil. Thisisduetopilesofinorganicwastebeingunsightly andpotentiallydangerousandleadingtoscavenging (althoughsomeofthismaterialisrecycled/re-used). Therearesignificantcostsinmanagingandpolicing theservicesandcleaningupillegaldumpingthat occurasaby-productoftheservice.Thecostforthis serviceisdisproportionatetootherwasteservices.The

Replaceexistinginorganiccollectionservicesfor mostareaswithpolluterpaysalternatives Offeralternativeinorganicwastemanagement servicesinconjunctionwiththenetworkofRTSs/ RRCs Thecouncilcanplayanimportantroleinfacilitating developmentofproductstewardshipschemesand shouldlobbyformandatoryschemesforspecial wastessuchaswhitewareandelectronicgoods. Theseschemeswillbemoreeffectiveinreducing inorganicwasteatsourcethanbyofferingthe councilcollections.
Chapter 7 | 180
7.6-7 Household refuse collection funding and management options

Intheinterestsofpublichealthprotectionandin ensuringefficientandeffectivewastemanagement, thecouncilclearlyhasanobligationtoconsider optionsforthecollectionofresidualrefuse,particularly fromitsdomestichouseholds. Thereisvariationacrosstheregioninhowhousehold refusecollectionservicesarefundedanddelivered. Allformercouncils,exceptRodneyDistrict,provide someformofcouncil-contractedhouseholdrefuse collectionservice.Rodneyhasalicensedoperator systemthatiseffectivelyanopenmarketforrefuse collectors.Rodneyresidentshavetheirchoicein collectionsystemandprovider.Thedownsideofthis serviceisthatcontractorstendtocherrypickthe highestdensityareasandtheformerRodneyDistrict Councilhashadtoprovidethemwithasubsidyto collectfromtheruralareas.Therearealsoothercost implications. WhilemarketcompetitionhaskeptpricesinRodneys urbanisedareasalignedwiththatofneighbouring districts,unlikeothercouncilsthesurplusrevenue benefitsofoperatingapolluterpayssystemfall entirelytotheprivateoperators.IntheformerNorth ShoreandWaitakereareas,thepolluterpaysservice hasprovidedasignificantsurplusfromwhichother wasteservicesandminimisationinitiativeshavebeen funded.TheRodneyDistrictsystemdidnothavethis benefittoitscouncil. Thebalanceoftheformercouncilsintheregion chosetotakeadvantageoftheirbulkpurchasing powerandtoletacontractforcity-widecollection. Theadvantageisthatthecollectionisdeliveredbya singleoperatorthathastenderedcompetitivelyfor thecontract.Thisprovidesforefficiencyinpricingthe servicetoresidentsandalsoallowsforanefficient collectionroutingsystemthatavoidsmultiple providersworkingacrossthesameareas.
Whileallrefusecollectionservicesarecurrently weekly,someformercouncilareashaverefusebag collectionsandothershavewheeliebinsormobile garbagebins(MGBs).Therearealsoavarietyof fundingmechanisms,withoneformercouncilusing generalandtargetedratesfundedbagcollection, anotheratargetedrateMGBcollectionandthe restrelyingonuser-paysfees,throughprepaidbag schemes,topayforrefusecollection. Itisimportanttofirstconsideranyoverarching fundingpoliciesthatmaybesoughtbythenew council.TheNZWSsupportsuserpaysprinciples. Thisisbecauseofuser-paysfairnessinattributing costsmoredirectlytothosegeneratingwasteandits abilitytoprovideaneconomicdisincentivetowaste atahouseholdlevel,whichisakeyprincipleofthe NZWS.Intwoofthefourformercitycouncilsalone, polluterpaysrepresenteda23%wastereductionper household. Table7.6-1belowprovidesacomparisonofwaste collectedpercapitaintheformercitycouncilsasthey hadsimilarwastecollectionservicesandsystemsand theiradoptedfundingmechanisms.SimilarlyTable 7.6-2providesacomparisonofwastecollectedper capitaintheformerdistrictcouncilsandtheiradopted fundingmechanisms.
Table 7.6-1 Comparison of waste collection per capita in the former city council areas, and various adopted funding mechanisms
Former Council Total Polluter pays (No Rates) Some Polluter Pays (Some Rates) Total Rates (No Polluter pays) X X X X Waste Collection (Kg per capita) 175 186 142 134
Auckland Manukau North Shore Waitakere
Chapter 7 | 181
Table 7.6-2: Comparison of waste collection per capita in the former district council areas, and various adopted funding mechanisms
Former Council Total Polluter pays (No Rates) Some Polluter Pays (Some Rates) X X X Total Rates (No Polluter pays) Waste Collection (Kg per capita) 162 133 161
costsattributedtomanualcollections,suchasrefuse bagsandthatinjuryratesforcollectionstaffare significantlylowerwhenusinganautomatedwastebin (MGB)collectionmethod.xlii OECDresearchalsoshowsalinkbetweenwaste collectionfrequencyandoutputs.Somecouncilsin NewZealandaremovingtoward3streamsystems forrefuse,recyclingandorganicscollections.By removingtheorganiccomponentofthewastestream, thisallowsforcollectionfrequencytobereducedto fortnightlyandfurtherincentivisesthediversionof wastetorecyclingorcomposting.Thisissueshould, however,befurtherconsideredinrelationshipto anychangestotheoverallwastecollectionsystem, particularlyifanorganic/kitchenwastecollection serviceistobeintroducedintheregion. Theissuesrelatedtomodeofdeliveryforrefuse collectionneedtobeconsideredfurtherfollowing decisionsregardingthepreferredfundingpolicyfor thenewAucklandCouncil,becausethiswillultimately influencethesystemdesign.Somecommunities havedevelopedlongheldexpectationsabouthow refusecollectionservicesshouldbedelivered,and engagementwiththecommunityandconsultation regardinganychangestothestatusquowillbe necessary. Thereare,atthetimeofwriting,multiplerefuse collectioncontractswithvaryingexpirydates.A recommendedactionforthenewWMMPistoconduct amoredetailedoperationalreviewoftherefuse collectionoptions.Itistheviewthatintegration andgreaterserviceconsistencywilloccuroveran approximatelythreeyeartimeframefollowing amalgamation.Theoperationalreviewshouldfocuson seekingefficienciesandsynergiesbetweencollection systemsaswellasconsideringthewidersocialand environmentalcostsandbenefits.Thistimeframe willalsoallowfordecisionstobemaderegardingthe introductionofakitchenwastecollectionserviceand/ orchangestotherecyclingservices.
Papakura Franklin Rodney
Itisrecognisedthatcurrentlythereisadifficultyin providingafulluser-payssystemwhensupplying refuseMGBsduetolackofpaybyweighttechnology. Theremay,however,besomeoptionsthatallow forgreatertransparency,suchasusingatargeted ratefundingmechanism,possiblyincombination withapaybyliftcharge,forexample.Thereis alsotheoptionofprovidingmultiplebinsizeswith smallrefusebinsbeingincentivisedoverlargerbins throughdisproportionatelylowerpricingmechanism. Theseoptionsshouldbeexploredfurtherasexisting contractsarestreamlinedoverthenextthreeyear period. Anadvantageofaratesfundedortargetedrates fundedcollection(eitherfullorpartial)isthatthey avoidorminimisetheriskofcommercialwaste industrycompetition,whichfrequentlyoccursin areaswherethereareuser-paysprepaidbagsystems. Priceundercuttingbywasteoperatorscanundermine theeconomicefficiencyofacouncil-contracted collection,with,inmanycircumstances,acouncils owncontractorcompetingagainstthem,sellingeither MGBcollectionsorcheaperbagsinthesamecity.An exclusivearealicensingsystemasdiscussedpreviously inthisassessmentwillminimisethisriskandallowfor apolluterpayssystemtooperate. Anotherkeyconsiderationinthedesignofanywaste collectionsystemshouldbehealthandsafety.This isparticularlytruewhenconsideringthereceptacle type.RecentresearchundertakenbytheWasteMINZ IndustryHealthandSafetySectorGroupclearly demonstratesthattherearehigherhealthandsafety
Chapter 7 | 182

Refusecollectionisconductedbythecouncilin theinterestsofensuringpublichealthisprotected andtoimprovetheoverallefficiencyofcollection services Thecouncilshouldconductanoperationalreview ofrefusecollectionoptionsfollowingitsdecisionon fundingpolicy.Thisreviewwillfocusonthemodeof deliveryandfundingmechanisminconsiderationof otherhouseholdkerbsideserviceswiththeviewto introducingmoreconsistentservicesovera3+year timeframe Atthetimeofreplacementofcurrentrefuse contracts,itwillbeimportanttoconsiderandtake accountofpossibleintroductionofhouseholdfood andgardenwastecollectionandanychangesto recyclingcollection.Thelaunchoftheseservicesmay enableamovetofortnightlycollectionofresidual refuse,ratherthanthecurrentweeklyservice
majorurbanareasinNewZealandmaintainsome levelofdirectinvolvementthroughownership ofcommerciallandfills.Thislackofinvolvement meansthatthecouncilissubjecttoriskfromprice fluctuationsandhaslittle,ifany,abilitytoinfluence wasteminimisationatlandfill.Clearly,thecommercial wasteindustrydoesnothavethesameresponsibility forreducingwastetolandfillasdoesthecouncil,in thattheyarenotrequiredtopromoteefficientand effectivewastemanagementandminimisationin theirregion,asareterritorialauthoritiesunderthe WMA2008. Ownershipstakeinlandfillsorsomeformof partnershipwithlandfillownersallowsforwaste minimisationprinciplestobeappliedatlandfillsuch asthroughincreasedresourcerecoveryactivity. Ownershiporcontroloflandfillsalsoallowsfor councilstoutilisetheirstatutorypowersunderthe LGA2002andtheWMA2008tointroducelocal economicdisincentivestowaste.Thecouncilcan thenutilisethesurplusfundingtoprovidewaste minimisationservices,assumingsomelevelof operationaland/orpricingcontroloflandfillisa keymethodtowardpromotingthecouncilswaste minimisationobjectives. Asidefromdevelopingitsownlandfill,thecouncilcan alsoconsidersomelevelofpartnershipwithindustry, suchaspurchasingapartownershipstakeinexisting landfillsorpursuingotherrelationshipsthatprovides thecouncilgreateraccessandcontrolofthewaste stream. Anotheroptionconsideredispayingthelandfill(and transferstation)ownerstomeetwasteminimisation objectivesandtargetsbutasthecouncilwouldhave nofinancialshareinthebenefits,thismethodislikely tobetooexpensivetobefeasible.Oralternatively wasteminimisationtargetscouldbesetapartof termsandconditionsofalicencetooperateafacility. Licensingprovisionswouldbeenactedthroughabylaw. Theseissuesregardingcontrolofthewastestreamare heavilyintertwinedwiththecouncilsabilitytodeliver anumberofwasteminimisationoptionsefficiently andeffectively.
7.6-8 Residual waste disposal options

Thisassessmenthasnotcomparedwastedisposal technologies,suchaslandfillversusincinerationor mechanicalbiologicaltreatmentetc.Researchhas beenconductedbysomeoftheindividualformerTAs regardingdifferentdisposalmethodsandlandfillinghas beenfoundtobethemostenvironmentallysoundand mostcost-effectivedisposalmethodinthemedium termwhilethereissufficientcapacityforlandfill disposal.Thisissueshouldhoweverbereconsidered ateachWMMPreview,astheremaybelegislative changesovertimethatcreateincentivesforlandfill alternatives. Oneofthekeyissuesbeingconsideredisthedegree ofthecouncilinvolvementinwastedisposal.Currently, wastedisposalislargelyreliantonthecommercial wasteindustry,withtheviewthattheprivatemarket willcontinuetoprovideforthedemandforthis essentialservice.Apartfrompartownershipstakein theWhitfordLandfillandthesmallandisolatedClaris LandfillonGreatBarrierIsland,thereisnootherdirect involvementorownershipinlandfillsbythecouncil. TheAucklandsituationisunique,inthatallother
Chapter 7 | 183
Asoutlinedinsection7.5,accesstothewastevalue chainiscrucial.Thisassessmenthasindicatedthat thecouncildoesnotneedtofundtheexpenseor riskinvolvedindirectownershipoflandfills,buthas thepotentialopportunitytogainthisaccessatthe pointoftransferthroughtheexistingtransferstation network.

Thecouncilcaninfluencewastereductiontolandfill throughregulatione.g.abylawlicensingsystem forfacilitieswithtermsandconditionsthatrequire measurablewastereductionprogress Thecouncilhasanumberofoptionsforgaining furthercontroloflandfills,throughdevelopmentof anewlandfillorthroughpartnershipsorcontractual arrangementsorwithexistinglandfillowners. Developmentofnewlandfillsortakinganownership stakeinexistinglandfillsisconsideredtobetoo expensiveanoptiontobeviable Directinterestorinvolvementinlandfillsis unnecessaryifthecouncilentersintoacommercial arrangementwithoneormoreofthetwomain landfillandtransferstationnetworkownersto provideexclusivewastedisposalrightsinexchange foroperationalcontrolofexistingtransferstations Investigatepriceincreasesatthecouncilcontrolled transferstationstoreflecttrueeconomic/ environmentalcostofwastedisposal
Manyofthekeyoptionsrelyonhavingaccess tosorting,consolidationandefficienttransport facilitiestobeeconomicallyviable.Thesekeyoptions includetheintroductionofadomesticorganicwaste collectionserviceandimplementingimprovedresource recoveryoperationsatalltransferstationsfordiverting furtherrecyclables,inorganic,specialandC&Dwastes. Withoutoperationalcontroloftheresourcerecovery networkoftransferstations,otheroptionssuchas disposalbansanduseofeconomicdisincentivegate pricingcannotbeputinplace. Bycombiningthekeyoptions,thecouncilhas theabilitytoachievethehighestlevelofwaste minimisation(intherangeof200,000to300,000 tonnesperannum).Ifcombinedwithotheroptions, includingpromotingbehaviourchange,implementing bansonsomewastematerialstolandfillandcontinued lobbyingfortheintroductionofmandatoryproduct stewardshipschemes,thepreliminaryproposedcouncil targetof20percentreductionofwastetolandfill(per capita)isachievable. Furthermoreitisevidentfrominitialinvestigations thattransportefficiencieswillrealisesubstantial economicsavingsinadditiontoenvironmentalsavings equivalentto66,000-81,000tonnesofCO2. Withoutcontrolofthewastestreamatacrucialstage ofthevaluechain,suchasthroughthetransferstation network,itishighlyunlikelythattheAucklandregion canmeetitswastemanagementandminimisation objectivesandtargetforwastereductionand contributefullytotheintentoftheNZWS.
7.7 Summary of options assessment

Whilelegallyrequiredtoencourageefficientand effectivewastemanagementandminimisationin itsdistrict,thecounciliscurrentlyconstrainedin implementingmanyoftheregionsbiggestwaste minimisationopportunities.
Chapter 7 | 184
Preferredoptionstomeet wasteminimisationtargets
Chapter 7. Options Assessment
Chapter 8 | 185
Preferred options to meet waste minimisation targets

Thefollowingfigure8.1-1illustratestheconnection betweenthecouncilskeywastemanagementand minimisationobjectivesandthepreferredoptions (bothprimaryandsupporting)thathavebeenchosen
Figure 8.1 1 The councils objectives and supporting options
tosupporttheirachievement.Thecriticalaction requiredtoenabletheimplementationoftheoptions isdepictedwiththeoptionsdepictedinthetable thatfollowsit.
Key Objectives
Reduction ofwasteto landfill
Reductionof harmfrom waste
Adherenceto the hierarchy ofwaste
Deliveryofmostcosteffectiveandefficient solutiontomeetWMAandNZWSwhile: -maximisingdiversion -minimisingcosttoratepayers
Strategic option 3: Influenceoverwasteinfrastructure(managementmodel7)

aisethecostofdisposal(R1) R anorganicwastetolandfill(O3) B EnhancepackagingdesigncontrolsandEPR(P4) Marketing/Behaviourchangecampaign(P7) Businessassistancetoreduce/reuse/recycle(C5) Promotehomecomposting(O2) Businessassistancetoreduce/reuse/recycle(C5) Banpackagingtolandfill(P6) PromoteREBRIandGreenstartoC&Dsector(C3)
Lobbyforcontainerdepositlegislation(P5) Supportsecondhandcharities(S4)
Enactcleanfilllicensingregulation(C2)
Implementorganicwastecollection(O1) ImplementexpandedMRBfortnightlycollection(P1) InvestigateoptionsforseparateKCRmixedrecycling&glass(P2) Investigateexpandingrecyclablerange(P3) Continueexistingpublicplacerecycling(PPR),investigateexpansionofPPR(P8) DevelopRRCwithC&Drecoveryfacilities(C1) Extendproducerresponsibility(C4) promoteproductstewardship/EPRschemes(H3) DevelopRRCwithspecialwasterecoveryfacilities(S2) Regionalbylawforillegaldumpingandlitter(L1) Promotemarketdevelopmentoforganics(O4) educethepotentialforenvironmental R harmcausedbyhazardouswaste(T1) arketing/Behaviourchange M hazardouswaste(H4) roducerstewardshipofhazardous P waste(S3) nvestigate/implement I alternativeinorganicwaste collectionmethods(S1) azardousWasteatRRP/ H RTS(H1) serpayspolicyfor U householdrefuse(F1) ouncilinfluenceover C landfills(R1) egionalbehaviourchange R programmesBeatidykiwi orsimilar
Waste hierarchy
Reduction Re-use
The higher up the Waste hierarchy pyramid, the more: asteeducationisa W cornerstoneinbuildingthe communitiesknowledge, understandingandskillsinwaste minimisationandrecycling upportcouncilanddelivery S ofitswasteservicesand operations eopleneedtobeprovidedwith P knowledgeandskillstotake stepstoavoidorreducewaste onsistentlyactaccordingto C thewastehierarchy ncouragementandsupport E isneededforpeopletotake personalresponsibilityfor theirwaste
Recycling Recovery
Treatment Disposal
Key
Minimiseharm fromdisposalof waste
PrimaryOptions(K1) SupplementaryOptions(S1) R Residualwaste O Organics P Packaging C Cleanfill/C&Dwaste H Hazardouswaste T Treatment S Specialwaste L Legislation/Regulation F Funding
Chapter 8. Preferred options to meet waste minimisation targets
Chapter 8 | 186
Thefollowingpreferredoptions(Table8.1-1)havebeendevelopedfromthefullsetofwasteoptionswithinthe WasteAssessment(referChapter7).Thistableidentifiestheprimaryoptionsandthosethatsupportthem.The choiceofoptionshasbeenmadebasedonthekeyobjectivesandmeetinglegislativeandpolicydrivers.

Table 8.1-1 Preferred options
Influence over waste infrastructure Action

Strategic Option 3 with Management Model 7: Gain operational/ administrative influence/ Control of Infrastructure greater degree of influence and access to the waste value chain to enable separation and resource recovery prior to land filling
Detail/Description
InfluenceEnablingoption hisoptionisrequiredforsuccessful T deliveryofmanyofthewastestream focusedmanagementandminimisation optionsseebelow xtendwastelicensingandreporting E requirementstoallareaswithinregion nvestigateandimplementoptions I toworkwithwasteindustrytogain influencetowastestreampriorto disposal urthertestandvalidatemethodologies F (suchasregulation,legislativechange anddirectaction),toachieveinfluence througharigorousanalyticalprocess involvingeconomicandcommercial analysisbeforeproceedingdownanyof the paths
Implementation Funding timeframe Year Source

2012-2015 Usercharges, wastelevyand ratesfunding
Option
R1. The council influence over Refuse Transfer Stations (Waste Disposal) Raise the cost of disposing of waste at all refuse transfer stations to promote waste minimisation e.g. locally applied disincentive to waste
Detail/Description
btaingreaterdegreeofinfluence O indisposaloptionsthroughamix ofmethodologiesregulationand/or legislativechangeand/orcontractual arrangementswithRTS/landfillowners hemethodologiestoachieveinfluence T needtobetestedandvalidatedthrough arigorousanalyticalprocessinvolving economicandcommercialanalysis beforeproceedingdownanyofthe paths eparatedisposalcontracts S

2012-2015 Usercharges, ratesfunding
Chapter 8 | 187
Option
F2. Polluter Pays Policy
Detail/Description

Usercharges
eviewcurrentfundingarrangements From2012 R acrossthecouncilwhicharecurrentlya mixofpolluterpaysandratesfunding hepolluterpaysprincipleaims T totransfertheresponsibilityand costofdealingwithwastefrom localgovernmenttothosewho actuallygeneratethewaste.Itwill ensurefairnessandpromotewaste minimisationandrecyclingbyrewarding thosewhoreducewaste,whilstensuring thosewhochoosetoplacemorewaste outforcollectionpaythefullcost olluterpayswastesystemswill P besupportedbyarangeofcouncil wasteservicestoensureresidentsand ratepayerscanminimisewastetoavoid additionalcosts
PrimaryC&Dwasteoption C1. Develop Resource Recovery Parks/ evelopmentoflargescaleresource D network concept recoveryfacilitiessupportedbya with C&D recovery regionalnetworkofC&Dreceiving facilities for facilitiesattransferstations.Alsolink recovered C&D waste intoexistingprivateoperations including enhanced lignedwithenablinginfluenceoption A waste exchanges existingfacilitiesutilised
2013
Wastelevy, submission tocentral governments Waste Minimisation Fund
Chapter 8 | 188
Option
O1. Implement a council organic waste collection and processing system. This can be council run, or through contract and/or partnership with commercial enterprise: O1a. Commingled organic collection (food and greenwaste) crate/bin If intention is to go to market then only other viable option likely to be O1b. Separate kerbside collection (food) crate or bin with greenwaste collected by private collectors P1.
Detail/Description
Primaryorganicswasteoption nvestigateorganicsprocessingoptions I withwasteindustry rovidekerbsidecollectionoforganics P

2013 Ratesfunded ifcouncil operated, wastelevy funding, potential submission forfundsfrom theWaste Minimisation Fund
Implement the Primarypackagingoption expanded use of MRB rovisionof240LMRBrecyclingto P fortnightly recycling allareaswithinAucklandregion,with collection to exceptionofasmallnumberofareas replace and expand wherebagsdeemedmoresuitablefor the recycling bag/ operationalpurposes(e.g.Auckland bin collections in CBD) some parts of the region (e.g. Papakura, Rodney)
2012onwardsas currentrecycling contractsexpire
Ratesfunding and/orwaste levy
Chapter 8 | 189
Option
P2. Investigate options for the collection of KCR mixed recycling services with glass collected separately (Variation by addition of glass collection to P1 above) H1. Provide hazardous waste services at Resource Recovery Park/RTS network
Detail/Description
rovisionofanAdditionalMRB P forkerbsideglasscollectionifno additionalcosttothecouncil SupportsOptionP1

2013 Only implemented ifnoadditional cost to the councilover co-mingled option. Ratesfunding domestic/ usercharges (business)
Primaryhazardouswasteoption rovisionofsuitabledropofffacilities P attransferstationsthroughoutthe region ancelHazmobileservice(while C effectiveitisveryexpensive)
2012
S1.
Investigate and implement options for alternative inorganic waste collection method, toward maximising diversion rates e.g. similar to Waitakere City by request collection service Raise the cost of disposing of waste at all refuse transfer stations to promote waste minimisation e.g. locally applied disincentive to waste
Primaryinorganicwasteoption eplaceexistinginorganiccollection R schemesformostareaswithpolluter paysalternatives,ascurrentservices arecontrarytoaimsandintentof WMA fferalternativeserviceinconjunction O withnetworkofRTSs/RRCs
2012
Usercharges
R2.
nvestigatepriceincreasesatthe I councilcontrolledtransferstationsto reflecttrueeconomic/environmental costofwaste SupportsOptionI7
2012
Usercharges
Chapter 8 | 190
Supporting Options
O2 . Continue promoting home composting and reduction of green and food waste
Detail/Description

Wastelevy funding/rates funded
Provisionofinformation,education 2012 andworkshopsonhomecomposting methods.Tocaterforthosethatmaynot usethecouncilorganicswastecollection service SupportsOptionO1 rovideeducation,information P andworkshopstoresidentsand informationtobusinesses nvestigateprovisionofsubsidiesona I rangeofcompostingbins
O3 . Ban (or restriction) on some organic waste to landfill (e.g. greenwaste or food waste) implemented through regulation/ bylaw)
raftandadoptthecouncilbylaw D prohibitingdisposalofcertainorganic wastestolandfillsortransferstations withintheAucklandregion onsiderbylawthatrestrictsplacement C oforganicwasteinhouseholdwasteif alternativeservicesareprovided SupportsOptionO1
2014
Operational enforcement costs, elementscan berecovered through licensingfees, ratesfunding Wastelevy
O4. Promote market development for the processed organics (e.g. compost) industry
Thecouncilfacilitationandpromotionof 2012onwards processedorganicsproducts increasedfocusleading uptoO1development orkwithorganicwasteindustry W sectortofacilitateandprovidemarkets fororganicsproducts acilitateprocurementoforganics F productsintothecouncilactivitiese.g. parksmaintenance SupportsOptionO1
P3.
Investigate rovisionoffullrangeofrecycling P expanding range of optionstoallresidents recyclables collected SupportsOptionP1 through kerbside, rural mobile recycling centres and refuse transfer stations Enhance packaging design controls and extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging materials lobbying role Governmentresponsibilitybutcanbe supportedbythecouncil hecouncilroletolobbycentral T government,industrybodies SupportsOptionP1
2012onwardsas currentrecycling contractsexpire
Wastelevy, rates,revenue fromproducts
P4.
2012
Wastelevy
Chapter 8 | 191
Supporting Options
P5. Introduce bans (or restriction) on recyclable packaging material to landfill such as through a regional bylaw (e.g. paper/cardboard , recyclables ban in household waste or ban on unsorted waste at transfer stations) Marketing/behaviour change campaign to promote increased recycling and/or smart shopping toward reducing packaging consumption Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) lobbying role
Detail/Description
Thecouncilbylawprohibitingdisposal ofcertainpackagingwastestolandfills ortransferstationswithintheAuckland regioncoststomonitorandenforce nvestigate,draftandadoptthecouncil I bylawprohibitingdisposalofrecyclable packagingwastestolandfillsortransfer stationswithintheAucklandregion onsiderbylawrestrictingplacement C ofpackagingwasteinhouseholdwaste ifalternativeservicesareprovided SupportsOptionP1 Educationalmaterials/campaigns, marketingmaterialforresidentsand ratepayers,includingbusinessoptions evelopmentandprovisionof D marketing,educationandbehaviour changeprogrammesandinitiativesfor households,schoolsandbusiness SupportsOptionP1 Governmentresponsibilitybutcanbe supportedbythecouncil hecouncillobbycentralgovernment T forCDL,promotethecouncil involvementindevelopingsolutions forCDLimplementation/increased recyclingrates SupportsOptionP1

2014 Licencefees, ratesfunding
P6.
2012
Wastelevy
P7.
2012
Wastelevy Ifintroduced wouldreduce thecouncil recyclable collections costs.
P8.
Public place recycling Continuesupportforpublicplace recyclinginfrastructureinstreetscapes undingofongoingmaintenance F contractsbypublicplacerecycling assetowners xpandnumberofandlocationof E publicplacerecyclingbins
2012
Wastelevy, ratesfunding
C2. Enact cleanfill licensing regulation
nvestigate,draftandadoptthecouncil 2012 I bylawprohibitingdisposalofcertain C&Dwastestolandfillsortransfer stationswithintheAucklandregion. SupportsOptionC1
Licensingfees, ratesfunding
Chapter 8 | 192
Supporting Options
C3. Promote REBRI and Greenstar programmes to C&D sector (waste plans, source separation, design plans)
Detail/Description

Wastelevy
Furtherbusinessassistancethrough 2012 workshopsorprovisionofinformation, guidancemadeavailableatearlystageby plannersregardingwasteplans(similar totheformerAucklandandManukau citieswasteplanningadviceformulti-use tenanciesandcommercialbuildings). Adoptionofwasteplanningcriteriaat planningstagethroughoutregion. ontinueorimplementandmonitor C wastestoragerequirementsaspartof planningprocess romoteprogrammestoindustryand P constructionsectorgroups. SupportsOptionC1
C4. Extended producer responsibility promote product stewardship scheme development for C&D products (e.g. plasterboard etc) lobbying role C5. Business assistance for reduction, reuse/ recycling
Thecouncilinformationandfacilitation towardspromotingproductstewardship schemes.Advocacyroletolobbycentral governmentforproductstewardshipin theC&Dwastesector SupportsOptionC1
2012
Wastelevy
Furtherbusinessassistancethroughnew orexistingschemese.g.Ecobizorsimilar ontinueEcobizprogrammefor C businesses nvestigatespecificwasteminimisation I programmesinpartnershipwith businessgroupsororganisationse.g. mainstreets roducemarketing,educational P andbehaviourchangematerialfor businesses. SupportsOptionC1
2012
Wastelevy
H2. Promote existing commercial and hazardous waste recycling/re-use schemes
Promotionoftheseschemestoexisting operators SupportsOptionH1
2012
WasteLevy
Chapter 8 | 193
Supporting Options
H3. Promote product stewardship/EPR schemes for some products
Detail/Description

Wastelevy
dvocateparticularproductstewardship 2012 A schemes obbycentralgovernmentforendorsed L alternatives acilitationroleforlocalgovernment F SupportsOptionH1
H4. Marketing/behaviour mplementthecouncilinitiativesto I 2012 change campaign to promoteminimisationofhazardous promote reduction of wastethrougheducationandmarketing hazardous waste and SupportsOptionsH1 to ensure safe discard S2. Develop Resource Recovery Parks/ network concept with special waste recovery facilities tiliseRTSandRRCnetworktotake U 2012 inorganicandspecialwastesfromthose thatarenoteligiblefordohousehold servicese.g.smallbusinessunitsthat arenotregardedasdomesticusers InconjunctionwithOptionS1 S3. 2012 Market and/or ducationandmarketingmaterials, E councilfacilitationandinvolvement product stewardship scheme development rovisionofwasteexchange/RENEW P for reuse/recycling andnewschemestofacilitateindustry of recovered special involvementinwastere-use waste including SupportsOptionsS1andS2 enhanced waste exchanges Support/promote hecouncilfacilitationandpromotion T second hand charities ofbusinessesandorganisationsthat and community supportorareengagedinre-useor businesses that recoveryprogrammes recover and trade SupportsOptionsS1andS2 re-useable material Consistent regional bylaw that addresses illegal dumping and litter and sees this function combined across region into solid waste function 2012
Wastelevy
Usercharges, wastelevy, ratesfunding
Wastelevy
S4.
Wastelevy
L1.
mplementthecouncilbylaw I 2012 regulatingillegaldumpingandlittering withintheAucklandregion ylawtobeconsistentwithand B supportingaimsandintentofthe WWWMP ackupwitheffectiveeducationand B enforcement ontinuedfundingandprovisionofBe 2012 C aTidyKiwiorsimilarprogramme
Licensingfees, wastelevy, ratesfunding
L2.
Continue and/or improve regional behaviour change programme Be a tidy kiwi or other similar programme
Wastelevy, ratesfunding
Chapter 9 | 194
Statementsofproposal
Chapter9. Statements of proposal
Chapter 9 | 195
Statements of proposal
ThecouncilproposesthatitsinitialWaste ManagementandMinimisationPlanisforasix yearterm.Itisrecommendedthatfuturereviews oftheWMMPcoincidewiththeLTCCPtimeframe. Thepreferredoptions,asoutlinedinchapter8,are recommendedtoassisttheAucklandCouncilmeet futuredemand(overthenexttenyears)forwaste managementandminimisationservices.Itisexpected thattheimplementationoftheseoptionswillmeet forecastdemandforservicesaswellassupportthe councilsgoalsandobjectivesforwastemanagement andminimisation.Thesegoalsandobjectiveswillbe confirmedaspartofthedevelopmentandadoption oftheWasteManagementandMinimisationPlan during2010-2012.
Chapter9. Statements of proposal
Chapter 10 | 196
Statementofpublichealth protection
10
Chapter10. Statement of public health protection
Chapter 10 | 197
Statements of public health protection

Thewiderangeofwasteservicesavailableinthe Aucklandregionasprovidedbythecouncilorby privateindustry(seechapter4)willensurethatpublic healthisadequatelyprotectedinthefuture.Auckland hasaccessforatleast20yearsormoretolandfills thatmeetnationallegislativerequirements. Servicesforachievingwasteminimisationwillbe improvedon,andalternativestolandfillconsidered, inthelongerterm,andwillbeincorporatedinto theAucklandCouncilWasteManagementand MinimisationPlan. Thereisadequateaccesstothecouncilandprivate refuse,hazardouswasteandillegaldumping/ littercollectionservices,althoughfurtherservice improvementsandwasteminimisationisachievable. [Note:MedicalOfficerofHealthreviewhasbeen addedintoAppendixF.]
Chapter 10 | 198
References
11
Appendix | 199
References
i
WasteManagementInstituteofNewZealand.2007.Health and Safety Issues in the Solid Waste and Recoverable Resources Industry, WasteManagementInstituteofNewZealand,Auckland. MorrisonLowandAssociates.2007.Discussion Report Regional Strategic Priorities for Waste [Draft]. MinistryfortheEnvironment,Environment 2010 Strategy MinistryfortheEnvironment.2009.Waste Management and Minimisation Planning: Guidance for Territorial Authorities.Wellington, MinistryfortheEnvironment Wilson,D.,Middleton,B.,Purchas,C.andCrowcroft,G.(2009).PreparedbyEunomiaResearch&ConsultingLtd,WasteNotConsultingLtd,Sinclair KnightMerzfortheformerAucklandRegionalCouncil.the former Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2009-107.Auckland,theformer AucklandRegionalCouncil. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. StatisticsNewZealand.Subnationalpopulationestimatesat30June1996-2009. Website:http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/access-data/tables/subnational-pop-estimates.aspxaccessed21/12/2009 Ibid. StatisticsNewZealand,gdp-mar09-tables[1]:Table6.1SummaryStatisticsSeriesref:SNCA.S1RBO1(GDPin 1995/96prices), FromdataprovidedfromseveralterritorialauthoritiesthatownlandfillsincludingWhangareiDistrictandHuttCityCouncils. MinistryfortheEnvironment.2009.Waste Minimisation in New Zealand A discussion document from the Ministry for the Environment. Wilsonetal.2009. WasteNotConsulting.2008.SolidWasteAuditsfortheMinistryfortheEnvironmentWasteDataProgramme2007/08. Wellington:MinistryfortheEnvironment. Availablebywebsite:http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/solid-waste-audits-2007-2008/index.htmlAccessed:14January2009. Ibid. AgfirstConsultantsEnvironmentalLimited.1998.Auckland Waste Analysis, 1997: Auckland Region,Lincoln,NewZealand. Wilsonet al.2009. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. BioenergyAssociationofNewZealandinassociationwithEECAandMED.2008.Heat Plant in New Zealand. Availablefordownloadfromhttp://www.bioenergy.org.nz/publications.asp.Accessed21/12/2009 TheformerAucklandRegionalCouncil.2009.Hazardous Waste Programme Annual Report 2008-2009 [Draft],Auckland,theformerAuckland RegionalCouncil. SKM.2008.Waste Facilities Survey Methodology and Summary of Results,preparedfortheMinistryfortheEnvironment,unpublished. Wilsonet al. 2009. StatisticsNewZealand.Subnationalpopulationestimatesat30June1996-2009(updated27/10/2009). Availableat:http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/access-data/tables/subnational-pop-estimates.aspxAccessed21/12/2009. PersonalcommunicationwithDeborahMorley,ProjectPlannerBiosolids,WatercareServicesLimited. StatisticsNewZealand.SubnationalPopulationProjections:2006(base).(Mediumprojection2008). Availableat:http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/information-releases/subnational-population-projections.aspx.Accessed21/12/2009. TheformerWaitakereCityCouncil.2008.Business and Economy Waitakere 1998-2008,Henderson,theformerWaitakereCityCouncil Source:GSJBWResearch(GoldmanSachsJBWereResearch) MinistryfortheEnvironment.2009.New Zealand Waste Strategy [Draft]. MorrisonLowandAssociates.2007.Discussion Report Regional Strategic Priorities for Waste [Draft]. Wilsonet al.2009. NewZealandWaterandWasteAssociation.2003.Guidelines for safe application of biosolids to land in New Zealand. Availableat:http://www.waternz.org.nz/bookshop.html#guidelines.Accessed:21/12/2009 TasmanDistrictCouncil.2004.Waste Management Plan 2004,Richmond,TasmanDistrictCouncilandNelsonCityCouncil,2005. Waste Management Plan 2005,Nelson,NelsonDistrictCouncil.
ii
iii iv
vi vii viii ix
xi
xii
xiii xiv xv
xvi xvii
xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii xxix xxx
OECD.2002.Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries.OECDPublishing.
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii xxxiv xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
TimaruDistrictCouncil.2009.2009-19 LTCCP,Timaru,TimaruDistrictCouncilandTimaruDistrictCouncil.2005.Waste Management Plan 2005, Timaru,TimaruDistrictCouncil. Christianson,M.PresentationtoWasteMINZ2009.Availablefrom:http://wasteminz.org.nz/member/conferencepapers/2009/conference/ Wednesday/Session%20Four/Rolling%20up%20Waste/Mark%20Christison.pdf MorrisonLowandAssociates.June2009.Investigation into Options for Beneficial Processing of Food Waste,workingdraftpreparedfortheOrganic WasteWorkingGroup,unpublished. WasteNotConsulting.2009.Food & Beverage Sector Organic Waste Survey,preparedforEnterprisingManukau,Food&BeverageSectorGroupand SustainableManagementFund,unpublished. MorrisonLowandAssociates.November2009.Position Report An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs. automated waste collections [Draft].PreparedforWasteMINZHealthandSafetySectorGroup,unpublished.
xxxix
xl
xli
xlii
Appendix.

Getting Auckland's Waste Sorted - AC-0450 Waste Assessment

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Getting Auckland's Waste Sorted - AC-0450 Waste Assessment

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Auckland Council waste assessment

(Produced under the auspices of the ATA) Notified October 2011

Find out more: phone 09 301 0101 or visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Legislative and strategic context

The waste problem

Future planning framework

183 193 195

131 133 135 178

Footer typeface is Bliss light 7.5pt size. Leading is 8pt

Chapter 01 Bliss light. Document header, Bliss medium 7.5pt

Figure 1.1-1 Waste management planning process

Waste Management Plan Process

Waste Stream/Waste Hierarchy Options Service delivery Policy

Waste Management & Minimisation Plan

Part B Action Plan

Management Models Corresponding to the Strategic Direction Options

The council provides licence to operators

Landfill & RTS exclusive contract with industry

1 Licence Note: Contractors specify the types of services provided.

Kerbside collection services

Private contractors provide all collection services.

Option 2: Specified Licence

Option 3: Polluter-pays refuse and recycling collections $0.69

Option 4: Mix of polluter-pays and rates funded $1.63

Reduction of waste to landfill

Reduction of harm from waste

Adherence to the hierarchy of waste

Strategic option 3: Influence over waste infrastructure (management model 7)

Enact cleanfill licensing regulation (C2)

Minimise harm from disposal of waste*

The Auckland Council waste assessment introduction

Footer typeface is Bliss light 7.5pt size. Leading is 8pt

Chapter 01 Bliss light. Document header, Bliss medium 7.5pt

TheAucklandCouncilwaste assessment introduction

1.2 Process for development

1.1 What is the purpose of a waste assessment and how is it conducted?

Chapter 1. The Auckland council waste assessment introduction

1.3 What does this waste assessment contain?

1.4 Key terms and acronyms

Chapter 1. The Auckland council waste assessment introduction

Key terms and acronyms (cont)

LGA 2002 Managed fill

MfE MGB MRF NZWS RTS TA Waste

Waste Assessment WMA WMMP

Chapter 1. The Auckland council waste assessment introduction

Chapter 1. The Auckland council waste assessment introduction

Legislative and strategic context

Chapter 01 Bliss light. Document header, Bliss medium 7.5pt

Legislative and strategic context

2.1 The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS)

Implications and recommendations:

Chapter 2. Legislative and strategic context

2.2 Key legislation

2.2-2 The Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008

2.2-1 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 No 37

Implications and recommendations:

Chapter 2. Legislative and strategic context

Implications and recommendations:

Chapter 2. Legislative and strategic context

Implications and recommendations:

2.2-3 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008

Chapter 2. Legislative and strategic context

2.2-5 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)